Multidimensional Translation-Semantics Turned Semiotics

EU-High-Level Scientific Conference Series
MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation : Conference Proceedings
Henrik Gottlieb (Copenhagen)
Multidimensional Translation: Semantics turned

Semiotics
Contents
1 Translation: more than just words
2 Textures of translation
3 Taxonomies of translation: Semiotics as perceived
4 Semiotic composition, perception and impact of screen translation
5 Ideals and realities in translation
6 Translation types compared
7 Conclusion: the human factor in translation
8 References
Abstract
This paper seeks to expand the notion of translation in order to accommodate not only
polysemiotic text types, e.g. film and TV, but also nonverbal types of communication. Without
denying the importance of the spoken or written word, our aim is to promote a wider,
’multidimensional’ understanding of translation. As a means to that end, conceptual tools are
provided for dealing systematically with any type of translation encountered today, by establishing
a semiotically-based taxonomy of translation. In addition to the strictly semiotic distinctions
between various types of translation, a main distinction is found between inspirational translation
(e.g. audio description) and conventionalized translation (subtitling and dubbing, for instance),
yielding a total of 30 types of translation.
1 Translation: more than just words

Reflecting the ever-increasing communicational output – from cellphone text messages to live
multi-media presentations – is the growing need for translation. Mass-media products as well
as acts of communication with more limited audiences are being translated in unprecedented
numbers, and recent decades have also witnessed a growing scholarly interest in the field of
translation.
New media require new methods of translation, and audiovisual media, in particular,
represent challenges to the translator not known before the invention of sound film back in
1927. But still, what we translate – whether we work as literary translators, interpret at
conferences, localize computer software, or subtitle films for DVD – is, basically, words.
A primary aim of this paper is to expand the notion of translation in order to accommodate
not only the nonverbal channels present in much modern communication, but also the types of
communication not involving language in a traditional sense. Although much has been written
on translation in recent decades, very few titles (e.g. Poyatos (ed.) 1997; Gambier and
Gottlieb (eds) 2001) have been concerned with nonverbal factors in (verbal) translation, let
alone nonverbal translation as such.
However, it is not my intention to diminish the importance of the spoken or written word,
neither in original texts nor in translations. All I wish to accomplish is to contribute to a wider
© Copyright 2005-2007 by MuTra 1

Henrik Gottlieb
understanding – through a multidimensional approach1 – of the field of translation, so that the

various features of (interlingual) translation so often discussed in Translation Studies will
stand out more clearly against a background of translation in its totality.
As a means to that end, and taking as our point of departure the complex (polysemiotic)
textual nature of film and television, this paper intends to provide conceptual tools for dealing
systematically with any type of translation encountered in today’s media landscape by
establishing a semiotically based taxonomy of translation.
2 Textures of translation
Any kind of translation is a multi-faceted entity, and even the word ’translation’ covers at
least two dimensions: (1) time, including the semantics and temporal progression of the
translational process and (2) space, including the semiotics and texture, or composition, of the
translational product.
The process of translation involves a chain of disparate and consecutive entities, ranging
from the conceiver(s) of the original text, via the text itself to the receivers of the translated
version of it. Even the translational product is a complex notion. As a simultaneously
presented synthesis of signs constituting either a mono- or polysemiotic text, the translated
text encompasses much more than the rephrasing of original verbal utterances. Even in the
case of ’words-only’ – i.e. monosemiotic – texts, other factors than verbal semantics form part
of translational products.
Below we shall have a close look at those parameters that constitute texts (in a wide sense
of that word) as well as those that shape the profile of finished translations. Of special interest
here is the semiotic composition of source vs. target texts, and the effect of non-verbal factors
on the verbal rephrasing of polysemiotic texts – of which films and TV productions are
among the most well-researched, yet not the only types deserving scholarly attention.
Traditional translation studies have almost exclusively dealt with texts that are seen as
‘verbal only’, whether written – e.g. literary or technical texts – or spoken, i.e. oral discourse
to be interpreted Although such texts communicate through one semiotic channel only, and
thus deserve the label ‘monosemiotic’, they are not abstract verbalizations of a message just
waiting for someone to read them, hear them, or translate them. As Patrick Zabalbeascoa,
having studied the workings of dubbing, aptly puts it, “no text can be made entirely of verbal
signs because such signs always need some sort of physical support.” (Zabalbeascoa
1997:338).
Naturally, this ‘physical support’ gains semantic momentum in genuinely polysemiotic
texts. The most prominent polysemiotic text type is the audiovisual text, defined by Frederic
Chaume as “a semiotic construct comprising several signifying codes that operate
simultaneously in the production of meaning.” (Chaume 2004:16).
2.1 Translation in the web of semiotics: Distinctions and definitions
As semiotics implies semantics – signs, by definition, make sense – any channel of expression
in any act of communication carries meaning. For this reason, even exclusively non-verbal
communication deserves the label ‘text’, thus accommodating phenomena as music and
graphics, as well as sign language (for the deaf) and messages in Braille (for the blind). In a
Translation Studies context, the two latter categories representing strictly conventionalized
communication may very well be considered along with verbal-only (monosemiotic) and
1
cf. also Jorge Diaz Cintas’, Heidrun Geryzmisch-Arbogast’s and Minako O’Hagan 2007
2
Henrik Gottlieb
multi-channel (polysemiotic) texts. As opposed to what is true of music and graphics,

relatively simple algorithms exist that would transform messages in Braille or in one of the
world’s many sign languages into a vocal language – either written or spoken. As a case in
point, the intersemiotic process of translating from the tactile to the visual mode (or vice
versa, cf. Mathias Wagner 2007) – e.g. when a text in Braille is translated into a ‘the same’
text using alphanumeric characters – is certainly simpler and more rule-governed than the
process of translating a printed text from one verbal language into another. Both, however,
remain conventionalized, as opposed to, say, commentating a baseball match for radio
listeners.
2.1.1 Defining the notions of language, text and translation
As not all languages are verbal, an all-encompassing definition of ‘language’ may read as
follows: “animate communicative system working through the combination of sensory signs.”
(Gottlieb 2003b:167). This implies that, in reverse, ‘text’ may be defined as “any combination
of sensory signs carrying communicative intention”.
Based on this communicative definition of ‘text’, an equally broad definition of
‘translation’ may be ventured, namely: “any process, or product hereof, in which a
combination of sensory signs carrying communicative intention is replaced by another
combination reflecting, or inspired by, the original entity.”
The colossal range of translational phenomena encompassed by this multidimensional
definition2 may be categorized according to the following four parameters:
I) semiotic identity or non-identity between source and target texts, distinguishing
intrasemiotic types of translation from inter semiotic types,
II) possible changes in semiotic composition of the translation which may be (a)
isosemiotic (using the same channel(s) of expression as the source text), (b)
diasemiotic (using different channels), (c) supersemiotic (using more channels), or
(d) hyposemiotic (using fewer channels than the original text),
III) degrees of freedom for the translating agent, distinguishing inspirational from
conventionalized types of translation, and
IV) presence or absence of verbal material in source and/or target texts, creating a
distinction between translations that (a) remain verbal, (b) introduce nonverbal
elements, (c) introduce verbal elements, or (d) remain non-verbal
Before discussing the vast array of translational types, the four central juxtapositions
listed above will have to be defined:
I) Intersemiotic vs. Intrasemiotic translation
Ia) In intersemiotic translation, the one or more channels of communication used in the
translated text differ(s) from the channel(s) used in the original text. In other words,
the source and target text are semiotically non-equivalent.
Ib) In intrasemiotic translation, the sign systems used in source and target text are
identical; a case of semiotic equivalence. Whereas ‘intersemiotic translation’ is a
notion directly borrowed from Roman Jakobson (1959), the term ‘intrasemiotic
translation’ is used here as an umbrella term for Jakobson’s ‘interlingual’ and
‘intralingual’ types of translation.
2
For a definition of multidimensional translation cf. also Heidrun Geryzmisch-Arbogast 2007.
3
Henrik Gottlieb
• interlingual refers to translation between two languages, while

• intralingual covers the following subcategories:
- diachronic translation (between different historical stages of the same language)
- dialectal translation (between different geographical, social or generational
variants of the same language),
- diamesic translation (implying a change in language mode; i.e. from speech to
writing or vice versa),
- transliteration (which involves a change in alphabet).
II) Isosemiotic vs. diasemiotic, supersemiotic and hyposemiotic translation
IIa) The prototypical translation, sometimes termed ‘translation proper’, is not only
intralingual (and thus, by definition, intrasemiotic), but also isosemiotic, i.e.
communicating through exactly the same semiotic channels as the original. Naturally,
this embraces all sorts of printed translations – from translated novels to localized
software manuals reusing the original illustrations while adapting the verbal text to
foreign-language markets. Isosemiotic translation encompasses both monosemiotic
text types (oral discourse being interpreted for foreign-language speakers) and
polysemiotic texts (the most conspicuous example being dubbing, in which the
original semiotic composition is maintained in translation).
IIb) Diasemiotic translation is characterized by its use of different channels, while the
number of channels (one or more) is the same as in the original text. A monosemiotic
example of diasemiotic translation is written music (with notes representing musical
sounds), while subtitling exemplifies diasemiotic translation of a polysemiotic text
(with letters representing speech sounds)3.
IIc) In supersemiotic translation, the translated texts displays more semiotic channels than
the original – as when a novel is semiotically unfolded into a film.
IId) Lastly, the term hyposemiotic translation implies that the semiotic ‘bandwidth’ of the
translation is narrower than that of the original. When considering the translated
production, we see this when, for instance, a mime artist performs a dramatical piece
originally including spoken lines. However, when we focus on translation reception,
audio-described stage plays for the blind, as well as TV shows captioned for the deaf
fall into this category as well.
III) Conventionalized vs. Inspirational translation
IIIa) Conventionalized translation – with both intrasemiotic and intersemiotic types

represented – uses some degree of formulaic conversion of the source text en route to
the target text. Representing anything from strict conversion algorithms (as when
translating between writing and Braille) to methods more resting on norms and
conventions (as when dictionaries and other works of reference are used as tools in
interlingual, written translation), conventionalized translation stays transparent by
establishing a direct link between source and target texts, and criteria for evaluation
are easily established – although not always totally agreed upon.
IIId) Inspirational translation covers situations where the existence – and reception, to be
exact – of one text triggers the production of another based on the first one. The
resulting text – no matter its semiotic composition – will relate to the original in a way
3
cf. also Jan Kunold forthcoming
4
Henrik Gottlieb
which is more free and less predictable than what is found in conventionalized trans-
lation. Following from this is the inability to reconstruct the original from the
translated version, something which – to a certain extent – is possible with
conventionalized translation.
The terms ‘conventionalized’ and ‘inspirational’ have been employed partly in order to
pinpoint the difference between the two conceptual counterparts, partly to make room for a
wider interpretation of the notion of translation than what is seen whenever ‘real translation’
and adaptation are juxtaposed. In a French-speaking context, the term ‘tradaptation’ has been
suggested as a lexical bridge across the gap between translation and adaptation (Gambier
2004:179-180).
IV) Verbal vs. nonverbal translation
IVa) Translations that retain their verbal channel include all intralingual and all
interlingual translations, ranging from an American remake of a Japanese movie to the
’Maltese’ transliteration of Arabic words into Latin lettering. Here we deal with verbal
translation.
IVb) Translations that introduce nonverbal elements include genres as disparate as to poetry
turned into songs and non-smoking pictograms in bars and restaurants. These are all
examples of deverbalizing translation.
IVc) Some translations introduce verbal elements, as when a signer is interpreted into vocal
language, or a text in Morse code is decrypted These types are all examples of
verbalizing translation.
IIId) Finally, translations that remain nonverbal include both linguistic entities (such
interpreting between two sign languages) and non-linguistic ones, e.g. the drawing of
a sculpture. Here we talk about nonverbal translation.
2.2 Translation in a nutshell: Establishing a general taxonomy
Following the four main distinctions (listed as points I-IV above), a taxonomy can now be
established with the purpose of accommodating all existing and potential types of translation
– categorized according to their semiotic qualities.
Based on the broad definition of ‘text’ provided above, the taxonomy categorizes the
various types of translation from the end user’s perspective, and in doing so, encompasses
four kinds of cognitive decoding activity:
1) translations acting as text substitutes for an audience who, due to either (a) sensory or
(b) linguistic impairment are expected not to be able to decode the original. In the former
case, signed news on television resemble – monosemiotic as this genre is – radio news for
hearing audiences. In the latter case, for instance when DVD audiences lack the command of
the foreign language heard on screen and select a domestic-language soundtrack, the resulting
viewing experience emulates that of watching a domestic production.
2) translations as text enhancers (e.g. when a PowerPoint presentation shows numerical
relations turned into graphics), thus boosting the impact of the original figures, which on their
own terms may not be cognitively fully comprehensible to the audience,
3) translation crossovers (audiobooks on CD, for instance) that are enjoyed by ‘impaired’
and ‘non-impaired’ audiences alike, and finally,
4) translations that are cognitively supplementary, as audiences have simultaneous access
to, and understand, the original text. This phenomenon is mainly found in the audiovisual
5
Henrik Gottlieb
media, as multilingual audiences read subtitles while listening to the original dialog. In this
mode of reception, widespread in ‘hardcore’ subtitling countries, the viewer processes dialog
and subtitles as ‘diamesic twins’, while oscillating between (I) using subtitles as an aid to
understand the original dialog, and (II) using the original dialogue to evaluate, and criticize,
the subtitles.
Whereas reception modes 1 and 2 are intended by the translational agents (the translator,
the publisher/broadcaster, etc.), mode 3 is a ‘free’ and unintended spin off from mode 1a;
audiobooks, for example, are designed for visually impaired audiences, not for drivers. As far
as mode 4 is concerned, this game of ‘spot-the-error’ has long become a national pastime in
Scandinavia, the result being that in working from English, subtitlers – in constant fear of
being accused of not giving the ‘precise’ translation of what is said – sometimes prefer
unnatural-sounding constructions (Gottlieb 2001:216). Hopefully, when optional subtitles find
their way from DVD to digital TV, reception mode 4 will fade out, leaving subtitlers with the
degrees of freedom enjoyed by translators producing substitutional translations.
All translations – and, indeed, all texts – have an audience in mind – be that well-defined
or of a more general nature. For this reason, the typological classification presented in tables 1
and 2 is based on audience perception, i.e. how each type of translation is cognitively
processed by the intended audience. This means that types belonging to category (1) above
would be categorized differently if the point of departure was text composition, not audience
perception.
3 Taxonomies of translation: Semiotics as perceived

In the two tables below, one random example is given for each translation type (i.e. each
cell). In the section following the tables, each type represented in the taxonomy will be
discussed, and the examples will be explained.
3.1 The translational range explained through examples

In the following sections, each of the 30 sub-categories (cells) of the taxonomy will be treated
successively, the numbers are referring to the numbers used in the tables 1 and 2. Usually,
only one example from each cell will be discussed, and while sometimes that example is one
out of a limited number of types or genres in that particular cell, other cells may represent
more types, or may have attracted more scholarly attention, or may seem more important to
the reader. Still, I have tried to represent types from all thirty cells in a balanced way, since –
judged from a semiotic point of view – all translational categories are equally interesting. It is
my hope that with the aim and scope of the present paper, readers will share my point of view
and readily join me in this exploration of the realm of translation.
6
Henrik Gottlieb
INTERSEMIOTIC TYPES
TARGET Inspirational translation Conventionalized translation
TEXT
Nonverbal Deverbalizing Verbalizing Nonverbal Deverbalizing Verbalizing
SEMIOTICS
Isosemiotic
(same channels [0. Not possible: contradiction in terms]
as original)
Diasemiotic 1. 4. 7. 10. 13. 16.
(different Music Poem into Ball game Written Pictograms Morse code
channels) based on painting on radio music decryption
sculpture
Supersemiotic 2. 5. 8. 11. 14. 17.
(more Animation Screen Ball game Statistical Acted stage Interpreted
channels) film based adaptation of on TV pie charts directions sign language
on music novel user
Hyposemiotic 3. 6. 9. 12. 15. 18.
(fewer Sketch of Play turned Audio Notation of Manual in Charts
channels) bee dance mime description ballet Braille mediated to
on DVD the blind
Tab. 1: Intersemiotic Types: Total Taxonomy of Translation as perceived by the intended target text
INTRASEMIOTIC TYPES
TARGET Inspirational translation Conventionalized translation
TEXT
Nonverbal Interlingual Intralingual Nonverbal Interlingual Intralingual
SEMIOTICS
Isosemiotic 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 27.
(same channels New musical Remake of Contemporary Sign Dubbed film Trans-
literation
as original) arrangement foreign film adaptation of interpreting
of standard ’classic’ film
tune
Diasemiotic 24. 28.
(different Subtitled Audiobook
channels) ‘exotic’ film on CD
Supersemiotic 25. 29.
(more [None known to the author] Subtitled Captioned
channels)
familiar- commercials
language film for hearing
audiences
Hyposemiotic 26. 30.
(fewer Live radio Subtitling for
channels)
interpreting the deaf
Tab. 2: Intrasemiotic Types
7
Henrik Gottlieb
3.1.1 Intersemiotic translation
By definition, any intersemiotic translation would have to use a different set of

communicative channels. Hence, this row of potential cells remains void.
Inspirational types
Non-verbal → non-verbal text

1. This first type of translation operates (by inspiration) between two different, monosemiotic
types of expression (= texts), e.g. from a sculptural expression to a musical one.
2. A striking example of this type, in which the semantic texture is becoming more complex
in translation, is the animated Disney cartoon Fantasia from 1940, which presents the
musical works of Bach, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky and others while at the same time
reflecting the musical score in moving images.
3. A case of the opposite movement, that of semiotic simplification, is found when, for
instance, a person draws a sketch of the way bees communicate. While the original ‘text’
is spatial and includes sound signals, the drawing is two-dimensional and mute, but still a
fair representation – in a dictionary, for instance – of the original phenomenon.
Verbal → not (only) verbal text

4. Operating with very large degrees of freedom, replacing a poem by an illustration of it still
produces a text of similar semiotic complexity as that of the original.
5. One of the only non-interlingual examples often discussed in translation studies belongs to
this category: screen adaptation – in which a monosemiotic work (typically, a novel) is
semiotically ‘unzipped’ and thus recreates the underlying (poly)semiotic structure of the
dramatic work.
6. When, for instance, a play is turned into mime, vocal language is lost, and movements
matter more than when they are counterbalanced by words. In this ‘concise’ category of
translation, fewer channels must carry the semantic load formerly shared by more
channels.
Non-verbal → verbal text

7. Verbalized texts in this category include phenomena that are relayed on to an audience
bereft of the ability to comprehend the original text, i.e. a radio-transmitted baseball
match, in which the natural sound effects are kept in the background, while the visual
action on the field is substituted by verbal narration.
8. Representing the same ballgame on TV, however, would be a different type of translation.
Here, the verbal layer added by the commentator (who does not have to explain the action
as such, but fills in background information etc. in order to avoid producing
intersemiotically redundant messages) supplements what the viewer already sees on the
TV screen. In this way, apart from the missing ambience of the stadium, TV viewers get
‘more’ information than do the spectators at the stadium.
9. An example of the complexities of polysemiotic translation, audio description on DVD
translates two channels – non-verbal image (pictorial content) and verbal image (existing
captions and displays) – into one: a verbal depiction, presented (optionally) as an integral
part of the film soundtrack, whether original or dubbed Audio description is thus a
modern-day version of the classic tradition of ekphrasis, in which “a verbal text describes
a work of visual art” (Eco 2004: 110). The reason for placing what might be seen as an
8
Henrik Gottlieb
additive type of translation in the ‘reductive’ category is that although some of the visual
information of a film is represented through audio description, the fact remains that the
entire film is now communicated through two channels only: the verbal oral and the non-
verbal oral channels. The verbal visual and non-verbal visual channels remain inaccessible
to blind audiences, who are the very raison d’être of this type of translation. (cf. Benecke
2004.)
Conventionalized types

10. A classical example, literally speaking, is found in written music, in which each note in a
sequence denotes pitch as well as duration. As with other types of conventionalized
translation, there is some leeway of interpretation – not only going from written to
performed music, but also when trying to translate live music to paper (cf. Jan Kunold
forthcoming)
11. Instead of merely switching between channels of representation – as in the previous
example – we are here concerned with adding new semiotic layers to the original text.
Dealing with numbers, which although part of the alphanumerical reality of written
communication can hardly be termed verbal, illustrating numerical relations by means of
bar or pie charts while keeping the actual figures as part of the graphic whole is an
example of this additive category of translation.
12. As opposed to the previous two categories, we are here talking about translations that
operate through fewer semiotic channels than those present in the original – a case in point
being ballet notation, in which complex three-dimensional movements in real time are
represented on paper.
Verbal → not (only) verbal text

13. Pictograms, road signs and other non-verbal logos are examples of conventionalized
translation of verbal entities. Interestingly, certain speech communities use these non-
verbal messages a lot less than others. As regards traffic signs, for instance, the Anglo-
American tradition is heavily verbal, with utterances like ‘Reduce speed now’ commonly
seen on roads.
14. Translating stage directions into theatrical performance is a classic example of
supersemiotic translation, in which what is exclusively verbal is ‘branched out’ into
spoken lines plus body language and movements on stage (cf. Yvonne Griesel
forthcoming).
15. Braille, an internationally successful tactile writing system for the Blind, replaces printed
letters by a fixed combination of raised dots. Thus it represents extremely
conventionalized translational procedures, yet it only caters for alphanumeric text
elements. Thus, certain illustrations in manuals and textbooks would have to be left out or
explained in Braille along with the verbal elements of the original book, thus replacing a
polysemiotic original by a monosemiotic translation.
Non-verbal → verbal text

16. The encryption and decryption of Morse code, is a perfect example of diasemiotic
translation, with the unique feature that a 1:1 relationship is found between original and
translation, meaning that translating the same message back and forth will not in any way
9
Henrik Gottlieb
alter the content. Morse code could be said to be the extreme exponent of
conventionalized translation, with no ‘artistic license’ granted to the translator.
17. When perceived by ‘wrong’ target-language audiences, certain semiotic channels may
yield little or no information. As a case in point, hearing persons who do not understand
sign language and for whom a sign language user is interpreted into a vocal language, will
experience two semiotic layers in the message addressed to them: the almost entirely
incomprehensible (soundless) sign language and the spoken language – their own
vernacular. So although this is a case of ‘more channels’ perceived by the user – providing
that he or she is not blind or visually impaired – the original text (signing) remains nearly
void of information. Here, the target user possesses the sensory capabilities for
comprehension, but lacks the skills for encryption of the sign language code.
18. A typical example from this category, a ‘conventionalized’ parallel to category number 9,
would be the graphics (pie charts including numbers) of category 11. When
communicating the content of such charts to blind audiences, the information from two
semiotic channels is condensed into one: oral communication.
3.1.2 Intrasemiotic translation
Inspirational types
Here we are dealing with what may be termed “reformulation of a given expression within the
same semiotic system” (Eco 2004: 131). As is obvious from Tab. 2, many potential cells stay
void, as no examples are expected to exist, partly for logical reasons. However, the empty
cells do not represent a clear cut case of contradictio in adiectio, hence the label ‘none known
to the author’.
19. A well-known exponent of the first sub-category, where translation takes place between
nonverbal entities, is a re-interpretation in the form of a new musical arrangement of an
existing work, e.g. a jazz standard. The result is a different textual expression within the
semiotic confines of performed music.
20. In the interlingual sub-category, another phenomenon attracting a lot of public attention is
remakes of films. Instead of merely translating the verbal elements (as in dubbing and
subtitling, see below), a remake transplants the entire film, setting and all, into the target
culture. The resulting film may appear to be an original work, but as it is based on an
existing storyline etc., it is indeed a translation.
21. Remaining within the realm of film, an intralingual example of inspirational translation
would be the adaptation, or remake, of a domestic film classic. With the exception of
Shakespearean screen adaptations, such new versions of old films would either alter
outdated elements of the script, or come with an entirely new dialog list.
Conventionalized types

22. When, for instance, American Sign Language (ASL) users are interpreted for Deaf
audiences in Britain using British Sign Language (BSL), this is done through a bilingual
sign interpreter – strictly within the confines of the semiotic system ‘signing’, in this
taxonomy categorized as ‘non-verbal’.
10
Henrik Gottlieb
Interlingual translation: L1 text → L2 text

23. To most non-experts and a few traditional translatologists, out of the thirty types offered
in this taxonomy, only this category qualifies as translation. In traditional terms,
interlingual, conventionalized and isosemiotic translation is translation. And, to be fair,
this cell in the matrix of translation is packed with various translational sub-types and
genres – and (over)represented in innumerable works on translation, ranging from short
in-house manuals for technical translators to verbose academic treatises on literary trans-
lation. Apart from printed translations, also several types of interpreting, as well as
dubbing, fit into this category. What is common to all these sub-types of translation is that
they retain the semiotic composition of the original while recreating the semantic content
in another (verbal) language.
24. In this taxonomy, subtitling – although diasemiotic – is still considered intrasemiotic. It
could be argued, of course, that as part of the diamesic shift (from speech to writing)
subtitling would qualify as intersemiotic. However, as what is verbal in the source text
remains verbal, this movement from spoken lines to written text is considered intralingual,
while the transfer from language 1 to language 2 – whenever foreign-language
productions are subtitled – is what places ‘normal’ subtitling firmly in the interlingual
column here. Another argument in favor of considering subtitling intersemiotic, namely
that of pointing to the written subtitles as a semiotically foreign element in the translated
film, must be refuted as well. The reason for that is that as (original-language) film and
television make use of written signs – in the form of captions and displays – the semiotic
composition as such is not changed through subtitling, although the semiotic balance is
undeniably shifted from predominantly aural to predominantly visual text reception. The
visual impact of subtitles is illustrated by the fact that interlingual subtitles are now the
dominant written genre in Denmark, with the average person spending more than 37
minutes daily reading subtitles at home while watching television, videos or films on
DVD. (Gottlieb 2003a). With time, and depending on national educational systems etc.,
the communicative power of the written subtitles may decrease as audiences pick up not
only intonational cues, but also substantial semantic and stylistic elements in the original
dialogue – especially, of course, if this is in English. In that situation, we will find
ourselves in the next category.
25. Whenever – as is now the case in several parts of the world – major segments of target-
language viewers understand the source language (as outlined just above), subtitles are no
longer dialogue substitutes, but become supplementary in the reception of foreign-
language productions (cf. the discussion in section 2.2). Thus, the polyglot viewer
embraces more semiotic channels than those found in the original version – a phenomenon
never found within strictly substitutional translation, such as dubbing. This doubling of
verbal channels is also found when a DVD is played with both subtitles and soundtrack in
the target language.
26. The reverse situation – where the final recipients have fewer semiotic layers available to
them than the original audience had – is found when, for example, someone addressing his
countrymen in L1 is interpreted on radio, or through other monosemiotic media, into L2.
Intralingual translation: L1 text → new L1 text

27. Not only monosemiotic entities – e.g. the transliteration of a printed text from Latin into
Cyrillic writing, or from Kanji to Hiragana – are found in this category. Also linguistic
conversions that form part of polysemiotic texts are placed here, as for instance new
11
Henrik Gottlieb
dubbing tracks for classic movies – something that is often seen with animated films
dating back fifty years or more.
28. The simplest example of this diasemiotic category of translation is transcription – which is
a major element of intralingual subtitling. An ‘opposite’ example is the production of
audiobooks. With the shift of medium – from paper to tape or CD – comes the perceptual
shift from reading to listening. Aimed at visually impaired or dyslexic audiences, such
intralingual book translations also satisfy a demand among normal readers for literature
which is accessible while driving a car, doing household chores, etc.
29. It is a well-known fact in advertising that redundancy enhances the effect of a
(commercial) message. What we talk about here could be termed ‘diamesic redundancy’,
as a spoken message is supplemented by the same message in writing – sometimes
expressed more concisely, but always presented in synch with the oral slogan. The same
diamesic duplication is found when hearing audiences are watching domestic-language
TV programs with subtitles intended for non-hearing viewers.
30. On the other hand, whenever Deaf communities watch domestic productions with optional
(teletext or DVD) subtitles, what they perceive is a text which includes a smaller number
of semiotic channels than the original. Whereas the original production spans four
semiotic channels (images, captions, dialog and sound effects), information
communicated by the two acoustic semiotic channels is represented by writing, and thus –
in semiotic terms – merged with the caption layer of the original. Seen in isolation, the
(few) instances where sound effects are rendered in the subtitles – as for instance
“Doorbell rings” or “Waves washing ashore” – would qualify for membership of category
18: hyposemiotic verbalization. (For a discussion of subtitling for the deaf, see Kurz and
Mikulasek 2004, cf. also Neves 2005).
3.2 On absolute categorizations and relative realities

Having now established a supposedly total taxonomy of translation, in which no translational
act or artifact should be deprived of categorization (an exception being the transfer of the
visual to the haptic mode, cf. Mathias Wagner 2007). I must hasten to state that with
semiotically complex entities such as various online texts and other electronic media products,
categorization is not always a matter of course. Different foci may lead to different
categorizations, or – more accurately phrased – as several text types are semiotic composites
or mosaics, any categorization of such entities will have to consider the ‘odd’ parts of the text.
In the field of computer games, for instance, one may come across a game in which
captions are translated while dialog is not (cf. O’Hagan 2007). Similarly, localized web pages
often ‘forget’ to translate certain textual elements, anything from drop-down menus to
videoclips (cf. Sandrini forthcoming).
Some audiovisual products may also be categorized differently according to which
elements you are considering. An interesting case in point is found whenever Western films
(with captions and displays in Latin letters) are voiced-over – an isosemiotic translation
procedure – into languages using Cyrillic script. Not only will such written signs be read
aloud by the narrator, which is a case of diasemiotic translation; even ‘untranslatable’ names
will have to be read aloud, since they are encoded in an alphabet unknown to the common
viewer – a case of transliteration. This means that different elements of, for instance, a
Russian video version of an American movie may be referred to three different translational
categories, a logical result of the intricate relations between the original polysemiotic mosaic
and its translation.
12
Henrik Gottlieb
4 Semiotic composition, perception and impact of screen

translation
In the following sections of this paper, we will focus on screen translation while maintaining a
primarily semiotic approach. Admittedly, the term ‘screen translation’ is not entirely self-
explanatory, neither is the competing term ‘audiovisual translation’. As is often the case, the
best term may be found in another language, in this case Danish. However, introducing the
Danism ‘billedmedieoversættelse’ (literally: picture media translation) in English is not
exactly practical, so ‘screen translation’ will do.
As this term, slightly imperfect as it is – especially in an exploratory context as this –
may imply any kind of translation on any kind of screen, I will need to define screen
translation as “the translation of transient polysemiotic texts presented onscreen to mass
audiences”.
The label ‘transient’ is included in order to keep the focus on the classical notion of
‘moving pictures’. Without that definitorial limitation, static images with captions presented
on screens would qualify as well. Accordingly, the notion screen translation includes
translations of
- films displayed on ‘silver screens’ in cinema theaters,
- broadcast televised material on TV screens,
- non-broadcast televised (DVD) material on TV or computer screens,
- online audiovisual material on computer screens.
- As is seen, screen translation does not encompass translations of
- *teletext pages on TV screens,
- *written texts on computer screens (web pages, email messages, etc.),
- *plays and operas performed on stage (surtitled productions).
Compared with earlier notions of screen translation, the definition suggested above
implies that screen translation is not necessarily interlingual – with dubbing, subtitling and
voice-over as three dominant types. Catering for special audiences, subtitling for the deaf and
hard of hearing and audio description (intralingual and intersemiotic, respectively), also
qualify as screen translation.
In the following, a semiotic comparison of these five types of screen translation will be
made, starting with an ‘objective’ juxtaposition of the impact on the target audience of each
type.
Original Subtitled Dubbed Voiced- Deaf and Audio-

production version version over HoH described
(TV/DVD) version version version
Image 1 1 1 1 1 ––––
Writing 4 2 4 4 2 ––––
Sound effects 3 4 3 3 –––– 2
Speech 2 3 2 2 –––– 1
Tab. 3: Impact ranking of semiotic channels in screen translation
13
Henrik Gottlieb
Tab. 3 gives a fairly uncontroversial ranking of the four basic semiotic channels used in
filmic media.
a) Image, including both composition (in space) and montage/editing (in time).
b) Writing, including displays (as ‘seen’ by the camera) and captions (including credits,
toptitles and subtitles).
c) Sound effects, including on-location sounds and music as well as music and effects
added in post-production.
d) Speech, including ‘meaningful’ lyrics, but excluding inaudible background dialogue
The ranking is based on an average filmic production, one that is found toward the center
of the field in which genres like sitcoms (some of which can be ‘enjoyed’ without watching
the action), very ‘pictoresque’ films and transmissions from concerts place themselves in
more marginal positions.
It should come as no surprise that while the two modes of revoicing – dubbing and voice-
over – display the same semiotic ranking as that of the original, ‘normal’ subtitling skews the
semiotic ‘division of labor’ in the viewer, while intralingual subtitling and audio description –
as they are perceived by their core audiences – represent total shifts in the semiotic balance of
the original production.
In the following table, I suggest a closer look at the cognitive semiotic changes implied
by the intrinsic qualities of the five translational types: How much of the semantic load
communicated to the audience is carried by each semiotic channel? Or, phrased in more
market-oriented terms: What are the shares of attention for each channel?
This table – an attempt to quantify the rankings listed in Tab. 3 – shows the colossal
difference in attention shares (and impact) between the various semiotic channels. Lacking
available empirical studies on audience perception of various translation methods, let alone
systematic comparisons of semantic content related to semiotic structure, I have based the
figures in Tab. 4 partly on my personal experience as a subtitler, partly on theoretical studies
by myself and others (cf. Gottlieb 1997).
As will be obvious from the above remarks, the figures in Tab. 4 are rough estimates that
illustrate, among other things, how subtitles (for hearing audiences) distract attention from the
image, and that of all semiotic channels, sound effects constitute the most ‘constant’
communicative factor. The fact that neither sound effects nor speech are listed as having any
Original Dubbed Voiced- Subtitled Deaf and Audio-

production version over version HoH described
(TV/DVD) version version version
Image 55% 55% 55% 40% 65% ––––

Writing 2% 1% 0% 32% 35% ––––
Sound effects 18% 18% 18% 18% –––– 35%
Speech 25% 26% 27% 10% –––– 65%
Tab. 4: Relative impact of semiotic channels in screen translation4
4
Figures based on personal experience Gottlieb (1997)
14
Henrik Gottlieb
communicative value in the Deaf and HoH column of course only applies for the primary
target group for intralingual subtitling: the Deaf community. Likewise, the shares for audio
description apply for truly blind people, who may not be the sole audience segment benefiting
from that mode of translation.
Although making the exact research design is not going to be simple, empirical studies of
audience processing of semantic information in various semiotic channels are much needed A
lot has been said concerning the relative qualities of, say, dubbing and subtitling, but little is
yet known (cf. Koolstra et al. 2002 and the extensive bibliography in Gottlieb 2002b).
5 Ideals and realities in translation

Although many aspects of translation have been thoroughly investigated in recent years, we
often lack empirical evidence or rely on uncorroborated assumptions in the field of translation
studies – as I admittedly did in the previous section.
A few of these assumptions will be dealt with in the following two sections addressing,
respectively, translation in general and screen translation in particular. Although several of the
notions to be discussed do make sense in many contexts, I do not mind assuming the role of
devil’s advocate here; what counts is that established notions be challenged.
5.1 Debatable common notions on translation

Among the many claims, credos and concepts that are commonly accepted in contemporary
translation studies circles are the three notions listed in Tab. 5, to be discussed in the
following paragraphs:
Notions Counter-arguments
1) Translation strategies (as a) Translators often don’t make conscious
instrumental in translational choices
work) b) Translators often see only one solution
2) Acceptability (as a guiding ‘Acceptable’ semantic or semiotic changes may
principle) in translation betray the text
3) Original version a) Basic version serves as template only
b) Basic version is a translation itself
c) Several languages coexist in basic version
Tab. 5: Debatable Notionas – Translation in general
5.1.1 How strategic are translators?
Among the many notions that go almost uncontested, is the entity translation strategies. This
concept – which most translation scholars, including myself, find very useful – is sometimes
seen as the guiding principle behind all translational activity: “Each part or aspect of a
translation can be perceived as the outcome of a process of choosing among various possible
solutions in the light of all the operative factors of the moment” (Zabalbeascoa 1997:337).
This is also implied in much theoretical work5.
5
cf. As an example Heidrun Geryzmisch-Arbogast/Klaus Mudersbach 1998
15
Henrik Gottlieb
However, only very conscientious, gifted and imaginative translators are able to live up to
such expectations. In much professional translation work – and whenever even talented
translators work under time pressure, a common occurrence indeed – there simply is no
‘process of choosing among various possible solutions’ and no awareness of ‘all the operative
factors’ involved. Often, translators are happy to be able to just hit on one solution to the
problem at hand; conscious comparisons of the pros and cons of a whole series of alternative
solutions is wishful thinking, rather than normal practice, in great parts of today’s translation
industry.
Top-notch translators may, if asked to do so, list several solutions to a translational
problem, but this is not their typical modus operandi: “Translators simply behave like
polyglots, because in some way they already know that in the target language a given thing is
expressed so and so. They follow their instinct, as does every fluent bilingual person” (Eco
2004:182; emphasis added).
No matter whether we look at technical or literary translation, film subtitling or

conference interpreting, most translators see themselves as common soldiers in the battlefield,
rather than armchair strategists calmly considering their next move.
5.1.2 How acceptable is ‘acceptability’?
When the classical ideal of equivalence came under fire in the 1970s and later, the need for an
alternative ideal in translation soon became obvious. One of the most acknowledged
suggestions for a guiding principle in a ‘post-equivalence’ world turned out to be the notion
of ‘acceptability’, by Gideon Toury (1995), who preferred acceptability (meaning that the
translated text made sense in the target culture) to adequacy (i.e. the truthfulness of the target
text vis-a-vis the source text).
Although the pragmatic attitude expressed by the proponents of acceptability was
refreshing, and played well together with the multi-purpose potential of the Skopos theory
launched by Hans J. Vermeer and others (nicely summarized in Vermeer 2000), the
manipulations of the source text encouraged in the process may lead to major distortions of
the original content and form. Whenever a fictional work – which, strangely enough, is the
genre most often mentioned in connection with the acceptability principle – is translated, the
target audience have reason to expect that what they are getting is a truthful representation of
the original work, whose author is still featured on the front page.
As with the notion of ‘translation strategies’, we are once more confronted with a gap
between theoreticians and practitioners: Very few literary or film translators take such
liberties in their translations as those that would be possible within the paradigm of
‘acceptability’. And little wonder, when the target audience in most speech communities buy
foreign-language books or films, they expect and accept the foreign culture to show.
In contrast to the ‘anything goes’ attitude that may be inferred from the acceptability
principle, I suggest a revival of the principle of adequacy. Whenever that principle is deemed
too foreign, narrow or naive for a specific translation, an honest alternative would be to
produce an inspirational translation, as defined in section 2.1.1 above. That would grant full
artistic license to the translator/author of the new text, without postulating that this is a bona
fide translation (as the audience would understand it) of the original text.
5.1.3 What constitutes an original text?
“Subtitles, I’d like to think, are a token of peace. Toute l’émotion de la V.O.” (Rich
2004:168). In subtitling, the concept of an original soundtrack is fundamental, and even the
term ‘original’ is almost universal. Thus, in referring to a foreign non-dubbed film, the
16
Henrik Gottlieb
French talk about a ‘version original’ (VO), while in German the similar term is
“Originaltonband”.
Although in many ways a useful ‘shorthand’ concept, this notion of one ‘original’ behind
each translation does not always apply. With manuals, for instance, the various versions
available are often parallel versions loosely based on a template (which may never serve as a
‘real’ text) rather than translations of an original. When translating classical texts, including
the Bible, several competing versions exist – either in the same language (as is the case with
certain works of Shakespeare) or in a number of languages (cf. the Old and New Testaments).
It is probably no exaggeration to say that there exists no form of translation in which the
notion of an ‘original version’ is completely sustainable. One often encounters cases where
there is no genuine ‘original’, or where one man’s original is another man’s translation. In
screen translation – from where the following examples are taken – this not only applies to
language (“Which is the original language?”), but even to semiotics (“Which version should
be considered the original?”).
One example of the latter phenomenon is found when a film subtitler must decide
whether to translate from a script or directly from the soundtrack. In a chronological sense,
the script represents the original (intention) of the film; as film dialog is written to be spoken.
However, what really counts is what was recorded – and survived in the final version of the
film – and what is now heard by the audience. Thus, whenever in doubt, the subtitler should
follow the soundtrack, something which quite obviously is not always done.
The former phenomenon – that regarding which foreign language is the ‘original’
language – is often found in bilingual screen translation, common in countries with two or
more major indigenous speech communities. Contrary to what might be expected by external
observers, what we witness here is not two simultaneous translations of one original, but one
translation of the original plus one translation of the other translation. In Israel, for instance,
the one subtitled line in Arabic may be a translation of the other half of the subtitle block, i.e.
the Hebrew subtitle, and in Latvia, the Russian subtitles are translated from – and even
synchronized with – the (non-synchronous) Latvian voice-over, which acts as the de facto
original, in lieu of the nearly inaudible ‘real’ foreign-language original.
5.1.3.1. Multilingual originals
The phenomenon that original film dialogue increasingly spans several languages may have at
least three reasons:
• the quest for authenticity, as sophisticated audiences no longer accept non-English

characters – e.g. cold-war Russians – speaking (accented) English on screen. This
trend became visible in mainstream Hollywood productions in 1990 when in the
western “Dances with Wolves” the Sioux Indians spoke Lakota, meaning that the
original American movie version displayed English subtitles whenever Lakota was
spoken;
• the fact that due to recent immigration, a number of film-producing countries are
turning multicultural and multilingual, with Germany as one example (Heiss 2004:
209); and
• the necessary step taken by many non-Anglophone countries to internationally co-
produce films, in which ‘foreign’ locations and actors are often used. As a case in
point, almost half of the Danish cinematic releases during the 1990s were co-
productions, and many of them featured actors speaking other languages (typically
Swedish, Norwegian and English). Accordingly, these films were screened with
‘original’ subtitles in cinema theaters, and later on DVD and TV (Brandstrup and
Redvall 124-126).
17
Henrik Gottlieb
Not allowing actors from various speech communities to perform in their mother tongue
may have a disastrous impact on audience response to the film. An example of this is found
when, in his report from the 2005 Montreal Film Festival, a Danish film critic said of the co-
produced The Headsman: “the many different [English] accents in the film places it in a
linguistic no-man’s land, which makes the entire setting and atmosphere of the film utterly
unconvincing.” (Monggaard 2005: 24, my translation).
5.1.3.2 Relay translation
One final aspect worth mentioning in relation to the notion of originals in translation is relay
translation. Down through history, translations from language A to language B have very
often taken other paths than the straight line from A to B. Thus, several works by Shakespeare
reached Danish and other audiences through French or German translations of the English
originals, and – what is very often found today – translations from ‘minor’ into ‘major’
languages use ‘not so minor’ languages as relays. In fact, several English 19th century
translations of the fairly tales of Hans Christian Andersen were translated from German
versions of Andersen, rather than from the original Danish stories (Pedersen 2004:358).
Sometimes, the translation in the relay language (C) is not meant for the public in the C
culture, but serves only as a pivot, or stepping stone on the way from A to B, hence the term
pivot translation. Pivot translations, then, are relay translations whose only audience are
translators; texts that are never meant to be end products, but merely props that enable
translation from a language not (fully) comprehensible to the translator in question.
(Grigaravičiūt÷ and Gottlieb 1999:46).
With film and television, the translator will normally work directly from the language A
to language B. However, an increasing number of productions are translated via a relay
version or a pivot script. Thus, in satellite-transmitted television in Scandinavia, the Swedish
subtitle file often forms the basis of the Danish and Norwegian versions, and with cinema
releases, film dialogue in ‘exotic’ languages is often subtitled by someone who does not speak
those languages. This will inevitably lead to inconsistencies and downright mistakes in
translation that would not have occurred in direct translation from the original version
(ibid.:71 ff.).
5.2 Debatable common notions on screen translation
Though screen translation has already contributed to the discussion in the previous
paragraphs, two ‘common truths’ specifically concerning screen translation will be scrutinized
separately in the following paragraphs.
Notions Counter-arguments
1) Semantic reduction a) Viewers read faster than ever

cannot be avoided in b) Writing is more concise than
subtitling speech
2) Dubbing is not Dubbing represents semiotic

authentic equivalence
Tab. 6: Debatable Notions – Screen translation in particular
18
Henrik Gottlieb
5.2.1 Does subtitling always imply reduction?
Elsewhere (Gottlieb 2005a:16), I have defined subtitling as:
A. Prepared communication
B. using written language
C. acting as an additive
D. and synchronous semiotic channel,
E. as part of a transient
F. and polysemiotic text.
As is clearly seen, reduction in verbal content, a much-cited feature of subtitling –

whether intra- or interlingual – is not considered a defining factor. There are two reasons for
this:
(a) The ‘demand’ for text volume reduction in subtitling is neither semiotically nor
technically motivated, the only reason being that the reading speed of viewers is supposed to
be slower than the (average) speech tempo in the original dialog. Although contemporary
empirical data on audience perception is lacking, viewers in today’s subtitling communities
are probably faster readers than earlier generations. This is already presupposed by
commercial TV stations and parts of the DVD industry, where the long-established ‘six
seconds-rule’ – displaying some 12 subtitle characters per second (cps) – has been raised to
16 cps, an increase of around 35%. With more than thirty percent more time for subtitle
exposure, the semantic and stylistic content of most spoken lines could be accommodated on
screen – a farewell to the usual (quantitative) reduction figures of 20-40% (Gottlieb 1994: 72
and Lomheim 1999: 191).
(b) Even without challenging the established presumptions concerning audience reading
speed and film comprehension, the idea of not reducing the text volume in subtitling would be
counterproductive to optimal audience comprehension – and result in poor translation. The
point here is that a large part of the reduction (still found) in subtitling follows directly from
its diasemiotic nature; the deletion or condensation of redundant oral features is a necessity
when crossing over from speech to writing – a language mode more concise than oral
discourse.
Interestingly, the intersemiotic redundancy (positive feedback from visuals and
soundtrack) in subtitling often secures that the audience miss less of the film content than a
merely linguistic analysis might indicate. Put differently: in a polysemiotic context, semantic
voids are often intersemiotically filled Subtitle reading can be compared to a cloze test, in
which “le spectateur (...) accepte de reconstruire mentalement ces parties des conversations
qui manquent, mais dont la présence est virtuelle.” (Tomaszkiewicz 1993: 267)
Still, among the oral features prone to condensation are also stylistically important ones
like colloquialisms, slang, cursing, pragmatic particles and repetitions. It is obvious that the
trimming of the discourse through the elimination of such propositionally redundant features
not only leads to quantitative reductions; it is also instrumental in normalizing the text, by
presenting the target-language audience with a version less non-standard than the original. In
this way, the oft-mentioned time-and-space constraints of subtitling may serve as a convenient
excuse for leaving out controversial or cumbersome elements of the original film dialog. In
conclusion, this only goes to show how potentially dangerous the notion of reduction in
subtitling is for translation quality.
19
Henrik Gottlieb
5.2.1.1 A simple example of quantitative, but not qualitative, reduction
As stated above, the economical nature of written language often means that quantitative
reduction in subtitling need not imply semantic, or qualitative, reduction. A textbook example
of this fact was found in the subtitling of the British documentary Man’s Best Friend
(Channel Four, 2002), broadcast by the Danish public-service TV station DR1 (November 17,
2004) as Mandens bedste ven, subtitled by Peter Nørgaard.
Tab. 7 shows the verbal content of a short sequence from this broadcast. In the first part
of the original narrated sequence, represented by the first subtitle block, the subtitler has used
three techniques for shortening the text volume, two of which are sheer convention (numbers
for polysyllabic numerals, and an abbreviation of an academic title), while the third is highly
creative: an exclamation mark in brackets for the adjectival phrase ‘the improbably named’.
Adding to this, the verb in the main clause (‘invented’, translated into ‘opfandt’), is moved
from segment 2 to segment 1, in accordance with Danish syntactic rules. This obligatory need
for syntactic reshuffling is reason enough for condensing subtitle 1, as the rhetorical pause
between the two segments is (as is customary in Scandinavian subtitling) used as a
segmentation point by the subtitler.
The entire sentence (In ... bigger) lasts 8.9 seconds, 5.5 seconds of which is spent on the
first segment (equivalent to subtitle 1), with the remaining segment (subtitle 2) lasting 3.4
seconds. Thus, subtitle 1, representing a quantitative reduction of the original 76 characters by
32 percent, has an exposure rate of 9 cps. In comparison, subtitle 2, which – although freed of
the main verb – still takes up 49 characters, is 4 percent longer than the original. Thus, the
resulting exposure time for subtitle 2 is 14 cps, slightly faster than the established norms, but
not as speedy as the previously mentioned ‘commercial’ standard of 16 cps.
English narration Danish subtitles Back-translation
In nineteen eighty-six, a I 1986 opfandt en In 1986 invented a

surgeon in China, the kinesisk læge, dr. Long Chinese physician, Dr.
improbably named Doctor (!), – Long (!)
Long,
invented an operation to – en operation, der fik an operation that made the

make dicks look bigger. penis til at virke større. penis seem bigger.
Text volume of initial segment Number of characters
Uncondensed translation:
I nitten hundrede og seksogfirs 72 (against 76 in the
opfandt en kinesisk læge, doktor Long, English original)
–
Danish broadcast translation:

I 1986 opfandt en kinesisk læge, dr. 47 (reduced by 25
Long (!), – characters, a 35 %
reduction)
Tab. 7: Quantitative reduction with no semantic losses
20
Henrik Gottlieb
5.2.2 Dubbing is not authentic
Since the introduction of sound films in the late 1920s, all methods of translation have been
under fire, and subtitling was seen by many as a step back, now that voices could be heard in
the cinema. Still more critics were skeptical toward dubbing, which was seen as basically
unauthentic. And to this day, most foreign-film aficionados have been strongly in favor of
subtitling when forced to choose between the translation methods available. A key issue to
those fascinated by subtitling – especially people based in major speech communities rarely
exposed to foreign-language imports – is the additive nature of subtitling, giving viewers total
access to the exotic original while being semantically safeguarded by captions in the domestic
language. This thrilling experience, almost like watching dangerous animals from behind an
armored glass screen in the zoo, is shared by many in the film industry. As expressed by
Canadian film director Atom Egoyan: “Subtitles offer a way into worlds outside of ourselves.
Subtitles embed us” (Egoyan and Balfour 2004:30).
Paradoxically, from a semiotic point of view, subtitling – although retaining the original
soundtrack and thus creating a more authentic impression than dubbing – is less authentic than
dubbing. Subtitling constitutes a fundamental break with the semiotic structure of sound film by
re-introducing the translation mode of the silent movies, i.e. written signs, as an additional
semiotic layer. Technically speaking, subtitling is a supplementary mode of translation.
Dubbing, on the other hand, represents a substitutional mode and is thus the only
semiotically equivalent form of screen translation. (Its underdog competitor, voice-over, places
itself between two stools by layering the revoiced soundtrack on top of the original dialog track).
Especially within the target-culture acceptability paradigm (although criticized above,
this is still a defensible approach to certain types of translation) dubbing gets the upper hand
by bravely trying to recreate the authentic cinematic (sound film) experience. And as surveys
have shown (Kilborn 1993), major parts of the audience in dubbing countries – especially TV
viewers – are happy with what they hear. Many non-English speaking viewers of American
sitcoms, for instance, do not even realize that they are being manipulated by their local
dubbing industry. The notion that it is impossible to recreate a filmic illusion in foreign minds
is an illusion itself.
If dubbing did not work, why would TV stations spend so much money on post-
synchronizing programs when they could have them subtitled for about one tenth of the price?
To be sure, the only semiotically 100 percent authentic type of screen translation would
imply that one should not only alter the soundtrack in order to keep the semiotic balance, but
also recreate all semiotic tracks of the original production. The result, a total remake, would
only be recognized as a sort of translation by those who know the original production and
speak the language used in it – not enough people to shatter the illusion of dealing with an
original production.
6 Translation types compared

This final section of the paper will present a juxtaposition of nine types of translation,
including the three dominant methods of screen translation: subtitling, dubbing and voice-
over. Following the semiotically-oriented comparison, the discussion will conclude by
comparing six of the types analyzed with regard to a number of esthetic, linguistic and
cultural parameters, in order to ascertain the diverse media-political implications of the
various types of translation, and – in particular – the implications of the national preferences
of screen translation method(s).
21
Henrik Gottlieb
6.1 The stuff that texts are made of: Semiotics in translations
In Tab. 8, various emblematic types of translation – all of them stamping their mark on the
language communities in which they are common and favored, are compared. As parameters
for this comparison I have used the five defining features of subtitling (listed in section 5.2.1).
The second column lists – for each type – the translational category in which it belongs,
as stipulated in the taxonomy in tables 1 and 2.
The ‘ambiguous’ notation for voice-over in the third column indicates that this type of
revoicing is sometimes made on the spot.
The void signs (Ø) in the third column from the right illustrate that the designation
‘synchronous’ is neither relevant to drama nor to literary translations. Both are presented to
the public without any temporal links to the original works.
Finally, polysemiotic types in which one semiotic channel carries less than 5% of the
semantic load (cf. Tab. 4) are considered to operate without that channel.
6.2 What translations do to people: Audience benefits of selected types

Where Tab. 8 used pluses and minuses to indicate whether a certain requirement was fulfilled
or not, Tab. 9 uses zeros and stars (asterisks, to be exact), as we are no longer dealing with
binary oppositions, but rather with degrees on a cline between two extremes.
The zero sign (0) indicates total lack of the quality relevant to the particular column,
while four stars represents the optimum. As a case in point, on affordability – a quite central
parameter in the translation business – dubbing is rated a two-star enterprise, while its two
rivals are handed four stars each. With dubbing ten times more costly than both subtitling and
voice-over, one might find two stars a bit too kind; the reason, of course, is that domestic
productions (whether remakes or original programs) are even more expensive: hence the
single star in that cell.
As in the previous table, the void sign (Ø) indicates irrelevance. In this table it only
appears once (in the foreign-culture mediation column) as an illustration of the futility in
trying to estimate how ‘foreign’ a domestic program is likely to be. Naturally, some TV
genres tend to be almost claustrofobically local, while other programs (documentaries, for
instance) may contain more ‘exotic’ content than found in certain imports.
With these introductory remarks, I hope the tables will tell their tale of likenesses and
differences, of assets and deficits of the selected specimens of the vast reservoir of
translations that surround us.
22
Henrik Gottlieb
Translation Semiotic Prepared Written Additive Synchro- Tran- Poly-

type categorization nous sient semiotic
‘Normal’ Cell 24: + + + + + +

subtitling Conventional,
(4 channels)
interlingual and
diasemiotic
Subtitling for Cell 30: + + – + + +

the deaf Conventional,
(2 channels)
intralingual and
hyposemiotic
Live Cell 30: – + – – + +

subtitling for Conventional,
(2 channels)
the deaf intralingual and
hyposemiotic
Voice-over Cell 30: +/– – (–) – + +

Conventional,
(3 channels)
interlingual and
isosemiotic
Dubbing Cell 23: + – – + + +

Conventional,
(3 channels)
interlingual and
isosemiotic
Audio Cell 9: + – – – + +
description Inspirational,
(2 channels)
verbalizing and
hyposemiotic
Drama Cell 23: + – – Ø + +

translation Conventional,
(3 channels)
interlingual and
isosemiotic
Literary Cell 23: + + – Ø – –

translation Conventional,
(1 channel)
interlingual and
isosemiotic
Simultaneous Cell 26: – – – – + –

interpreting Conventional,
(1 channel)
interlingual and
hyposemiotic
Tab. 8: Translation methods I: Semiotic qualities (intended audiences)
23
Henrik Gottlieb
Type of Afford- Semiotic Dialogue Content Access Foreign- Foreign- Literacy Domestic- Linguistic
production ability authen- authentic media- to culture language training language integrity (no
ticity -city tion original media- training boosting trans-
tion lationese)
Dubbed TV ** *** 0 **** * ** 0 0 *** *
Subtitled TV **** * **** ** **** **** **** *** ** **
Voiced-over **** ** * *** ** ** * 0 ** ***

TV
Domestic TV * **** **** **** **** Ø 0 0 **** ****

productions
Translated ** **** *** *** * * 0 0 **** ***

drama
Book ** **** *** **** * *** 0 **** *** ***

translations
Simultaneous *** *** * *** *** ** 0 0 **** ***

interpreting
Tab. 9: Translation methods II: Media-political qualities (general audiences)
6.3 Translation methods, merits and national preferences

As is clearly shown in Tab. 9, the type of translation chosen may be just as important as what
texts we are dealing with or what ’strategies’ translators tend to choose. To circumscribe
Marshall McLuhan: ”the medium of translation is the message”. This is true whether we look
at audience-selected types of translation (as when someone prefers a translated novel instead
of a subtitled screen adaptation) or consider situations where the choice of translation method
has already been made by text providers (TV stations, etc.) as when, for instance, subtitling is
preferred to voice-over in broadcasting a foreign comedy series.
I will refrain from discussing the contents and implications of the individual cells in the
table – let alone draw any bombastic conclusions on the relative merits of the various types of
translation represented here. Instead of, for instance, choreographing a final showdown
between the three dominant (interlingual) screen translation methods, I will test whether the
data in Tab. 9 will explain why all three methods are still very popular in their home
constituencies.
In Europe, little has changed in the past decades as regards preferences in TV translation
methods: although subtitling has gained ground in former voice-over territory (e.g. Estonia),
and dubbing may have cemented its status in some major speech communities (especially
Great Britain), roughly speaking, the situation is still as it was during the Cold War:
1) Western European speech communities with less than 25 million inhabitants

prefer subtitling on TV. (from Iceland to Finland, and from Portugal to Greece,
dubbing is only found in broadcasts for children.)
2) Western European major speech communities dub all foreign programs. (England,
Spain, France, Germany and Italy never subtitle TV programs).
3) Eastern European speech communities are divided, with
24
Henrik Gottlieb
• some countries (e.g. Slovenia, Croatia and Romania) preferring subtitles,

• others (e.g. the Czech Republic and Hungary) favoring dubbing, and
• yet others, including Latvia, Lithuania and Russia are in favor of voice-over.
6.3.1 The advantages of voice-over
Based on the data in Tab. 9, it is fair to say that voice-over, the poor cousin of (lip-sync)
dubbing, comes out as the winner of the two revoicing competitors not only in terms of
affordability, but also when it comes to retaining some of the original flavor (cf. the ’access to
original’ quality) and – especially important from a puristic point of view, predominant in for
instance Lithuania – with regard to linguistic integrity. Voice-over being non-synchronous
(cf. Tab. 8), it neither has the need to emulate foreign (mostly English) syntax and lexis on
local lips, nor does it allow the audience to follow the original dialogue and thus exert foreign
influence that way.
6.3.2 The attractions of subtitling
Whenever affordability, dialog authenticity, acquisition of foreign-language and reading skills

are prioritized in audiovisual translation, subtitling is the obvious solution. Historically, what
began as an economic necessity in minor European speech communities during the
Depression in the early 1930s soon became a linguistic virtue, and there is no doubt that
especially the knowledge of foreign languages has been boosted in the subtitling countries (cf.
Gottlieb 2004). Thus, subtitling seems to be a sensible choice in relatively small countries, in
which knowledge of foreign cultures is a basic condition for survival – as opposed to larger
nations, which tend to be more culturally self-sufficient, in both senses of the word.
6.3.3 The assets of dubbing
When money is not the option, and broadcasters emphasize semiotic authenticity, boosting of
the domestic language and smooth content mediation (in other words: viewer-friendly and
localized versions of foreign productions), dubbing is the undisputed choice. As a covert form
of translation, dubbing strikes a comfortable balance between presenting foreign (TV) genres
and interestingly ’exotic’ settings and at the same time ridding viewers of two subtitling evils:
listening to incomprehensible dialogue and having to read while trying to enjoy the action
onscreen.
6.4 Linguistic integrity in translation

In this final paragraph, I will briefly discuss the question of linguistic integrity in translation,
this time comparing the three screen methods with drama translation, literary translation and
simultaneous interpreting.
As is signaled in Tab. 9, what is hinted at with the term ’linguistic integrity’ is the
likeliness than a given type of (interlingual) translation will yield verbal discourse which is
idiomatic and thus not prone to displaying features from the source language. In other words,
types of translation which tend to contain many instances of translationese – these days
typically Anglicisms, including calques, semantic loans, preference for English lookalikes,
etc. (Gottlieb 2005b) – will obtain low scores in the far-right column of that table.
It may come as a surprise that the two dominant screen translation types score lower than
both voice-over and their ’off screen’ counterparts. To a large extent this is due to the
immediacy of film and TV. The earlier-mentioned media-specific constraints of subtitling (the
audible dialogue, forcing translators not to alienate their bilingual readers by straying too far
25
Henrik Gottlieb
from the original syntax) and dubbing (the demands of lip-synchrony in close-ups) both
produce a considerable number of features of translationese – in casu Anglicisms. (Herbst
1994; Gottlieb 1999 and 2001).
As mentioned above, the non-synchronous nature of voice-over is what maintains its
relatively high linguistic integrity, thus placing it on apart with simultaneous interpreting (in
which the interpreter has considerable freedom as regards the linguistic expression) as well as
literary and drama translation. However, no type of translation obtains maximum points in
this column, which reflects the fact revealed by several studies that even printed translations
display several traits of translationese. (Gellerstam
1986 and Tirkkonen-Condit 2002).
While the linguistic integrity of both written and oral monosemiotic translation may be
somewhat higher than that of the polysemiotic types dubbing and subtitling, monosemiotic
translation – represented in the tables by literary translation and simultaneous interpreting –
display extremely high degrees of translational freedom. In doing so, the semiotic nature of
these translation types makes it possible for translators to take great liberties with text content
and style (cf. the low scores in the ’access to original’ column). Whether translators choose to
do so is a matter of personal integrity, something which is not the issue here – but certainly a
topic deserving scholarly attention.
7 Conclusion: the human factor in translation

This paper has focused on the multi-facetted nature of translation, and on the plethora of
translational types, all defined, discussed and compared against a semiotic backdrop. What
has been addressed just in passing is the human factor. Although the notion of translational
strategies, a well- established one in Translation Studies, was criticized for lending itself to
conceptions of translators as near-omniscient beings consciously selecting solutions to
translational conundrums, the role of the translator is central. The measurable importance of
semiotic structures notwithstanding, the style and talents of the individual translator will
always play a key role in shaping the translated text. With regard to inspirational translation,
this is a matter of course, but even within conventionalized translation, this remains a fact.
As a case in point, a major empirical study on how various (national) language versions,
dubbed and/or subtitled, dealt with punning concluded that ”apart from the characteristics of
the source-text sequence, the individual translator and his or her specific choices are the most
decisive factor in the translation of language-play in film.” (Schröter 2005: 367).
It is still my hope that with this paper I have contributed to refining the terminology and
widening the conceptual framework of Translation Studies in a time in which humans
increasingly communicate within highly complex semiotic structures.
8 References
Benecke, B. (2004) Audio-Description, Meta 49 (1): 78-80.
Brandstrup, P. G. & Redvall, E. N. (2003) ‘Fra Babettes gæstebud til Blinkende lygter.
Internationaliseringen af dansk film’,in Nationale spejlinger. Tendenser i ny dansk film.
Anders Toftgaard & Ian Halvan Hawkesworth (eds), 109-137. Copenhagen: Museum
Tusculanum Press
Chaume, F. (2004) ‘Film Studies and Translation Studies: Two Disciplines at Stake in
Audiovisual Translation’, inMeta 49 (1): 12-24
26
Henrik Gottlieb
Díaz Cintas, Jorge (2007): “Back to the Future in Subtitling”. Proceedings of the Marie Curie
Euroconferences MuTra ‘Challenges of Multidimensional Translation’ - Saarbrücken 2-
6 May 2005.
Eco, U. (2004) Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Phoenix. (Original edition
2003.)
Egoyan, A. & Balfour, I. (2004) ‘Introduction’, in Egoyan & Balfour (eds), 21-30.
------ & Balfour, I. (eds) (2004) Subtitles. On the foreignness of film. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press and Alphabet City Media.
Gambier, Y. (2004) Tradaptation Cinématographique, In Orero (ed.), 169-181.
------ & Gottlieb, H. (eds) (2001) (Multi) Media Translation,Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Gellerstam, M. (1986) ‘Translationese in Swedish novels translated from English’, in
Translation Studies in Scandinavia, Lars Wollin & Hans Lindquist (eds), 88-95. Lund:
Lund University Press.
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun (2007): “Multidimensional Translation“. Proceedings of the
Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra ‘Challenges of Multidimensional Translation’ -
Saarbrücken 2-6 May 2005.
------ & Mudersbach, Klaus (1998): Methoden des wissenschaftlichen Übersetzens. Tübingen
– Basel: Francke.
Gottlieb, H. (1994) Tekstning – synkron billedmedieoversættelse. [Danske Afhandlinger om
Oversættelse 5]. University of Copenhagen: Center for Translation Studies and
Lexicography.
----- (1997) Subtitles, Translation and Idioms. University of Copenhagen: Center for
Translation Studies and Lexicography.
----- (1999) ‘The impact of English: Danish TV subtitles as mediators of Anglicisms’,in
Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 47 (2): 133-153. (Reprinted in Gottlieb
2005a)
----- (2001) In video veritas: Are Danish voices less American than Danish subtitles? In La
traduccion in los medios audiovisuales, Frederic Chaume & Rosa Agost (eds), 193-220.
Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. (Reprinted in Gottlieb
2005a).
----- (2002) "Titles on Subtitling 1929-1999 – An International Annotated Bibliography:
Interlingual Subtitling for Cinema, TV, Video and DVD’, in RILA (Rassegna Italiana di
Linguistica Applicata) 34, (1-2): 215-397. Online version:
www.unipv.it/wwwling/gottlieb_intro.pdf (introduction)
----- (2003a) ‘Tekstning – oversættelse for åben skærm’, in Anglo Files. Medlemsblad for
Engelsklærerforeningen for Gymnasiet and HF 130: 44-53.
----- (2003b) ‘Parameters of Translation’, in Perspectives. Studies in Translatology 11 (3):
167-187.
----- (2004) ‘Language-political implications of subtitling’, in
----- (2005a) ‘Texts, Translation and Subtitling – In Theory, and in Denmark’, in Screen
Translation. Eight studies in subtitling, dubbing and voice-over: 1-40. University of
Copenhagen: Center for Translation Studies.
------ (2005b) ‘Anglicisms and Translation’, in In and Out of English: For Better, For
Worse?: Gunilla Anderman & Margaret Rogers (eds), 161-184. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
27
Henrik Gottlieb
Griesel, Yvonne (to be published in 2007): “Are Theatre Surtitles an Adequate Mode of
Translation? Towards an Integrative View of Translation in the Theatre”. Proceedings
of the Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra ‘Challenges of Multidimensional
Translation’ - Saarbrücken 2-6 May 2005.
Grigaravičiūt÷, I. & Gottlieb, H. (1999) ‘Danish voices, Lithuanian voice-over. The
mechanics of non-synchronous translation’, in Perspectives. Studies in Translatology 7
(1): 41-80. (Reprinted in Gottlieb 2005a)
Heiss, C. (2004) ‘Dubbing Multilingual Films: A New Challenge?’, in Meta 49 (1): 208-220.
Herbst, T. (1994) Linguistische Aspekte der Synchronisation von Fernsehserien, Tübingen:
Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Jakobson, R. (1959) ‘On Linguistic aspects of Translation’, in On Translation, Reuben
Brower (ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. (Reprinted in
Venuti (ed.) 2000: 113-118.)
Kilborn, R. (1993) ‘“Speak my language”: Current attitudes to television subtitling and
dubbing’, in Media, Culture and Society 15: 641-660.
Koolstra, K. & Peeters A. L. & Spinhof, H. (2002) ‘The pros and cons of dubbing and
subtitling’, in European Journal of Communication 17 (3): 325-354.
Kunold, Jan (to be published in 2007): “Translating Music”. Proceedings of the Marie Curie
Euroconferences MuTra ‘Challenges of Multidimensional Translation’ - Saarbrücken 2-
6 May 2005.
Kurz, I. & Mikulasek, B. (2004) ‘Television as a Source of Information for the Deaf and
Hearing Impaired Captions and Sign Language on Austrian TV’, in Meta 49 (1): 81-88.
Lomheim, S. (1999) ‘The writing on the screen. Subtitling: A case study from Norwegian
Broadcasting (NRK), Oslo’, in Word, Text, Translation, Gunilla Anderman & Margaret
Rogers (eds), 190-207. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Monggaard, C. (2005) ‘Kunstnerisk udvanding’, in Information, September 7, 2005.
Copenhagen.
Neves, Josélia (2005) Subtitling fort he Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing. London: Roehampton
University. PhD Thesis.
O’Hagan, Minako (2007): “Multidimensional Translation: A Game Plan for Audiovisual
Translation in the Age of GILT“. Proceedings of the Marie Curie Euroconferences
MuTra ‘Challenges of Multidimensional Translation’ - Saarbrücken 2-6 May 2005.
Orero P. (ed.), 83-100. (Reprinted in Gottlieb 2005a)
----- .(ed.) (2004) Topics in Audiovisual Translation, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Pedersen, V. H. (2004) Ugly Ducklings? Studies in the English Translations of Hans
Christian Andersen’s Tales and Stories, Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.
Poyatos, F. (ed.) (1997) Nonverbal Communication and Translation, Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rich, B. R. (2004) ‘To read or not to read: Subtitles, trailers, and monolingualism’, in Egoyan
& Balfour (eds), 153-169.
Sandrini, Peter (to be published in 2007): „Website Localization and Translation“.
Proceedings of the Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra ‘Challenges of
Multidimensional Translation’ - Saarbrücken 2-6 May 2005.
Schröter, T. (2005) Shun the Pun, Rescue the Rhyme? The Dubbing and Subtitling of
Language-Play in Film, Karlstad, Sweden: Karlstad University Studies.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2002) ‘Translatione – a myth or an empirical fact?’, in Target 14 (2):
207-220.
28
Henrik Gottlieb
Tomaszkiewicz, T. (1993) Les opérations linguistique qui sous-tendent le processus de sous-

titrage des film, Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Toury, G. (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond, Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Venuti, L.(ed.) (2000) The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Vermeer, H. J. (2000) ‘Skopos and commission in translational action’, in Venuti (ed.), 221-
232. (Translated by Andrew Chesterman, original edition 1989)
Wagner, Mathias (2007): “How to Make a Haptic Device Help Touch Virtual Histological
Slides“. Proceedings of the Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra ‘Challenges of
Multidimensional Translation’ - Saarbrücken 2-6 May 2005.
www.unipv.it/wwwling/gottlieb.pdf (main bibliography).
Zabalbeascoa, P. (1997) ‘Dubbing and the nonverbal dimension of translation’, in Poyatos
(ed.), 327-342.
29

Multidimensional Translation-Semantics Turned Semiotics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multidimensional Translation-Semantics Turned Semiotics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multidimensional Translation-Semantics Turned Semiotics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EU-High-Level Scientific Conference Series

MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation : Conference Proceedings

Henrik Gottlieb (Copenhagen)

Multidimensional Translation: Semantics turned

1 Translation: more than just words

© Copyright 2005-2007 by MuTra 1

understanding – through a multidimensional approach1 – of the field of translation, so that the

2.1 Translation in the web of semiotics: Distinctions and definitions

multi-channel (polysemiotic) texts. As opposed to what is true of music and graphics,

2.1.1 Defining the notions of language, text and translation

I) Intersemiotic vs. Intrasemiotic translation

• interlingual refers to translation between two languages, while

II) Isosemiotic vs. diasemiotic, supersemiotic and hyposemiotic translation

III) Conventionalized vs. Inspirational translation

IIIa) Conventionalized translation – with both intrasemiotic and intersemiotic types

IV) Verbal vs. nonverbal translation

2.2 Translation in a nutshell: Establishing a general taxonomy

3 Taxonomies of translation: Semiotics as perceived

3.1 The translational range explained through examples

Tab. 2: Intrasemiotic Types

3.1.1 Intersemiotic translation

By definition, any intersemiotic translation would have to use a different set of

Non-verbal → non-verbal text

Verbal → not (only) verbal text

Non-verbal → verbal text

Non-verbal → non-verbal text

Verbal → not (only) verbal text

Non-verbal → verbal text

3.1.2 Intrasemiotic translation

Non-verbal → non-verbal text

Interlingual translation: L1 text → L2 text

Intralingual translation: L1 text → new L1 text

3.2 On absolute categorizations and relative realities

4 Semiotic composition, perception and impact of screen

Original Subtitled Dubbed Voiced- Deaf and Audio-

Tab. 3: Impact ranking of semiotic channels in screen translation

Original Dubbed Voiced- Subtitled Deaf and Audio-

Image 55% 55% 55% 40% 65% ––––

Tab. 4: Relative impact of semiotic channels in screen translation4

5 Ideals and realities in translation

5.1 Debatable common notions on translation

Tab. 5: Debatable Notionas – Translation in general

5.1.1 How strategic are translators?

No matter whether we look at technical or literary translation, film subtitling or

5.1.2 How acceptable is ‘acceptability’?

5.1.3 What constitutes an original text?

5.1.3.1. Multilingual originals

• the quest for authenticity, as sophisticated audiences no longer accept non-English

5.1.3.2 Relay translation

5.2 Debatable common notions on screen translation

1) Semantic reduction a) Viewers read faster than ever

2) Dubbing is not Dubbing represents semiotic

Tab. 6: Debatable Notions – Screen translation in particular

5.2.1 Does subtitling always imply reduction?

Elsewhere (Gottlieb 2005a:16), I have defined subtitling as:

As is clearly seen, reduction in verbal content, a much-cited feature of subtitling –

5.2.1.1 A simple example of quantitative, but not qualitative, reduction

English narration Danish subtitles Back-translation

In nineteen eighty-six, a I 1986 opfandt en In 1986 invented a

Dubbed TV * 0 **** * 0 0 * *

Subtitled TV **** * *

Voiced-over ** * * ** * 0 *

Domestic TV * Ø 0 0

Translated * *** * * 0 0 ** *

Book * **** * * 0 * ***

Simultaneous * * * * * 0 0 *