Jakobsons Translation Theory and Subtitling - Essay Example

 Jakobson’s Translation Theory and Subtitling Abstract Subtitling is considered a form of translation and therefore subject to theories that explain the process. These theories contribute in the identification of methods and tools that allow translators to be effective in subtitling. Roman Jakobson’s three classifications of translation - intralingual translation, interlingual translation and intersemiotic translation - are cases in point. This paper described and evaluated each of these classifications. The objective is to identify which type provides the best approach in achieving effective and successful subtitling. For this purpose, this paper analyzed and compared the translation types in order to address three critical issues: accuracy of translation in subtitling; the efficacy by which the translation is conveyed; and, the satisfaction of the audience’s perception of the material being translated. It was found that, among the three, intralingual translation best suit the translation requirements in subtitling. It is effective in capturing, decoding and interpreting messages. It is also simple and allows subtitling to function as a complementary additive to the entirety of the audio-visual elements being translated. Finally, intralingual translation allows the translator to add or subtract words and phrases so that the meanings are articulated in recognized and better understood forms. All in all, the model allowed the audience to interpret the original text effectively. This paper also explained how a modified model of translation is possible in subtitling. This entails the use of elements that characterize Jakobson’s three translation classifications with the idea that each type could complement the others in specific subtitling cases. This aspect also demonstrates that the other translation classifications – interlingual and intersemiotic translations - are also applicable in the subtitling process, though less effective compared to the intralingual model. Keywords: subtitling, Jakobson’s translation theory, intralingual, interlingual, intersemiotic Jakobson’s Translation Theory and Subtitling Roman Jakobson (2000) used Bertrand Russell's position that language much be experienced in order for it to be understood to establish his famous theory on translation. For Jakobson, Russell's position is not sustainable because humans have the capacity to understand language and its vocabulary without seeing or experiencing for themselves its reference. He outlined three classifications of translation based on this assumption: intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic. This paper will explore these methods to determine what the best approach to subtitling is. Subtitling In order to address the objective of this paper, it is important to explain what subtitling is. This would seem to be a simple task since just about anyone could define it as the dialogue transcribed of a particular audio-visual material such as films and television programs. However, the process entails a more systematic definition. According to Anderman and Rogers (1999, pp.190), subtitling is a linguistic phenomenon that encompasses three basic perspectives, namely: "the relationship between the spoken and the written language; the relationship between the foreign language and the target language (TL); the relationship between complete and partial translation." Gottlieb (2005, pp.15-16) offered another definition, which served to illuminate the concept further. He posits that it is "a prepared communication using written language acting as an additive and synchronous semiotic channel as part of a transient and polysemiotic text" wherein "verbal elements in a text are rendered by other verbal elements in order to reach a new speech community." Abend-David (2014, pp.154) contributed to Gottlieb's model by stressing that the process is also not necessarily synchronous and something that is achieved in the mind of the audience, hence, it also calls for "subtractive" understanding. All these definitions point to the fact that subtitling is distinct from other forms of translation such as dubbing, interpretation, literary translation, and voice-over, among others. They allowed Pedersen (2011, pp.9) to establish how subtitling is a vulnerable translation as subtitles appear with the utterance as an extra channel, therefore less synchronous than dubbing or how the polysemiotic or multimodal text involved in the process differentiate it from other traditional forms of translation. One could also turn to the ten translation strategies, which Gottlieb devised exclusively for subtitling. These are transfer, condensation, expansion, deletion, decimation, imitation, dislocation, transcription, paraphrase and resignation. These strategies give emphasis on the transfer and interpretation of all semantic elements from the source or material being translated. The model that will be adopted in this investigation is a combination of the above conceptual definitions. It is an approach that is both pragmatic and sophisticated. It involves three crucial criteria through which Jakobson's translation types will be evaluated. These include: the accuracy of translation, particularly in relation to the audiovisual context; the manner and the efficacy that the audience perceive the material being translated; and, how satisfactory the subtitling is for the audience. The evaluation may also be influenced by other variables such as the perspective of the subtitler in the process of translation. Jakobson's Translation Types Jakobson (pp.114) proposed that it is possible to interpret a verbal sign not just from one language to another but also into other signs of the same language and into another nonverbal system of symbols through three kinds of translation: intralingual translation; interlingual translation; and, intersemiotic translation. These, for Jakobson, are effective in translating any linguistic sign into some other or further alternative sign without having to experience firsthand the referenced linguistic text. The following sections explain each of these methods in detail. Intralingual Translation Also named as “rewording”, intralingual translation “is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language” (Jakobson, pp.114). The tool identified for this particular process was “circumlocution” or the use of a synonymous word or phrase to translate another. In addition, this approach also takes into account that “synonymy, as a rule, is not complete equivalence” (pp.114). To illustrate what this means, one can use the following conversation for insight: SALESLADY: I am sorry but the toy is no longer available, sir. It is out of stock, there is a similar one but of a different brand that you might be interested in. FATHER: Oh, okay. SON: What did the woman say daddy? FATHER: It’s sold out. In the above conversation, where father and son are shopping for a toy, the saleslady’s statement can be distilled in the simple idea: the toy is sold out. However, as is customary, she wants to appease the father because he is a customer. She did so by apologizing first and providing an explanation: “It is out of stock.” Then she also invited him to take a look at the alternative toys. When the son asked his father, the man quipped that it is sold out. Here, the father dismissed all the other information to convey the essential idea to his son within his context. If the son wanted a particular toy and would not have entertained the idea of another – despite the fact that it is similar - then the translation was accurate. The key in the translation process is interpretation and context. Interlingual Translation Interlingual translation, wrote Jakobson, is “translation proper,” one that is concerned with interpreting verbal signs through the use of some other language. The process involves two language systems and the translator’s task is to identify two equivalent messages in their respective codes (Jakobson, pp.114). The conceptual framework indicates that this translation classification is what people would call as the conventional translation. Here, some semblance to a reported speech is achieved as the translator “recodes and transmits a message received from another source” (Jakobson, pp.114). Ideally, the process is straightforward: the translator mediates the meeting of two language systems so that they eventually connect in order to create a new context. It is not unusual for translators to first identify a common ground between the linguistic codes and, thereafter, address their differences. Gorlee (1994, pp.161) explained this in more detail when he stressed that interlingual translation is “primarily concerned with breaking up and dislocating familiar sign-structures and relationships between signs, and with rearranging them meaningfully in the light of the new system.” This explanation is aligned with the premise that equivalence between the words of two language systems is difficult to fully achieve, hence, the translation process inevitably entails the substitution of a message in place of another (Shuttleworth, 2014). Intersemiotic Translation Jakobson (pp.114) explained that “intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems.” Other authors’ understanding of this concept could provide excellent insights as to what it means and its significance. For instance, Kittel et al. (2004, pp.55) interpreted the concept as Jakobson’s “one-way metalingual operation in which linguistic signs are recodified into non linguistic codes, producing two or more multimedia scores.” There is also the case of Petrilli’s work (2003, pp.272), which associated intersemiotic translation with all manifestation of “total translation” in the sense that “it can be autonomous in the case of screen adaptation and complementary in the case of illustration or a photo accompanying a newspaper article, etc.” These interpretations allow us to understand Jakobson’s intersemiosis as one that is concerned with two code- or sign-system, which include verbal and non-verbal codes. A source is translated into either or both of these codes. What Jakobson and other authors tell us about intersemiotic translation is that it is an innovation on the part of the theorist, because the model considers the complexities of translating one text into another or several other codes/signs and is also influenced by different variables such as culture and context. The process involves one source represented in linguistic form and translated into several other forms, which include nonverbal signs. It is for this reason why Jakobson called it transmutation. Aside from the message, the form of the source is changed because it assumes another version, one that is within a different semiotic system (Eco, 2008, pp.67). Ideal Translation Approach It is tempting to choose intersemiotic translation as the best approach to subtitling owing to the recognition that it is “total translation,” capable of addressing complex translation. It is not surprising to be initially overwhelmed by the plethora of embedded messages to be translated in a movie or television scene. There is the dialogue to be considered but there are also other nonverbal messages that needed to be interpreted, added or subtracted in the subtitle. It is for this reason why simple conventional translation as represented by interlingual translation is not sufficient. While the approach could capture the uttered messages, there is the problem of limited equivalence between different linguistic codes. Intersemiotic translation is far too complex a tool to translate the verbal and non verbal codes in a motion picture or television programme. In the translation of a film, for instance, several verbal and nonverbal codes must be translated into one text, the subtitle and it is in written form. Unfortunately, the intersemiotic works in the reverse as it entails the translation of a source into several linguistic forms and codes. Jakobson developed the theory in such a way that it is more effective in translating a novel into a film or a theatrical performance and more appropriate in transcribing or writing about a photograph or a painting. The approach is perhaps worth considering when the translation process begins with the written script, then, interpreted by the oral performances and, finally, the translation in subtitling. Interlingual translation would have sufficed as well. Pedersen contributed in this position when he stressed how the approach does not only transfer message from one language to another but also from the spoken mode to another (It is for this reason why interlingual translation may be appropriate in subtitling for the deaf). However, there are several instances in subtitling that require the elimination of translating uttered words because they are redundant, unnecessary or inappropriate. Again, limited equivalence plays an important role here. There is an impossibility of complete congruence of meaning not just between two linguistic systems but also between two modes of linguistic codes. Indeed, Gottlieb (2005, pp.20) declared that, “the deletion or condensation of redundant, oral features is a necessity when crossing over from speech to writing.” One should consider an ordinary dialogue. People involve in the conversation could utter unintelligible sounds to express an emotion or to put emphasis on a point made. When these are translated into subtitles it would sound gibberish even with the aid of the context provided by the audio-visual elements present in the scene. Intralingual translation, therefore, appears to be the most effective translation model for subtitling. Essentially, the approach considers the context of the spoken words being translated and bases the interpretation upon it. The translation of the message articulated in films and television programmes, necessitates the identification of the gist from the perspective of the translator and, most importantly, the audience. The latter’s perspective is mainly influenced by cultural and social factors and a qualified translator (one who understands these variables) would be able to eliminate words or messages or substitute another in order to provide the correct message and context as understood by the audience. Again, at the heart of the identification of intralingual translation as the most appropriate type of translation for subtitling is how equivalence is dealt with. This effectively addresses all the criteria listed previously in which the three translation classifications were evaluated. With the process of subtitling, there is the inevitability of transformation where the source linguistic text/material is replaced by another word or phrase. In order for the transformation to be effective subtitling, the articulated message must be reproduced but in a form that is understood by the spectators, hence, the accuracy of the message conveyed and the ease by which it is understood. This can only be achieved if such transformation involved a meeting of the mind between the source of the message and the one receiving it. To put it another way, the subtitling necessitates a joint effort where the production of the message and its perception exert equal importance to the point that the two languages meet in agreement. Certainly, it is difficult to reconcile two different language systems and, therefore, equivalence could only be achieved with limited success. There remains the fact, however, that this can be achieved, particularly in intralingual translation. All in all, it is also important to note that there are no clear lines that divide Jakobson’s translation classifications. They appear to be separate but, as Boase-Beier (2011, pp.4) argued, they each have no defining characteristics in relation to each other. This position is supported by Gentzler (2001, pp.1), who observed that: All of Jakobson’s fields mutually reinforce each other, and, accepting this definition, one can easily see how translation theory can quickly enmesh the student in the entire intersemiotic network of language and culture, one touching on all disciplines and discourses. With the above point in mind, it is also preferable to develop a subtitling approach that takes after all of Jakobson’s three translation classifications. For example, semiotic considerations could inform how the translator adds or subtracts words and concepts. The elements derived should all work together for the benefit of the audience with the idea that the translation ultimately aims to achieve effective and successful interpretation. This aspect is mainly dependent on the part of the audience. An excellent example of modified or hybrid form of translation for subtitling is Gottlieb’s “polysemiotic text” model wherein the subtitle functions as the physical delivery of the text and as a semiotic structure of the text at the same time (Pedersen, pp.10). Conclusion Jakobson’s three translation classifications are important in the field of translation because they effectively distinguished the approaches available in interpreting materials into other forms of linguistic codes. They provide an excellent framework for making sense of meanings across a diverse range of materials. The distinctions allow translators to identify appropriate tools for specific materials, which imply that a tool may not be as effective as another in the particular translation cases. In the case of subtitling for films and television programmes, intralingual translation appears to be the best translation model. This is primarily because the approach is straightforward. It entails the process wherein the spoken words are transcribed to complement not just the verbal but also the non-verbal messages present. The concept of interpretation is key in this argument. In simple terms, successful translation is one that is understandable, accessible and satisfactory to the audience. The outcome of intralingual translation satisfies all these criteria, provided that the translator is familiar not just with the language system but also the social and cultural context of the audience so that any addition or elimination of words, phrases or concepts in the subtitling process are done to capture the meaning and the message. Finally, the identification of intralingual translation model as the best approach is not to say that interlingual or intersemiotic translations are not applicable to subtitling. This is the reason why this paper has cited the benefit of the adoption of a modified model that derives from the strengths of each approach according to the requirements of a specific subtitling case. References Abend-David, D., 2014. Media and translation: An interdisciplinary approach. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Anderman, G. and Rogers, M., 1999. Word, text, translation: Liber amicorum for Peter Newmark. New York: Multilingual Matters. Boase-Beier, J., 2011. A critical introduction to translation studies. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Eco, U., 2008. Experiences in translation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gentzler, E., 2001. Contemporary translation theories. Cleve don: Multilingual Matters. Gorlee, D., 1994. Semiotics and the problem of translation: with special reference to the semiotics of Charles S. Pierce. Atlanta, GA: Recopy. Gottlieb, H., 1992. Subtitling: A new university discipline. In: C. Doleful & A. Loddegaard, ed. Teaching translation and interpreting. Training, talent, experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.161-172. Gottlieb, H., 2005. Texts, Translation, and Subtitling - in Theory and in Denmark. In: H. Gottlieb, ed. Screen translation: Eight studies in subtitling, dubbing and voice-over. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Center for Translation Studies, pp.1-40. Jakobson, R., 2000. On linguistic aspects of translation. In: L. Venutti, ed. The translation studies reader. London: Psychology Press. Kittel, H., House, J., and Schultze, B., 2004. Ubersetzung, Translation, Traduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Pedersen, J., 2011. Subtitling norms for television: An exploration focusing on extralinguistic cultural references. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Petrilli, S., 2003., Translation, translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Shuttleworth, M., 2014. Dictionary of translation studies. London: Routledge. Read More