Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Value of Subtitles
The Value of Subtitles
Thorbjörn Broddason
Department of Sociology
Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Iceland
IS-101 Reykjavík
Iceland
Telephone: +354 525 4509
e-mail: tbrodd@hi.is
During the latter half of the twentieth century a new mass medium, television,
gradually established its pre-eminence over the earlier two daily media. Towards
the end of the century average daily viewing time in industrialized countries was
between two and four hours (IP Group, 1999; Carlsson and Harrie, 2002).
This gave rise to a novel situation in most countries, particularly those where
English was not the native or official language. Due to well-known historical
and cultural circumstances programmes originating in English-speaking
countries – in particular the USA – came to constitute a disproportionate share
of the output of European television (de Bens and de Smaele, 2001; Broddason
and Karlsson, 2004; Carlsson and Harrie, 2002): “US fiction succeeds in
breaking through all cultural barriers in Europe” (de Bens and de Smaele (2001:
51)). As is the case with newspapers and radio, imported products on television
have to be translated for the benefit of the target audience. The obvious
difference is, however, that the translation is only partial: we translate the
spoken words, whereas the visual images are left intact.
The two most common forms of screen translation are dubbing, where the
spoken text in the programme is removed and substituted with a new one in the
language of the receiving audience, and subtitling, where the soundtrack is left
intact, but a text with a translation of the dialogue in condensed form appears at
the bottom of the screen. “In short, dubbing is a process of acoustic replacement
while subtitling is a process of visual supplementation” (O’Connell, 1998: 66).
In both cases the original product has been substantially interfered with. In the
process of condensation the text is reduced by about 30% but there is indication
that in most cases condensation will not lead to loss of information (Koolstra et
al., 2002: 328; Kristmannsson, 1996: 241; Lomheim, 1999). This may be due to
“the fact that spoken language often contains unimportant verbal padding which
is only confusing if kept in the written subtitles” (Wikipedia). In the case of
dubbing the problem of condensation does not arise. There is a considerable
divergence of opinion as to the relative merits of these two language transfer
methods:
Hearing your own language spoken not only provides confirmation of its
importance and relevance in an increasingly homogenized world, it is arguably a
more potent way of reinforcing a sense of national identity or autonomy than
reading the subtitled text (Kilborn, 1993: 644).
In the case of dubbing, the final product is very much the result of a
collaborative effort involving a considerable number of people, including
writers, language specialists, technicians and actors. The process is usually a
highly complex, lengthy and consequently expensive one (O’Connell, 1998: 66).
It is not without reason that in Germany, the key persons, those who take the
raw translation (interlingual translation) of the film dialogue and turn it into the
final text of the dubbed product (intralingual translation), refer to themselves as
“Synchronautoren” (Kristmannsson, 1996: 237). We are bound to conclude that,
for better or worse, the dubbed film or programme is in a very real sense a new
creation. The usefulness of this aspect of dubbing was not lost on the political
leaders of Germany, Italy and Spain during the 1930s who found it to be an
expedient form of censorship that ensured that foreign views and ideas could be
stopped from reaching the local audience. With subtitling, censorship may also
occur, but it will not escape the notice of an attentive viewer (Wikipedia;
(Koolstra et al. 2002: 330).
Generally speaking, television viewers prefer the language transfer method they
are used to: dubbing is preferred by those who are used to dubbing and subtitling
is preferred by those who are used to subtitling. As Hasebrink and Herzog put it,
what is considered perfectly normal among the dubbing countries is regarded as
cultural barbarism by the subtitling league (Hasebrink and Herzog, 2004: 156).
To an Icelander, the idea of a popular English or American film star or
television character expressing himself or herself in Icelandic on screen would
be absurd (Kristmannsson, 1996: 231). Instead, subtitling is an essential part of
everyday communication in Scandinavia and, for some people, they may be the
main or the only contact with written texts (Lomheim 1999: 190; Hiirikoski,
1996: 90). Kilborn (1993: 647) has pointed out that “subtitling requires a degree
of literacy and visual acuity, both of which cannot necessarily be presupposed in
all members of the television audience”. This is a relevant observation, but at the
same time it should be kept in mind that the level of literacy is not a static
phenomenon. An improvement in children’s decoding skills has been
demonstrated among children who frequently watched subtitled television
programmes There can be no doubt that watching subtitles is beneficial to the
comprehension of foreign languages, both for children and adults. One-quarter
of Dutch primary school children are convinced they even learn more English
from radio and television than at school (Koolstra et al. 2002: 340-341).
Considering this it should not come as a: surprise that “younger viewers – in
subtitling as well as dubbing countries – seem to be developing a preference for
subtitling” (Koolstra et al., 2002: 350). This is also Eithen O’Connell’s
conclusion:
For much of the history of film and TV, subtitling was viewed as a poor second to
dubbing. But now all that seems to be changing. The increasing popularity of
subtitles is certainly helped by the relatively low costs involved but another very
significant factor is the growing interest many Europeans now have in their
neighbours, and their cultures and languages...In short, subtitling for all its
imperfections amounts to an inexpensive, quick, foreign-culture friendly and
generally fairly politically correct mode of screen translation (O’Connell, 1998:
67)
Broddason, Thorbjörn (2006) “Youth and the New Media in the New
Millennium”. The Nordicom Review (forthcoming).
Carlsson, Ulla and Eva Harrie (eds.)(2002) Media Trends 2001 in Denmark,
Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Göteborg: Nordicom, Göteborg
University.
De Bens, Els and Hedvig de Smaele (2001) “The Inflow of American Television
Fiction on European Broadcasting Channels Revisited.” European Journal of
Communication 16(1): 51-76 (reprinted in McQuail, Denis, Peter Golding and
Els de Bens (eds.)(2005) Communication. Theory and Research. London: Sage
Publications (pp.36-52)).
IP Group (1999) Television 99 European Key Facts 6th edition. Kronberg: CLT-
UFA.
Lomheim, Sylfest (1999) “The Writing on the Screen. Subritling: A Case Study
from Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK), Oslo in Gunilla Anderman and Margaret
Rogers (eds.) Word, Text, Translation. Liber Amiorum for Peter Newmark.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. (pp.190-207).
Shlain, Leonard (1998) The Alphabet versus the Goddess. New York: Viking
Penguin.