The choice between subtitling and revoicing in Greece: Norms in action
Faculty of English Studies, University of Athens, Greece
Normative behaviour in situations of language transfer has been gaining ground in Translation Studies and research. The choice between subtitling and revoicing is such a situation, on a rather preliminary level. This article is a summary of an empirical study into why human agents decide to subtitle rather than revoice children’s TV programmes. Not surprisingly, the trend seems to arise from other audiovisual forms and media. Overall, however, the positive audience response towards certain dubbed products seems to depend more on the good promotion and quality of the specific programmes than on the individual merits of any language transfer method per se, as most language transfer commissioners seem indifferent to the implications of such a choice.
The audiovisual map of Europe divides its member states into predominantly ‘subtitling’ or predominantly ‘dubbing’. On this map, Greece has been traditionally charted as a predominantly subtitling country (Papadakis 1998: 65; Luyken et al. 1991: 181). A survey conducted in 1989 showed that 90% of TV programmes broadcast in Greece were subtitled, only 5% dubbed, and another 5% voiced-over (Luyken et al. 1991: 33; Screen digest 1992: 157). Nevertheless, when it comes to children’s TV programmes in particular, the situation seems to be modified since “cartoons are invariably revoiced even in subtitling [ p. 306 ]countries...because of the age-range of their expected audience and because of the need to preserve their visual integrity” (Luyken et al. 1991: 134).
[ p. 314 ]References
1995 “Subtitling as culture-bound meaning production”. Communication audiovisuelle et transferts linguistiques / Audiovisual communication and language transfer [= Translatio: Nouvelles de la FIT Nouvelle série XIV: 3–4]. 384–387.
1995Dubbing and subtitling: Guidelines for production and distribution. Düsseldorf: The European Institute for the Media.
1976Film dubbing: Phonetic, semiotic, esthetic and psychological aspects. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
1993 “The question of French dubbing: Towards a frame of systematic investigation”. Target 5:2. 169–190.
1995 “People do not talk in sentences: Dubbing and the idiom principle”. Communication audiovisuelle et transferts linguistiques / Audiovisual communication and language transfer [= Translatio: Nouvelles de la FIT Nouvelle série XIV: 3–4]. 257–271.
1992Subtitling for the media. Stockholm: Ljunglöfs Offset AB.
1999 “Audiovisual translation at the dawn of the digital age: Prospects and potentials”. Translation journal 3:3. 1–6.
2000Towards a methodology for the investigation of norms in audiovisual translation: The choice between subtitling and revoicing in Greece. Amster¬dam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
1993 “ ‘Speak my language’: Current attitudes to television subtitling and dubbing”. Media culture and society XV:4 (October 1993). 641–660.
Luyken, Georg-Michael et al
1991Overcoming language barriers in television: Dubbing and subtitling for the European audience. Düsseldorf: The European Institute for the Media.
1973 “The art of dubbing”. Filmmakers newsletter 6:6. 56–58.
1998 “Choices and constraints in film translation”. Lynne Bowker, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny and Jennifer Pearson, eds. Unity in diversity: Current trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome 1998 61–67.
1998 “Television and video in English for science and technology”. ELT review 6. 4–5.
1998 “Greece, a subtitling country”. Yves Gambier, ed. Translating for the media: Papers from the International Conference Languages & the Media. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting 1998 65–70.
1995 “Dubbing American in Italy”. English today 11:1. 45–48.
1992 “Watching your language: Foreign version issues”. Screen digest (July), 153–160.[ p. 315 ]