Jennifer Lertola

National University of Ireland, Galway

Subtitling in Language Teaching: Suggestions

for Language Teachers

Abstract

In an ever-changing technological context such as that of the world today, language

learning and teaching specialists are creating new methods and adopting new strategies
by applying multi-media technology to teaching materials in order to foster interactive
learning systems. Teachers can now involve students in a variety of activities to enhance
their learning experience thanks to the diffusion of internet and user-friendly software in
education. Along these lines, the practice of subtitling – the active creation of subtitles by
learners – has been gaining teachers and scholars’ attention as a pedagogical tool in for-
eign language (FL) learning. This article provides an overview on the use of subtitling in
the FL classroom, examining its potential advantages in the context of language learning.
After presenting relevant research on the different types of subtitling, it focuses on the
interlingual subtitling practice as a language learning task. It then explores how teachers
can introduce learners to subtitling norms taken from the professional world and adapted
for pedagogical purposes. Linguistic and technical assessment criteria are then established
for the evaluation of learners’ subtitled videos. Finally, a brief discussion on appropriate
AV material selection and a short list of subtitling tasks suitable for learners with different
levels of FL competence provide the teacher with material to be used in the FL classroom.

1. Introduction

As a consequence of today’s ground-breaking technological and multi-

medial achievements, language learning and teaching are embracing new
media technology. Teachers can involve students in a variety of activities
that enhance their learning experience by using updated multimedia de-
vices thanks to the diffusion of internet and user-friendly software in the
field of education. The active creation of subtitles by learners is one of the
246  Jennifer Lertola

pedagogical tools that has been gaining teachers and scholars’ attention in
foreign language (FL) acquisition. The objective of this article is to pro-
vide an overview of the translation practice of subtitling in the FL class-
room with a view to illustrating its considerable potential in the context
of language learning. It briefly presents relevant research on the different
types of subtitling, and then focuses on the interlingual subtitling practice
as a language learning task.
Translation is variably central to all types of subtitling processes (in-
terlingual, intralingual and reversed subtitling) because each process im-
plies different types of ‘rewording’, that is, the transfer of some verbal
signs into different verbal signs pertaining to a different language or to the
same language. Translation practices are recovering a pivotal role in L2
acquisition because they lead the learner to become accustomed to the way
the target language perceives and interprets reality.
Far from being a revival of the Grammar-Translation Method, the role
of translation in language teaching has gained a renewed interest among
scholars as a means to consolidate the mastery of L2 within a communi-
cative approach to SLA (Cook, 2007). The translation of film dialogue
is an example of Task-Based Learning practice (Nunan, 2004). Here, the
transfer from the language of the sound track to another language simulta-
neously produces the subtitled clip, which is the finished product.
After delving into the various types of subtitle translation this article
restricts its research to the exploration of teaching methods designed to
introduce language learners to the subtitling task. Professional subtitling
norms adapted for pedagogical purposes will be outlined. In addition,
linguistic and technical assessment criteria to evaluate learners’ subtitled
videos will be fixed. This research will also provide teachers with some
practical examples of subtitling tasks suitable for different L2 proficiency
levels.

2. Interlingual and intralingual subtitling in language

learning: Research and classroom potential

The integration of audiovisual (AV) material in the FL classroom, which

began in the late Eighties, led to a growing interest in the use of subtitles
Subtitling in Language Teaching 247

to assist learners in comprehension. The positive effects of interlingual and

intralingual subtitles as a support on SLA have since been investigated by
many scholars, both in Europe and the United States with regards to read-
ing comprehension (Gant Guillory, 1998; Chen, 2012), listening compre-
hension (Danan, 2004; Caimi, 2006; Araújo, 2008, Hayati and Mohmedi,
2009; Winke et al., 2010), oral production (Borrás and Lafayette, 1994;
Barbosa and Pereira, 2006; Araújo, 2008; Arslanyilmaz and Pedersen,
2010), grammar acquisition (Van Lommel et al., 2006) and vocabulary
recognition and recall (Bird and Williams, 2002, Bravo, 2010; Alipour
et al., 2013).
Díaz Cintas (1995) was among the first to anticipate the specific po-
tential of subtitling as a task in the FL classroom. He deemed subtitling a
new and motivating exercise for language learners and stressed the impor-
tance of encouraging teachers to incorporate this task into their teaching
routine. Recent empirical studies have reported encouraging results on the
use of subtitling in FL learning with regards to listening comprehension
(Williams and Thorne, 2000; Talaván, 2010, 2011), production and recog-
nition of idioms (Bravo, 2008) and vocabulary retention (Lertola, 2012).
The practice of subtitling for language learning purposes has also been
supported by European institutions. In 2006 the European Commission
funded the Learning via Subtitles1 (LeViS) project within the Socrates
Programme, LINGUA 2 (Development of Language Tools and Materials).
This project aimed at promoting the subtitling practice as a pedagogical
tool in language learning. A consortium of seven European universities
carried out the LeViS project and developed a range of reusable task-
based activities in different languages. According to this project’s partners
(Sokoli et al., 2011: 220), the subtitling practice “implies involving the
learners in a simulated real-world task whose outcome, unlike watching
subtitles or using viewing techniques, is a tangible, sharable product: the
subtitled video”.
ClipFlair2 is a recently funded project under the EU Lifelong Learning
Programme (2011–2014). The project is based on the LeViS experience
and some of the LeViS partners form part of the consortium of ten Univer-
sities. ClipFlair aims at promoting language learning through interactive
clip captioning (subtitling and video annotations) and revoicing (audio
description, dubbing and reciting). In this way, teachers and learners can

1 <http://levis.cti.gr/> Last accessed 6 February 2013.

2 <http://clipflair.net/> Last accessed 6 February 2013.
248  Jennifer Lertola

employ ClipFlair as an innovative subtitling tool, but they also have a wid-
er range of activities at their disposal. ClipFlair consists of a web platform
through which the users create, upload and access the revoicing and cap-
tioning activities. It also supports social-networking (blogs, wikis, tags),
which enables users to share their work, form groups, cooperate, interact
and rate the activities. Users can access a library of resources contain-
ing over 300 activities for all CEFRL (Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages) levels in 15 languages, accompanied by corre-
sponding lesson plans and relevant metadata.
Interlingual subtitles, also referred to as standard subtitles, are the
result of the translation of film dialogues from the language of the sound
track into another language. In general, interlingual subtitles are used
by hearing people who want to access an FL programme. There are two
combinations of interlingual subtitles generally considered for language
learning purposes: standard subtitling (spoken L2 dialogue translated
into L1 in the written form) and, less commonly, reversed subtitling (L1
dialogue with L2 subtitles). Intralingual subtitles, on the other hand, are
written in the same language as the AV product, but due to time and space
restrictions, the transcription of the spoken text is reduced and condensed.
Intralingual subtitles are also called bimodal subtitles or same language
subtitles. Usually, they satisfy the needs of two types of audiences: the
deaf and hard-of-hearing and language learners. However, their version
for the deaf and hard-of-hearing also contains paralinguistic information
otherwise not accessible to deaf people. The extensive research on the
use of subtitles carried out by scholars over the last two decades outlined
above has shown that interlingual subtitles are more suitable for first be-
ginners, as they seem to rely more on their L1, while intralingual subtitles
are more appropriate for advanced learners (Danan, 2004; Talaván, 2012).
Interlingual subtitling, the practice this contribution will ultimately
focus on, involves translation between two languages, and can either be
standard (L2 into L1) or reversed (L1 into L2). While intralingual subti-
tling requires the ability to reproduce the dialogue in a condensed written
form, the process of standard subtitling implies the comprehension of L2
audiovisual input in order to be able to translate the message in a lin-
guistically and culturally appropriate way. This type of subtitling practice
fosters L2 listening comprehension as well as L2 reading comprehension.
Learners can acquire L2 linguistic and cultural elements that are present in
the AV input both through exposure to these elements and their translation.
Subtitling in Language Teaching 249

Even though research on the subtitling practice is continuously in

progress, standard interlingual subtitling has been more widely studied
while reversed subtitling has only recently started to gain scholarly
attention (Talaván and Rodríguez-Arancón, 2014). Reversed subtitling
entails learners providing a written L2 translation of an L1 oral text. This
translation task enhances written L2 production. It is a written mediating
activity in which learners are asked to produce a coherent equivalent text
in L2 that respects the linguistic dimension of the original text as well as
the idiomatic and cultural nuances it contains. Both standard and reversed
subtitling can be bilingual, where the spoken input is translated into two
languages. This task can thus be carried out in multilingual learning
environments.
Although intralingual subtitling does not involve translation proper,
it may be used in the FL classroom as an exercise for developing compre-
hension and rewording skills, as well as the ability to condense meaning
using fewer words, that is summarising and paraphrasing. For instance,
in the realm of professional training, Díaz Cintas (2008) suggests ask-
ing students to produce gist summaries before any subtitling activity. This
helps dismiss the idea of word for word translation since students have
to look for the main ideas to be conveyed and rephrase them in a natu-
ral way. This preparatory exercise can be effectively used with language
learners both in L1 and L2. Bimodal subtitling in L2 should be carried
out by advanced learners due to the complexity of reformulating a text in
a second language. The use of bimodal subtitling in L1 as well should not
be completely excluded as an introduction to any subtitling practice. Table
1 reports the main characteristics and functions of both interlingual and
intralingual subtitling.
The introduction of the interlingual subtitling practice in the class-
room as a language learning task has been promoted by research such as
the LeViS project, following a ‘hands-on’ multimedia approach centred
on LvS, a subtitling tool designed for educational purposes (Hadzilacos
et al., 2004; Sokoli, 2006). Incalcaterra McLoughlin and Lertola (2011)
propose a subtitling methodology-based model and provide a practical
example. The model foresees a preparatory stage for teachers, which in-
cludes selection and preparation of the AV material, transcription of the
AV dialogue and familiarisation with the software. The subtitling activity
is then developed in five sequential phases: presentation of the activity
(motivation), viewing of the video (globality), analytical comprehension
250  Jennifer Lertola

(analysis), translation-subtitling (synthesis) and considerations on the sub-

titling process and subtitled clips (reflection). Borghetti (2011) proposes
the creation of subtitles specifically for enhancing intercultural education.
She articulates the subtitling process in five practical steps: presentation
and motivation, viewing, research. timing and translating, and editing.
Depending on their learning objectives – linguistic or cultural – teachers
now have the possibility to choose a suitable model to follow in the FL
classroom.
Table 1: Overview of interlingual and intralingual subtitling.

Interlingual Subtitling Intralingual Subtitling

Descrip- Condensed translation of one language Condensed transcription of the
tion spoken text into another language (or two oral spoken text in written text
other languages ‘bilingual subtitling’) in
form of written text
Type standard reversed bimodal
Charac- L2 spoken text is L1 spoken text is L2 spoken text L1 spoken text
teristics translated into L1 translated into L2 is transcribed is transcribed
written text (and into written text (and into L2 into L1 written
another L2) into another L2) written text text
Function L2 listening compre- L2 written produc- summary and summary and
hension; L2 reading tion; acquisition of paraphrase paraphrase
comprehension (in L2 linguistic and skills skills; prepara-
case of intralingual cultural elements tory activity to
subtitles or dialogue through translation introduce learn-
transcription); ers to subtitling
acquisition of L2 practice
linguistic and (especially
cultural elements standard
through AV exposure subtitling)
and translation; L1
written accuracy

The main pedagogic advantages of interlingual subtitling in particular

are those related to translation, due to its nature as an AVT task. Zojer
(2009) identifies several such benefits of translation in language learning
and teaching: Translation is a cognitive tool for contrastive analysis be-
tween L1 and L2 that can prevent interference mistakes. It may be used
effectively to present new vocabulary by allowing learners to fulfil their
innate request for semantic representation in L1 and thus to avoid possible
Subtitling in Language Teaching 251

misunderstanding. Translation also forces learners to expand their lin-

guistic range since avoidance strategies are not allowed – a text should
be entirely understood to be translated. In this way, besides learning new
vocabulary (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001), learners develop reading and
comprehension strategies. Cultural elements also have to be identified and
carefully considered when translating. In addition, translation enhances
metalinguistic reflection and improves learners’ written competence in
their own L1. Transferable skills are also acquired through translation,
which, as a mediation activity, may assist learners in their personal as well
as professional lives. The Common European Framework of References
(2001) highlights the importance of oral or written mediation, listing it as
one of the language activities that learners are involved in when commu-
nicating (together with production, reception and interaction).
Nevertheless, the translation process in subtitling importantly differs
from common translation, and a number of these distinguishing factors
can also benefit language learning (Talaván, 2013). Subtitles “are part of a
polysemiotic text” (Pedersen, 2005: 13). Consequently, it can particularly
enhance vocabulary acquisition and cultural awareness. AV material func-
tions through four semiotic channels: the non-verbal visual channel (the
picture), non-verbal audio channels (music and sound effects), the verbal
audio channel (the dialogue) and verbal visual channels (signs and cap-
tions). Learners are thus not only translating the source text (ST) into the
target text (TT) but they are also watching, and listening to, L2 audiovi-
sual input. The simultaneous involvement of acoustic and visual channels
is considered to enhance language learning and helps memory retention
(Paivio, 1971). When translating for subtitling, learners must also take
into account the paralinguistic dimension of the AV text (images, gestures,
etc.). Due to space and time constraints, literal translation is not possible.
Word for word translation would exceed the number of characters and
reading time allowed. This condensation of the message requires learners
to focus on meaning and general content during the entire process. The
subtitling task is therefore “less mechanic” and forces learners to concen-
trate throughout the entire process rather than only on the finished product
(Talaván, 2013).
There are also other more general advantages to be considered in
relation to subtitling as a language learning task. It creates a concrete
output that can be shared with teachers and peers. It is a motivating
exercise which encourages an atmosphere that promotes learning.
252  Jennifer Lertola

Studies have shown how it is also a motivating task for language learners
(Williams and Thorne, 2000; Incalcaterra McLoughlin and Lertola, 2014).
Subtitling is a learner-centred task that can be carried out individually or
in groups, thus potentially promoting both autonomous and cooperative
learning. As a receptive and mediation activity it fosters L2 listening com-
prehension and L1 or L2 writing (standard or reversed respectively). The
AV input presents lexical elements through audio and video enhancing
memory retention of vocabulary. Finally, subtitling can attract learners in-
terested in cinema, translation and new multimedia technologies and can
be easily learned through training. The use of technology is central to sub-
titling and, in the case of projects such as ClipFlair, captioning on the web
platform motivates learners who enjoy social networking.
Subtitling, much like translation, also presents some limitations. Even
though previous translation experience is not required, learners should have
a basic knowledge of the L2 studied to be able to carry out the translation
task. At the same time, even for low proficiency learners, simple subtitling
exercises can be proposed with videos that contain adequate linguistic in-
put. Alternatively, learners can be asked to subtitle only key words of the
ST or to complete subtitles that are provided by the teacher. Teachers must
be language professionals competent in translation as well as in learners’
L1. Having said this, subtitling itself, as a form of audiovisual translation
(AVT), can be easily learned through training. It should also be considered
that L2 oral or written production are not automatically involved in the
subtitling task. Teachers may therefore want to integrate oral and written
production before or after subtitling. A number of ‘micro-activities’ can be
introduced in the subtitling process to this purpose, such as note-taking,
summarising parts or the entire AV dialogue, extensive listening for oral
or written gist and intensive listening for reporting specific details (Sokoli,
2006). Talaván (2013) also points out the lack of ready to use materials.
While projects like ClipFlair help solve this issue for several target lan-
guages, teachers might have to prepare ‘ad hoc’ activities according to
their needs, which can prove time consuming. In addition, teachers often
must obtain permission from copyright owners or use videos registered
under the Creative Commons licence3. Teachers may overcome copyright
issues by producing their own audiovisual material.

3 There are several Creative Common Licences. Licences suitable for subtitling should
allow to “remix, tweak, and build upon” the work under that licence. <http://creative
commons.org/> (Last accessed 7 February 2013).
Subtitling in Language Teaching 253

3. Subtitling norms for pedagogical purposes

Subtitling is a popular AVT mode and it has been investigated, both at

theoretical and practical levels, by scholars and experts in the field (Got-
tlieb, 1992; Díaz Cintas, 2004; Díaz Cintas and Remael, 2007). Subtitling
for pedagogical purposes can benefit from its practice in the professional
world. In general, as a first step in the classroom, learners should be given
a definition of subtitling and a brief overview of the other AVT modes be-
fore they begin creating subtitles. They should then be informed about the
basic subtitling norms to be followed. To this end, the professional norms
listed in the “Code of Good Subtitling Practice” (Ivarsson and Carroll,
1998)4 have been adapted for use in the FL class (see Figure 1), to better
target language learners. Learners should be made aware that the subtitling
task requires quality translation. This means that the TT must faithfully re-
spect linguistic and cultural elements of the ST. Language registers of the
TT should also correspond to those of the oral ST. Language learners new
to AVT tasks tend to make subtitles without considering the importance
of space constraints and line breaks. It is therefore necessary to teach that
the subtitle text should be semantically and syntactically self-contained
and distributed on a maximum of two lines. Each line should not normally
exceed 41 characters. Ideally, any subtitle should be a complete sentence.
Díaz Cintas (2008: 100) further instructs that “if the message cannot be
contained in one subtitle and needs to be continued over two or more sub-
titles, some strategies must be implemented, ensuring that lines are split
to coincide with sense blocks”. Effective segmentation of the ST must
thus be learned: distribution of the TT in sense units on two lines within
a single subtitle or its distribution over more than one subtitle. In both
cases, the rule for segmentation is the same, and the text should respect
syntactic and grammatical conventions (Díaz Cintas and Ramael, 2007:
172). Identifying sense units in an L2 sentence is a challenging exercise
for language learners. Learners must first identify sentence structure and
sentence type, as well as whether the sentence contains independent or
dependent clauses. Before subtitling begins, teachers can present learners

4 The “Code of Good Subtitling Practice” endorsed by the European Association for
Studies in Screen Translation (ESIST) in Berlin on 17 October 1998 is available at
<http://www.esist.org/ESIST%20Subtitling%20code.htm> (Last accessed 31 Janu-
ary 2013).
254  Jennifer Lertola

with some helpful preliminary syntactic and semantic considerations for

line breaks within subtitles. Díaz Cintas and Ramael (176–178) provide
the following examples: avoid splitting articles from nouns, adjectives
from nouns or adverbs, compound verbal forms, verbs from their direct or
indirect objects. One should separate a sentence made of two independent
clauses or a sentence made of one independent and one dependent clause
on two lines. The most common coordinating conjunctions (but, or, and,
so) should usually start the sentence on the second line. Punctuation is
also an easily recognizable break off point for segmentation. These prac-
tical examples may help learners understand sentence structure and type.
In addition, teachers can make a checklist for learners to complete before
submitting their subtitles.
Subtitles should be synchronised with the soundtrack as far as pos-
sible. They should become visible when the speaker starts talking and
disappear when the speaker finishes. Subtitles must stay on the screen
for a minimum of one to a maximum of seven seconds – a golden rule
in the professional world which learners should be encouraged to fol-
low. An accurate synchronisation implies that learners listen to the L2
soundtrack several times, which allows them to match their TT with the
ST correctly. Furthermore, extensive exposure to the original AV dia-
logue fosters their listening comprehension. Learners can reduce dia-
logue in order to respect space and time constraints by condensing the
message (partial reduction) or omitting (total reduction) some informa-
tion. Reducing the text is an excellent exercise for language learners.
Learners should identify sense blocks and be able to recognise redun-
dant information or elements that are not crucial for understanding the
sentence or the general meaning of the message. Several other subtitling
strategies exist beyond reduction and omission (Gottlieb, 1992), but stu-
dents do not necessarily need to know them. Many tend to apply other
subtitling strategies unconsciously, as Di Toro (2013) discovered when
analysing students’ subtitles.
Learners should be also made aware of the modality of transfers
from the oral to the written mode. As illustrated above, what is expressed
monosemiotically in a written text is expressed through four channels –
dialogue, music and effects, picture and writing – in an AV text. Learn-
ers must take the interaction between these components into account
when subtitling. Perego (2005: 50) points out that in the profession “[t]
he translator must have the ability to reach the right semiotic balance
Subtitling in Language Teaching 255

between physical and verbal languages which should not contrast or

contradict each other in any way” (Author’s translation). The same can
be said for subtitling in the classroom. Subtitles are additive (Gottlieb,
1992: 162) since verbal information is added to these elements. Learn-
ers may also take advantage of this “intersemiotic redundancy” (Peder-
sen, 2005:13). For instance, if something referred to in the audiovisual
dialogue is clearly visible on the screen, a pronoun can be used in the
subtitles to refer to it. As regards linguistic transfer, the language of TT
should be grammatically correct (as in any formal written text), and an
appropriate use of punctuation is necessary. Since both its digital na-
ture and its time and space constraints make subtitling somehow similar
to text messaging, it is important to highlight to students that SMS (or
textese) language (Crystal, 2008) has to be avoided in subtitles. Final-
ly, other common conventions in subtitling are the use of the dash in a
two-person dialogue to indicate who is speaking in one subtitle and the
use of Italics when it is possible to hear a speaker who is not visible on
the screen or when subtitling a song. A checklist containing this infor-
mation may be presented to the learners before subtitling (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Subtitling norms for language learners adapted from the “Code of Good
Subtitling Practice” (Ivarsson and Carroll, 1998).
256  Jennifer Lertola

Figure 1: Continued.
Subtitling in Language Teaching 257

4. Subtitling assessment

The professional subtitling world provides general guidelines that can be

applied in language learning for assessment of the subtitling task. A subti-
tling task can be evaluated in terms of both linguistic and technical skills.
Technical skills are, of course, far less important in the teaching environ-
ment. Nevertheless, some basic skills such as time-coding and synchro-
nization can make a remarkable difference in students’ finished subtitles.
These may reflect the time and effort students spent on the subtitling task.
It is advisable for the teacher to first view the students’ subtitles file em-
bedded in the video when correcting their subtitles in order to have a gen-
eral idea of the finished product. The teacher can then open the subtitles
in a document file format (which shows time codes and subtitled text) in
order to evaluate them more precisely.
Three models of well-defined assessment criteria – Díaz Cintas,
James et al. and Kruger (as cited in Kruger, 2008: 85) – have identified
similar aspects to be considered when evaluating linguistic skills in sub-
titling: quality of language transfer, coherence within and between indi-
vidual subtitles, grammar, punctuation and spelling. The main focus of
these models can be considered as the linguistic subcomponent of com-
municative language competence as defined by the CEFRL. Linguistic
competence includes grammatical, lexical, semantic, phonological and
orthographic competence. To this purpose, morphosyntax, vocabulary,
orthography and punctuation are isolated for assessment. However, the
CEFRL defines communicative language competence more broadly, as
comprised of a total of three subcomponents: not only linguistic, but
also sociolinguistic and pragmatic. Each of these subcomponents can
be considered for subtitling assessment purposes, thus enriching the as-
sessment models offered by the three contributions cited above. Socio-
linguistic competence refers to the social dimension of language use and
the knowledge and skills it requires. Pragmatic competence is mainly
concerned with the learners’ knowledge of organising messages (dis-
course competence) so as to produce structurally cohesive and coherent
texts.
Through the use of L2 audiovisual input learners are exposed to
linguistic content and interaction which present sociolinguistic markers
of social relations and politeness conventions, such as use and choice of
258  Jennifer Lertola

greetings, address forms and expletives as well as turn taking conven-

tions. Politeness conventions, in particular, differ from culture to culture
and may be responsible for a certain level of inter-ethnic misunderstand-
ing, therefore it is important that learners become aware of them. AV
input is often rich in idioms, proverbs and other fixed formulae (folk
wisdom) used by different individuals whose speech varies in register
since they are speaking in different contexts (formal, neutral, infor-
mal). In subtitling, learners are required to identify and encode register
differences.
Subtitling tasks also clearly require learners to develop pragmatic
competence. In particular, when translating and spotting – synchronising
subtitles to speech – learners are required to be able to arrange sentences
in a coherent sequence (discourse competence). Finally, to fully evaluate
learners’ performance, space and time synchronization is included as tech-
nical skill. A resulting assessment grid is presented in Table 2 for teachers’
use, based in part on the three assessment models initially highlighted and
enriched by the components of communicative language competence as
defined in the CEFRL.

Table 2: Subtitling assessment grid.

Main category Sub-categories

Translation Competence Convey the message
Convey cultural differences
Condensation
Omission
Linguistic competence Morphosyntax
Vocabulary
Orthography
Punctuation
Sociolinguistic competence Linguistic markers of social relations
Expressions of folk wisdom
Register
Pragmatic competence Discourse competence (coherence and cohesion –
line breaks)
Technical skills – Synchronization Space
Time
Subtitling in Language Teaching 259

5. Considerations on AV material and examples

of subtitling tasks

In this section some considerations on AV material and how to select it

are reported, after which some practical examples of subtitling tasks are
provided for teachers to use in the FL classroom.
The use of AV materials such as films and TV series can foster lan-
guage learners’ development of linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic
competence. In addition, learners enjoy watching these types of AV mate-
rial, and this stimulates their motivation. Since the language used in films
is realistic language in a medium that is not specifically prepared for L2
learners, it has much to offer them. Language is spoken at normal con-
versational speed and varieties of language are encountered from vari-
ous ages, genders and socio-cultural backgrounds. Pavesi’s (2012) recent
corpus-based investigation of spoken English in fictional screen dialogue
compared it to spontaneous conversation. This investigation proved that
AV dialogue contains linguistic features that can promote Second Lan-
guage Acquisition (SLA), whether or not they be similar to spontaneous
dialogue. AV text should not be seen as a substitute for face-to-face con-
versation in language learning since it presents a different register. How-
ever, there are some similarities between the two registers, thus AV texts
can engage and entertain the viewers by recalling reality. AV dialogue has
been defined as ‘prefabricated orality’ (Chaume, 2001) because it is meant
to appear as spontaneous and natural speech but it is actually the result of
careful planning and editing. Fictional dialogue has been acknowledged as
presenting recurrent patterns and conversational formulae. This is a conse-
quence of the frequent repetition of communicative situations and topics
in AV products. Characters act in a restricted number of settings, often re-
peating the same actions and thus using the same language formulae. This
repetitiveness promotes predictability. It is hence easy to relate formulaic
AV language to specific situations.
In language teaching, films and TV series are generally considered
to be authentic material because they represent the same AV material
native speakers are thought to enjoy. Whether or not these are truly an
example of authentic material is probably not of central importance. On
this note, one remarkable conceptual innovation in the CEFRL is that
its authors succeeded in ending the debate on the use of authentic or
260  Jennifer Lertola

non-authentic material in language teaching. They judged authentic texts

and texts especially designed for language learners as equally suitable
(2001: 16). The only difference seen by these authors between texts is
the way in which their characteristics are used in language learning and
teaching.
The CEFRL defines a number of factors to be considered when
selecting a text (audiovisual, oral or written) for a learner or a group of
learners: linguistic complexity, text type, discourse structure, physical
presentation, length and relevance for the learners. These same factors
can be also used when adapting a text. Complex syntax, in particular,
is identified as distracting. Learners risk wasting time and energy when
dealing with long sentences which present many subordinates, rather
than focusing on understanding the content. Syntactic over-simplifica-
tion might also cause difficulties due to the absence of redundancy and
clues to meaning. One way to evaluate linguistic complexity is to test
text readability. This technique helps to identify complex sentences as
well as less frequent vocabulary. Text type is also to be considered, since
being familiar with the genre and domain of the text can help learners
predict and better understand its structure and content. Texts which are
more abstract in nature tend to result more difficult for language learn-
ers than texts with more concrete descriptions, instructions or narra-
tives. A coherent and clearly organized text is preferable as it makes
information processing less demanding. Physical presentation – in writ-
ten and spoken texts alike – greatly influences information processing.
For instance, in spoken texts, where information is processed in real
time, many factors such as noise, interference, speakers’ accents, turn
taking and speed of delivery make comprehension more difficult. Text
length is another factor to take into account: a long text is generally
more demanding in terms of information processing and memory load.
It is better to select short texts for this reason, especially when dealing
with younger learners or beginners who can easily become tired or dis-
tracted. At the same time, a long text might be easier if it is not too dense
and contains considerable redundancy. Importantly, the text should be
relevant to the learners as their motivation has to be kept high during
the entire learning process. Selecting texts related to learners’ personal
interests or specialist areas of study can help to sustain their efforts to
understand.
Subtitling in Language Teaching 261

Short extracts from films and TV series are generally good options
to consider for subtitling tasks. The episodic nature of TV series makes
them particularly suitable for teaching since activities can be created on
stand-alone episodes. In addition, activities can be prepared in a sort of
progression or they can be used individually, due to the availability of
several episodes that present different stories. Many films are based on
the parallel stories of different characters and also allow for this kind of
progression. Learners can benefit from this sort of extended progression
since they get used to the language spoken by the characters mirroring
real-life situations in an L2 environment. Learners can also become in-
terested in knowing the future development of the story. Finally, it is
necessary to stress that teachers need to heed learners’ feedback on the
AV material and, if necessary, change it in order to keep them motivated.
When selecting AV materials for the classroom, teachers should thus
first consider the linguistic content which is appropriate for the target
learners. The sample standard subtitling tasks listed below are described
in general terms and do not refer to any specific video. Therefore, teachers
can find AV material to fit their needs and adapt the activity to suit differ-
ent languages and learning contexts. Two examples (options a and b) are
addressed to each of the CEFRL levels of proficiency respectively: A1-A2
Basic User, B1-B2 Independent User and C1-C2 Proficient User. In this
way, the same genre of AV input may be used with different levels, as may
the same video if suitable. Teachers can decide whether to provide the time
codes in all the subtitling tasks in order to make the activity more chal-
lenging. In addition, all tasks can be carried out individually or in groups
either in the classroom or in online contexts.
A1-A2
a: Learners can identify key words and subtitle them.
b: Some subtitles are provided and learners should subtitle only relevant
parts.
B1-B2
a: Dialogue transcription is provided, learners should subtitle the entire
dialogue.
b: Dialogue transcription is provided, learners should subtitle one or more
characters. Learners may be assigned different characters and join their
subtitles to have the entire dialogue.
262  Jennifer Lertola

C1-C2
a: Learners should transcribe the spoken dialogue and subtitle the entire
dialogue.
b: Learners should transcribe the spoken dialogue of one character and
subtitle it. Learners may be assigned different characters and join their
subtitles to have the entire dialogue.

6. Concluding remarks

This study aims to encourage teachers to introduce subtitling in the FL

classroom because of the richness in opportunities this cutting-edge
learning activity represents. Subtitling technology not only engages
learners in fresh and motivating language tasks but also benefits them in
many other ways, presenting them with linguistic and cultural elements
and thus facilitating linguistic and cultural awareness. Most of all, teach-
ers can fulfill different linguistic or cultural objectives depending on the
AV input selected. Subtitling involves learners in a mediating activity
which offers the advantages of translation and AVT in language learning.
As a receptive activity, it fosters learners’ L2 listening comprehension
and mnemonic retention. The subtitling practice is highly adaptable to
learners’ levels, different contexts (classroom or online) and languages.
It also opens the door to a range of extra activities and develops trans-
ferable skills more generally useful in a globalized, technology-based
world.

References

Alipour, Mohammad / Gorjian, Bahman / Kouravand, Lida Gholam-

pour 2012. “The Effects of Pedagogical and Authentic Films on EFL
Learners’ Vocabulary Learning: The Role of Subtitles”. Advances in
Asian Social Science, 3(4), 734–738.
Subtitling in Language Teaching 263

Araújo, Vera Lúcia Santiago 2008. “The Educational Use of Subtitled

Films in EFL Teaching”. In Díaz Cintas, Jorge (ed.), The Didactics of
Audiovidual Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 227–38.
Arslanyilmaz, Abdurrahman / Pedersen, Susan 2010. “Improving Lan-
guage Production Using Subtitled Similar Task Videos”. Language
Teaching Research, 14(4), 377–395.
Barbosa, Edilene Rodrigues / Pereira, Germana da Cruz. 2006. La uti-
lización de películas subtituladas en el desarrollo de la proficiencia
oral de alumnos de E/LE. Paper presented at the Primer Congreso
Virtual sobre Enseñanza de E/LE, Madrid-España: Ediciones Ediele.
<http://civele.org/biblioteca/cvele06/3rodrigues-pereira.htm>.
Bird, Stephen. A. / Williams, John. N. 2002. “The Effect of Bimodal Input
on Implicit and Explicit Memory: An Investigation into the Benefits
of Within-Language Subtitling”. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(04),
509–33.
Borghetti, Claudia 2011. “Intercultural Learning through Subtitling: The
Cultural Studies Approach”. In Incalcaterra McLoughlin, Laura /
Biscio, Marie / Ní Mhainnín, Máire Áine (eds.), Audiovisual Transla-
tion Subtitles and Subtitling. Theory and Practice. Bern: Peter Lang,
111–37.
Borras, Isabel / Lafayette, Robert 1994. “Effects of Multimedia Course-
ware Subtitling on the Speaking Performance of College Students of
French”. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 61–75.
Bravo, Conceição. 2008. Putting the Reader in the Picture: Screen Trans-
lation and Foreign-Language Learning. Doctoral Thesis, Universitat
Rovira i Virgili Tarragona, Spain.
Bravo, Conceição. 2010. “Text on Screen and Text on Air: A Useful
Tool for Foreign Language Teachers and Learners”. In Díaz Cintas,
Jorge / Matamala, Anna / Neves, Joselia (eds.), New Insights into
Audiovisual Translation and Media Accessibility. Amsterdam: Ro-
dopi, 269–84.
Caimi, Annamaria 2006. “Audiovisual Translation and Language Learn-
ing: The Promotion of Intralingual Subtitles”. The Journal of Special-
ised Translation, 6.
Chaume, Frederic 2001. “La pretendida oralidad de los textos audio-
visuales y sus implicaciones en traducción”. In Chaume, Frederic /
Agost Canós, Rosa (eds.), La Traducción en los Medios Audiovisuals.
Castelló: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, 77–87.
264  Jennifer Lertola

Chen, Mei-Ling 2012. “Effects of the Order of Reading Text or Viewing a

Film and L1/L2 Captions on Reading Comprehension”. Perceptual &
Motor Skills, 115(1), 18–26.
Cook, Guy 2007. “A Thing of the Future: Translation in Language Learn-
ing”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 396–401.
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, David 2008. Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Danan, Martine 2004. “Captioning and Subtitling: Undervalued Language
Learning Strategies”. Meta : journal des traducteurs / Meta: Transla-
tors’ Journal, 49(1), 67–77.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge 1995. “El subtitulado como técnica docente”. Vida His-
pánica, 12, 10–14.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge 2004. “Subtitling: the Long Journey to Academic Ac-
knowledgement”. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 1, Pages:
50–68. <http://www.jostrans.org/issue01/art_diaz_cintas.pdf>.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge 2008. “Teaching and Learning to Subtitle In an Ac-
ademic Environment”. In Díaz Cintas, Jorge (ed) The Didactics of
Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 89–103.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge / Remael, Aline 2007. Audiovisual Translation: Subti-
tling. Manchester: St Jerome.
Di Toro, Francesca 2013. Strategie di sottotitolazione nella classe di
italiano come lingua straniera. Thesis. Università di Bologna.
Unpublished.
Gant Guillory, H. 1998. “The Effects of Keyword Captions to Authentic
French Video on Learner Comprehension”. CALICO, 15(1–3), 89–108.
Gottlieb, Henrik 1992. “Subtitling – A New University Discipline”. In
Dollerup, Cay / Loddegaard, Anne (eds.), Teaching Translation and
Interpreting: Training, Talent, and Experience. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 161–70.
Hadzilacos, Thanasis / Papadakis, Spyros / Sokoli, Stavroula 2004.
“Learner’s Version of a Professional Environment: Film Subtitling as
an ICTE Tool for Foreign Language Learning”. In Nall, J. / Robson,
R. (eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Cor-
porate Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. Chesapeake,
VA: AACE, 680–85.
Subtitling in Language Teaching 265

Hayati, Abdolmajid / Mohmedi, Firooz 2009. “The Effect of Films with

and without Subtitles on Listening Comprehension of EFL Learners”.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 1–12.
Incalcaterra McLoughlin, Laura / Lertola, Jennifer 2011. “Learn through
Subtitling: Subtitling as an Aid to Language Learning”. In Incalca-
terra McLoughlin, Laura / Biscio, Marie / Ní Mhainnín, Máire Áine
(eds.), Audiovisual Translation Subtitles and Subtitling. Theory and
Practice. Bern: Peter Lang, 243–63.
Incalcaterra McLoughlin, Laura / Lertola, Jennifer 2014. “Audiovisual
Translation in Second Language Acquisition: Integrating Subtitling
in the Foreign Language Curriculum”. The Interpreter and Translator
Trainer, 8(1) 70–83.
Ivarsson, Jan / Carroll, Mary 1998. Subtitling. Simrishamn: TransEdit HB.
Kruger, Jan-Louis 2008. “Subtitler Training as a Part of a General Train-
ing Programme”. In Díaz-Cintas, Jorge (ed.), The Didactics of Audio-
visual Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 84–87.
Laufer, Batia / Hulstijn, Jan 2001. “Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in
a Second Language: The Construct of Task-Induced Involvement”.
Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
Lertola, Jennifer 2012. “The Effect of the Subtitling Task on Vocabulary
Learning”. In Pym, Anthony / Orrego-Carmona, David (eds.), Trans-
lation Research Project 4. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group,
Universitat Rovira i Virgili. 61–70. <http://isg.urv.es/publicity/isg/
publications/trp_4_2012/index.htm>.
Nunan, David 2004. Task-based Language Teaching. A Comprehensive-
ly Revised Edition of Designing Tasks for the Communicative Class-
room. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pavesi, Maria 2012. “The Potentials of Audiovisual Dialogue for Sec-
ond Language Acquisition”. In Alderete-Díez, Pilar / Incalcaterra
McLoughlin, Laura / Ní Dhonnchadha, Labhaoise / Ní Uigín, Doro-
thy (eds.), Translation, Technology and Autonomy in Language Teach-
ing and Learning. Bern: Peter Lang, 155–74.
Paivio, Allan 1971. Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt, Rin-
heart and Winston.
Pedersen, Jan 2005. “How Is Culture Rendered in Subtitles?”. In Ger-
zymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun / Nauert, Sandra (eds.), Proceedings of
the Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra: Challenges of Multidimen-
sional Translation – Saarbrücken 2–6 May 2005. 1–18. <http://www.
266  Jennifer Lertola

euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/2005_proceed
ings.html>.
Perego, Elisa 2005. La traduzione audiovisiva. Roma: Carocci.
Sokoli, Stavroula 2006. “Learning via Subtitling (LvS): A Tool for the
Creation of Foreign Language Learning Activities Based on Film
Subtitling”. In Carroll, Mary / Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun /
Nauert, Sandra (eds.), Audiovisual Translation Scenarios: Proceed-
ings of the Marie Curie Euroconferences. <http://www.eurocon
ferences.info/proceedings/2006_Proceedings/2006_proceedings.
html>.
Sokoli, Stavroula / Zabalbeascoa, Patrick / Fountana, Maria 2011. “Sub-
titling Activities for Foreign Language Learning: What Learners and
Teachers Think”. In Incalcaterra McLoughlin, Laura / Biscio, Marie /
Ní Mhainnín, Máire Áine (eds.), Audiovisual Translation Subtitles
and Subtitling. Theory and Practice. Bern: Peter Lang, 243–63.
Talaván, Noa 2010. “Subtitling as a Task and Subtitles as Support: Peda-
gogical Applications”. In Díaz Cintas, Jorge / Matamala, Ana / Neves,
Josélia (eds.), New Insights into Audiovisual Translation and Media
Accessibility. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 285–99.
Talaván, Noa 2011. “A Quasi Experimental Researh Project on Subtitling
and Foreign Language Acquisition”. In Incalcaterra McLoughlin,
Laura / Biscio, Marie / Ní Mhainnín, Máire Áine (eds.), Audiovisual
Translation Subtitles and Subtitling. Theory and Practice. Bern: Peter
Lang, 197–217.
Talaván, Noa 2012. “Justificación teórico-práctica del uso de los subtítu-
los en la enseñanza-aprendizaje de idiomas”. Trans. Revista de tra-
ductología, 16, 23–38.
Talaván, Noa 2013. La subtitulación en el aprendizaje de las lenguas ex-
tranjeras. Barcelona: Octaedro.
Talaván, Noa / Rodríguez-Arancón, Pilar 2014. “The Use of Reverse
Subtitling as an Online Collaborative Language Learning Tool”. The
Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(1) 84–101.
Van Lommel, S. / Laenen, A. / d’Ydewalle, G. 2006. “Foreign-Grammar
Acquisition while Watching Subtitled Television Programmes”. Brit-
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 243–58.
Williams, Helen / Thorne, David 2000. “The Value of Teletext Subtitling
as a Medium for Language Learning”. System, 28(2), 217–28.
Subtitling in Language Teaching 267

Winke, Paula / Gass, Susan / Tetyana, Sydorenko 2010. “The Effects of

Captioning Videos Used for Foreign Language Listening Activities”.
Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 65–86.
Zojer, Heidi 2009. “The Methodological Potential of Translation in Sec-
ond Language Acquisition: Re-evaluating Translation as a Teaching
Tool”. In Witte, A./ Harden, T. / Ramos de Oliveira Harden A. (eds.),
Translation in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Bern: Peter
Lang, 31–51.