Quantitative and Qualitative Aspects
3 Input and Learning: Quantitative and Qualitative Features
Within an input-driven approach to SLA, input is viewed as fundamental for learning, and the main source of linguistic information (Gass 2003;
N. Ellis 2008). Learning is consequently af fected by the quantity of input received, and the characteristics of such input, which are liable to af fect the speed of the learning process, its ease, and its final outcome (R. Ellis 1999).
Both quantitative and qualitative features of input contribute to learning in rather similar ways, since they are all closely related to attentional and noticing phenomena, i.e. the way input is attended to and the mechanisms through which information is selected and extracted from it.
The quantity of input to be received is a synonym for frequency. Fre-quency is a key factor within associative models of learning, where the frequency of linguistic items is the trigger to their automatization, gener-alization and acquisition (N. Ellis 2003). As learners, individuals are most likely commit to memory information that they are frequently exposed to, which they will subsequently use more easily in productive ways. Frequency can operate as both a token and a type phenomenon. Token frequency refers
to ‘the number of times a unit appears in running text’ (Bybee 2008: 218), and is associated with the acquisition of ‘wholes’, i.e. isolated vocabulary and idioms, irregular patterns in morphosyntax, and pragmatics (N. Ellis, Cadierno 2009: 113; R. Ellis 1999). Conversely, type frequency refers to the various occurrences of a same core pattern, i.e. a structural scheme whose constituent slots are each time filled with dif ferent lexical elements, e.g.
the present continuous structure.
Whereas token frequency is mainly the basis for the acquisition of lexicon and irregular morphology, type frequency is especially relevant to the abstraction of syntactic patterns and their productivity among learners (N. Ellis, Cadierno 2009): when encountering a variety of possible slot-fillers, learners progressively shift their focus from the single components of a structure, e.g. a specific lexical verb in the present continuous, towards its holistic view as a pattern, and start to parse it (Bybee 2008: 221). The abstraction of the pattern leads to its extension to more contexts of usage and its strengthening within the learner’s mind (N. Ellis 2003: 72).
Frequency is not the only input variable capable of af fecting learning.
Alternative features of input can operate in similar ways at the qualitative level, and accelerate or facilitate the learning process. Such features include imageability, perceptibility and perceptual salience.
The imageability of a linguistic item or pattern refers to the ease with which its meaning is paired with a corresponding pre-existing conceptual representation or evokes a mental image (R. Ellis 1999). Input items with higher imageability are claimed to be primarily attended to when input is received (Levelt 1989; Balota et al. 2006) and thus act as favoured candi-dates for noticing by learners (R. Ellis 1999).
Whereas imageability is a strictly cognitive phenomenon, percepti-bility involves the perceptual sphere, and indicates the property of a lin-guistic item to be relatively easy to perceive, identify and process within input owing to some of its (mainly) inherent properties (Goldschneider, DeKeyser 2001). These include morphophonetic substance or length, sonority and transparency of form (R. Ellis 1999; DeKeyser 2005). In spoken language production, clarity of articulation may also work in the direction of greater input perceptibility, i.e. help hearers discern and seg-ment phonetic strings.
Like perceptibility, perceptual salience also pertains to perception.
However, it only refers to the prominence that linguistic items and pat-terns acquire in input at the very moment of delivery or reception and as a result of characteristics of such delivery. These characteristics contribute to setting the item in contrast with its context or co-text, so that the element results as distinct from its environment (Py 2004). Instances are the use of higher pitch to make linguistic items salient, or syntactic dislocation to set patterns in prominent position.
Imageability, perceptibility, frequency and salience can manifest in dif ferent ways throughout diverse input contexts. In what follows, we will see how these notions can be applied to subtitled audiovisual input and can be hypothesized to impact on L2 learning within this medium.
3.1 Quantitative and qualitative features of audiovisual input
Within an input-driven approach to L2 acquisition, quantitative and quali-tative characteristics of subtitled audiovisual input may be capable of having an impact on noticing and learning processes when the audiovisual resource is used as a tool for learning foreign languages.
In quantitative terms, the amount of exposure to audiovisual input is a key factor to language acquisition. Frequent exposure to audiovisual input is generally advocated as anecdotal evidence for L2 learning in subtitling countries (Danan 2004). In processing terms, frequency of input recep-tion makes input elaborarecep-tion more automatized. Within the audiovisual context, it specifically automatizes the processing of multisource informa-tion, conveyed by multiple channels and media simultaneously (Baltova 1999). Continual exposure to subtitled input also entails repeated access to frequent linguistic patterns in the input, accompanied by their L1 transla-tion in the subtitles. This can favour the acquisitransla-tion of both vocabulary and syntax in the foreign language, operating as both a type and a token phenomenon (Ghia 2007, forthcoming-a).
On the qualitative side, imageability, perceptibility and perceptual salience can emerge in subtitled audiovisual input and play a potential role in the acquisition process. Imageability is by default enhanced by the very nature of audiovisual input. Being complemented with a visual
component, verbal input is easily visualizable by learners. Visualization is then reinforced by verbal redundancy, or the fact that the same informa-tion is conveyed in both spoken and written format in L1 subtitles. The degree of imageability of input is mainly dependent on audiovisual genre and scene characteristics, with highly contextualized genres, e.g. comedies, dramas, do-it-yourself programmes (cf. Perego, Pavesi 2007: 152–3) being associated with greater correspondence between images and dialogue. The establishment of a deeper connection between the visual and the verbal dimension has been claimed to be conducive to increased processing and memorization of input (Paivio 1986).
The perceptibility of input components can similarly be relevant to the acquisitional use of audiovisual input. We stated above that audiovisual dialogue is generally characterized by greater clarity of articulation than real, face-to-face conversation. Clarity of articulation is one factor to percep-tibility: clearly enunciated speech is more easily discerned and segmented by learners, who can thus be granted facilitated access to spoken L2 input.2 Moreover, subtitle translation of fers further aid to speech segmentation and comprehension.
As a final factor, perceptual salience can emerge within audiovisual input. Since salience is a rather complex construct to define, its role in subtitled input will be outlined in a separate section.
3.2 Perceptual salience in audiovisual input
Patterns of perceptual salience are liable to emerge in subtitled audiovisual input and contribute to the prominence or standing out of linguistic items and patterns from it. As we remarked earlier, perceptual salience originates from a contrast among input components (Py 2004). Owing to the semiotic complexity of subtitled audiovisual input, such contrast can manifest at least two levels: it can emerge from either the interaction between dialogue and images or from the interplay between the two verbal dimensions, i.e.
dialogue and subtitles.
2 See Pavesi (2010) for a detailed discussion on the acquisitional benefits of audiovisual dialogue.
Research on the perception of subtitled text showed the high f lexibil-ity of the human mind in distributing attention among all the dif ferent sensory stimuli available on screen at the same time (d’Ydewalle 2002).
Viewers are simultaneously able to attend to the soundtrack while reading the subtitles (d’Ydewalle, Pavakanun 1996, 1997; Van de Poel, d’Ydewalle 2001), and can easily switch attention between the two (d’Ydewalle et al.
1987). At the same time, they are capable of looking at the images appear-ing on screen simultaneously. These multi-taskappear-ing skills allow for complex perceptual interactions among channels and codes to emerge and are at the basis for multimodal enhancement of audiovisual input.
Patterns of perceptual salience can originate from a visible contrast between images and dialogue – or its written translation in subtitles. This might be the case every time images are used to shift attention to the verbal dimension or set contrastive relations with linguistic items (cf. Zabalbeascoa 2008). Because of its referential nature, the process could mainly af fect the extent of attention drawn to the lexical-semantic sphere, i.e. serve as a tool to increase the attention to single lexical items within dialogue. The two parallel verbal dimensions of dialogue and subtitles could similarly give rise to salience patterns in their interaction, with a salience type liable to potentially operate at the lexical, syntactic and pragmatic level. This type of perceptual salience would be specifically dependent on translation and the translation strategies applied in the subtitles.
In the previous section, we have seen how dif ferent subtitling strate-gies have been hypothesized to af fect L2 learning in dif ferent ways. Literal transfer could facilitate the pairing of linguistic items between ST and TT (Pavesi, Perego 2008), whereas subtitle simplification might stimulate greater reliance on the aural component and its deeper processing by learn-ers (Pavesi 2002). While in the former case, subtitle translation is likely to work as a simplifying device; in the latter it would constitute an input enhancer liable to increase the perceptual salience of dialogue items. Along the same line, it can be assumed that any increase in the translational con-trast between dialogue and subtitles can potentially boost the perceptual salience of verbal items in dialogue input.
3.3 Perceptual salience as translational contrast
By definition, any translated text involves a more or less explicit contrast between an ST and a TT (Catford 1965). Contrast is more evident in cases of simultaneous translation – of which subtitling is an instance – where ST and TT can be accessed at the same time. By standing in immediate contrast to each other, dialogue and subtitles are possible triggers to the perceptual salience of verbal elements in audiovisual input.
Translational contrast is especially dependent on the use of specific translation strategies in the subtitles; in an acquisitional perspective, these can be conceived as strategies of input enhancement. Enhancement strate-gies would include any stratestrate-gies leading to a more accentuated contrast between dialogue and subtitles, and could operate either quantitatively or qualitatively. A quantitative contrast involves a dif ference in the actual amount of linguistic material used in respectively ST and TT, as achieved by either the subtraction of input components through reduction strate-gies (example 1) or the addition of linguistic material via explicitation (example 2):3
1. (English ST from Saving Grace, Nigel Cole, 2000) English ST: It hasn’t died, has it?
Italian TT: È morta?
Back translation: Has it died?
2. (English ST from You’ve Got Mail, Nora and Delia Ephron, 1998) English ST: This is getting…
Italian TT: La cosa sta diventando…
Back translation: This thing is getting…
3 All examples involve English and Italian as respectively ST and TT, these being the two languages on which research informing the current contribution has been car-ried out by the author (Ghia, forthcoming-a 2011).
Qualitative contrast, conversely, refers to a qualitative divergence between items and patterns found in dialogue and subtitles as achieved through the implementation of substitution strategies. Substitution refers to shifts in translation concerning the use of lexical items (example 3), syntactic patterns (example 4) or pragmatically and sociolinguistically connoted language (example 5):
3. (English ST from Notting Hill, Roger Michell, 1999) English ST: It takes place on a submarine.
Italian TT: Si svolge sott’acqua.
Back translation: It takes place underwater.
4. (English ST from Notting Hill, Roger Michell, 1999) English ST: We’re lucky enough…
Italian TT: Abbiamo abbastanza fortuna…
Back translation: We’ve got enough luck…
5. (English ST from Ocean’s Eleven, Steven Soderbergh, 2001) English ST: Tell me what the scam is.
Italian TT: Mi dici qual è il colpo?
Back translation: Can you tell me what the scam is?
In example 3 above, the lexical item submarine is substituted in the shift from English ST to Italian TT. In 4, the substitution involves a syntactic structure: the adjective phrase in the ST is rendered as a noun phrase in the TT. Lastly, pragmatics is af fected by the syntactic shift in 5, where a decrease in assertiveness is observed concurrently to the rendering of an imperative clause as an interrogative one.
According to the examples shown so far, translational contrast is thus related to a deviation from a situation of formal equivalence between ST and TT or literalness in translation. However, perceptual salience can also originate from any departure, i.e. contrast, from an expected trans-lational outcome, i.e. from what learners expect to find in input and are most familiar with as a translational output. In other words, literalness may not be the default option in the translation of all ST linguistic items
into a TT. An instance, in these terms, is the case of formulaic translation and translation routines.
Languages may develop a set of well-established and fixed routines to translate given linguistic items or patterns from a specific target language (cf. Pavesi 2005). Translation routines may get established by necessity (the target language does not have an equivalent for the pattern in question, and resorts to alternative linguistic means) or as the frequent result of an optional choice by the translator, e.g. linked to synchronization issues in audiovisual input. One frequently quoted instance of routinization in translations from English into Italian is the case of tag questions.4 An equivalent structure to tag questions at both the formal and the functional level is not documented in Italian. For this reason, routinized formulae such as no? [no?] or (è) vero?/non è vero? [is it true?/isn’t it true?] have taken over as almost crystallized equivalents to English question tags, as shown in examples 6 and 7 below:
6. English ST: They should have called him, shouldn’t they?
Italian TT: Avrebbero dovuto chiamarlo, no?
Back-translation: They should have called him, no?
7. English ST: He looks good, doesn’t he?
Italian TT: Sta bene, vero?
Back-translation: He looks good, right?
By running counter common translational usage, a departure from routini-zation can be equally responsible for the emergence of perceptual salience.
A link between perceptual salience and subtitle translation can be thus better outlined based on the relationship between dialogue and its subtitle translation: the greater the translational contrast that is created between ST and TT is (whatever its nature), the more likely the contrasting elements are to be perceived as perceptually salient by a potential receiver having at least some degree of knowledge of the language in the soundtrack. Higher
4 See Pavesi (2005).
salience may correspond to greater distance from either literal translation or common translational usage and routinization; conversely, lower sali-ence would emerge from greater closeness to either literal translation or routinization (examples 8 and 9):
8. Formal contrast
ST: What I need is a vacation.
Greater salience: TT: Quello di cui ho bisogno è una vacanza.
Back translation: What I need is a vacation.
Lower salience: TT: Ho bisogno di una vacanza.
Back translation: I need a vacation.
9. Contrast with routinization
ST: They should have called him, shouldn’t they?
Greater salience: TT: Avrebbero dovuto chiamarlo, avrebbero.
Back translation: They should have called him, they should have.
Lower salience: TT: Avrebbero dovuto chiamarlo, vero?
Back translation: They should have called him, right?
Research on patterns of translational salience in audiovisual input is still scarce. However, studies conducted by the author suggest the relevance of translation-specific salience in processes of both noticing (Ghia forth-coming-b) and L2 syntax learning among intermediate-level, Italian EFL learners exposed to interlingually subtitled input (Ghia 2011). For learning to be best ef fective, the factor yet appeared to be af fected to a large extent by additional conditions of input frequency and perceptibility.5 The com-plexity of audiovisual input thus makes it dif ficult for the time being to advance strong claims in favour of translation-specific salience.
5 See Ghia (2011) for a more detailed discussion on this point.