The power of film translation 英语论文.doc

the power of film translationwhether domesticating or foreignising in its approach, any form of audiovisual translation ultimately plays a unique role in developing both national identities and national stereotypes. the transmission of cultural values in screen translation has received very little attention in the literature and remains one of the most pressing areas of research in the objective of this paper is to demonstrate the great power of film translation. this aim is accomplished by presenting the major modes of film translation, their world distribution and history, which are then followed by an analysis of dubbing and subtitling from the perspective of domestication and foreignisation. translation studiesintroduction ach country cultivates a different tradition of translating films and subscribes to one of the two major modes: dubbing and subtitling as far as cinema translation is concerned, or sometimes to a third, minor, modevoiceoverin the case of television translation. the decision as to which film translation mode to choose is by no means arbitrary and stems from several factors, such as historical circumstances, traditions, the technique to which the audience is accustomed, the cost, as well as on the position of both the target and the source cultures in an international context (see dries 1995). this paper will focus on cinema translation only, which is of course not to say that television translation is less worthy of academic investigation. on the contrary, analysis of television translation constitutes an excellent material for further research, and it is only disregarded here for reasons of clarity and lucidity of argumentation. the first part of this paper sets out to present the above-mentioned translation modes and their world distribution, next trying to account for them from the perspective of history and culture. subsequently, an attempt is made to show the enormous power that these modes exert on audiences and entire cultures. the paper aims to demonstrate that dubbing is a form of domestication whereas subtitling can be regarded as foreignisation. types of film translation there are two major types of film translation: dubbing and subtitling; each of them interferes with the original text to a different extent. on the one hand, dubbing is known to be the method that modifies the source text to a large extent and thus makes it familiar to the target audience through domestication. it is the method in which the foreign dialogue is adjusted to the mouth and movements of the actor in the film (dries 1995: 9 qtd. in shuttleworth and cowie 1997: 45) and its aim is seen as making the audience feel as if they were listening to actors actually speaking the target language. on the other hand, subtitling, i.e. supplying a translation of the spoken source language dialogue into the target language in the form of synchronised captions, usually at the bottom of the screen, is the form that alters the source text to the least possible extent and enables the target audience to experience the foreign and be aware of its foreignness at all times. dubbing as a form of domesticationdomestication is here understoodafter lawrence venutias translating in a transparent, fluent, invisible style in order to minimise the foreignness of the target text (munday 2001: 146). the result is that all foreign elements are assimilated into the dominant target culture, thus depriving the target audience of crucial characteristics of the source culture, which is also shown in the following quote:the dominant trend towards domestication in translating from american english over the last three centuries has had a normalising and neutralising effect, depriving source text producers of their voice and re-expressing foreign cultural values in terms of what is familiar (and therefore unchallenging) to the dominant culture.(hatim and mason 1997: 145).to put it differently, domestication is the approach that favours and privileges the target culture over the source culture, moving the author/creator towards the reader/audience. translation is often seen as a form of conquest (see postcolonial translation theories, e.g. robinson 1997) and can even become an expression of nationalism. it is a process which includes not only translating a text, but also other related actions:translation is often regarded with suspicion because it inevitably domesticates foreign texts, inscribing them with linguistic and cultural values that are intelligible to specific domestic constituencies. this process of inscription operates at every stage in the production, circulation, and reception of the translation. it is initiated by the very choice of a foreign text to translate, always an exclusion of other foreign texts and literatures, which answers to particular domestic interests. it continues most forcefully in the development of a translation strategy that rewrites the foreign text in domestic dialects and discourses, always a choice of certain domestic values to the exclusion of others. and it is further complicated by the diverse forms in which the translation is published, reviewed, read, and taught, producing cultural and political effects that vary with different institutional contexts and social positions. (venuti 1998: 67).dubbed films may frequently appear to the viewer to be brand-new products rather than transformed ones; a dubbed film ceases to be a foreign film in order to become just a film. in the international marketplace the film original thus functions as a transnational decultured product; it becomes the raw material that is to be re-inscribed into the different cultural contexts of the consumer nations through the use of dubbing (ascheid 1997: 40). as has already been established above, audiences which are accustomed to dubbing, when hearing their own language feel reassured as to its importance wychodzc z bezceremonialnego zaoenia, e cay wiat mwi po francusku czy angielsku 6 (hendrykowski 1984: 250). thus, dubbing decreases the sense of otherness and is an excellent example of domestication. dubbing can also be perceived as an assertion of the supremacy of the national language and its unchallenged political, economic and cultural power within the nations boundaries (danan 1991: 612). by implementing policies, governments of dubbing countries stressed the importance of the existence of one standardised national language, often banning the use of dialects in order to strengthen the national unity. for example, in italy, where the process of country unification was completed only in 1870, there were still many regions in 1920s and 1930s in which only local dialects were spoken, while modern italian was virtually a foreign language. mussolini ruled that all the imported movies had to be in standard italian, which made the cinema a major means of imposing a national language. among all kinds of film translation, dubbing is the one that interferes the most in the structure of the original. many critics raise objections as to its authenticity. in principle, dubbing is considered by some to be less authentic than subtitling because the original performance is altered by the addition of a different voice (mera 1999: 80). the unity of the soundtrack inevitably undergoes reprocessing and it is more difficult for the viewer to believe and trust the new voices ofoften very famousactors. therefore, in many dubbing countries, e.g. in italy, some dubbing actors are used consistently with a particular actor. this, in turn, may lead to insuperable problems, as was in the case of one italian dubbing artist who dubbed the voices of both robert de niro and al pacino for a number of years until the two actors met on the set of heat in 1995. for obvious reasons, another actor was needed to substitute for one of the stars. this, however, did not satisfy italian audiences, who felt there was something wrong with pacinos voice as it was not what they were used to hearing. some claim, however, that it is dubbingand not any other form of screen translationthat can aspire to being the ideal form of film translation in terms of faithfulness, on the assumption that strictly linguistic considerations should not determine the overall value of a translation. in dubbing, the translator has to be faithful not only in the theatrical sense but also in terms of phonological synchronisation (see piekos 1993: 131). what is more, dubbing is closer to the original in the sense that as far as the viewing process is concerned only decoding of the moving images and sound are required (mera 1999: 80), which actually seems to be more authentic. in dubbing there are frequent incongruities between what real actors say and how they move their lips, and the dubbed voices, which affects the audience, largely on a subconscious level. however, recent technology has developed a method of digital alteration of real actors lip movement in order to fit new translated dialogue:the slight tampering with the image by adapting the movements of the characters lips to the dubbing script has yielded magnificent results whenever it was implemented and can ultimately solve the infamous shortcomings of lip-movement dischrony, especially in close-ups. (karamitroglou 1998)what is more, having the voices of the original actors on separate tracks, which has been made possible only recently thanks to new technological advances, enables retaining the original background sound as well as the music and special effects and thus smooth blending with the new dubbing voices (ibidem). on the one hand, this will improve the quality of dubbed films, but on the other it will augment interference into the original even more.undoubtedly, dubbing is a powerful target culture-oriented tool which makes the source text conform as much as possible to standards held by the target culture, which in fact is consistent with venutis definition of domestication. subtitling as a form of foreignisationforeignisation is an approach to translation which can be described as sending the reader abroad, as venuti aptly put it (qtd. by munday 2001: 147). it is a method which assumes that the translated text does not pretend to be an original (as is the case with domestication) and where the foreign identity of the source text is highlightedwhich makes the ideological dominance of the target culture impossible. foreignisation privileges the source culture, and it evokes a sense of otherness, emphasising the foreign nature of a film. amongst the major methods of translating films, subtitling involves the least interference with the original; in other words, it is the most neutral, minimally mediated method. therefore, it is subtitling that contributes to experiencing the flavour of the foreign language, its mood and the sense of a different culture more than any other translation mode. this is mainly due to the fact that the original soundtrack and dialogues are not tampered with, as is the case in dubbing. moreover, hearing the real voices of the characters not only facilitates understanding in terms of the specific dialogue or plot structure, but gives vital clues to status, class and relationship (mera 1999: 75). although there are significant cuts in the length of the dialogues due to the intrinsic nature of subtitling, much of what is lost can be compensated for while hearing the original.subtitling is becoming a preferred mode of translation not only owing to financial considerationsit is much cheaper to satisfy the expanding needs of film markets by providing subtitles, which are more economical and easier to producebut also because to viewers in subtitling countries, the economic advantages are secondary; retaining the authenticity of the original production is paramount (gottlieb 1997: 310). for these viewers, subtitling is a more authentic mode than dubbing. the audience is not allowed to forget about the foreignness of a translated film and is constantly reminded of its authenticity as it hears the original dialogues throughout the film.because english has been the lingua franca in the modern world for a number of years, knowledge of this language has increased dramatically and is now widespread. for example, in greece over 60% of people between the ages 15-28 hold the cambridge first certificate (see karamitroglou 1999). accordingly, many people (in the subtitling countries) go to cinemas because they are offered a unique chance to listen to the original english dialogue; they only consult the subtitles when they find it necessary. however, this situation increases the criticising power of such people and makes them act as experts in the field of subtitling, which in fact they are not. obviously, dubbers do not have to confront such a problem, as the audience is not given a chance to compare the original dialogues with their translation. interestingly, because of the otherness that subtitling emphasises, it can sometimes be perceivedin the case of non-english speaking filmsas a hindrance to the potential enjoyment of a film or television programme by the narrow-mindedness of the english speaking nations (mera 1999: 79).in recent years there has been a considerable rise in the interest in multiculturalism and national diversity, along with the departure from the notion of melting pot. for several decades almost every country in the world has cultivated its own unique tradition of filmmaking as well as rendering foreign productions into the target language. certain styles have come to be known and instantly recognised by viewers world-wide. translation in the form of subtitling seems to go along those lines. while meeting and satisfying viewers expectations and curiosity concerning other cultures, it ensures the originality and hence the foreignness of films. at the same time, unlike dubbing, it allows the original soundtrack to be retained and thus the integrity of a holistic performance to be preserved (mera 1999: 75). thus, the characteristic features of particular artists style are maintained and insights into the characters can be gained through the inflections of their voices (ibidem). it is frequently the case that during the course of a film there appear some non-verbal signs, e.g. notices, tokens, trademarks or road signs in the background. these seem to give away dubbing, which attempts to function as the original; at the same time the signs give more credibility to subtitling, which from the very beginning makes it clear that what the audience is watching is actually foreign. it is also easier for the subtitler to explain the meaning of the sign by inserting a subtitle with the target language equivalent (e.g. in capital letters or italics to differentiate it from spoken utterances), than it is for the dubber to solve such a problem. the foreignisation of a film can be augmented by the fact that subtitling involves a change from a spoken medium, the original, to a written medium in the form of one- or two-liners at the bottom of the screen. mera claims that: subtitles change film from an audio-visual medium to a more literary medium which requires a greater level of attention from a viewer than a dubbed film (1999: 79). however, latest research with regard to the cognitive activity required by subtitling from viewers (see delabastita 1990: 98) demonstrated that reading subtitles does notrequire a conscious cognitive effort on the part of those accustomed to this mode of translation. people who read subtitles do not exhibit the typical eye movement patterns of ordinary reading behaviour. rather, their eyes tend to make no more than a few quick jumps from one keyword to another. the whole process of subtitle perception tends to be largely automated, so much so that viewers who have no need of subtitles find it hard to avoid reading them (ibidem).the obvious downside of subtitling are the enormous shortcuts made in the process. some researchers counted that as much as half of the original dialogue is lost due to the spatial constraints (see de linde & kay 1999). the translator not only translates but also resolves which fragments to omit, which of them are irrelevant, and which are vital to the target audience. in an attempt to convey the core of the script, translators often forget that it is not only the dialogues from the main plot that constitute the substance of a film. other factors, such as various dialects, idiolects, register or expressions of politeness, which frequently undergo reduction, can be equally important in the full comprehension of a particular work. consequently, the minor subtractions that litter these scenes may not seem significant in terms of the general understanding, but during the course of a whole film they add up to a large number of drastically altered meanings (mera 1999: 78). on the other hand, there are instances in which subtitlers patronise their audience by supplying the subtitles which are obvious and transparent. for example, some commonly comprehensible expressions like yes or no are rendered unnecessarily in countless cases. also various onomatopoeic expressions such as grrr! grrr! (in cinema paradiso) leave at least some of the viewers dissatisfied, as they feel they are looked upon condescendingly. sometimes, however, some onomatopoeic expressions vary from language to language, as is the case with some other animal sounds. for instance, in snatch one of the protagonists imitates the sounds made by a pig, saying: oink oink, which wasquite understandablyrendered into polish as chrum chrum since those two onomatopoeic expressions differ noticeably. all of the foregoing clearly reflects the crucial role of the translator in the translation process. from the discussion above, it clearly appears that subtitling can be considered