26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

Unit 2
lloc: Aules de la UAB 22-23 Imprès per: Luján Rubio, María
Curs: Teoria de la Traducció Audiovisual - Virtual [MO53320] Data: dilluns, 26 setembre 2022, 13:33
Llibre: Unit 2

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 1/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

Descripció

Language
and terminology in audiovisual translation

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 2/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

Taula de continguts

1. Introduction

2. Linguistic variation

3. The colloquial register

4. Oral and written language

4.1. The language of fiction and non-fiction
4.2. Prefabricated orality in dubbing
4.3. Subtitling: speech turned into written text

5. Terminology in audiovisual translation

5.1. Terminology in films, series and documentaries
5.2. Theoretical models on terminology
5.3. Terminological problems: an overview
5.4. Terminological problems in AVT: science documentaries

6. Bibliography in Unit 2

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 3/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

1. Introduction

The vision of translation as a

purely linguistic transfer has been overcome by more complex models, but the
linguistic aspect is still extremely
important in audiovisual translation. In
the first part of this unit, a proposal to classify linguistic variation will
be presented and some thoughts on the
concepts of oral and written language
will be put forward. In the second part, aspects related to specialized lexicons,
that is to say, terminology, will
be discussed.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 4/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

2. Linguistic variation

When you translate a film or a

series, or even a documentary, you will face samples of linguistic variation.
Your challenge will be a double one: firstly,
identifying the different types
of linguistic variation and their role in the audiovisual text; secondly,
deciding whether you are going to transfer them
and how.

There are different models that

explain linguistic variation, but in this unit Payrató’s model (2003), which
departs from the authors and books
included at the end of this section, will be
followed.

Firstly, variation can take place between

languages (interlinguistic variation) or within the same linguistic system
(intralinguistic variation).
Secondly, intralinguistic variation can be
categorized according to the following different aspects.

Varieties
related to the user (called dialectal varieties in a wide sense), which can be subdivided
into

1. geographic
varieties, depending on the geographic origin of the speakers (often called
“dialects” in a strict sense);

2. historical
varieties, related to the chronology of the languages and their speakers;

3. social
varieties, associated with features such as cultural level, social class, or
generation.

Varieties
related to use in a specific context, also called functional varieties. They
are determined by

1. the
field: the topic discussed, from everyday or generic issues to specialized or
technical ones;

2. the
mode: defined by the channel (oral or written) and the degree of planning of
the text (planned or spontaneous, with intermediate
possibilities);

3. the
functional tenor, which refers to the communicative purpose;

4. the
interpersonal tone or tenor, which shows the relationship between the speakers
and it materializes in the degree of formality.

If you would like to know more about

this topic, we recommend you three classic readings in the field of linguistics
that inspired Payrató’s
classification.

Halliday,
M.A.K., McIntosh, A. & Strevens, P. (1964) The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as social semiotics: the social interpretation of language and
meaning. London:
Edward Arnold.
Gregory, M.; Carroll, S.
(1978) Language and situation: language
varieties and their social context. London: Routledge.

Task 1. Watch
the film or series that you have chosen for your essay and identify some
examples of intralinguistic variation. Now observe how they have been
transferred to
dubbing and subtitling. Try to deduce if the strategies used
can be systematized and
discuss it briefly in the forum, in the space
“Unit2-Task1”.

Personal task. It is becoming more frequent that films are multilingual, that is to
say, that
they present interlinguistic variation. Think about films with
several languages and
identify the function of the different languages and
the strategies that have been
followed to translate them in dubbing or
subtitling. This is a personal non-compulsory
activity; it is not necessary
to discuss it in the forum.

Personal task. Try to find the first episode of Little

Britain in its original English version
and watch it. Try to identify the
different kinds of linguistic variation that are present in it.
Think how
linguistic variation is used to characterize characters and think about the
translation problems that this variation could pose in both dubbing and
subtitling. This is a
personal non-compulsory activity; it is not necessary
to discuss it in the forum.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 5/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

3. The colloquial register

We speak about colloquial register

when the interactions are unplanned and deal with everyday matters, with an
interactive tenor and an informal
tone, through the oral channel. The
colloquial register has specific characteristics that have been analysed by
several authors.

In
Catalan, Lluís Payrató published his book Català
col·loquial. Aspectes de l’ús corrent de la llengua catalana in 1996.
In
Spanish, Antonio Briz published El
español coloquial en la conversación in 1998, with an updated version in
2001.
In
English, there is a specific section about “The grammar of conversation” in The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written
English.

 Check out some of the above works.

They are essential references for a translator. You will notice many colloquial
features that you may
be unaware of.

Personal task. Listen to a colloquial conversation in a bar, a train, a bus, in the

street or
any public place and pay attention to the linguistic features
typical of the colloquial
register.

Do you think that these features

have a place in an audiovisual translation? All of them?
Why? Do you think
that original English fiction reproduces these features? And Spanish
fiction?
And dubbing? And subtitling?

This is a personal activity; it is

not necessary to discuss it in the forum.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 6/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

4. Oral and written language

In the previous task you observed

many characteristics of oral colloquial language. However, these features do
not always appear in the original
version of fiction works and they are not
transferred in audiovisual translations. The reason is that the audiovisual
translator works with
constructed fictions, and language is just one element in
this.

The audiovisual translator does a

balancing act between oral and written language. In this sense, Gregory and
Carroll (1978) propose the following
diagram, which we reproduce in
Zabalbeascoa’s version available here:

https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/20022/TREBALL%20COMPLET%20PATRICK%20ZABALBEASCOA.pdf?sequence=1

Oral language can be spontaneous

(conversation, monologue) or non-spontaneous (recited, oral execution of what
is written), while written
language may have been written (i) to be spoken as
if it was not written, (ii) to be spoken, (iii) not necessarily to be spoken,
with two possible
variants.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 7/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

4.1. The language of fiction and non-fiction

Films and series often reproduce

colloquial dialogues, but they are precisely that: a reproduction, a copy, an
imitation, generally constructed using
some specific features. A basic
difference between a script (written text to be interpreted as if it was not
written) and spontaneous speech is that
the first is planned while the second
is not. It is true that there can be modifications when interpreting this
script, but it is generally treated as a
planned and rehearsed text. Scripts
follow established conventions in the audiovisual world.

Paulo Quaglio published a study (https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/scl.36)

where he compares the language of the American sitcom
Friends with real colloquial language. Using Biber’s
multidimensional analysis model, Quaglio carries out a corpus study. He pays
attention to the
emotive language, to expressions that show ambiguity, to the
informal lexicon and to the discourse markers, among other aspects. Monika
Bednarek (http://www.monikabednarek.com/)
also published a volume titled The
Language of Fictional Television where she addresses similar
aspects and
reflects on the construction of characters. Many other authors have analysed
the specificities of the language of fiction, an exciting
topic about which we
recommend you to read more

As far as non-fictional content is

concerned, different situations co-exist. For instance, documentaries can have
narrators who read a formal and
planned written text, interviewees with planned
or spontaneous speeches, spontaneous extracts, etc. In the voice-over unit this
topic will be
analysed in more depth.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 8/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

4.2. Prefabricated orality in dubbing

Now imagine you are listening to a

dialogue. I will not tell you whether it is an excerpt from a dubbed
production, an original series or a spontaneous
colloquial conversation. But
you will surely know. There are many features that change in the three scenarios
mentioned above: not only prosody,
but also other linguistic features.

Task 2. Do
you think that language models should converge more? That is, do you think
that dubbed versions should use a language closer to spontaneous colloquial
language
or closer to original series and films? How would this impact
audiences? Justify your
point of view in a structured and brief
way in the forum, under “Unit2-Task2”.

The language of dubbing, or dubbese, is a prefabricated oral

language.  It is based on a written
planned text. And, despite the fact that the text is
neither natural nor
spontaneous, the audience accepts it, probably because they wish to enjoy the cinematic
experience and because they have
the repeated habit of watching dubbed
products. This is what has been called “suspension of linguistic disbelief”,
(https://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2009/v54/n1/029793ar.pdf),
which can be defined as:

the
process that allows the dubbing audience to turn a deaf ear to the possible
unnaturalness of the dubbed script while enjoying the cinematic experience
(Romero-Fresco 2009: 68)

There are several studies that

address orality in dubbing. They are recommended readings for this unit.  

“Prefabricated
Orality”, by Rocío Baños-Piñero and Frederic Chaume: http://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/Prefabricated_Orality
“Interjections
in original and dubbed sitcoms in Catalan: a comparison”, by Anna 
Matamala: https://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2009/v54/n3/038310ar.pdf
“The
Spanish dubbese: a case of (un)idiomatic Friends”, by Pablo Romero-Fresco: http://www.jostrans.org/issue06/art_romero_fresco.php

The book Analysing audiovisual dialogue: linguistic and translational insights,

by Maria Pavesi and Maria Freddi, also provides significant
information.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 9/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

4.3. Subtitling: speech turned into written text

In subtitling, the oral text becomes

an on-screen written text (a visual and verbal element at the same time), which
coexists with the oral language
of the original. However, the following are some
questions you could ask yourselves.

Is
the written text of the subtitles (or should it be) an exact account of the
oral words?

Are
grammatical errors corrected in subtitling, both from native and non-native
speakers?
Are
lexical and grammatical variation features kept? Are they typographically
marked?
Do
you believe that in subtitling one could write, for example, “ha cantao”?
How
is profanity treated in subtitling?
Is
expressive language transmitted in subtitling?
Are
accents reproduced in subtitling?

The aim of this module is not to

answer all these questions – most issues will be addressed in specific modules –
but to make you think, so you are
aware that the transfer from oral to written
language poses many challenges. The established conventions, the norms, often dictate
the approach
that should be followed. The key is that the final product, the
subtitled audiovisual text, should be an audiovisual text that is consistent as
a whole
and allows the spectator to enjoy the cinematic experience.

In Díaz-Cintas (2003: chapter 8) and

also in Díaz-Cintas and Remael (2009: chapter 7) you can find specific examples
on how to address these
issues.

Alexandra Assis Rosa, in “Features

of oral and written communication in subtitling”, also discusses the presence
of elements typical of the
colloquial oral register in the written text, and
she mentions that in Portugal these features are neutralized: the priority is
to keep the meaning, the
referential function, the content, and not expressive
elements. But not all models are like this. For example, in Televisió de
Catalunya, a model of
colloquial language was proposed (http://esadir.cat/gramatica/colloquial).
It involved the use of non-normative pronominal forms, among other
elements.
However, a study carried out by Fernández-Torné, Vilaró and Matamala (2014) (http://ddd.uab.cat/record/142580)
observed that some
users mistook the colloquial features for spelling mistakes.
There are probably sociolinguistic factors that can explain this situation, but
what is
important is to be aware that the translator makes decisions, guided by
some norms (tradition and the client’s norms), and that these decisions
have an
impact on the final users.

If you are interested in reading

more articles about linguistic elements in subtitling, Silvia Bruti (http://www.jostrans.org/issue06/art_bruti.php)
has
performed analyses of linguistic elements in subtitling, sometimes with
other researchers like Veronica Bonsignori
(http://www.edizioniets.com/Priv_File_Libro/2648.pdf).
In the databases mentioned in the first unit you can access more bibliography.

Personal task. The previous examples refer to subtitling for hearing people. In the
case
of subtitling for the deaf and hard-of-hearing, are there any
specificities? Think about this
aspect, which you will take up in the
subtitling for the deaf and hard-of-hearing units. This
is a personal task;
it is not necessary to discuss it in the forum. The aim of personal tasks
is
to help you envisage audiovisual translations critically.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 10/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

5. Terminology in audiovisual translation

In section 2 it was said that the

topic (or field) can mark the type of language that is used. When specialized topics
are addressed in fictional or
non-fictional content, terminology occupies a
significant place. In this section the function of terminology in audiovisual
translation will be
discussed.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 11/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

5.1. Terminology in films, series and documentaries

There are documentaries or news

reports that address specialized topics, generally targeting a general audience.
This means that the complexity
of this type of audiovisual texts is lower than
that of actual specialized texts. The terms that appear in them are usually
explained by means of
textual rephrasing or explicative images. However,
solving terminological doubts is still a challenge for the translator.

The difficulties are no fewer in

fiction, especially when it comes to series with a specialized subject matter
(legal or medical, for example). In these
products there can also be scenes
where experts use terms. The translator must be able to identify such terms and
their function in a specific
context. In this regard, it is important to
distinguish between the terms that are used properly and contribute to developing
the plot and
characterizing characters, and those that are only used to create
a specific atmosphere. The function can determine the translator’s decisions
when translating the terms.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 12/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

5.2. Theoretical models on terminology

There are different theoretical

models on terminology, each one with its reference works. Montero Martínez and
Faber (2000) present a summary
of the main ones.

Traditional
approaches to terminology, mainly the General Theory of Terminology by Eugen
Wüster.
The
Communicative Theory of Terminology (CTT) by M. Teresa Cabré.
The
Sociocognitive Theory of Terminology by Rita Temmerman.
The
Frame-based Terminology by Pamela Faber.

In this module the Communicative

Theory of Terminology (CTT) will be followed. It considers that terms are
multidimensional lexical units          
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263412896_Elements_for_a_theory_of_terminology_Towards_an_alternative_paradigmbi)
that
acquire a
specialized value depending on discursive conditions. They are multidimensional
units because they can be approached from a
cognitive, a social or
communicative and a linguistic perspective. And they acquire a value in a
specific context: for example, the word “virus” will
activate certain values in
a medical text, but other values in a computer science document.

While the
GTT considered biunivocity as an essential postulate, the CTT advocates terminological
variation in different degrees: while in the more
mainstream branches of
knowledge there is a maximum degree of variation, in terminology standardized
by experts’ committees variation is
minimal. Between one extreme and the other,
there are multiple possibilities.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 13/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

5.3. Terminological problems: an overview

M. Teresa Cabré presents a

categorization of the terminological problems that a translator may find. This
list could also be applied to audiovisual
translation in many aspects.

Knowing
and defining the meaning of a terminological unit in the source text and
confirming its specialized nature.

Knowing
denominative alternatives and their conditions of use in texts.
Knowing
if there is an equivalent terminological unit in the target language and,  if one does not exist, knowing what resources
can be used.
Knowing
the most suitable equivalent denominative unit, taking into account the topic,
the approach or the perspective of the work.
Knowing
the most appropriate word combinations and phraseology.
Knowing
the denominative alternatives and their pragmatic conditions.
Guaranteeing
that the selected unit and the concept match.

Because
of the characteristics of audiovisual texts, audiovisual translators usually
carry out what is called ad-hoc (not
systematic) terminological
searches: they tend to focus on an isolated term or
on a restricted group within a specific topic.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 14/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

5.4. Terminological problems in AVT: science documentaries

From the study of a corpus, Matamala

(2010) (http://ddd.uab.cat/record/116864)
presents a systematization of the main terminological problems
that a
translator faces in science documentaries. Please read the article, where you
will find examples of each of the following categories.

Identifying
a term.
Understanding
the meaning of the term, that is, the concept it is associated with.
Solving
the absence of an equivalent term (or the inability to find it): the author
gives examples of neologism creation, paraphrases and other
typical linguistic mechanisms.
Solving
denominative variation, that is, the existence of several possible terms.
Deciding
whether to use in vivo terms, used by
the experts in the field, or in vitro terms,
promoted by linguistic authorities.
Detecting
bad transcriptions and mistakes, both in the source text and in reference works
such as terminological databases.
Deciding
whether the effect of the terms on the audience is the same: that is, maybe an
English term is more transparent than its counterpart in
Spanish because of its
formal characteristics.

All these challenges must be

overcome taking into account that audiovisual translators are creating an
audiovisual text: the presence of a visual
component means that sometimes
visual information can make up, to some extent, for the lack of precision and
can help the audience understand
a term. This also entails a greater need for
synchrony between the textual elements and the images, with a high degree of referentiality.

Task 3. Watch
the product that you have chosen and analyse how terms are dealt with. In
the
forum, discuss whether you have detected specific strategies in the
translation of
terminology and how the audiovisual modality, genre, function
or context have impacted
on the final version, whether it is dubbed or
subtitled. Justify your opinion in a structured
and brief way in the forum, under
“Unit2-Task3”.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 15/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2

6. Bibliography in Unit 2

Agost, R. (1995) The colloquial register and dubbing. P. Jansen (ed.) Translation and the manipulation of discourse.
Selected papers of the CERA
Reserach SEminars in Translation Studies.
Lovaina: CETRA, 183-200.

Assis, R.A. (2005) Features of

oral and written communication in subtitling. Y. Gambier & H. Gottlieb
(Eds.) (Multi)Media Translation.
Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 213-223.

Bednarek, M. (2012) The Language

of Fictional Television. London: Bloomsbury.

Briz,
A. (2001) El español coloquial en la
conversación.  Barcelona: Ariel, 2nd
edition.

Bruti, S. (2006) Cross-cultural pragmatics. The translation of implicit

compliments in subtitles. Jostrans 
6.
http://www.jostrans.org/issue06/art_bruti.pdf

Cabré,
M.T. (1992) La terminologia. La teoria,
els mètodes, les aplicacions. Barcelona: Empúries.

Cabré,
M.T. (1999) La terminología:
representación y comunicación. Barcelona: IULA.

Cabré, M.T. (2001) Elements for a theory of terminology. Towards an

alternative paradigm. Terminology
6(2): 35-57.

Cabré, M.T. (2003) Theories of terminology: their description,

prescription and explanation. Terminology
9(2): 163-199.

Chaume, F. (2004) Discourse markers in audiovisual translating. Meta 

49:4, 843-855.

Chaume, F.; Baños, R. (2009) Prefabricated orality: A challenge in

audiovisual translation. InTRAlinea. Special issue: The Translation of Dialects
in
Multimedia. http://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/Prefabricated_Orality

Díaz-Cintas,
J. (2003) Teoría y práctica de la
subtitulación inglés-español. Barcelona: Ariel.

Díaz-Cintas,
J.; Remael, A. (2009) Audiovisual
translation: subtitling. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Fernández-Torné, A.; Matamala, A.; Vilaró, A. (2014) The reception of

subtitled colloquial language in Catalan: an eye-tracking exploratory study.
VIAL: Vigo International Journal of Applied
Linguistics  11:63-80.

Gómez
Capuz, J. (2001) La interferencia pragmática del inglés sobre el español en
doblajes, telecomedias y lenguaje coloquial: una aportación al
estudio del
cambio lingüístico. Tonos digital,
2, http://www.um.es/tonosdigital/znum2/estudios/Doblaje1.htm.

Gottlieb (2001) Subtitling: visualising filmic dialogue. L. Lorenzo & A. Pereira

(eds.) Traducción subordinada (II). El
subtitulado
(inglés/español/galego). Vigo: Universidade de Vigo, 85-110.

Gregory, M.; Carroll, S. (1978) Language

and situation: language varieties and their social context. London:
Routledge.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language

as social semiotics: the social interpretation of language and meaning.
London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A. & Strevens, P. (1964) The linguistic sciences and language
teaching. London: Longman.

Matamala, A. (2009) Interjections in original and dubbed sitcoms: a

comparison. Meta  54:3, 485-502.

Matamala, A. (2010) Terminological challenges in the translation of

science documentaries: a case-study. Across
languages and cultures
11(2):255-272.

Matamala, Anna (2010) Terminological challenges in the translation of

science documentaries: a case-study. Across Languages and Cultures, 
11(2), 255-272.

Montero
Martínez, S.; Faber, P. (2008) Terminología
para traductores e intérpretes. Granada: Tragacanto.

Pavesi, M. (2009) Dubbing English into Italian: a closer look at the

translation of spoken language. J. Díaz-Cintas (ed.) New trends in audiovisual 
translation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 197-209.

Pavesi, M.; Freddi, M. (2009) Analysing

audiovisual dialogue: linguistic and translational insights.  Bologna: CLUEB.

Payrató,
L. (1996) Català col·loquial. Aspectes de
l’ús corrent de la llengua catalana. València: Universitat de València.

Payrató,
L. (2003) Pragmàtica, discurs i llengua
oral. Introducció a l’anàlisi funcional de textos. Barcelona: UOC.

Quaglio, P. (2009) Television

dialogue. The sitcom Friends vs. Natural conversation. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.

Romero-Fresco, P. (2006) The Spanish dubbese: a case of (un)idiomatic

Friends. Jostrans  6: 134-151.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 16/17
26/9/22, 13:34 Unit 2
Romero-Fresco, P. (2009) Naturalness in the Spanish Dubbing Language: A
case of not-so-close Friends. Meta 
54:1, 49-72.

https://e-aules.uab.cat/2022-23/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=34356 17/17