Semiosic Translation: A New Theoretical Framework For The Implementation of Pedagogically-Oriented Subtitling
Semiosic Translation: A New Theoretical Framework For The Implementation of Pedagogically-Oriented Subtitling
Semiosic Translation: A New Theoretical Framework For The Implementation of Pedagogically-Oriented Subtitling
Abstract: In this paper, I explore a new type of semiotic translation in the context of
Audiovisual Translation Studies (AVTS). To that end, a set of formulaic sequences
bestowed of pragmalinguistic value (hedging strings) is analysed. It is argued that the
semiotic analysis of conversational features in English may contribute to facilitate
their pedagogical exploitation in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms.
This analysis builds theoretically on a semiotic translational framework termed
Semiosic Translation (and its subset, Semiosic Subtitling) predicated upon three types
of translation: (i)Metaleptic translation; (ii)indexical translation; and (iii)translation
as dynamic discontinuity. The translational rationale thus arrived at is deemed to ac-
count for what it is that binds together linguistic signs with other sign systems.
1. Introduction
This essay seeks to develop, justify, and substantiate the implementation of Semiosic
Translation, a new theoretical approach merging several disciplines, namely transla-
tion studies, applied linguistics, and Peircean semiotics, into a coherent whole.
More specifically, this multidisciplinary focus can be summarized by way of three
major principles introduced by Kline (1995: 34):
(1) Specialized disciplines cannot account for the growing complexity of human
knowledge.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2015.43.1.05
Semiosic translation 103
(2) Emergent properties in complex entities or phenomena are the result of the in-
teraction of sub-systems.
(3) The introduction of a multidisciplinary mindset supports interdependent ap-
proaches to collaborative work.
As I hope to demonstrate in the main body of the article, semiosic translation may
accommodate the above tenets. The potential of this multidisciplinary framework is
explored as a way to connect linguistic signs with other sign systems.1 For the sake
of clarity, I have selected a set of formulaic sequences, hedging strings (henceforth
HSs), These are described from a semiotic perspective. It deserves stressing at the
outset that the selection of these formulaic sequences is rooted in practicality. As is
well known, nativelike proficiency is a much appreciated asset among learners and
instructors in the Columbian English Language Teaching (ELT) context (see Vlez-
Rendn 2003; Torres-Martnez 2009; Sampson 2012), as English nativelikeness
serves as a gatekeeping mechanism providing access to economic success and high-
er status, a common trait in the construction of the linguistic self in the so-called
Expanding Circle 2 (Kachru 1997).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I briefly discuss the Columbian
ELT context and some of the prevailing assumptions underlying language instruc-
tion in the country. In Section 3, I review some of the tenets of Peirces universal
categories of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. It is argued that a paradig-
matic shift in this taxonomy is required in order to bypass excessive abstraction
and idealization. On this reading of Peircean semiotics, I privilege a construc-
tion of the translated text as a semiotic complex in dynamic connection with other
sign systems. Section 4 contrasts the concepts of Semiosic Translation and Gorles
Semiotranslation. My desire to push the limits of a corrective response to the theo-
retical paucity represented by the semiotranslational approach introduced by Gorle
will force me to take a critical stand towards some of her insights and emphases. In
Section 5, I introduce three modes of semiosic translation: metaleptic translation,
indexical translation, and translation as dynamic discontinuity. Finally, in Section
6, I outline some of the technical considerations and pedagogical implications of
Semiosic Subtitling in the EFL classroom. This type of subtitling embraces the notion
that novel, semiotically-informed approaches to translation can contribute to the
formation of productive learning communities.
1
No sharp distinction between linguistic and non-linguistic signs is made here. However,
for the sake of precision, linguistic signs are treated as a sign system in its own right.
2
The Expanding Circle corresponds to the countries and territories where English is spoken
as a foreign language. The term is used by Kachru 1997 in his concentric circle model.
104 Sergio Torres Martnez
perceived as a recipient onto which the translation is projected, since many transla-
tion users are increasingly involved in the translation process themselves. Secondly,
translation and translating are detached from any literary or high-brow cultural par-
adigm whereby translation is in the practical hands of intelligent (skillful, knowl-
edgeable, artistic) translators, a literary art (Gorle 2012: 37). On the other hand,
it might be wondered whether characterizing translators in such a way that they be-
come a mere canvas for semiosis is fair at all: The translator is pressumed (sic.) and
assumed in semiotic processes, but is at the same time generalized (i.e., de-person-
alized, and de-emphasized) (Gorle 2004: 101). Furthermore, semiosic translation
is not an inchoate project existing only in comparison to non-existent theoretical
frameworks. This is paradoxically the way some Gorles followers characterize se-
miotranslation: The Peirce-inspired conception of translation ought to be approac-
hed primarily as a theoretical proposal and mind-broadening conceptual exercise
(Hartama-Heinonen 2012: 120).
Hence, a healthy wariness about the value of the above definitions can arise from
reviewing these arguments in real-life contexts where overrated theoretical discus-
sions are of little use. That theoretical inquiry must be continuous with current inter-
est is attested by my approach to translation semiotics: so long as our focus remains
firmly fixed upon solving specific semiotic conundrums, the merit and structure of
semiosic translation is readily apparent.
Fittingly, semiosic translation is driven by its own Skopos (purpose, aim). In the
words of Rei and Vermeer (1991[1984]: 101) [f]r Translation gilt, Der Zweck hei-
ligt die Mittel. [In translation, the end justifies the means]. Prima facie, this seems
like an accurate definition of my account. This requires more thorough discussion,
though, since translation should not simply be subjected to the rules of effectiveness
and, consequently, to a blind and instrumental rationality.
Admittedly, there is a closer connection than one might initially expect between
the notion of semiosic translation and the action of a subject. However, it is most
important to note that, considered within the context of semiosic translation, the
subject is a social actant and not an idealized agent transmitting invariable meaning.
In this sense, one of the important innovations of semiosic translation is a more var-
iegated view of its skopos as emergent, usage-based meaning which liberates transla-
tors from devoting themselves to identifying equivalence only by becoming passive
mediators enabling the text to realize itself (Gorle 1994: 137).
In laying bare the sociocultural conditions of translation, as well as the con-
straints imposed thereto, semiosic translation reinforces both functionality (i.e., ef-
fect, potentialities), as well as forms of self-representation and sign transformation
triggered by specific skopoi. In brief, then, semiosic translation can be defined as
an inclusive, all-encompassing project that does not anatomize, contain, idealize,
Semiosic translation 107
translated text, coexisting and significantly increasing the semiotic power and
scope of translation. Interlingual translation (defined as translation proper by
Jakobson and Gorle) is viewed here as the creation of functional types of texts
that may eventually include non-linguistic sign systems. Finally, intersemiotic
translation is neither adaptation nor transposition, e.g., a book turned into a film
(Jakobson 1966[1959]).
(5) Semiosic translation is not a matter of Thirdness, of symbolicity or habit only. It
constantly creates usage-driven signs and interpretations begotten in Firstness. In
this sense, the emergence of the translated text is deemed to occur from its deep
structure to its surface structure.
(6) The skopos of a translation is an all-encompassing criterion determining the
quality and functional value of a translation in a given culture.
(7) As previously noted, semiosic translation shifts the accent onto the writerly role
of the translator. On this reading, the translator plays three roles in his/her quest
for the construction of a text. First of all, s/he becomes a Surfer (Navegante) in
order to gain access to the pre-Firstness of Text 1 by virtue of his/her acquain-
tance with the intrinsic qualities that separate this sign system from other sign
systems playing the role of representamens to other signs. Only then is it pos-
sible to define these signs as representamens in their own right. On the next lev-
el, the translator acts as a Facilitator (Facilitador), whose main task consists in
reconstructing the meaning of the object in order to prepare the emergence of
Text 2. Such endeavour is far from being a mere reconstruction of objects pres-
ent in both Text 1 and Text 2. Since the relationship between two structures or
concepts in a sign-system pair is never symmetric, the revelation of the meaning
of an original Object in Text 1 entails the inclusion of different types of analy-
sis (logic, mathematical, linguistic, etc.), enabling the reconstruction of meaning.
As a result, the translator becomes an Interpreter (Intrprete) that shapes the
representamen.
From this nucleus one might develop new types of translation methods which would
be at the same time exploratory and creative. Such formulations may well be regard-
ed as summing up arguments that have been suggested from various perspectives,
namely that semiosic translation is in some nontrivial sense a writerly rather than
a readerly operation. This basically means that translating a text is an act analogous
to writing an original text. In virtue of this, in translating, it is the translator who
decides where and when to bring a text to an end instead of embracing passively a
Hegelian let-it-go inertia. This clues us in to the absolute difference between semi-
osic translation and semiotranslation: whereas the latter propounds final significa-
tion as a means to attain self-contentment (through the overcoming of an alleged
Semiosic translation 109
lack of cultural sophistication and rationality), the former views the conjunction
of translation and semiotics as a desire-driven process leading to self-overcoming in
the Nietzschean sense. Another point of difference concerns the transformation of
signs when a text is translated. This picture contrasts with traditional translational
models whereby translation adds a sort of motion to the passing from the source
text to the target text in terms of either a transfer (Reddy 1979), equivalence (Nida
1966[1959]), or target (Vermeer 1978, 1979, 1989, 1996; Holz-Mnttri 1984, 1986).
the study of body language, art forms, rhetorical discourse, visual communication,
media, myths, narratives, language, artifacts, gesture, eye contact, clothing,
advertising, cuisine, rituals in a phrase, anything that is used, invented, or
adopted by human beings to produce meaning. (Danesi 2004: 4)
(1) Identity (what the Object is before becoming a sign, including both latent and
active antinomies thereof; abduction).
(2) Transformation (what the sign becomes when interacting with other signs, i.e.,
the sum of its possible hybridizations; deduction).
(3) Interpretation (what an Interpreter can possibly associate with the sign, as a
point of departure in his/her quest for meaning; induction).
This taxonomy stands in stark relief against the notions of uncertainty and uncon-
trollability as some immanent principles working within the essence of semiosis, in-
stead of the conventional idea of a measurable substance resulting from the process
of interpretation. Admittedly, the idealization of scientific thinking has been part of
the advancement of the human relation with knowledge, for example in cognitive
sciences.
This noise of individual variation has also been taken out from the semiotic equa-
tion by some Peircean interpreters:
Summing up, the fundamental sign is: [] A symbol, which (sic) qualities
separates (sic) discourse communities from each other []. (Thellefsen 2005: 62)
Ironically, the situation just described is due not least to the prescriptivism
and vague modularity of Peirces characterization of semiosis as a process of sign
refinement4:
4
This mindset is reinforced by a hierarchical access to semiosis: The triadic relation
between S, O and I is regarded by Peirce as irreducible, in the sense that it is not decomposable
into any simpler relation (Queiroz, Merrell 2006: 41). Since this interpretation represents a
historically specific semiotic ideology that determines what will account for the interpreter
and actor as objects and in contrast to what subjects (Keane 2003: 423), the consequences of
any semiotic enquiry should be analysed a priori against the backdrop of social relations.
5
The focus of the present analysis is on the Object-Sign relation (icon, index, and symbol),
producing three instances of morphological variation. In this sense, further classifications of
signs developed by Peirce to analyse sign relations during semiosis (S-O-I) are avoided. The
reason is that such an inventory of sign instances consists in fixed abstractions dwelling in a
formalistic view of semiosis as a series of interconnected points providing an interface between
the mind of an ideal interpreter and a set of qualia. This is revealed by many examples used
by Peirce, for example, the deterministic selection of signs by other signs deemed to share
similar properties: many words, though strictly symbols, are so far iconic that they are apt
to determine iconic interpretants, or as we say, call up lively images (NEM 4: 243). This
112 Sergio Torres Martnez
approach is partly flawed, since the whole point of semiosis is the non-linear, non-deterministic
transformation of signs across sign systems, rather than the fixation of sign categories such as
those consigned in the Peircean protocols, namely the phaneroscopical protocol and the protocol
of degeneracy. Thus, whereas some may interpret the Peircean program as an attempt to rescue
perception (Radford 2008: 4) from the Kantian manifold of senses (Radford 2008: 4), Peirces
phenomenological enterprise suffers from an inevitable objectivism that turns perception into
an idealized encounter between [an] Object [that] gives itself to the Subjects consciousness as
it is, in its immaculate suchness (Radford 2008: 5).
Semiosic translation 113
An interesting example is the way discourse markers such asyou know(cf. Section
5), behave in a pedagogically-oriented type of translation. Thus, instead of being
void recipients of pragmalinguistic information from a traditional subtitling view-
point (cf. Gottlieb 2001[1998]), and hence redundant in the translation, these items
convey aflow of meaningin a specific communicative situation (conversation) de-
fined by the speakers need to deploy linguistic strategies to cope with real-time dis-
course processing. These draw on specific discontinuities pointing to increments of
online processing, an external, cognitively relevant variable (discontinuous) whose
internal linguistic nature (its Firstness) remains, however, hidden. Further, speech
function such as discourse markers can also recreate the context of a conversational
situation in written texts (like novels, tales or poems), in which case external com-
municative parameters become part of the linguistic item itself in terms of a triadic
form-function-context characterization describing internal dynamics. This adds a
new layer to our analysis, since as soon as a discourse marker is embedded in a writ-
ten text its primary function (the reduction of cognitive overload) is neutralized:
Dot and I sent him to college thinking he might go into medicine or law. He was
bright enough. He majored in agriculture and hes doing what he loves. I dont
think Enrique could sit behind a desk any more than I could. You know, Howie, if
more people worked at what they loved wed have far fewer problems.6
6
Corpus of Contemporary American English (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/).
Semiosic translation 115
This passage makes it all too clear how the written text echoes the pragmatics
ofshared context,real-time processing, oraffective contentto recreate a conversational
effect. However, in the above passage, the discourse marker is devoid of any real online
processing properties. As a consequence, the use of specific linguistic strategies in con-
versational registers define the pragmalinguistic consistency of discourse within the
boundaries of a language (internal flow of meaning) determined by speakers exter-
nally-driven selection of utterances (discontinuous realization of meaning). So looking
further afield, indicesserve an additional function: they guide learners comprehension
of both internal and external variables of the communicative situation.
TBH.
An organisation with thiskindofdisconnect really HS+Noun Bishop Hill blog The new head of BBC
should be broken up. news
Everyoneskindofgone through what Ive gone Auxiliary verb (BE) +HS+ Sabotage Times Benny Banks: A True
through. Past participle Voice Of The Council Estate
Well, itskindofhard to do that, since, well, they HS+ Opinion Adjective The Overlords Dispatches from the Throne
really dont have much for us to take away, or do battle Volume 5, flammecast
against. Its quite sad, really.
Thiskindofus platinum cope incorporates a recurrent HS+Object pronoun Most of the people discovered how tiny most
Search facts quite. of the people Charice
I think I just sort of for whatever reason fell in to be HS+Fluency Device Lynn Hirschberg talks to Megan Fox about
playing the mean girl. swimming, the X-Men, and their cats.
Singing, asortofad-lib beat-boxing strays luring HS+ Deverbal adjective The Matter of Presence: dOCUMENTA (13)
visitors through the doorway. at Kassel, Aesthetica Blog
Semiosic translation 117
In this sentence, the hedging string kind of is used to convey three self-referential
meanings:
Self-esteem is a kind of dead-end street, yeah, you can get there, but it
doesnt get you any further than that. Interesting, huh!
1.b. False non-assertiveness. The utterer wants to express annoyance. The illocution-
ary force of the item is best accomplished through body language and contextual
cues.
1.c. The combination of HSs with a relative clause focus the attention on the utterers
state of mind as a product of a concurrent action.
But, you know, just this one little act here which is so new that nobody really
knowskindofwhat its impact truly is going to be could be quite a big deal.
one-to-one relationship with an object be in place. Thus, the object hedging repre-
sented in English by the representamens kind of or sort of , cannot alwaysbe ren-
dered as equivalent structures in a given target language. Of course, if the purpose is
to teach how these structures behave in the source language, their omission would
be counterproductive. This is why a set of signs (symbols) must be developed to rep-
resent different hedging strategies. In other words, reconstruction of the semiosic
path linking Text 1 and Text 2 presupposes that a sign set must be developed to refer
to each hedging strategy separately. Suffice it to say for now that in some cases the
process consists in defining a sign set capable of recreating the pragmalinguistic situ-
ation in Text 1 without introducing structural changes in Text 2 (the passing from
Thirdness to Firstness is preserved). With these background points in mind, both
the semantic and the syntactic properties of signs are taken into account (disjoint-
ness, i.e., clear referential power, as well as finite differentiation of symbols in a sign
system). Furthermore, graphical suggestiveness, mnemonic efficacy, readability, and
set magnitude should be considered as relevant assets.
Going back to the notion of transformation, the movement from monadic iden-
tity to dyadicy is illustrated by the users perception of the prosodic force of an ut-
terance transformed by means of intonational resources at the service of lexical
constructions:
(2) Ms-HART: Whats that? I missed that. RIVERA: Mikes just giving a kind of
a gynecological... Ms-HART: I -- I missed that.
(6) I telephoned a friend on my cell phone and said, You know, some-
thingskindoffunny here.
It can be argued as well that the cognitive element here (a condition for Thirdness) is
represented by the explicit mutual agreement between speakers (the real utterer and
the receiver of the message) about the asynchronous nature of the action reported,
the description of which occurs in an interactive environment.
120 Sergio Torres Martnez
(7) We just overheard that little conversation. Its kind of creepy. Like, I dont
think you should trust that guy at all.
field. Whereas the preference for dubbed and subtitled films and other audiovisu-
al content among filmgoers is split8, there seems to be a growing need for subtitled
content which reportedly constitutes the lions share of Columbian AVT companies
(ca. 66.7% of the workload; cf. Orrego Carmona et al. 2010).
Against this background, I would like to suggest that a type of subtitling worth
its salt must be capable of encompassing all semiotic channels. Importantly, semi-
osic translation and its subset, semiosic subtitling, should be considered as functional
forms of translation drawing on the skopos model9 (cf. Vermeer 1978, 1979, 1996;
Holz-Mnttri 1981). According to Nord (1997: 46) the skopos model parts from
the view that translation is a form of human interaction and, as such, determined
by its purpose or skopos. One of the main factors in the skopos of a communica-
tive activity is the (intended) receiver or addressee with their specific communicative
needs. Moreover, while commercial forms of subtitling are said to be more effective
when subtitles go unnoticed by the viewers (Georgakoupoulu 2009), semiosic subti-
tling exploits a host of semiotic techniques designed to integrate the competing in-
fluence of other semiotic channels present in the audiovisual document. By associat-
ing constructions with other signs in the audiovisual document, cognitive processes
of categorization and noticing are enhanced:
This, in turn, coincides with Hochels (1986: 152) interpretation: The text is to be
understood from the standpoint of semiotics, that is to say, as the message in the
relevant language (system of signs, code) with its own alphabet (vocabulary) and its
own grammar (syntax, rules for linking signs).
8
As noted by Chiaro (2013: 2), the traditional division between dubbing and subtitling
blocks is no longer clear-cut. One of the reasons is the advent of media mobility: Although
audiences continue to watch films in theatres, even attending opening night screenings in
order to experience being part of an even larger crowd, media mobility promotes a more
fragmented, individualized notion of spectatorship (Tryon 2012: 288289).
9
Although skopos theory (based on Nidas concept of equivalence 1966[1959]) focuses on
the target text as outcome or Translatum (Vermeer 2004[1989]: 229), my interpretation of
this theoretical framework confers relevance on the source text as well, since the pedagogic
treatment of the source language requires an extensive semiotic analysis prior to its introduction
in classroom settings.
122 Sergio Torres Martnez
(1) Expansion. The term expansion does not refer here to any sort of paraphrase of
the source text in the target text with views to capture an equivalent meaning. One of
the factors that condition learners experience of pedagogically-adapted audiovisual
works is spectatorial investment in the entertainment side of these documents. In
this sense, the representational power of subtitles should be summoned to focus the
attention on specific sound-language/video-language relations. This strategy leads
onto the inclusion of full target constructions (which involves, especially in inter-
lingual translation, the reordering of translation units), metalinguistic markers, or
ad hoc symbols associated with a language (intralingual) or pair of languages (inter-
lingual) adapted for pedagogical purposes (see Figure 110).
Figure 1. Metaleptic subtitling (interlingual) displaying the particle well and the hedging
string kind of . These structures are inserted in the Spanish text at exactly the same place
they occupy in the English text.
10
All subtitled samples are part of a large database I created with views to classroom
exploitation.
Semiosic translation 123
11
From a technical perspective, these segmentation units are part of subtitle templates.
These templates consist of predefined sets of language structures stored as sub-sentential
chunks organized, for example, in terms of their slotting patterns in Spanish and English. An
important subset of templates has been tagged for discourse analysis (verb transitivity), and
syntactic analysis (argument structure constructions; cf. Goldberg 2013).
124 Sergio Torres Martnez
Figure 3. Indexical translation (intralingual). A set of visual cues are used to call learners at-
tention to specific process types associated with DOING verbs.
Semiosic translation 125
As we can see, the subtitles show two verbs (clawed and chained) associated with
process types of DOING. The use of metalinguistic markers for DOING verbs,
for example, is highlighted in the subtitles and associated with particular imag-
ery, configuring a type of indexical translation. These markers connect specific
semiotic channels simultaneously: the linguistic (including the aural), the meta-
linguistic, and the visual (gestures, body language, etc.). Because of the rich semiotic
interconnectedness this type of subtitles tap, semiosic subtitling becomes unremit-
tingly allusive in a way that goes beyond simple transcription. Importantly, this type
of subtitles are included as part of specific tasks such as focus on forms (Focus on
Forms; Long 1991, 1996; Shintani 2015), providing learners with an explicit focus on
language structure.
The above description offers a pattern of thinking that is telling for an all-encom-
passing account of translation. It seems clear to me that the metalinguistic dimen-
sion of the process outlined above entails metalinguistic awareness [that] is distinct
from the kind of knowledge that underlies everyday language use (Ellis 2004: 231).
Put simply, semiosic translation can become part of institutionalized forms of trans-
lation fostering metalinguistic knowledge for language learning.
Conclusion
In this paper, I have presented a semiotic approach to translation called semiosic
translation in the context of EFL instruction in Columbia. With regard to subtitling,
it has been argued that the translation process goes beyond the confines of language
to include all the semiotic channels present in audiovisual works. In order to illus-
trate my position, I have provided a multidisciplinary theoretical framework com-
bining Peircean semiotics, translation studies, and applied linguistics. Accordingly,
semiosic translation fills out the sense that the connection between language and
its biological substrate encapsulates an expanded definition of sign systems as so-
cial (and also ecological) phenomena rather than as objects of analysis constrained
by specific semiotic ideologies. It also gets at how both the Objects and the Signs
identities can escape the objectification of perception (Thirdness), assigning specific
form and meaning to both inward and outward forms of semiosis. Not least, this
premise avoids conventional sign categorizations drawing on normative, abstract
definitions of semiosis that ignore shifting social and cultural concerns. Relatedly,
the paradigmatic shift laid out here rules out the presence of any ideal observers,12
12
The notion ideal observer is the cornerstone of Bayesian inferential models. These consider
that, in order for an optimal understanding of the world to occur, the brain must be tuned to
the world: The conception of tuning that is tacitly adopted in many modern treatments is
that the optimal Bayesian observer is correctly tuned when its priors match those objectively
in force in the environment (the Lords prior) (Feldman 2013: 15). The risk of such a stance
126 Sergio Torres Martnez
since sign systems can combine multiple forms of interaction, not determined
by idealized first-person observers. This conception has specific resonances in the
translational act, since the notion of translation is expanded to include all possible
semiotic channels. In the case of semiosic translation, signs (and the objects they re-
fer to) are deemed to function as interacting information sources acting across sign
systems. This view is reinforced by the introduction of three types of pedagogically-
driven semiosic translation: (1) metaleptic translation, (2)indexical translation, and
(3) translation as dynamic discontinuity. These have been connected to the class-
room by means of specific semiosic models of subtitling (semiosic subtitling) aimed
at equipping both instructors and learners with a rationale facilitating the analysis of
specific constructions. In closing, I present these translational strategies as potential-
ly generalizable to other subtitling techniques. Overall, semiosic subtitling bestows
powerful leverage that confers great advantage of flexibility to alternative modes of
translation using semiotic analyses to replace questions of meaning with those of
usage in language instruction.
References13
Bartoll, Eduard 2004. Parameters for the classification of subtitles. In: Orero, Pilar (ed.),
Topics in Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins, 5360.
Bassnett, Susan 1991[1980]. Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
Bogucky, ukasz 2009. Amateur subtitling on the Internet. In: Diaz Cintas, Jorge; Anderman,
Gunilla (eds.), Audiovisual Translation: Language Transfer on Screen. New York: Palgrave
McMillan, 2135.
Cappelle, Bert; Shtyrov, Yuri; Pulvermller, Friedeman 2010. Heating up or cooling up the
brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain & Language 115: 189201.
Chiaro, Delia 2013. Audiovisual translation. In: Chapelle, Carol A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 15.
Conklin, Kathy; Schmitt, Norbert 2008. Formulaic sequences; Are they processed more
quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics
29(1): 7289.
CP = Peirce, Charles S. 19311958. Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce. [Hartshorne, Charles;
Weiss, Paul (eds.), 19311935; Burks, Arthur (ed.), 1958.] Cambridge: Harvard University
Press [electronic edition Charlottesville: Intelex Corporaton.] In-text references are to CP,
followed by volume and paragraph numbers.
Crook, Nigel; Goh, Wee Jin 2008. Nonlinear transient computations as a potential kernel
trick in cortical processing. BioSystems 94: 5559.
is that faith in the Lords prior are not only epistemologically naive but, moreover, risk
overtuning. Overtuning, in turn, leads to a fragility of performance in future encounters with
the same class of environments, which is maladaptive. Priors must be suitably regularized to
truly optimize the fit between mind and world (Feldman 2012: 3031).
13
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for his/her thoughtful
and insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Semiosic translation 127
Danesi, Marcel 2004. Messages, Signs, and Meanings: A Basic Textbook in Semiotics and
Communication. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
Deely, John 2004. to sign by way of signum: On the interplay of translation and
interpretation in the establishment of semiotics. Semiotica 148(14): 187227.
Diaz-Cintas, Jorge; Remael, Aline 2007. Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling. Manchester: St.
Jerome Publishing.
Ellis, Rod 2004. The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language
Learning 54(2): 227275.
Farias, Priscila; Queiroz, Joo 2004. 10cubes and 3n3: Using interactive diagrams to investi-
gate Charles Peirces classifications of signs. Semiotica 151(14): 4163.
Feldman, Jacob 2013. Tuning your priors to the world. Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 1334.
Gambier, Yves 2006. Orientations de la recherche en traduction audiovisuelle. Target 18(2):
261263.
Genette, Grard 1980[1972]. Narrative Discourse. [Lewin, Jane E., trans.] Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Georgakoupoulu, Panayota 2009. Subtitling for the DVD Industry. In: Daz Cintas, Jorge;
Anderman, Gunilla (eds.), Audiovisual Translation: Language Transfer on Screen. New
York: Palgrave McMillan, 2135.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivation-
al verb templates. Mind & Language 28(4): 435465.
Gorle, Dinda 1994. Semiotics and the Problem of Translation: With Special Reference to the
Semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi.
2004. On Translating Signs: Exploring Text and Semio-Translation. (Approaches to
Translation Studies 24.) Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi.
2012. Wittgenstein in Translation: Exploring Semiotic Signatures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Gottlieb, Henrik 2001[1998]. Subtitling. In: Baker, Mona (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies. London, New York: Routledge, 244248.
2004. Subtitles and international anglification. Nordic Journal of English Studies 3(1):
219230.
Halliday, Michael. A. K 1989.Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, Michael A. K.; Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional
Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.
Hartama-Heinonen, Ritva 2012. Interpretation is merely another word for translation: A
Peircean approach to translation, interpretation and meaning. Studies across Disciplines in
the Humanities and Social Sciences 7: 113129.
Hochel, Bruno 1986. Communicative aspects of translation for TV. Nouvelles de la FIT 5:
151157.
Holz-Mnttri, Justa 1981. bersetzen Theoretischer Ansatz und Konsequenzen fr die
Ausbildung. Kntj/versttaren 24: 23.
1984. Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiede-
akatemia.
1986. Translatorisches Handeln theoretisch fundierte Berufsprofile. In: Snell-Hornby,
Mary (ed.), bersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Neuorientierung. Tbingen: Francke, 348374.
Incalcaterra McLoughlin, Laura 2009. Subtitles in translators training: A model for analysis.
Romance Studies 27(3): 174185.
128 Sergio Torres Martnez
:
. , -
(hedging strings). , -
-
- . -
-
. ,
. :
1) ; 2) ; 3)
.