Challenges and technical aspects

To better apprehend the uniqueness and difference of subtitling practice, it is of great

importance to understand the technical constraints that distinguish subtitling from other forms

of translation. Baker (1998: 245), for instance, states that film audiences deal simultaneously with four different types of channels: “The verbal auditory channel, which includes dialogue

and background voices and maybe lyrics; the non-verbal auditory channel, which is made up

of natural sound, sound effects, as well as music; the verbal visual channel, comprising the

sub-titles and any writing within the film, as for example, letters, posters, books, newspapers,

graffiti, or advertisements; and the non-verbal visual channel, which includes the composition

of the image, camera positions and movement as well as the editing which controls the general flow and mood of the movie.”

Delabastita (1989: 200) also claims that when translators have to reproduce what has

been said in the source text they are limited by three main technical constraints: the spatial

layout on the screen, the number of lines allowed and the number of characters per line. The

speech, therefore, has to be reduced or changed and because of the above-mentioned

limitations, translators/subtitlers find themselves facing the difficult task of choosing the best

subtitle translators need to take into account these technical restrictions when creating

subtitles. As will be discussed in chapter four, different strategies are adopted to avoid

breaking these restrictions and to meet the needs of the target audience.

Using different terminology, Gottlieb (1992: 164) distinguishes between the “formal

(quantitative) and textual (qualitative) constraints on subtitling.” Whereas the former refers to

the space factor and the time factor, the latter refers to “those imposed on the subtitles by the

visual context” of the movie. To meet these constraints, the translator has to examine the

dialogue carefully to choose what can be transferred to the target audience and what should

be left out. Conversely, the subtitler may occasionally need to add extra information to help

the TL audience to understand a point which for cultural reasons might otherwise be unclear.

The time available for display depends firstly on the speed at which the material is

spoken, the viewers’ average reading speed and the necessity of keeping a short interval

between subtitles, i.e. subtitles are generally inserted simultaneously with the onset of speech

and removed ½ to 1 ½ seconds after the speech segment has finished. Finally, as stressed by Shuttleworth & Cowie (1997: 162), “it is important that the subtitles are displayed in a format

which ensures their clear visibility and easy legibility, and that line-breaks are chosen in such

a way so as to coincide with the natural breaks in sentence structure.”

After having considered all the above-mentioned factors that participate in the creation

of the subtitles, we may state that the language of subtitles is indeed a specialised language

where technical, linguistic and cultural features contribute in producing a new type of target

language/culture, which is not merely a translation of the source language analysed, but

rather the result of a series of transformations and adaptations. Accordingly, the process of

translation is perceived as cross-cultural transfer, which is characterised by the degree of

Although these two types of production of AVT (subtitling and dubbing) are clearly

different, they share one major feature in common: they include linguistics, science,

technology, art and aesthetics. All these need to be mixed well so that the final result is

comprehensible audiovisual product for the target audience. Any problematic issues may

upset the audience and thus negatively affect the final perception of the product.

Nevertheless, the AVT type that has experienced great development, and will continue to

grow in the foreseeable future, is subtitling. Its many advantages have led to it becoming the

preferred mode of audiovisual translation. Three advantages, in particular, are crucial to its

success: it is the quickest method, the most economical to implement, and can be used to

translate all audiovisual materials.

It is also worth mentioning that the choice between these different modes of translation

depends on the genre of the programme and the audience profile and whether the product is

shown on television or at a cinema. From a historical perspective, there have been numerous

reasons for adopting one mode or another. For instance, countries with high level of illiteracy

have tended to prefer dubbing. Economics has also played an important role, since subtitling

is some ten to twenty times less expensive than dubbing. Habit and custom must also be

taken into account. Luyken at al. (1991: 112) claims that “audience preference is, in the first place, determined by familiarity and conditioning to either of the two main methods”. This

implies that the public will be more receptive to the mode with which they are most familiar, although the authors suggest that “preference may not be unalterable and that they might be

transformed by familiarisation with other alternatives” (ibid: 112).

To sum up, although linguistic transfer in AVT can take on a wide variety of modes, all

of them share two important features: they blur the limits between written and oral, and they

make audience design necessary. Additionally, the fact that some AVT modes will never be

AVT modes, but its priorities change from one type to another. For instance, synchrony for

dubbing is quite complex, whereas synchrony for free commentary is far less strict. Other

modes are limited by their artistic interferences, as is the case of narration or free

commentary, which would hardly suit commercial cinema requirements of faithful

renderings.