The present framework has been developed in response to a perceived gap in the research. Although many case studies of interlingual subtitles have been carried out before, many of them appear to be at one end or the other of a linguistic analysis - multimodal analysis spectrum. Some case studies rely heavily on linguistic analysis with little recourse to the audiovisual content accompanying isolated examples, such as the case studies by Jäckel and Hamaidia referred to in Chapter One, for example. 215 Other models, such as Taylor’s multimodal
transcription, tend towards a thorough analysis of the visual imagery and accompanying soundtrack, where there is potential for a much more in-depth analysis of the translation solutions presented on a linguistic level.216 Of course,
in an article, it is not possible to study every aspect of a work, and although both
215 It is also noted that much research into subtitling focuses primarily on ‘… linguistic and cultural matters’ Yves Gambier, ‘Challenges in Research on Audiovisual Translation’, in Translation
Research Projects 2, ed. by Anthony Pym and Alexander Perekrestenko (Intercultural Studies
Group, 2007), pp. 24–33 (p. 17)
<http://www.intercultural.urv.cat/media/upload/domain_317/arxius/TP2/TRP_2_may_3.pdf> [accessed 7 July 2017].
216 ‘… approaches to multimodality and translation are being criticised for privileging certain text types or certain aspects of multimodal texts at the expense of others.’ Sari Kokkola, ‘The Role of Sound in Film Translation: Subtitling Embodied Aural Experience in Aki Kaurismäki’s Lights in the Dusk’, TTR : Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 27.2 (2014), 17–47 (p. 22).
kinds of approaches (and indeed those in between) have their merits, they also have their disadvantages. As Gottlieb states, ‘Severed from the audiovisual context, neither subtitles nor dialog will render the full meaning of the film’. This suggests that considering either the subtitles or the SL dialogue without taking into account the sound and imagery of the film will not provide a complete idea of the meaning of any given section or speech act within a film. Gottlieb’s words also suggest that it is not possible to determine the function of an element when isolated from its context. Furthermore, as highlighted by Kokkola and Ketola, the meaning of a painting can change according to the title with which it is viewed, thus suggesting that studying an audiovisual text without including the accompanying subtitles in the analysis could result in a reading which is not shaped by the subtitles.217 Thus, this methodology aims to draw on a variety of approaches
in order to analyse the subtitling of French banlieue cinema in a way that highlights the specificity of the medium. This analysis will not attempt to taxonomise strategies for translating the langage de banlieue. Indeed, Ramière attempted such an exercise whilst focusing on culture-specific references in film translation. She found that ‘Taxonomies, by nature, decontextualise,’ and the methodology used in this thesis has been developed as a means of countering such an approach.218 There is a tendency in studies of interlingual subtitles to adopt a
more linguistic approach which does not consider the broader context. I aim to take a more holistic approach to the study of dialect in translation, as the source culture, target culture, and the perceived ‘cultural distance’ between them are of great importance in understanding translation solutions and how they present socio-political messages and linguistic markers of identity. I aim to achieve this through the application of Gambier’s proposal for a macro and micro contextual analysis of subtitling to the specific case of banlieue cinema.219 In addition, an
understanding of the subtitling process, and the degree of influence of other stakeholders over the final subtitled feature, will perhaps offer avenues for
217 Sari Kokkola and Anne Ketola, ‘Thinking Outside the “Methods Box”: New Avenues for Research in Multimodal Translation’, in Rajojen Dynamiikkaa, Gränsernas Dynamik, Borders
under Negotiation, Grenzen Und Ihre Dynamik (presented at the VAKKI-symposiumi XXXV 12.–
13.2.2015., Vaasa, 2015), pp. 219–28 (p. 220)
<http://www.vakki.net/publications/2015/VAKKI2015_Kokkola&Ketola.pdf> [accessed 7 July 2017].
218 Nathalie Ramière, ‘Reaching a Foreign Audience: Cultural Transfers in Audiovisual Translation’,
The Journal of Specialised Translation, 2006, 152–66 (p. 160).
further research in terms of investigating proposals which might improve the process and/or the product. It is recognised that audience reception studies could be a useful tool for examining the subtitling of banlieue film and the transmission of themes related to their directors’ intentions in translation. However, that kind of empirical study is not within the scope of this thesis, which instead takes a semiotic approach to analysis of the subtitled films, within an understanding of the contexts of reception.
The semiotic channels in film (discussed at the beginning of Chapter One) are referred to as ‘the polysemiotic network’.220 These four channels work together
to transmit meaning, and if any one of them is removed, or edited, the meaning of the audiovisual content as a whole is affected.
Gambier asserts that research in AVT is ‘too often limited to case studies on the linguistic side only’.221 Although case studies are a helpful way of moving away
from the previously criticised prescriptive nature of research in AVT, it seems that the case study approach could be improved through the development of a more holistic methodology.222 Indeed, in addition to the aforementioned importance of
the polysemiotic network, scholars have also highlighted the importance of what is referred to here as the context of reception in AVT research.223 Approaches
which are primarily linguistic can take into account elements specific to the translation mode of subtitling, such as the change from the oral to the written medium, or the constraints of time and space, but there are certain repercussions of an approach to evaluating subtitles that does not include the visual media in its assessment. Certainly, in Taylor’s article on multimodal transcription, he demonstrates that language used to verbalise a character’s emotional state, for example, may be eliminated in the subtitles where the aforementioned emotional
220 Yves Gambier and Henrik Gottlieb, ‘Multimedia, Multilingua: Multiple Challenges’, in (Multi)
Media Translation : Concepts, Practices, and Research, ed. by Yves Gambier and Henrik
Gottlieb, Benjamins Translation Library, 34 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001), pp. viii–xx (p. viii).
221 Gambier, ‘Multimodality and Audiovisual Translation’, p. 2.
222 Mével argues for a move away from ‘prescribed limitations’. Pierre-Alexis Mével, Subtitling
African American English into French: Can We Do the Right Thing?, New Trends in Translation
Studies, 22 (Oxford ; New York: Peter Lang, 2017), p. 220.
223 Leticia Santamaría Ciordia, ‘When Speech Becomes a Hallmark: The Translation of
Almodóvar’s Films into Polish’, in New Points of View on Audiovisual Translation and Media
Accessibility, ed. by Anna Jankowska and Agnieszka Szarkowska, New Trends in Translation
state is clear through the facial expressions and body language of the character in question. This could be a useful strategy, especially considering the condensation that is often required in subtitling. However, one might question how far the viewer is able to glean all of this information from the on-screen action, whilst also reading the subtitles as they appear and disappear. It seems likely that there would be a reduced absorption of on-screen detail among viewers who are watching a film with subtitles, compared to those who understand the source language dialogue, and Taylor’s view that the subtitles should be reduced as far as possible might therefore be questioned.224 On the other hand, though, reduced
subtitle text would allow the viewer more time to focus on the images.
Taylor mentions a reception study undertaken at the University of Trieste, where viewers watched The Flintstones with two different versions of subtitles.225 These
were the ‘maximum’-subtitled version (a term Taylor uses to denote subtitles which include all information possible whilst adhering to recommended reading speeds, etc.), and the ‘minimum’-subtitled version, where the language is condensed as far as possible given information available through the rest of the polysemiotic network. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire detailing their opinions ‘… on the efficacy of the two versions in providing a suitable translation for what we shall term entertainment purposes’.226 The
participants preferred the minimum-subtitled version, and Taylor notes ‘the disturbance caused by having to concentrate on the maximum titles outweighed the benefits of the extra information’.227
The proposed framework for this thesis has been developed as an attempt to combine the above-noted linguistic- and multimodality-based analytical approaches, in a methodology that draws on the most useful aspects of each. This
224 In a study, it was found that viewers watching a film in their native language understood the AV content better than those watching an interlingually subtitled version. Those watching the content (in their native language) with the addition of subtitles in a language they also spoke fluently actually hindered their understanding of the AV content. See Dominique Bairstow, ‘Audiovisual Processing While Watching Subtitled Films: A Cognitive Approach’, in Audiovisual
Translation in Close-up : Practical and Theoretical Approaches, ed. by Adriana Serban, Anna
Matamala, and Jean-Marc Lavaur (Bern ; Oxford: Peter Lang, 2011), pp. 205–19 (p. 216). 225 Christopher J. Taylor, ‘Multimodal Transcription in the Analysis, Translation and Subtitling of
Italian Films’, The Translator, 9.2 (2003), 191–205. 226 Taylor, p. 203.
methodology has been developed using a combination of theories from Translation Studies, AVT, linguistics and sociolinguistics, and film/media studies. The overarching ideas are adapted from Gambier’s writing on the macro-context and the micro-context in AVT. These pull together a variety of elements which might influence the film’s reception and translation, from the context in which it was released in the source culture, to the colour of the characters’ clothes in a particular scene.228
It is not feasible to undertake multimodal transcription of each of the three case study films in their entirety – such an approach would draw on Taylor’s work on the polysemiotic network, but would be too great a volume of work for the scope of this thesis. However, in light of Taylor’s work, the film context in which certain subtitles appear will be analysed to attempt to take into account other information available to the viewer at a given point in the film. In addition to Taylor and Gambier’s works that deal primarily with the polysemiotic aspect of audiovisual translation, the framework also draws on the work of some theorists from both linguistics and Translation Studies.229 For example, Halliday’s work on
register will be adopted for an in-depth analysis of the dialogue and translation solutions proposed.230 Halliday’s model emphasises the importance of the
interactants, the context and the topic of conversation in determining register. It therefore proves particularly useful when we consider the significance of identity, setting and themes in French banlieue cinema. This framework will assist in the identification of the register and perhaps the reason behind the choice of register. These features are linked to identity in that the relationship a speaker has with another affects the way in which they communicate with one another. The work of many other theorists will be drawn on as part of this integrated framework for analysis, which is presented and explained in the next section.
228 Yves Gambier, ‘Créativité et decision: le traducteur audiovisuel n’est pas une roue de secours’, in Translating regionalised voices in audiovisuals, ed. by Federico M. Federici (Roma: Aracne, 2009), pp. 179–95 (pp. 188–89).
229 Taylor; Gambier, ‘Créativité et decision’..
230 M. A. K. Halliday, ‘Language as Social Semiotic’, in The Communication Theory Reader, ed. by Paul Cobley, 1996, pp. 359–83.