Pietro Luigi Iaia

The Dubbing
Translation
of Humorous
Audiovisual Texts
The Dubbing
Translation
of Humorous
Audiovisual Texts
By
Pietro Luigi Iaia

The Dubbing Translation of Humorous Audiovisual Texts
By Pietro Luigi Iaia
This book first published 2015
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright © 2015 by Pietro Luigi Iaia
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-8038-8

ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-8038-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures............................................................................................. ix
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Investigating Audiovisual Translation
1. Book Rationale and Objectives
2. The Chapters
Chapter One ................................................................................................. 9

Audiovisual Translation: History and Central Issues
1.1 The Introduction of Dubbing in Italy
1.2 The Language of Dubbing: Dubbese
1.3 Technical Issues of Dubbing
1.4 Game Localisation
1.4.1 Transcreation
1.5 Equivalence in Audiovisual Translation
1.5.1 Pragmalinguistic Equivalence in Audiovisual Translation
1.5.2 Implicature and Presupposition
1.6 Conclusions
Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 33

The Grounds of Audiovisual Representation
2.1 The Grammar of Audiovisual Texts
2.2 Multimodality: The Role of Images and Acoustic Scores
2.3 Conclusions
Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 49

The Production and Translation of Humorous Discourse
3.1 The Production of Humorous Discourse: Cognitive,
Socio-cultural and Linguistic Dimensions
3.2 The Translation of Humorous Discourse
3.3 Conclusions
vi Table of Contents
Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 61

The Interactive Model, Method and Corpus
4.1 The Interactive Model: Rationale and Objectives
4.2 The Interactive Model: Mediated-Cognitive Semantic
Representation
4.2.1 Levels of Analysis and the Translator’s Competences
4.3 Phases of the Model: “MuCrAS” and “MuReTS”
4.3.1 A Practical Application of the Interactive Model
4.4 Method and Corpus
4.4.1 Corpus
4.5 Conclusions
Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 79

Analysis of Films and TV Series
5.1 The Adoption of Diatopic/Diastratic Varieties in Films
and TV Series
5.1.1 The Neapolitan Diatopic/Diastratic Variety
5.1.2 The Sicilian Diatopic/Diastratic Variety
5.1.3 The Calabrese Diatopic/Diastratic Variety
5.1.4 The Barese Diatopic/Diastratic Variety
5.1.5 Other Diatopic/Diastratic Varieties
5.2 Pragmalinguistic Misrepresentations in Films and TV Series
5.3 Different Translation Strategies in Films and TV Series
5.4 Conclusions
Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 125

Analysis of Video-game Scripts
6.1 The Adoption of Diatopic/Diastratic Varieties in Video-game
Scripts
6.1.1 Final Fantasy IX
6.1.2 Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story and Super Paper
Mario
6.2 Pragmalinguistic Misrepresentations in Video-game Scripts
6.3 Different Translation Strategies in Video-game Scripts
6.4 Conclusions
The Dubbing Translation of Humorous Audiovisual Texts vii
Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 155

Alternative Translations and Audience Reception
7.1 Alternative Translation from Family Guy
7.2 Alternative Translations from Looking for Alibrandi
7.3 Alternative Translations from Conan
7.4 Alternative Translations from Lollipop Chainsaw
7.5 Alternative Translation from Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White
Witch
7.6 Alternative Translation from Final Fantasy IX and Questionnaire
on Audience Reception
7.6.1 Alternative Translation of Interaction (41)
7.6.2 Questionnaire on Audience Reception
7.7 Conclusions
Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 189

Conclusions
8.1 Audiovisual Translation as a Communicative and Interpretative
Process
8.2 The Interactive Model: Characteristics and Objectives
8.3 The Interactive Model: Pedagogic Applications
8.4 Research Objectives and Results
8.5 Research Prospects
Appendix A ............................................................................................. 197

Other Extracts
Appendix B.............................................................................................. 203

Questionnaire on Audience Reception
References ............................................................................................... 209

1. Bibliography
2. Websites
3. Audiovisual Texts
Notes........................................................................................................ 223
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1 Sheldon “Reacter” in “The Big Bran Hypothesis”, from The Big
Bang Theory......................................................................................... 40
2-2 Sheldon “Actor” and “Process” in “The Big Bran Hypothesis”,
from The Big Bang Theory .................................................................. 41
2-3 “Demand Image”, from Kandahar ...................................................... 42
2-4 “Offer Image”, from Kandahar ........................................................... 43
2-5 Penny “Theme” and Leonard “Rheme”, in “The Big Bran
Hypotheses”, from The Big Bang Theory ............................................ 44
4-1 Phases of the Interactive Model and a description of their objectives ... 68
4-2 Levels of the “MuCrAS” Phase........................................................... 69
4-3 Levels of the “MuReTS” Phase........................................................... 70
4-4 Schematic Representation of the Interactive Model ............................ 71
7-1 Levels of humorous effect in the original script ................................ 183
7-2 Levels of equivalence of the official translation ............................... 183
7-3 Levels of humorous effect in the official translation ......................... 184
7-4 Levels of equivalence of the alternative translation .......................... 185
7-5 Levels of humorous effect in the alternative translation ................... 185
INTRODUCTION
INVESTIGATING AUDIOVISUAL TRANSLATION
The label “audiovisual translation” (AVT) includes the various forms

of adaptation of “multimodal” texts (van Leeuwen 2005; Kress and van
Leeuwen 2006; Kress 2009), whose semantic dimensions are conveyed by
means of the combination between the linguistic, acoustic and visual
elements. Despite representing a recent research field, as exemplified by
the indeterminacy of terminology,1 AVT is gaining interest among
scholars, as shown by the increasing number of academic papers,
publications, and university courses on the topic. The current period
marked by the evolution of the media, the identification of new channels
for the transmission of audiovisual texts, and the creation of new text
types—like podcasts, videos created for the web, video games—
encourages further investigation, in order to identify new sub-fields to
explore, or to provide models with pedagogic applications.
One of the most common debates on the discipline concerns which
form of AVT suits the various genres best. From a general perspective,
dubbing and subtitles are distinguished according to their levels of
“orientation” (Perego 2005). The latter is considered “a better approach to
screen translation” (Tveit 2009: 95) than dubbing, which is seen as a form
of domestication (Venuti 1995) where the translators’ retextualisations aim
to render source texts more accessible to target receivers. Other
contributions aim at creating “a taxonomy of the many […] audiovisual
translation modes” (Orero 2009: 131), thus defining and investigating the
linguistic and technical features of, for example, voice over, where the
source and target acoustic scores coexist, or of subtitles for the deaf, which
produce a visual “substitute for the information that cannot be picked up
by people with hearing impairment” (Neves 2009: 153). Finally, research
on AVT is also enquiring into “transcreation”, the strategy at the basis of
freer translations, which conventionally affects the adaptations of
advertisements (Pedersen 2014) and sacred texts (Di Giovanni 2008), and
which is being adapted for the localisation of video games (Bernal Merino
2006; Mangiron 2010; Iaia 2014b). Besides these research trends, scholars
generally compare dubbing and subtitling, or they justify the choice of
2 Introduction
specific techniques according to the level of knowledge of foreign

languages (in particular, English as it becomes more and more
widespread), or to the socio-cultural orientation of the translations (cf.
Perego 2005; Tveit 2009). The predominant approach in dubbing
translation—thus reflecting its nature of “mass consumption translation”
(Plourde 2000), or of an “instrument of colonialism” (Paolinelli and Di
Fortunato 2005: 37)—consists in fact in domesticating and neutralising the
original references, producing texts that are heavily oriented towards the
target audience. Yet, when analysing target texts, little attention is
generally paid to the definition of equivalence in AVT: what features it
should respect; what cognitive model it should originate from, whether
from a text-based (or bottom-up) source-text centred approach,
corresponding to foreignisation, or from a cognitive (or top-down)
“functional” (Nord 1997) equivalence that gives more importance to the
target receivers’ linguistic and socio-cultural backgrounds, coinciding with
domestication. Finally, academic literature is usually interested in more
technical aspects, from listing mistranslations (cf. also Bogucki 2011), to
discussing the features of the language of dubbing, known as “dubbese”,
or “doppiaggese” in Italian (cf. Gatta 2000: 90), which is seen as an
“artificial” (Heiss and Leporati 2000) “television language” (Antonini and
Chiaro 2009: 111) with its own rules and lexis, modelled on the features of
a U.S. linguistic background, which leads to utterances that are unlikely to
occur in everyday conversations (Perego 2005: 26).
This book argues that due to the specific, audiovisual nature of the text
types under analysis, such conventional approaches to AVT studies should
be integrated with close examination of the function of the visual and
acoustic source-text elements in transmitting the intended denotative-
semantic and connotative-pragmatic dimensions. This is in line with the
definition of “text” as “the physical manifestation […] of the discourse
(the set of ideas that the addressor wants to communicate)” (Christiansen
2011: 34), by means of its written, oral, acoustic dimensions (cf. Brown
and Yule 1983; Widdowson 1984; Fairclough 1995; 2001), thus entailing
that the audiovisual dimension has to be interpreted together with what is
uttered, and that appropriate strategies for such interpretation should
inform audiovisual translators’ competences. In fact, for these reasons, the
product-based approaches to AVT studies should be accompanied by a
focus on the practical strategies and cognitive processes that are activated
(or that may be activated) to assist the reception of the visual design and
its “grammar” (Kress and van Leeuwen 2006). The multimodal nature of
those specific text types should be also conferred to the same process of
audiovisual translation, acknowledging that images and sound have to
Investigating Audiovisual Translation 3
become part of the corpus to be explored at the time of adapting the

original work. In this sense, this book will consider the lexical, syntactic,
functional and extralinguistic features of the selected source and target
scripts, focusing on the exploitation or misinterpretations of the original
audiovisual and textual characteristics that lead to ideological
interpretations grounded on the target linguacultural background, which
eventually disrespect or change the source-text-authors’ intent. At the
same time, a model will be devised for the analysis of the “official”
translations (i.e., those used in the translated product either screened,
broadcast or sold as game software) and the production of alternative
versions that will be compared to the former, so as to propose different
paths for the adaptation of humorous discourse, as well as to test a number
of objectives, detailed in the following section.
1. Book Rationale and Objectives

This book aims to present a new approach to the analysis and
production of audiovisual translations, providing a model for the analysis
and rendering of multimodal texts, and proposing a selection of
competences which translators should possess, in order to produce
equivalent target scripts after taking into account socio-cultural, cognitive
and linguistic factors. Furthermore, the Model and the alternative texts will
be also informed by a specific view of the empirical audience (i.e., the
audience who actually use the final product: watch the film/programme, or
play the game), who are becoming accustomed to watching AV products
on different media, and who are aware of the differences between the
source and translated versions. The proposed strategy for the creation of
target texts will differ from the dominant domestication approach, insofar
as it originates from an interactive, “dynamic” view of translation as a
cross-cultural, communicative process (Sager 1997) between the source
and target linguacultural backgrounds (cf. Nord 1997), also considering
audiovisual translators as cross-cultural mediators (cf. Guido 2012: 18-19)
that have to bridge the source and target cognitive and socio-linguistic
contexts in order to identify and adapt the denotative-semantic and
connotative-pragmatic dimensions.
In addition to the consideration of the theoretical notions connected to
audiovisual translation and to the construction and interpretation of
multimodal texts, the analysis of the selected corpus of scripts shall be
carried out from the cognitive-semantic, critical, pragmatic and
multimodal perspectives. In fact, it is stated that also the audiovisual
construction actualises the influence of the conventional cognitive
4 Introduction
organisations of experience (labelled as: “scripts”, “frames”, or “schemata”),

and that translators should be able to interpret the multimodal and
cognitive grounds, provided that they possess appropriate methodological
and practical models. This would also entail borrowing and adapting the
procedural aims of critical discourse analysis, identifying the ideological
nature of the audiovisual translation strategies, affected by the translators’
socio-cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
The construction of the “Interactive Model” in this book is therefore
meant to help achieve such complete interpretation, by means of a
multicultural approach accounting for both the need for the texts to be
enjoyable for the target audience, as well as the respect for the original
author’s intentions. This approach is defined “interactive” as it is rooted in
the interaction between two strategies of analysis and retextualisation of—
respectively—the source and target texts. All of the above to comprehend
the face value and hidden meanings of the former, which are then adapted
for the target audience. In other words, the approach advocates a possible
compromise between the respect for the authors’ intents and for audience
entertainment, in a dynamic process of mediation between source and
target cultures. In addition to films, TV series and TV shows, this book
will also explore the topic of game localisation, thus directly tackling one
of the new research trends in AVT (e.g., Mangiron 2007; Chandler and
Deming 2011), aiming to encourage further research, and to define the
theoretical and practical framework for the adaptation of the original
humorous discourse of video games to the target audience. In particular,
the selected audiovisual text-types will be divided into two groups:
(i) films, TV series and TV shows characterised by humour, where

the need to render the comic effect requires a mediation between
the cognitive, linguistic and socio-cultural dimensions typical of
the cultures respectively producing and receiving each text (cf.
Chiaro 1992; Ross 1998; Guido 2012);
(ii) video games whose humorous discourse is generally based on
innovative applications of the conventional cognitive (Attardo
2001), socio-cultural (Zillman 1983) and intertextual strategies
(Iaia 2014a).
As for text type (i), the academic literature has so far focused on the
correlation between the original and translated jokes (e.g., Chiaro 2006 on
films such as A Fish Called Wanda or My Big Fat Greek Wedding), or on
the analysis of the translations performed by local comedians (cf., e.g.,
Guido 2012: 86-92, who enquires into the Italian modifications to the
original version of the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail). This book
will focus on the translation of a multimodally constructed humour by

means of a linguistic and pragmatic analysis that unveils the translators’
ideological choices, resorting to conventional stereotypical and
linguacultural representations to prompt a specific response from target
receivers. In this sense, the Model for the analysis and translation of
audiovisual texts will be developed to support the cross-cultural approach
to humorous discourse (Guido 2012), according to which the analysis and
response to the comic message should be ruled by the integration between
the senders’ and recipients’ linguacultural backgrounds, considering that
the adaptation of humour is not straightforward even when cultures with
similar types of world knowledge are involved (Chiaro 1992).
With regards to text type (ii), the conventional areas of investigation
of “game localisation” (cf. Mangiron and O’Hagan 2006; Chandler and
Deming 2011) will be integrated with the linguistic and multimodal
analyses. Scholars generally combine elements of software translation and
screen translation, focusing on how translators are challenged by the
linguistic, cultural and technical constraints in modifying the game code,
or in considering the spatial limitations of the user interface or icons.2
Besides contributing to the contrastive analysis of source and target
scripts, the Model that will be developed shall be resorted to for the
production of different translation strategies for video games, as an
alternative to the conventional adoption of Italian diatopic and diastratic
language varieties in target versions.
Finally, the empirical audience reception of the official and alternative
translations will also be considered, in order to explore the differences
between the implied receiver’s expectations, to which translators seem to
refer when planning and producing target scripts. This approach will
eventually give more information about “end-users’ perception of AVT”
(Antonini and Chiaro 2009: 99-100), which is not generally discussed in
literature.
By means of a deductive-qualitative approach, the analysis of the
selected corpus of AV texts will have the following objectives:
(i) to enquire into specific strategies in the Italian translation for the
dubbing of humorous texts—i.e., the adoption of specific
diatopic/diastratic varieties and the production of
pragmalinguistic misrepresentations—focusing on its cognitive-
ideological, lexico-semantic, structural and pragmatic
dimensions;
(ii) to propose an alternative approach to the translation of the
analysed texts accounting for the multimodal construction of the
selected corpus;
6 Introduction
(iii) to discuss the results of a questionnaire on the empirical-

audience reception of a case study related to the translation of
video games.
The structure of this book is meant to present first the theoretical

background underlying the construction of the Interactive Model, starting
from general considerations on audiovisual translation, dubbing and game
localisation, and then focusing on how to interpret the multimodal
construction. Finally, after the introduction of the Model, the differences
in the linguistic, pragmatic and extralinguistic features of official and
alternative Italian translations of the selected corpus of humorous
audiovisual texts will be examined.
2. The Chapters
The first chapter will focus on dubbing and game localisation from the
historical, technical and linguistic perspectives, presenting audiovisual
translation as a linguistic, cross-cultural, communicative and interpretative
process, and discussing the theoretical and analytical issues related to the
production of equivalent target scripts. Chapter two will then introduce the
theoretical notions connected to the interpretation of how the interaction
between linguistic and extralinguistic features conveys specific semantic
dimensions that audiovisual translators should recognise and adapt for
target receivers. The third chapter will instead concentrate on the genre of
the selected corpus of texts, presenting the most relevant theories of
construction and translation of humorous discourse. The grounds of the
Model and the translators’ factual and procedural competences will
represent the main subjects of chapter four, together with the introduction
of the method of investigation and the examined audiovisual texts. This
structure is meant to provide analysts, students and translators with the
theoretical notions connected to the most important issues in AVT before
identifying the Italian translation strategies in humorous films, TV series,
TV shows (chapter five) and video games (chapter six). These chapters
will underline the cognitive-semantic, pragmatic and socio-cultural
dimensions of target versions, by focusing on the adoption of diatopic and
diastratic language varieties, on the production of pragmalinguistic
misrepresentations of the original characterisations, and also presenting
some examples of alternative translation strategies that produce more
equivalent scripts. Finally, the seventh chapter will be dedicated to the
introduction and comments of the novel scripts obtained through the
Model, and to the empirical audience’s reception of the translation
strategies for the video games Final Fantasy IX and Ni No Kuni: Wrath of
the White Witch, analysing the results of a questionnaire submitted to
groups of undergraduate students (specific to a selected interaction from
the former video game) and the comments that players have posted on
dedicated online forums.
When it comes to AVT, the unexplained and unsaid are as important to
both the authors and the translators as the explicit elements: what is
implicit reveals the author’s schemata, it is supported by the images and
sounds, and it is to be taken into account when planning translations; the
explicit translators’ choices reveal their perception of target cultures, but
also their knowledge of the cognitive source, linguistic and socio-cultural
backgrounds, with which they need to come to terms when translating.
CHAPTER ONE
AUDIOVISUAL TRANSLATION:
HISTORY AND CENTRAL ISSUES
This chapter focuses on audiovisual translation, and dubbing in

particular, enquiring into its historical development, identifying the
economic and socio-cultural reasons behind its creation and adoption in
Italy (1.1), along with the criticism towards its peculiar language, or
“dubbese” (1.2), which is considered an artificial way of reproducing the
oral communication, it being in fact characterised by peculiar lexical and
syntactic choices. The technical limitations that dubbing translators have
to face in the adaptation of source scripts are explored (1.3), as well as the
specific area of game localisation, concerning the adaptation of video-
game scripts (1.4). Finally, the notion of equivalence is discussed from a
perspective that is tailored to the text types under analysis (1.5), dealing
with the theoretical and analytical issues related to the production of the
target scripts.
1.1 The Introduction of Dubbing in Italy

The analysis of dubbing in the Italian context reveals that this practice
does not only have a linguistic aspect, and that it acquires the status of a
cultural construct that reflects the target socio-cultural background. For
example, the importance of commercial television and its contribution to
the increase in foreign audiovisual texts have led to a reiteration of certain
translation strategies such as the inclusion of Central and Southern Italian
diatopic and diastratic varieties, from Romanesco, to Napoletano, to
Siciliano—as the analytical chapters will exemplify—which may be
perceived as old-fashioned and perhaps in need of a revision, particularly
when they are adopted for the localisation of video games.
Dubbing in Italy was first introduced under Mussolini’s Fascist regime
(1922-1943), officially to preserve the Italian culture and language from
the influence of foreign audiovisual texts.3 It quickly became established
and has continued long after the re-introduction of democracy due to
10 Chapter One
economic and political (or ideological) factors. Originally, the addition of

sounds and voices at the beginning of the 20th century was achieved by
means of different experimental devices, parallel to the creation of the new
cinemas, built in France in the 1900 and in Italy after 1905-1906. At first,
the invention of the Fregoligraph—named after its inventor, Leopoldo
Fregoli—allowed the introduction of a particular form of performance, as
Fregoli himself used to sing and talk from behind the stage, while the
movie was projected (Paolinelli and Di Fortunato 2005: 4).4 The
Fregoligraph was followed by the Vitaphone, a device created by the
Warner Bros. studios, which led to the production of The Jazz Singer (Il
cantante di Jazz, 1927), the movie containing the first synchronised speech
in the history of cinema: “Wait a minute, you ain’t heard nothin’ yet”.
After The Jazz Singer, other films presented “all-talking features”, thus
causing producers to wonder how to export their works, in a context where
the linguistic and cultural barriers made their translation difficult, yet
necessary: Italy, for example, refused to admit foreign films, deciding not
to grant the visto censura (the rating system) if characters did not speak
Italian (Perego 2005: 21), and the Minister of Communication stated, on
October 22, 1930, that any movies containing foreign languages could not
be screened.
Before the introduction of dubbing, production companies decided to
re-shoot the original scenes for the international market, although this led
to low-quality, or sometimes paradoxical or even comic results,5 as in the
cases of Paramount on Parade (Paramount in festa, 1930), or Pardon Us
(Muraglie, 1931). In the former, new scenes were specifically added for
each foreign country, where “[l]ocal stars could have segments in their
native tongues interspersed” (Crafton 1999: 424); the latter, instead, led to
Stan Laurel’s and Oliver Hardy’s characteristic accent, since they had to
act the same scenes in Italian as well.
Dubbing was then invented by Jakob Carol, responsible for Paramount
German films, whereas the Italian dubbing industry was created during the
1930s, and the first dubbed movies were projected in 1932.6 Bassi
(http://www.sinet.it/baroncelli/doppiatori/compendio.htm) identifies four
stages in the Italian history, from the first films to the influence of
commercial television, in the Eighties, due to which the number of foreign
(mainly American) AV texts increased. Nowadays, a further stage could
be identified, because of the multiplication of digital channels that
determines the need for more target versions, the decrease in the amount
of time to perform and record translations, and the selection of other, less
conventional AVT modes in Italy, such as voice over, which are cheaper
and faster than dubbing.
Audiovisual Translation: History and Central Issues 11
1.2 The Language of Dubbing: Dubbese

As a form of translation, albeit audiovisual, dubbing is also affected by
debates on the type of equivalence between the source and target texts; on
the strategies to achieve such equivalence; on whether it constitutes a
“covert” translation, or an “overt” one. As to the latter debate, scholars do
not agree: for example, according to Fawcett (1996) both subtitling and
dubbing correspond to overt translations, since they mark the target texts
as “secondary forms” derived from the original versions, due to the fact
that source languages are not omitted in subtitled texts, whereas dubbing
presents synchronisation problems that may break the suspension of
disbelief allowing one to accept hearing target languages produced by
foreign actors. On the other hand, Gottlieb (1994: 102) states that
differently from subtitles, dubbing “offers a discrete, covert mode of
translation” replacing the original semiotic modes, such as the “dialog
track, and […] the accompanying music […] with a target-language
version”.
With regards to the issue of equivalence, the “colonising” nature of
dubbing (Paolinelli and Di Fortunato 2005: 37) and its peculiar
characteristics bring forth linguistic, technical, socio-cultural and cognitive
issues. As for the linguistic ones, dubbing is supposed to create and spread
a peculiar, artificial language, defined “dubbese” (or, in Italian,
doppiaggese). The term denotes an easily-recognisable form of language,
whose peculiar features have caused the audience to perceive it as an
“estranged” means of communication that does not correspond to that used
in everyday, face-to-face conversations, but which is nonetheless accepted
and recognised as typical of audiovisual texts (Antonini and Chiaro 2009),
in a sort of linguistic and cultural compromise. So, even though the high
level of professionalism may create the impression that “foreign actors are
actually speaking Italian” (Denton 2007: 25), the language of dubbing
gives only the impression of authenticity and spontaneity (Heiss and
Leporati 2000), trying to sound like the common forms of oral language
(Gatta 2000),7 though actually based on a written form of translation.8
Besides the general considerations on dubbese, Herbst (1996: 99)
identifies three characteristics of this peculiar language: the presence of
Anglicisms; the tendency of dubbed texts to opt for a formal style “which
often reminds one of the written rather than of the spoken language” (100);
a cohesion in the target-language versions which seems to be lower than
the original.9
This book extends the investigation of the language of dubbing, by
identifying a link between the genre of source texts and translation
12 Chapter One
strategies. In particular, it is supposed that Italian translators resort to

Southern-Central diatopic/diastratic varieties when the source scripts aim
at creating a comic effect, whereas in the translation of other text types,
such as the “migration movies” (Iaia and Sperti 2013; Iaia 2015) they
resort to the Standard variety of Italian, thus respecting the feature of
artificiality and the written style typical of dubbese. Those rules also seem
to apply to the translation of films from more important production
companies, starring famous actors or involving important directors.
Consider, for example, the movies Gran Torino (2008) and Looking for
Alibrandi (Terza Generazione, 2000): though the former is based on the
cultural clash between the conservative main character and his Korean
neighbours, in the Italian version all the characters use the Standard
variety. On the other hand, the target version of the latter (a comedy, in
opposition to the dramatic tones of Gran Torino) contains parts spoken in
the Sicilian dialect, which correspond to the original scenes where the
characters resort to Italian (cf. also Section 7.2). In fact, the use of
diatopic/diastratic varieties in humorous movies may not constitute the
giving of “greater realism” to AV texts, which Denton (2007: 28)
recognises as typical of dubbing, and yet it may be a precise cognitive and
socio-cultural choice conveying specific stereotypical representations of
the participants, who (are meant to) evoke specific culture-bound
schemata.
Actually, dubbing translators not only they have to face linguistic
issues, they also have to take into account the extralinguistic elements on
screen and the way that the original actors move their lips.
1.3 Technical Issues of Dubbing

The main technical issues audiovisual translators have to face include
the impossibility of adding further captions or descriptions of passages that
may not be understood by the audience of different cultural backgrounds,
along with trying to synchronise the dubbed text with the original lip-
movements of the actors delivering the source text. As for the former,
differently from written translation or from the subtitling process,10
translators have little space to add explanations that may be important to
let the audience enjoy target versions: they cannot add footnotes or
explanations, and their integrations are generally limited to small captions
that replace or translate the original names. In The Simpsons (I Simpson,
1989-present), for example, the original name of Apu’s market, the
“Kwik-E-Mart”, is substituted in the Italian version by the label “Jet
Market”. The Italian choice does indeed obscure the original name, but
produces a target text which adapts the original pun, in fact the idea of
going to the market for a “speedy” shop—conveyed by the original
“Kwik” (‘quick’)—is rendered with the reference to a “Jet”, a fast type of
aeroplane.
As for their multimodal nature, consisting in the integration between
several semiotic modes (Kress 2009), audiovisual texts are considered by
Delabastita (1989: 199) as semiotic macro-signs consisting of:
(i) visual presentation—verbal signs;

(ii) visual presentation—non verbal signs;
(iii) acoustic presentation—verbal signs;
(iv) acoustic presentation—non verbal signs.
Therefore, the acoustic presentation needs to match with the visual

one,11 this relationship being also expressed by Herbst’s (1996: 102)
“severe constraints”, which are to be respected by translators to achieve a
target text that could be considered linguistically, culturally and
pragmatically equivalent. Herbst’s theory is focused on three sub-groups
of synchronisation:
(i) quantitative lip synch;

(ii) qualitative lip synch;
(iii) nucleus synch.
Though separated, synchs (i)-(iii) are “interactive”, namely they should

be considered as a whole construction: the translated text should contain
more or less the same words as the original script (lip synch (i)), and the
lines have to give the impression of being uttered in the target language,
trying to use expressions that are produced by means of similar lip
movements in both the original and translated versions (lip synch (ii)). At
the same time, utterances should not be perceived as “estranged”, if related
to the visual context that completes the audiovisual text (lip synch (iii)).
Actually, the conventional Italian translation for the dubbing of American
sitcoms, film and TV cartoons (cf. Iaia 2011a; 2011b) may lead to the
disrespect of constraint (iii), when the presence of culture-bound visual
elements clashes with the changes in settings decided by the adapter.
Consider, for example, the Jewish marriage ceremony from The Nanny (La
tata, 1993-1999) still celebrated in the Italian version by “un prete e un
assessore” (‘a priest and a councillor’), or the reference to the
candelabrum of the festival of Hanukkah in a scene that in the Italian
version is set during Christmas time, both examples delivering
pragmatically-inappropriate target versions (cf. Section 1.5 below), where
14 Chapter One
the extralinguistic elements do not match the linguistic ones, or the target
linguacultural context (see Denton 2007: 32-33, but on the cultural
adaptation of the sitcom The Nanny also cf. Guido (2012), who carries out
a detailed analysis of the Italian translation of a corpus of episodes).
The above technical issues have to cope with the need to create target
scripts that would be perceived by the audience as actually produced for
the target culture. Yet, this objective is generally pursued by obtaining
local versions modelled on the target culture and receivers only, which
may therefore not be defined equivalent to the source texts from a
pragmalinguistic perspective, but only from the lexical or semantic ones—
unless a neutralisation strategy is chosen. For these reasons, it is claimed
that a more detailed analysis of the source texts focused on the
interpretation of the interaction between their linguistic and extralinguistic
features may help translators attain an appropriate interpretation of the
original semantic dimensions. Before dealing with equivalence in
audiovisual translation, though, it is now time to introduce the topic of
game localisation, thus completing the presentation of the main issues
connected to the translation of the different text types under analysis.
1.4 Game Localisation

The translation of video games is considered as an emerging branch of
audiovisual translation, offering new challenges for translators (Mangiron
2007: 317) and new opportunities for scholars to enquire into innovative
text-types. Game localisation, or the label defining the adaptation of a
game for different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, could be defined as
a mix between the conventional strategies of audiovisual translation, such
as dubbing and subtitles, and the different branch of software localisation,
consisting in dealing with the original code, adapting for example the
original user interface to suit the differences between the Western
alphabets and Asian languages (Chandler and Deming 2011). O’Hagan
(2005) includes game localisation in the so-called GILT practices, which
aim at rendering a product suitable for an international market. The label
GILT introduces those activities that are carried out in order to make the
product “global ready” (O’Hagan 2005: 76) and stands for “Globalisation,
Internationalisation, Localisation and Translation”. Yet, when it comes to
video games, the translation strategies may depend more on the producers’
expected profits, whereas the study of game localisation requires a
linguistic analysis of the construction of the target versions.12 However,
the analysis of the selected corpus of video-games scripts shall reveal the
prevalence of top-down retextualisations of the source texts, which seem
to be based on the cognitive construct of the implied audience. This

construct influences the linguistic features of target versions—such as the
lexis the characters use—and also leads to modifications to the original
texts, because of the presence of topics which may be considered taboos or
unsuitable for a specific kind of audience, e.g. young people.
As for the method of investigation, the integration between
extralinguistic and linguistic insights may allow the development of a
coherent terminology, which may be employed usefully within the field of
translation studies. For example, the label “Internationalisation” (in GILT)
refers to the process of localising a product with “a minimum amount of
work on the developer’s part”, reproducing a game that would give the
impression to foreign users that it has been made “specifically for them”
(Chandler and Deming 2011: 4). Yet, it is possible to provide a better
definition of such a goal by referring to the cognitive and socio-cultural
influences that the authors’ and the translators’ backgrounds constitute in
the production and adaptation of the texts. The linguistic approach would
hence explain the linguistic differences as resulting from the prevalence of
top-down cognitive mechanisms, which may (or may not) produce an
equivalent response from a pragmalinguistic perspective. In this sense, the
conventional approach that tries to account for the modifications of the
target versions only in terms of economic or generic cultural factors is
enriched, and such changes are described by means of an integration
between the cultural, the social and the cognitive dimensions, reflecting
the fragmentation of the semantic dimensions affecting all text types,
including video-game scripts.
Furthermore, a linguistic-based approach may also help to develop
alternative adaptation strategies, which are grounded on different notions
of implied receivers, on different views of translation, as well as on
different objectives of game localisation, whose main approach is today
represented by transcreation, a creative form of translation.
1.4.1 Transcreation
Transcreation is not an exclusive strategy adopted for the localisation
of video games, since it is widely used in the translation of sacred texts (Di
Giovanni 2008) and advertisements (Pedersen 2014), eventually acquiring
the status of a concept per se, which identifies something “more than
translation” (Pedersen 2014: 62). Due to the novel dimension of
transcreation, though, a universally accepted definition for it has not been
developed yet, the processes involved are described from a “merely
practical” perspective (59).
16 Chapter One
Transcreative scripts are commonly acknowledged as more creative

(Mangiron and O’Hagan 2006) and as tilting “the balance towards the
target audience” (Bernal Merino 2006: 34), in order to facilitate the
players’ immersion and experience (32). Such a notion of “experience”
does not have cognitive connotations, for it is not connected to the
influence of the translators’ background knowledge, but entails the degree
to which audiences are entertained. Apart from this generic definition,
however, it is thought that an equivalent “experience” should correspond
to the search for a pragmalinguistic type of equivalence resulting in the
creation of a similar response from the target receivers, based on the
correct adaptation of the linguistic and extralinguistic features in the
source versions. Similar types of gamers’ immersion are indeed possible if
translators and their receivers share the same socio-cultural backgrounds,
thus prompting similar responses to defined stimuli such as peculiar
characterisations, counterfactual visual representations, or the use of
specific diatopic/diastratic varieties.
Transcreation is here defined as a translation strategy focused on the
influence of the translators’ top-down cognitive processes (cf. Iaia 2014b:
517), but as this book shall show, such conventional top-down
retextualisations do not always produce a pragmalinguistic equivalent
effect, generally determining a partial semantic type of equivalence, which
unveils the cognitive construct of the implied audience, on which the
Italian versions are modelled. Furthermore, the target scripts lack the
lexical type of equivalence to the source versions, which in the text types
under analysis contribute to the expected receivers’ suspension of disbelief
(cf. Guido 1999a: 64-66), as they have to accept, for instance, animals that
speak, often using onomatopoeic language, or the existence of
counterfactual creatures. The Italian diatopic/diastratic varieties adopted in
the official translations evoke instead specific socio-cultural
characterisations that are not relevant to the fantasy settings of the analysed
corpus. What is more, the experienced audience of video games is indeed
not always satisfied with the translator’s choices, which are defined as
“old” and “predictable”, or as transforming video games “into a commedia
all’italiana” (cf. Sections 5.1.4 and 7.6.2 below). In particular, as for the
analysed corpus of video games, the transcreative renderings are
characterised by the Italian diatopic/diastratic variety of Romanesco,
typical of the city of Rome, which replaces the original “bully” or
“clumsy” characters with “loutish” and “less educated” counterparts.
Example (1) below represents a case in point. This is an extract from
Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story, a role-playing video game whose
protagonist, Mario, has to save Peach from Bowser. In (1), the latter talks
to a group of his servants, the Monty Bros. The interaction is here only
introduced, as it will be analysed in Section 6.1.2 below:
(1) English script Italian script Backtranslation

Bowser: “Secret tunnel? “Un tunnel “Secret tunnel?
First time I heard segreto? Di che What on heart
of it!” accidenti parli?” are you talking
about?”
5 Mole 5: “Remember, “Sua Turpitudine “Your
Bro—I mean, voleva ’sto Basenessty
Bowser! You tunnel ppe’ wanted this
wanted an scappa’ in fretta tunnel as an easy
escape tunnel for quanno rapiva ’a escape after
10 kidnapping principessa…” kidnapping the
Princess Peach?” princess…”
Extract (1) above exemplifies the partial semantic type of equivalence:

both versions deal with Bowser’s plan to kidnap Princess Peach, but the
English and the Italian protagonists are differently characterised. The
original clash between high-status and low-status participants is indeed
replaced by a generic characterisation of clumsy characters, linguistically
realised by means of the Italian diatopic variety of Romanesco and the
strategies of lexical creativity (l. 5), which may match the expectation of
the implied audience of children and teenagers,13 but do not fit in with the
fictional worlds of the analysed case studies.14
1.5 Equivalence in Audiovisual Translation

Equivalence in translation may be intended as the reproduction in the
target texts of the original meaning, and is thus mainly described in
semantic terms. Actually, this notion of “meaning” should not be limited
to the semantic dimension; it needs to include other features, such as the
socio-cultural and pragmatic levels of communication. To neglect the
exclusively semantic nature of meaning means that what a text
communicates relates not only to what is written, or manifested
linguistically, but also to what the receivers may infer from their
relationship with the text. Such a relationship is affected by the activation
of the mental schemata based on their socio-cultural background, their
knowledge of the world, and by their individual experiences as well. Over
the years, though, meaning has generally been considered intrinsic to the
organisation of text, thus disregarding the individual contribution, but
18 Chapter One
conveying a sort of “super-interpretation”, “passed off as the objective text

itself” (Guido 1999b: 79; on the Structuralist approach cf., for example,
Culler 1975; Riffaterre 1978; Lotman 1982). At the same time, even when
the presence of the reader has been taken into account, scholars have
produced a sort of artificial, cognitive construct of “text receivers”, which
does not result in an exemplification of the existence of several possible
interpretations, but represents a way to control “the real reader’s response”
(Guido 1999b: 80), as evoked by Fish’s (1970) “informal reader”. It is
furthermore possible to identify a link between the “implied reader”
construct and the field of translation, since translators’ choices sometimes
implicitly reveal that their interpretations of STs are also based on the
similar, cognitive construct of “implied audience”, on which the textual,
semantic and pragmatic features are modelled, and which will be
identified while analysing the selected corpus of humorous scripts.15
Guido (1999b: 76; emphasis added) poses three questions related to the
notion of meaning, exemplifying those dimensions that interact to allow
appropriate interpretations of the source versions:
(i) what does the author mean by the text?

(ii) what does the text mean?
(iii) what does the text mean to the reader?
The questions above identify the fragmentation of meaning reflected

by its three different sources—the author; the text; the receivers. The
reception of texts is hence connected to the readers’ interpretation and
reception of the “partial” meanings composing the overall sense, as also
exemplified by Abrams’s (1958) diagram of the work of art, which defines
the relationship between the reader and the text, and the contribution of the
reader’s socio-cultural background to the possible interpretations. The
fragmentation of sources from which to identify what a text communicates
is also reflected by Austin’s (1962) identification of the three levels of
communication—the locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary
effects—respectively referring to what the text means, what the author
means by the text, what the text means to the receivers.
Therefore, since the complete message of a text is the result of the
integration between the author’s intentionality, the text’s formal features
and the readers’ response to it, receivers themselves have to be re-
considered and therefore re-defined as “active” subjects (cf. Guido 1999b),
in order to state that the semantic analysis of a text may coincide not only
with the interpretation of its lexical and syntactic features, but also with
the authors and receivers’ actualisations of their past experiences, through
the activation of mental schemata, to respectively construct and make
sense of what is communicated. When reading a text, in fact, even in their

own native tongues, readers actively communicate with it by means of two
main types of cognitive mechanisms, “bottom-up” (cf., e.g., Richards
1929) and “top-down” (cf., e.g., Bartlett 1932), (unconsciously) answering
the questions above. Similarly to what happens with reading, even at the
time of translating the three sources of meaning have to be taken into
consideration, in order to identify the ST features that have to be
equivalently rendered into the target versions. The “translation-reading”
relationship actually reflects one of the aspects of the process of
adaptation, particularly the translators’ role, their being both readers of the
source texts and authors of the target ones—indeed, it is not by chance that
Guido (1999b: 94) defines translation as a “mode of reading to produce a
discourse interpretation”.
The fragmentation of meaning therefore affects the three types of
equivalence that TTs may reach according to the original features on
which translators focus (cf. Guido 1999a: 58-59):
(i) semantic equivalence (the original and translated texts are

equivalent at the level of the surface meaning);
(ii) structural equivalence (the concepts have the same textual
organisation in the original and translated texts);
(iii) pragmatic equivalence (the original and translated texts have the
same effects on the audience).
The semantic dimension, hence, should be integrated with the lexical

and pragmatic ones (cf. also Kussmaul 1995), but a shared decision on the
type of equivalence to achieve with translation is yet to be found. It is
argued that just as a mere reproduction of the original features of source
versions would actually make the translator “visible”, in the perception of
estranged texts, also excessively fluent, target-audience-oriented
retextualisations would make translators “visible”, due to the prevalence of
their schemata in the activation of reformulation strategies to achieve
equivalent effects. For this reason, an appropriate approach would be that
of analysing the text-based evidence in order to identify the intended
effects on receivers as well as to acquire a complete picture of the
denotative-semantic and connotative-pragmatic dimensions of source
versions, eventually mediating between the respect for the original features
and the target linguacultural conventions, between the linguistic and
pragmatic types of equivalence.
The approach described above requires the integration between the
bottom-up and top-down mechanisms, so translators have to be acquainted
with both source and target languages and cultures, but also with the limits
20 Chapter One
of their additions and changes to the original characteristics, so as to avoid

non-equivalent target texts. For example, when the source ones are
characterised by misspellings or defects, it is claimed that the need for the
translators’ adjustments depends on the illocutionary force of the defects,
which sometimes may contribute to the conveyance of the semantic and
communicative dimensions. Consider in this sense the following text
(http://theweek.com/article/index/227257/7-suspected-criminals-who-got-
themselves-caught-via-facebook), used as an exercise for undergraduate
students in English-Italian Translation courses at the University of Salento
(the defect is highlighted in bold):
7 Suspected Criminals Who Got Themselves Caught via Facebook

[…] Michael Baker, 20, got a visit from the Jenkins police on April 16,
after a photo he posted on Facebook. In the picture, Baker is siphoning gas
from a Jenkins Police Department cruiser while smiling. After getting
booked for misdemeanor theft Baker updated his 380 Facebook friends:
"Lol i went too jail over Facebook."
In the example above, the quotation “i went too jail” is not a simple
source-text defect, but conveys the author’s evaluation of the criminals he
is talking about. It therefore acquires a humorous, disparaging value
(Zillman 1983), which translators are called to identify and reproduce in
an equivalent way. In fact, whereas “i” may reproduce the conventional
way of writing on social networks, “too” represents a mistake made by the
criminal, whose exact reproduction serves to characterise the man,
contributing to the overall sarcastic tone. Furthermore, it is worth noting
that the above interpretation was not shared by all the students when asked
to produce their translations of the article. In fact, the group that
considered the defect above as a simple mistake corrected the line in their
translated versions, thus failing to adapt the original humorous
construction. This misinterpretation unveils the importance of the
receiver’s relationship with the text, since the resulting retextualisation is
based on a different, partial identification of the original meanings and
hence it triggers different effects in the receivers.
1.5.1 Pragmalinguistic Equivalence in Audiovisual Translation

Besides the general enquiry into the notion of equivalence in
translation, it is now time to focus on how to aim at the main objective of
the process of linguistic adaptation, which according to Guido (1999b: 64)
consists in both reproducing the original linguistic features, as well as
finding the proper ways to let target versions have the same function
(namely, the same pragmatic value) of original texts.16 In order to achieve

such pragmatic equivalence, Guido (1999b: 63-65) re-defines translation,
and she argues that rather than being a textual product, it is instead
essentially a process based on the translators’ interpretation. This
theoretical basis is here applied to the translation for dubbing, since
despite the fact that the channel of the analysed text types is not only
written but also audiovisual, the stages of the translation process are
assumed to be the same—and anyway, also the translations for dubbing
are generally based on written texts that come into being through analysis
of source versions.
A text works pragmatically in the same way for the source and target
receivers when the transformation of the linguistic features is accompanied
by the adaptation of the contextual elements. The model introduced by
Guido extends Tytler’s (1978) three laws for a good translation, according
to which a target version has generally to convey: (i) the original ideas; (ii)
the original style; (iii) the original fluency. Translators are seen as having
a central role as linguistic and cultural experts, who possess two specific
types of competence, defined as “procedural” and “factual” (see also
Section 4.2.1 below), which allow them to achieve complete
comprehension of source scripts, in which their retextualisations are
eventually grounded, acknowledging that they have to overcome the
surface, linguistic level of texts. The analysis of the deeper structure is also
related to a specific view of meaning: Guido (1999b: 66) develops Bell’s
(1991) theory identifying a “semantic sense” and a “communicative
value”, stating that words mean something more than their general, surface
value. She describes three levels indicating what words may convey,
corresponding to Tytler’s three laws, but also to Halliday’s (1970: 142-
143) functions defining the potential of a language as a means of human
communication. The semantic dimensions of words thus correspond to (i)
a semantic sense, the denotative, surface level; (ii) a systemic-functional
sense, connected to the formal level of textualisation of the language; and
(iii) a pragmatic significance, which is the one linked to the actual contexts
of communication.
The investigation of equivalence and of the semantic dimensions in
audiovisual translation is important because even though one may imagine
that producing an AV translation that is distant from the original versions
is almost impossible mainly because of the binding presence of the
images, it is actually true that the different cognitive schemata and socio-
cultural perspectives of the authors and the receivers cause translators to
choose one of the following three paths:
22 Chapter One
(i) translators identify the original values and preserve their

“estranged” features for the target audience;
(ii) translators identify the original values but change the “estranged”
features for the target audience, twisting the original intents;
(iii) translators identify, understand and interpret the original
semantic dimensions, finding constructs with equivalent values
for the target audience.
Whereas solutions (i) and (ii) above are respectively the conventional
realisations of foreignisation and domestication—or more literal and free
translations—solution (iii) corresponds to the “interactive” approach
proposed in this book and developed in Chapter 4 below. It is “interactive”
since it lets both source and target cultures interact in the search for
equivalent lexical and semantic features that have the same pragmatic
value for source and target receivers. Solution (iii) is also supposed to
favour the view of translation as a process of intercultural communication,
discouraging the attitudes of “servant” and “master” in matters related to
culture and an anachronistic dismissal of local “peripheral” realities away
from the “centre”. To sum up, the interactive approach to dubbing
translation is here defined as the production of target versions based on the
identification and interpretation of the original semantic dimensions
conveyed by the relations between semiotic modes of representation. The
original dimensions are adapted for the target audience by preserving the
same references or by replacing the original ones with equivalent textual
and semantic structures that prompt, as much as possible, the same
pragmatic functions according to the target linguacultural backgrounds,
without twisting the original intents and without compromising the
original locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions (Austin
1962).
The resources for the production of audiovisual texts are defined as
social semiotic, due to their features. They are social for they
communicative peculiar ways of conceiving reality, of conceptualising the
world, typical of a social group. Kramsch (1998), indeed, talks of
“discourse communities”, where the ideational function is shared, while
Fish (1980) identifies “interpretive communities”, whose members are
called to interpret the right meaning, corresponding to an accepted and
shared interpretation of the world. The resources are nonetheless also
semiotic, since they are linked to the notion of “sign”, which is actually
not intended as arbitrary, as in Saussure’s (1960) view, but “motivated”, or
decided by the author (the “sign-maker”), who selects the peculiar
meaning entailed by the sign, according to his/her socio-cultural schemata
(cf. Kress 1993).
In short, semiotic resources are those actions, texts, and images, used
for purposes of communication, with the intent of making meanings (van
Leeuwen 2005). Meanings are culture-specific, based on social conventions,
and have to be shared in order for receivers to catch the correct
interpretation of each text, since “[e]ven in the most abstract and
theoretical aspects of human thought and verbal usage”, the understanding
of words “derives from active experience of those aspects of reality to
which the words belong” (van Leeuwen 2005: 103). Furthermore, each
resource has a semiotic potential, which includes the possible meanings to
be conferred, divided into a theoretical and an actual potential: the former
corresponds to past and potential uses; the latter corresponds to the
“current” uses, recognised and considered relevant by the receivers and the
sign-makers in particular.
One of the focuses of the socio-semiotic approach is the attention to
the source-text producers (and, as for the purpose of this book, to the
producers of target versions as well), and to the reasons behind their
choice of the specific semiotic resource out of the “semiotic landscape”
(Kress and van Leeuwen 2006). Therefore, each element of the analytical
chapters below acquires importance at the time of recognising the socio-
cultural, ideological reasons behind the connotation of what is represented.
In fact, when constructing audiovisual texts, authors select the semiotic
potential, which is reflected in the position of the represented participants
on the horizontal and on the vertical dimensions, but also on the language
that the characters will speak and on other, extralinguistic elements such as
the lights, the shots, or the acoustic score. During this phase, AV texts
receive those socio-cultural connotations whose identification and
comprehension is linked to the act of belonging to the same community, or
to sharing similar ways of interpreting and conceiving experiences. Yet,
the selection of a shared meaning is—in Fairclough’s (2001) terms—an
“ideological” process, for it is peculiar to those who gain power,
coinciding with what Widdowson (1992) defines as the act of
“authorization”, i.e., to give a shape to reality.
The shared meaning, decided and preserved by the important members
of society, therefore transmits the dominant “ideology”, a notion that is not
easy to define and which nonetheless cannot be labelled only as a social
phenomenon. In stating its indeterminacy, Eagleton (1991: 193) unveils
the link between the semiotic dimension and the production of meaning by
means of signs, defining “ideology” as “a convenient way of categorizing
under a single heading a whole lot of different things we do with signs”.
Fairclough (2001: 2) states that ideology is “implicit in the conventions
according to which people interact linguistically, and of which people are
24 Chapter One
generally not consciously aware”, and helps “to reproduce a dominant

social power” (221). Only those who gain power have the possibility of
creating new semiotic potentials, which are eventually naturalised. It is the
analyst’s task, then, to make visible (Fairclough 1995: 97):
[…] through analysis [… the] connections between properties of texts and

social processes and relations (ideologies, power relations) which are
generally not obvious to people who produce and interpret those texts, and
whose effectiveness depends upon this opacity.
The definition of the task identifies the elements of focus of Critical

Discourse Analysis (CDA), an approach which widens the scope of
Discourse Analysis (Brown and Yule 1983), questioning the social role of
participants and how the production and reception of both written and oral
texts are governed. CDA has nonetheless been criticised because the same
work of analysis is conditioned by the analyst’s ideology, which affects
the interpretation of the texts. According to van Dijk (2001: 96), “CDA is
biased—and proud of it”. Yet, though recognising and sharing the
assumption that different interpretations may come from different kinds of
audiences, due to their socio-cultural backgrounds, it must be stressed that
the notions at the basis of the development of CDA, such as the inclusion
of selected connotative meanings, or the will to impose particular
schemata and notions, at least at the illocutionary level, are useful for
enquiring into the modifications performed at the time of translating the
original scripts. Due to the various dimensions that influence the analysis
of source scripts, it is claimed that translators should opt for the
identification of how the linguistic and extralinguistic features interact in
the conveyance of the original meanings. Whereas the audiovisual
characteristics will be enquired into in the following chapter, it is now
time to introduce some notions from pragmatics, which are considered
vital for the construction of the knowledge that translators should possess
at the time of approaching source versions.
From a general perspective, the development of a theory of pragmatics
has faced the issue of distinguishing its areas of investigation from those
of semantics, which are separated by a thin boundary. Morris (1938) in
fact includes pragmatics in the areas of interest of semiotics, i.e., syntax,
focusing on the relation between signs; semantics, on the relation between
signs and “the objects to which the signs are applicable” (Levinson 1983:
6); and pragmatics, on “the relation of signs to interpreters” (1), but his
approach is then developed by other scholars, who adopt linguistic—and
also philosophical—approaches, and who define the scope of the
discipline as “the study of language usage” (Levinson 1983: 5).
Pragmatic analysis should therefore be associated with the actual

interactions, it is rooted in everyday conversations, in the habits
determining the production and reception of languages from a functional
perspective, for it aims “to explain facets of linguistic structure by
reference to non-linguistic pressures and causes” (Levinson 1983: 7), in
order to identify the implicit, rather than explicit, meanings that are
communicated. And it is the focus on the actual dimension that helps to
distinguish pragmatics from semantics, the former dealing with the
“context-dependent aspects of language and [… the] principles of language
usage” (Levinson 1983: 9) and not concerned with the description of
linguistic structures. The definition of the scope of the discipline thus
seems to recall the distinction between the abstract, ideal dimension of
communication, and the actual one, already entailed by Saussure’s (1960)
“langue” and “parole”, or by Chomsky’s (1965) “competence” and
“performance”.
Furthermore, pragmatic meaning should not be confused with the
semantic, since the latter does not include the extralinguistic contextual
elements. In Grice’s (1957) terms, the distinction is between the natural
and the non-natural meanings, or “meaning” and “meaning-nn”,
respectively identifying the abstract, objective sense and the intentional,
inferred—yet communicated—one, characterised by the influence of the
context which is wielded by the socio-cultural dimensions of speakers and
receivers, by their background knowledge of the world, which represents
the “active organization of past events [… and] experiences” (Bartlett
1932: 201).
The relation between the message and participants is one of the bases
of pragmatic analysis, here applied to AV texts whose interactions, though
scripted, indeed actualise socio-cultural features and entail different
degrees of cooperation between senders and receivers (Grice 1975),
allowing the comprehension of the explicit and (above all) the implicit
meanings, in particular in cross-cultural interactions (see also Iaia and
Sperti 2013), but also leading to the appropriate interpretation and
adaptation of humorous discourse. In fact, by focusing on the implicit
dimension of what is communicated, translators may analyse source
scripts from a linguistic perspective, integrating such analysis with the
examination of the extralinguistic features, in order to explore and
interpret the original audiovisual and linguistic actualisations of the
semantic dimensions according to a multidisciplinary approach.
As for the production and reception of AV texts, in fact,
mistranslations or misunderstandings of the original scripts may lead to
inappropriate adaptations of the original messages, frequently enhanced by
26 Chapter One
the visual elements, eventually undermining the value and credibility of

the target version. For example, in the episode “The Muslim Card” (“Il
corso di spagnolo”) of the sitcom Aliens in America (2007-2008), some of
the main characters follow Italian classes. The Italian translators actually
modify the original script so that the characters follow a Spanish course,
instead, but due to the visual components of the foreign-language-class
scenes—characterised by the presence of Italian flags and symbols—the
target version is “pragmatically inappropriate” (cf. Yule 1996: 4-6), meaning
that it displays something not necessarily incorrect, but unexpected, if
related to the context of production and reception. In particular, the basic
notion is “correct”—namely, “the characters are following a foreign
language course”—but its multimodal realisation for target receivers is
inconsistent, since one would not expect to receive Spanish classes in a
room adorned with Italian symbols.17
For these reasons, it is here claimed that it is important to identify and
take into account the original socio-cultural features and implicit meanings
before translating audiovisual texts, to avoid choices or modifications that
would not produce an incorrect translation, but rather inconsistent ones,
according to the context of each text. Two pragmatic notions are now to be
briefly introduced, “implicature” and “presupposition”, as it is argued that
they can help translators to accurately analyse the source texts.
1.5.2 Implicature and Presupposition

The mental process allowing receivers to go beyond the surface
structure and meanings of utterances corresponds to the notion of
“inference”, which is at the basis of both implicature and presupposition.
The process of inferencing is defined as “the mental operation by which
the reader supplies concepts and relations to bridge gaps or discontinuities
in a Textual World” (Guido 2004: 301), hence it is important that the
speaker and the listener share the same socio-cultural background. Yule
(1996: 17-18), in fact, suggests that the listener “infers” what the speaker
“refers” to, in a dualism between reference and inference. For these
reasons, this is a process enquired into by pragmatics, since a linguistic
analysis focusing on lexis and syntax and on the semantic perspective is
not enough to decode the real meaning of utterances, but the co-text, “the
linguistic part of the environment” needs to be recognised as well as the
context, “the physical environment” (Yule 1996: 21), to help interpret the
author’s illocutionary intent (Austin 1962).
Implicatures, in fact, allow the “pragmatic explanation of linguistic
phenomena” (Levinson 1983: 97), together with the communication of
meaning that listeners have to recognise “via inferences” (Yule 1996: 40).
Grice (1975; 1978) proposed for the first time the notion of implicatures,
entailing the possibility of achieving the right inference between the
various interpretations of an utterance. At the basis of its description there
is another principle from Grice (1975), the “cooperative principle”,
according to which, at the time of communicating, participants take into
account four maxims for the production and the desired interpretation of
meaningful sentences, which are: “quality”, “quantity”, “relevance” and
“manner”. Listeners infer the speakers’ perspective from what they
actually utter, but a mental process that goes beyond the superficial level
of logical meaning—the latter coinciding with the area of interest of
semantics—can only be activated if the cooperative principle is
acknowledged and participants share the same background knowledge.
Implicatures are divided into two main kinds: “conventional” and
“non-conventional”. Conventional implicatures are not linked to the
semantic dimension of what is uttered: they are determined by
conventions, they “depend on words” (cf. Yule 1996: 45-46) such as the
conjunctions “and”, “or”, “yet”. The group of non-conventional
implicatures includes various elements: “particularised”, “generalised” and
“conversational”. With the particularised, the inference is determined by
mutual knowledge, by the relevance to the context. As for generalised
implicatures, according to Gazdar (1979), these can be further divided into
“scalar”, including items that are on a scale (e.g., “all”, “most”, “few”),
and “clausal”, concerning the truth of what the speakers utter. Finally,
conversational implicatures—opposed to the non-conversational—include
those that are “standard” and that “flout”. Standard and flouting
implicatures are more relevant to the analysis of audiovisual texts, since
they are generally implied in dialogues (and that is why they are defined as
“conversational”). In particular, the flouting ones coincide with the
uttering of metaphors, or the use of irony (i.e., when language is used
beyond its surface value), and when the speakers—at the superficial level
of analysis at least—do not seem to cooperate.
Consider now the following dialogue (2), from the episode from the
sitcom The Big Bang Theory, entitled “The Tangerine Factor” (cf. Iaia
2013):
(2) Leonard: “Tell me whether or not to go through with the date.”

Sheldon: “Shrödinger’s cat.”
Leonard: “Wow, that’s brilliant!”
28 Chapter One
On the semantic level alone, Sheldon, one of the main characters of the
sitcom, does not seem to have answered his friend’s question—actually, it
seems that he is speaking of a completely different topic. Yet, since it has
to be assumed that Sheldon is cooperating, his lines have to be consistent
with the topic of the interaction. The mental process activated is entailed
by the sequence (2a)-(2d) below:
(2a) Topic: “To date or not to date Penny”.

(2b) Sheldon cooperates.
(2c) Sheldon’s utterance: “Shrödinger’s cat”.
(2d) (2c) is relevant to (2a), because of (2b).
The sequence above explains what Sheldon actually means when he

answers Leonard. In fact, it is possible to realise that Sheldon implicates
that (indicated as “+>”) Leonard cannot know whether the date with Penny
will be successful or not, unless he tries, as in the well known thought
experiment devised by Shrödinger, which illustrates the highly complex
principle in quantum theory of superposition (the state of being two things
at once), namely that one cannot know whether a cat inside a booby-
trapped box is alive or dead unless one opens the lid. This speaker’s
meaning is entailed by the sequence (2e)-(2f) below:
(2e) (2c) +> the cat can be thought as both alive and dead.
(2f) (2c) +> the date can be thought as both good and bad,
because of (2d).
For the mental process above to be applied to the reception of

humorous texts, the audience have to recognise Sheldon’s cooperation,
therefore assuming that his answer is consistent with the topic.
Furthermore, as Iaia (2013) suggests, there may be different responses
according to the type of audience, divided into two groups: one that shares
Sheldon’s knowledge and a group that does not. As for the former group,
the audience may initially think that his answer is not consistent with the
topic, but suddenly realise that it is, thus exemplifying a kind of
“expected-unexpected answer” clash; as for the latter group, the receivers
may laugh at Sheldon’s behaviour as being typical of a nerd, thus
constructing the comic effect on the humorous disparagement technique,
even though they may not know what “Shrödinger’s cat” refers to (cf.
Section 3.1 below).
So far, implicatures have been applied to the analysis of source scripts
in order to enquire into the unsaid meaning. Besides implicature, however,
it is also possible to take into consideration the notion of “presupposition”,

thus exemplifying the role of pragmatic analysis in the identification of the
cognitive and socio-cultural mechanisms activated by source-script
authors while producing humorous texts.
Whereas implicatures are pragmatic inferences influenced by the
contextual features of the interactions and by the cooperation of the
participants, presuppositions “seem […] to be based more closely on the
actual linguistic structure of sentences” (Levinson 1983: 167). The
investigation on these pragmatic inferences dates back to the philosophical
approach by Frege (1952), but presuppositions are also enquired into by
Russell (1905) and Strawson (1950).18 The latter in particular stresses that
once a statement A is given, it has a specific relationship with, for
example, another statement B, which the receivers may use to decide
whether statement A is true or false. This nature of “precondition” of
statement B led Strawson to define presuppositions, and to distinguish
them from their semantic similar notion of entailment, or logical
consequence. He states that a “statement A presupposes a statement B [if
and only if] B is a precondition of the truth of falsity of A” (1952: 175).
Those background assumptions against which an “utterance makes sense
or is rational” (Levinson 1983: 168) do not coincide with the semantic
notion of entailments, which are only “logical derivations” from the
sentences (cf. Yule 1996: 33-34).
Consider the following example (3), from the movie Looking for
Alibrandi (extract from 00:06:09 – 00:06:16):
(3) Josie: “Mummy used to tell me I was an ‘Immaculate

Conception’.”
Josie is sarcastically commenting on her experience as a daughter of a

single mother. The girl has never known her father, and by means of her
thoughts in (3), she expresses her frustration but also implies that her
mother, Christina, tried to protect her by pretending she had never had a
father. The utterance hence presupposes (in symbols, “>>”) that Christina
did not have sexual intercourse before getting pregnant, which determines
the condition for which (3) may be considered true:
(3a) Christina did not have sexual intercourse before getting

pregnant.
(3b) (3) >> (3a).
30 Chapter One
The sequence above also serves to clarify the distinctions between the
pragmatic inference of presupposition and the semantic notion of
entailment—indicated with the symbol “||-”—and to enquire into the
application of the former to the analysis of comic texts. As for the
difference between presupposition and entailment, if the utterance (3) is
considered again, one of the logical derivations is that Josie and her
mother used to talk about their past:
(3c) Josie and her mother used to talk about their past.
(3d) (3) ||- (3c).
As for the analysis of humorous discourse, and the resulting

translation, pragmatic notions such as presupposition may help to analyse
the original text in order to produce equivalent target versions: in (3e)
below, Josie’s lines in its entirety, the cognitive clash between a possible
dimension and an impossible one (see also Section 3.1 below) is
activated—namely, that Josie’s “immaculate” conception is not possible,
as revealed by the girl’s last lines:
(3e) Josie: “Mummy used to tell me I was an ‘Immaculate

Conception’—until I found out it was just the boy next
door.”
Pragmatic analysis may also help outline the modifications applied to

the translation of the original scripts. As will be discussed during the
analysis of the selected corpus of audiovisual texts, target versions are
modelled according to the cognitive construct of “implied audience”,
affected by the translators’ schemata and the target-culture background.
Consider, by way of example, the utterance (3f) below, which is the
official Italian translation of (3e):
(3f) Josie: “Mi beavo dei racconti di mia madre sull’Immacolata

Concezione, fino a quando non scoprii che nel mio caso
era stato un Pinco Pallino qualsiasi.
[I was delighted by the stories my Mother told about the
Immaculate Conception, till I found out in my case it
was just a Mr Such and Such.]”
Due to the linguistic features of the Italian version, the latter does not
presuppose (3a), since it hides the sarcastic comparison between the
conceptions of Josie and Jesus, for her mother is said to tell stories about
the Immaculate Conception, rather than specifying that it was Josie’s

particular one which was immaculate. Furthermore, it also sheds light on
the cognitive and functional reasons determining the translator’s
modifications, thus completing the general investigation on AVT mainly
based on the lexical and structural modifications and exemplifying the
cognitive and socio-cultural construct of implied audience on which the
modifications are modelled. As in the case of the Italian translation of
extract (3), in fact, the neutralisation of the parallelism between Josie’s
and Jesus’ conceptions may be linked to the intent of softening the original
construction of a joke about Christianity.19 Finally, the linguistic and
pragmatic analysis in terms of AVT may not be enough, as it would be
useful to enquire into the rules of the production of audiovisual texts, as
well, since the meanings of multimodal texts are conveyed at the
locutionary and illocutionary levels also through the position and the
characteristics of extralinguistic elements.
1.6 Conclusions
The history of dubbing in Italy is closely related to the cultural, social
and economic dimensions: the desire to preserve national identity, in fact,
reflects the historical period of its introduction, but it is no longer suitable
to the current, multicultural society. Besides those socio-cultural
considerations, dubbing is also affected by linguistic and technical
limitations. As for the former, the language of target scripts—dubbese—is
defined as an artificial language whose style resembles written texts,
lacking the lexical and syntactic features or the spontaneity typical of the
oral language. As for the technical issues, dubbing translation is also
affected by Herbst’s (1996) three constraints, which underline the respect
for the original actors’ lip-movements and the extralinguistic elements on
screen. Such cultural, linguistic and communicative issues are common to
the novel area of game localisation, whose analysis has exemplified the
need for a different approach to its study, in order to provide better
definitions of the strategies and realisations activated at the time of
translating video games.
In fact, like any forms of translation, also AVT should account for the
denotative and connotative semantic dimensions, which are also conveyed
through the extralinguistic features. Hence, a dubbing translator should
possess the ability to interpret the linguistic and extralinguistic
constructions, favouring the interaction between source and target cultures
in the production of equivalent target versions, in order to infer the
original illocutionary dimension and mediate between the respect for the
32 Chapter One
authors’ intent and the audience’s expectations. For these reasons, the
theoretical grounds for dubbing translators will be now completed by
exploring how multimodal texts are produced and how the semiotic modes
of representation interact with the linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural
dimensions.
CHAPTER TWO
THE GROUNDS OF AUDIOVISUAL

REPRESENTATION
This chapter will explore how the extralinguistic features affect the
production, reception and interpretation of audiovisual texts (2.1). In
particular, the notion of multimodality will be presented, by selecting
some aspects from the grammar of visual design developed by Kress and
van Leeuwen (2006), and the socio-semiotic approach (van Leeuwen
2005; Kress 2009). It will be illustrated how to “read” images, or the
position and the traits of the represented participants, as well as how to
interpret the acoustic dimension (2.2), in order to complete the view of
audiovisual-text construction and translation as communicative and
interpretative processes. It is claimed in fact that such a methodological
approach allows audiovisual translators to get acquainted with how the
visual, acoustic and textual characteristics interact to convey the semantic
dimensions that they are supposed to identify and adapt during the
retextualisation phases.
2.1 The Grammar of Audiovisual Texts

We can perhaps most usefully start our discussion of this highly
theoretical area with an illustration. Consider the following extract (4):
(4) Chanu: “I still have my coat on. Isn’t it fair to say that you hate it
when I come inside and forget to take it off?”
From the semantic and lexical perspectives, it can be surmised that the
speaker, Chanu, is talking to another person, since he directly refers to his
interlocutor by means of the pronoun “you”. Yet, it is not possible to
decide whether he is speaking to a man, to a woman, or to more people at
the same time, due to the lack of information about the setting and the
topic of the interaction. It seems that he is talking about a coat, but it is
difficult to state whether he is polemic, or ironic, or he is mixing different
34 Chapter Two
intents within his lines. Such difficulties are essentially connected to the
following factors:
(i) the extract comes from a movie, so it is important to have the

possibility of watching the scene;
(ii) the characters share a cultural background that is different from a
Western one.
According to factor (i), it is not possible to know who Chanu is, who
his interlocutors are and what the intent of his utterance is, and it is
necessary to contextualise the scene from an audiovisual perspective, by
means of the extralinguistic elements. Turning to factor (ii), the socio-
cultural differences require some effort to recognise what is not explicitly
said, but nonetheless communicated, conferring specific connotations to
common nouns, such as “coat” in (4). Chanu, an Indian man living in
London with his family, is indeed not simply talking about his garment, he
is actually provocative towards his wife (his interlocutor), who has not
respected the “duty” of welcoming her husband home by taking his coat
off, according to their cultural custom.
The above considerations on extract (4), from the movie Brick Lane
(2007, 01:11:37 – 01:11:46), introduce the topic of this chapter. In order to
catch the implicit meanings and concepts associated with the
linguacultural context entailed by audiovisual texts, as well as to interpret
the implicit and unsaid, a not insignificant part of any human interaction, it
is important to carry out an analysis of the extralinguistic features, so as to
identify their relations with the written dimension of the scripts. In fact,
whereas the pragmatic notions of “implicature” and “presupposition” may
help dealing with the linguistic characteristics (cf. Section 1.5.2 above),
due to the audiovisual nature of the selected text types, such an analysis
should be completed by considering the role of the visual and acoustic
modes of representation in communicating the meanings of source
versions. This integration between the pragmatic and extralinguistic
examination leads to a heightened awareness of the multimodal
construction and reception—and, therefore, translation—of the scripts, and
it is at the basis of the approach here developed.
Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2006) “grammar of visual design” is central
to this discussion. Through use of the term “grammar”, emphasis is put on
the connection between the syntactic dimension of the “visual
representations” and the messages conveyed to receivers, since the
composition of audiovisual texts actualises specific rules determined by
the socio-cultural dimensions and conventions, and eventually conveys
culturally-, politically-, and even historically-specific messages. This view
The Grounds of Audiovisual Representations 35
develops Halliday’s (1985: 101) definition of “grammar” as a “means of

representing patterns of experience”, of allowing the linguistic construction
of a shared mental representation of reality, which is applied to the
analysis of “visual design”, or the construction of images. Hence, in this
broader sense, also visual grammar “describes a social resource of a
particular group, its explicit and implicit knowledge about this
[multimodal] resource, and its uses in the practice of that group” (Kress
and van Leeuwen 2006: 3). Such approach is adopted because it
foregrounds the linguistic and extralinguistic investigation of messages,
and due to the text types under analysis, the notion of “visual
representations” is here developed into that of audiovisual representations,
underscoring the combination of images, sounds and words, which has a
crucial function in the communication of the original meanings.
Central to this approach is the belief that the production of equivalent
renderings depends on detailed analyses of how extralinguistic
characteristics interact with the linguistic ones, in order to infer the
semantic dimensions of the scripts (see also Chapter 4). For this reason, it
is vital that audiovisual translators should be given methodological
resources tailored to the text types under discussion, such as the Interactive
Model devised in this book, which aims at illustrating how to account for
the audiovisual frame by searching for equivalent target versions. While it
is true that the audiovisual construction may be already considered in an
ad hoc manner in the course of the production of translations, there is the
risk that the lack of systematic and universal methodological and
analytical approaches may lead to the exploitation—or even
misappropriation—of the visual features, in order to support the
translators’ ideological modifications. In this light, consider the following
dialogue (5) from the sitcom The Big Bang Theory between Howard—one
of the protagonists—and a young woman dressed like a nurse at a fancy
dress party:

Howard: “If that’s a “Ho notato che “I’ve noticed
working hai uno you have a
stethoscope, stetoscopio – stethoscope—
maybe you’d ausculteresti il would you
5 like to hear my mio cuore che auscultate my
heart skip a salta un battito?” heart skipping a
beat.” beat?”
Woman: “No, thanks.” “No, grazie.” “No, thanks.”
36 Chapter Two
Howard: “No, seriously, “Se non vuoi, io “If you don’t

10 you can: I have ausculterò il tuo want [to hear my
transient canyon, non è un heart skip a
idiopathic problema per beat], I will
arrhythmia.” me.” auscultate your
canyon, I don’t
15 mind.”
As will be later exemplified (see Section 3.2 below), in both the

original and translated versions, humour is based on the cognitive clash
between what is expected from a man while approaching a woman that he
likes and what actually happens. Since it is a fancy dress party, the woman
is dressed as a nurse, so Howard resorts to a specialised lexis from the
field of medicine. When the latter’s proposal is refused, two different
reactions are identified, according to the selected script: in the original
version, he mentions his arrhythmia, trying to fix his clumsy initial
approach and to justify why the interlocutor should listen to his heart. In
the Italian one, instead, Howard makes an abrupt reference to the woman’s
physical features, the “canyon” referring to her cleavage (ll. 9-11). The
two versions of the man’s reply therefore support the construction of
different types of humour. The original version, indeed, keeps on playing
on his characterisation as an inexperienced, vulnerable, “nerdy” male, who
misinterprets the woman’s refusal, and it activates a disparaging
representation of the young post-graduate, thus opposing the “nerd”
stereotype script to the “ordinary young man” one;20 the Italian-version
humour instead preserves Howard’s tendency to use specialised lexis (e.g.,
“auscultare”, ‘to auscultate’, l. 10) thus providing a connotative dimension
reflecting his educational level, while playing on the woman’s
representation as a sexual object. What is more, this dialogue is important
in terms of the subject here dealt with, because the changes are supported
by Howard’s eye movements. In fact, after talking, he rapidly looks at the
part of the woman’s body he refers to, hence dialogue (5) exemplifies how
the fixed, audiovisual frame could uphold the ideological modifications in
the target scripts. These are proven to be tailored to constructs such as the
implied receivers, or the translators’ interpretations of the characters,
which eventually compose their cognitive representations of the meanings
(also cf. Section 4.2 below).
The extralinguistic features therefore represent crucial parts of the
audiovisual texts, and according to which translation strategies are
adopted, or to the genre of source texts, the interaction between the
linguistic and extralinguistic features may be seen as a source for
deliberate changes that reflect the target-culture ideological choices

connected to the linguacultural background, or they can represent a fixed
frame leading to unnatural representations. As for the latter, the example
from Aliens in America already discussed is a valid case in point (cf.
Section 1.5.1 above); on the other hand, the ideological choice is in the
stereotypical representations of the male and female characters in the
Italian version of The Big Bang Theory, where the nerdy post-graduate
scientists are generally contrasted with women (such as Penny, one of the
female protagonists) who generally constitute laypeople. Finally, even
though it is true that the original version itself relies on stereotypical
representations and gender clashes, it is also true that the Italian scripts
enhance and adapt such aspects according to the target socio-cultural
background and the implied audience’s expectations, eventually producing
translations that may entail different degrees of equivalence to source
scripts. Since a careful analysis of the integration between linguistic and
extralinguistic features may help to produce equivalent target versions,
some notions are now introduced in order to help to “read” images, to
identify how the semantic dimensions are also conveyed by means of what
is watched and heard.
2.2 Multimodality: The Role of Images

and Acoustic Scores
The linguistic notion of “modality” (cf. Halliday 1985) refers to the
truth-level of the message linguistically realised, and in fact the use of
different adjectives or modal verbs, such as “might”, “can”, or “could”,
may express different degrees of certainty of what is communicated. In a
similar way, the use of specific modes of representation, the selection of
definite visual characteristics, or the insertion of specific acoustic scores
can determine the author’s attitude towards the representation and
eventually aim at attaining specific, expected perlocutionary acts. And in
terms of audiovisual translation, such representations are also affected by
cognitive constructs such as the ideal audience, according to which the
characteristics of the target scripts are generally selected. As a
development of modality, “multimodality” defines the selection and
interaction of various modes of representation for the construction of texts,
thus exemplifying the development of the conventional notion of “texts”,
which no longer defines the messages composed by words alone, but
which includes the “semiotic construct comprising several signifying
codes” operating simultaneously “in the production of meaning” (Chaume
2004: 16).
38 Chapter Two
Images and sound effects are the peculiar modes of representation

accompanying the “linguistic” components in audiovisual texts. By means
of the images, it is possible to understand who or what is represented and
what they are doing, in a mutual relationship with the acoustic and textual
components. Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) describe two possible
patterns for the inclusion of images in a text: “conceptual” and “narrative”.
The former represents participants in terms of their classes, structures,
timeless essence (2006: 79), and are a common means of representation in
manuals, academic books, or in documentaries. The narrative pattern, on
the other hand, is the one mainly adopted by the selected corpus of scripts
under analysis, because it has the function of representing unfolding
events, or processes (59). This particular potential of the semiotic
resources is characterised by further sub-groups, according to the number
and the kind of participants, divided into “interactive participants”,
generally defining the producers and the receivers of texts, and
“represented participants”, or who and/or what is portrayed (cf. Kress and
van Leeuwen 2006: 47-59). The identification of such patterns clarifies
that the process of creation of multimodal texts is ideological and
determined by the socio-cultural context, in the sense that the positions,
the characteristics and the roles of the represented participants reflect
specific ways of experiencing reality. What is more, to see the
construction and translation of multimodal texts as communicative
processes entails that the linguistic and extralinguistic characterisations of
the represented participants are strategies that the interactive participants
activate in order to share the original author’s perspective on what is
screened. Finally, due to their statuses of source-script receivers and
target-script producers, translators thus need to possess specific strategies
enabling them to mediate between the linguacultural backgrounds, to
decode and render the intended illocutionary and perlocutionary levels,
preventing miscommunication or misinterpretations.
From a general perspective, the represented processes may correspond
to:
(i) action processes:

a. non-transactional action processes;
b. transactional action processes;
(ii) reactional processes:
a. non-transactional reactional processes;
b. transactional reactional processes;
(iii) mental and speech processes;
(iv) conversion processes;
(v) geometrical symbolism;
(vi) circumstances:
a. locative circumstances;
b. circumstances of means;
c. circumstances of accompaniment.
The selected corpus of audiovisual texts is mainly characterised by the

presence of “action” and “reactional” processes. In the former case, the
participants must be human, or human-like, and may be depicted in the
development of a process. If the goal(s) is not represented, the images
belong to the category of “non-transactional action processes”; when the
goal(s) is visible, the action process is “transactional”. On the other hand,
an image is defined “reactional” when the process performed by the
participants (always human, or human-like) corresponds to the action of
watching something. Hence, the participants who perform the process are
called reacter(s). Similarly to the distinction between transactional and
non-transactional action processes, what is being watched, the
phenomenon, may be represented (“transactional reactional processes”), or
not (“non-transactional reactional processes”). Each representation may
include one or more processes, according to the particular scenes, and
participants and reacters, as well as the goals and the phenomenon, are
generally embodied by human or human-like participants. To say that
images can be “read” (Kress and van Leeuwen 2006) means that their
construction can be textualised, or put into words, in order to accord to the
represented participants the status of elements of sentences, and this
process can be helpful when analysing source versions so as to develop the
interpretation of the illocutionary and perlocutionary levels. For example,
the necessary condition for the identification of a process is the presence
of “vectors”. The latter are activated when in the representations a
diagonal line is created, starting from the actors/reacters and pointing
towards the goals/phenomenon (Kress and van Leeuwen 2006: 46), as
exemplified by the following images from the sitcom The Big Bang
Theory (episode “The Big Bran Hypothesis”):
40 Chapter Two
Figure 2-1. Sheldon “Reacter” in “The Big Bran Hypothesis”, from The Big Bang
Theory.
In figure 2-1 above, Sheldon—characterised in the sitcom as a

character that does not want to mix with less-educated people—is listening
to Penny, his neighbour. She is complaining after realising that the young
man and his roommate Leonard entered her apartment while she was
asleep. Since he is just watching and listening to the young woman,
Sheldon represents the reacter, whereas the phenomenon (“Penny’s
speaking”) is visually represented in a different shot. Suddenly, when he
responds to Penny’s accusations, the reactional process is turned into an
action process, where Sheldon plays both the functions of actor and
process, as entailed by figure 2-2 below:
Figure 2-2. Sheldon “Actor” and “Process” in “The Big Bran Hypothesis”, from
The Big Bang Theory.
The shift of Sheldon’s role is visually exemplified by the modification

of his position, since he is no longer standing as a vertical, fixed line.
Instead, he forms a sort of arrow, or technically, a “vector”, pointing
towards his goal, Penny (visually represented in a different shot). From a
written perspective only, the analysed audiovisual representations may be
textualised as “Sheldon is watching and listening to Penny’s complaints”
(figure 2-1) and “Sheldon is moving towards Penny, telling her that…”
(figure 2-2), including the segment of the script which is possible to listen
to while watching the scene.
In addition to the description of unfolding events, images may also be
used to introduce and describe the represented participants, with the
possibility of involving the viewers, or of just “offering up” such
participants for the receivers to see. Examples of images where the
42 Chapter Two
represented participants directly “look at” the addressees are defined

“demand images”, whereas the latter kind belongs to the category of “offer
images” (cf. Kress and van Leeuwen 2006: 116-124). These particular
types of images “demand” a specific reaction from the viewers, or “offer”
to the latter a specific part of the world, according to their illocutionary
effects. For example, it is possible to identify examples of demand images
in the movie Kandahar (Viaggio a Kandahar, 2001), as shown in figure 2-
3 below:
Figure 2-3. “Demand image”, from Kandahar.
The scene describes one of the “lessons” given to the little girls, who
are taught not to touch the dolls in the streets, since they may be booby-
trapped and explode. The “teacher” is moving between the lines of the
girls, and his line of sight overlaps with the audience’s one, represented by
the camera. So, when looking at the man, girls also look at the audience,
triggering an emotional reaction linked to the dramatic tone of the scene.
On the other hand, when the protagonist, Nafas, records what she sees
during her journey in Afghanistan, examples of offer images can be
identified, as in the one represented in figure 2-4 below:
Figure 2-4. “Offer image”, from Kandahar.
The image in figure 2-4 aims to contextualise the setting of the movie,
to acquaint the audience. From the figure above, it is indeed possible to
gain information about the clothes of the women and of the little girls,
which contrast with the elderly man’s outfit depicted within the group at
the centre of the image. Yet, the scene also compares traditional Afghani
clothes with Western ones, by means of the representation of the
photographer on the bottom right. As the analysis suggests, figure 2-4 is
just “offering” information to the receivers.
Finally, images may also be composed according to the pattern that
regulates the textual organisation, recalling the conventional structure
integrating “given” (already known) and “new” information, entailed by
the contrast between “theme” and “rheme” (cf., e.g., Halliday 1985: 277;
O’Toole 2011). The position of the “given” and “new” information in AV
texts is therefore connected to socio-cultural conventions—for example, in
figure 2-5 below, the criteria is applied to another fragment of the scene
from The Big Bang Theory episode analysed above:
44 Chapter Two
Figure 2-5. Penny “Theme” and Leonard “Rheme”, in “The Big Bran Hypothesis”,
from The Big Bang Theory.
In Western culture, the order given to the information within a text

obeys the order of writing—from left to right. In the picture above, the
audience knows that Leonard and Sheldon entered Penny’s apartment, and
that she found out. Therefore, when she complains in the following scene,
she represents what is already known, i.e., the “theme”, being depicted on
the left, “the side of the ‘already given’” (Kress and van Leeuwen 2006:
180). Leonard, instead, is on the right, representing the “rheme”, i.e., the
men’s hitherto unknown reaction. Furthermore, once Sheldon decides to
speak, he eventually reaches Penny and Leonard, thus leading to a new
layout where Penny and Leonard embody the “theme”, whereas Sheldon
represents the “rheme”, due to his unexpected reaction, which forms the
basis of a large part of the humour in the scene.
The analysed examples show how different kinds of processes may be
represented by means of images and how the socio-cultural schemata
affect the way that they are composed and interpreted. The interactive
participants have to belong to the same social group, in order to share the
same ways of perceiving and representing reality. This stage, which
corresponds to Halliday’s (1978) ideational function, is also the topic of
“discourse” in the socio-semiotic analysis developed by van Leeuwen,
who states that the images should therefore be analysed as “means of
social interactions”, and no longer merely as “representation” (cf. 2005: 3-
6).
In the selected corpus of audiovisual scripts, however, images also
interact with the acoustic elements, here defined as both the original score
and the dubbing translation, the original and dubbed voices of the actors.
The visual and the acoustic components are interrelated in the production
of multimodal texts, by means of the criteria of “composition”, which
provides “coherence and meaningful structure to spatial arrangements”
(van Leeuwen 2005: 179), and which constitutes “the way in which these
[audiovisual] elements are combined into meaningful wholes” (Kress and
van Leeuwen 2006: 1). Furthermore, also the acoustic score confirms the
author’s perspective and influences the audience’s interpretation, both in
the source and target versions. As for the latter, however, the changes in
the acoustic characteristics of the voices, or in the varieties of the spoken
language may lead to forms of modification of the illocutionary force,
provoking pragmalinguistic differences in the representation of the
characters and triggering an interpretation which does not necessarily
correspond to the original one. For example, as already seen in Section
1.4.1 above, some video games are translated into Italian resorting to
diatopic and diastratic varieties from the Central and Southern Italy, such
as Romanesco, from the area of Rome. The choice is determined by the
need to elicit the implied audience’s humorous response, and it implicitly
communicates that such expectations are grounded in social meanings that
are identified and recognised by the members of the Italian audience that
share the same socio-cultural conventions. Consider the following
utterance (6), from the video game Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story,
where the enemy O’Chunks introduces himself:
(6) O’Chunks: “O’Chunks is me name.”
The speaker is characterised by a diastratically-marked language and a

particular kind of pronunciation, on which the comic effect is based,
whereas the Italian translators have decided to use Romanesco:21
46 Chapter Two
(6a) Pugnazzo: “So’ Pugnazzo, se er Conte ordina, io ve strapazzo!

[I’m Pugnazzo, if the Count orders, I will mistreat
you!]”
The choice, which is justified by the need for characterising

O’Chunks/Pugnazzo as less-educated and loutish, has a peculiar socio-
cultural connotation, and due to the view of audiovisual construction and
translation as communication processes between senders and recipients
(i.e., the interactive participants), the acoustic and visual choices are here
considered as a way of conveying pragmatic inferences. In fact, it could be
surmised that when deciding how to adapt source scripts in order to
achieve specific perlocutionary effects, a specific type of mental process is
activated, as in (6b)-(6d) below, to infer the implied audience’s
interpretation:
(6b) (6) is a humorous text.

(6c) Pugnazzo speaks Romanesco.
(6d) (6c) +> Pugnazzo is less educated and loutish.
Mental processes such as the ones in the sequence (6b)-(6d), however,

may be implicitly activated by audiences who belong to the translators’
discourse or interpretative communities, and share their ways of
categorising the world—as confirmed by the fandubbers’ voices in the
amateur translations of extract (6).22 Yet, as the analysis of the selected
corpus of video games and the focus on the actual audience’s reception
will exemplify, the activation of such cognitive processes does not entail
the act of enjoying or agreeing with specific translation strategies. In
particular, the inclusion of diatopic and diastratic varieties is seen as a
conventional strategy deriving from Italian comedies from the Seventies
and the Eighties, whose humour often stemmed from the clashes between
dialects and regionalisms (Rossi 2007). Such conventions, though, do not
always fit the peculiar characteristic of video games, for the language
variations included in the source scripts may sometimes represent rather a
broken variation of language (or scripted types of lingua-franca variations,
as discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 below).
2.3 Conclusions
Due to their implicit nature, the socio-cultural, ideological
characterisations may be difficult to identify, nonetheless it is argued that
the combination between the pragmatic and socio-semiotic approaches
introduced here would give audiovisual translators the theoretical grounds

necessary for a critical analysis of original scripts, at the basis of the
production of equivalent target versions. The approach here outlined
focuses on considering how the extralinguistic elements such as the
characteristics and the spatial positions of the represented participants, the
acoustic score, and the way that the narrative processes are represented,
contribute to the conveyance (and sometimes to the modifications, as well)
of the semantic dimensions.
This book so far has described the origins of dubbing; the linguistic,
historical and cultural issues connected to the practice; the types of
equivalence that may be achieved; the pragmatic analysis of scripts; the
multimodal composition of audiovisual texts. All of these represent the
basic elements for the production and analysis of source texts, and for their
adaptation into target versions. What is more, it is claimed that the critical
and multimodal analysis of source scripts can make it possible to enquire
into the ideology behind the authors’ choices and their retextualisations.
Finally, this general theoretical background will be now completed by
exploring the construction and translation of humorous discourse, which is
a defining feature of the genre of the selected corpus of audiovisual texts.
CHAPTER THREE
THE PRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION

OF HUMOROUS DISCOURSE
The main strategies of construction and translation of humorous

discourse are dealt with in this chapter. In 3.1, humour is presented as a
cognitive, socio-cultural and linguistic construct, by means of the
introduction of Raskin’s (1985) “Semantic Script Theory of Humour” and
Attardo’s (2001) “General Theory of Verbal Humour”, according to which
comic effect is connected to processes of script opposition provoked by
the jokes. The strategies for disparaging representations and the production
of nonsense are also mentioned, as well as the elicitation of laughter by
means of the intra- and inter-textual references in video-game scripts,
aimed at experienced players. Then, the main methods for translating
humorous discourse are considered in 3.2, from those connected to the
written dimensions of jokes, to the ones related to the multimodal texts.
Finally, an introductory example from the sitcom The Big Bang Theory
will allow for the identification of the differences between the original and
adapted humour, the latter tailored to the implied audience’s expectations.
3.1 The Production of Humorous Discourse:

Cognitive, Socio-cultural and Linguistic Dimensions
The translation of humorous texts may be difficult when it comes to
the triggering of an equivalent effect in the target receivers, because
humour is a culture-bound construct based on the interaction of three
different dimensions: the cognitive (Shultz 1974; Suls 1983; Guido 2012),
the linguistic (Raskin 1985; Ross 1998) and the socio-cultural (Fine 1983)
ones. Furthermore, if translation is carried out by means of a TT-centred
approach, the resulting target versions may not be pragmatically
equivalent to the original ones, the translators would have failed to infer
from the textual evidence the function of the original references, or have
misinterpreted the original bases of humour construction, leading to target
versions that are suitable for a different kind of audience. The most
50 Chapter Three
influential theories of humour construction are therefore now presented, in

order to provide a list informing the competence of translators approaching
comic texts. It is also by means of appropriate interpretations of the
original humorous discourse, in fact, that target versions could attain a
pragmalinguistic type of equivalence.
As for the cognitive dimension of humour, Raskin’s (1985) “Semantic
Script Theory of Humour” (SSTH) defines the textual and mental features
that are needed to produce a joke. In particular, Raskin defines a joke as a
text that is compatible with two different scripts, in a relation of opposition
between each other. When a joke is produced and (appropriately) received,
the two scripts fully or partially overlap (cf. Raskin 1985: 99), leading to a
cognitive clash that the receivers have to recognise. According to Attardo
(2001: 2-3), a script is
an organized complex of information about […] an object (real or

imaginary), an event, an action, a quality, etc. It is a cognitive structure
internalized by the speaker which provides the speaker with information on
how a given entity is structured, what are its parts and components, or how
an activity is done.
A script therefore organises one’s world knowledge. For example, the

script “school” includes any actions or features which people associate
with it, such as “teacher”, “pupil”, “book”, “to attend”, “to evaluate”.
What is more, in order to prompt the expected responses from recipients, a
shared contextualisation of reality is needed between senders and
receivers. For this reason, to consider only the cognitive dimension of
humour production and reception is not enough, since humour is also
socio-culturally characterised. Such a distinction is theorised by Chiaro
(1992), who talks of “prosaic” and “poetic jokes”. The former indicates
those jokes that play on the linguistic dimension only (cf. Chiaro 1992: 13-
14), whereas in the latter specific cultural elements are included to trigger
the entertained reaction (cf. Chiaro 1992: 84). It is thus easy to infer that
poetic jokes are considered as the most difficult to translate, for it is
important to identify events or notions that activate similar connotative
and experiential dimensions in the target linguacultural background,
otherwise the functional dimension of the source text may be missed.
Attardo (2001: 22) has developed the SSTH, turning it into the
“General Theory of Verbal Humour” (GTVH). The modification is aimed
at extending the analysis of the meaning of “linguistic entities only within
a particular discourse” (Raskin 1985: 108), which is integrated with a
pragmatic approach aimed at identifying the six knowledge resources
generating a joke:
The Production and Translation of Humorous Discourse 51
(i) Script Opposition;

(ii) Logical Mechanisms;
(iii) Target Audience;
(iv) Narrative Strategy;
(v) Language;
(vi) Situation.
According to the GTVH, the cognitive dimension of humour interacts

with linguistic and extralinguistic features such as the cultural specificity
of the production and the reception of jokes (resources (ii) and (vi)),
together with the attention to the pragmatic dimension of the
speakers’/writers’ skill in telling a story,23 the compositional plan of the
texts, the language used (resources (iv) and (v)). At the basis of the
humorous effect, then, there are clashes that produce one of the oppositions
of the “possible/impossible”, or the “expected/unexpected” kinds,
according to the participants and the situations of the jokes (cf. Raskin
1985: 107-110). For example, clashes are activated when the participants,
who are set in a situational script that is generally perceived as “possible”
according to the receivers’ background knowledge (cf. Bartlett 1932; Wulf
1938), perform an action (or are involved in the carrying out of an event)
which should not reasonably take place. In order to trigger the entertained
reaction, the audience is expected to recognise the misplacing effect of the
representation, along with the breach in their schemata. Besides the
possible and impossible situations, a conflict could take place between
what is expected as the conventional carrying out of an event and what, in
turns, actually occurs. When this happens, humour is based again on
specific mental processes that receivers activate. The latter, in fact, link
what is witnessed to a (similar, at least) situation already experienced. So,
even though the characterisation of the clashes is different, the function of
the cognitive dimension in similar, for the receivers’ laughter is again
triggered once the initial rupture is identified as intentional.
In the selected corpus the comic effect is also prompted by means of
the arousal/safety clash (Rothbart 1973), and also this theory bestows a
crucial role upon the audience’s behaviour and interpretation. In fact,
when the joke is being received, an “aroused” feeling is initially induced.
Then, it is necessary that the recipients realise that such stimuli are
harmless, in order to activate the appropriate reaction leading to the
dimension of “safety”, eventually exemplified by their laughter (cf. also
Guido 2012: 43-44). As for the analysed audiovisual texts, the
arousal/safety contrast is mainly activated by the taboo jokes and dark
humour in cartoons such as Family Guy (I Griffin, 2001-present), where
the conflict is not actively resolved at the end of any episodes by the
52 Chapter Three
conventional happy ending, but the resolution is somewhat “suggested” by

their visual representation as cartoons, which let viewers think that what
they are watching is set in a “possible” world (Hintikka 1989). This
awareness may compensate (partially, at least) for the effects provoked by
the offending or shocking comic stimuli, resulting in a sudden acquisition
of the initially suspended disbelief. Actually, the cognitive processes
needed for the appropriate reception of dark or shocking humorous
discourse may not be common to all types of audience, and the response to
this “‘wicked’, cynical, sometimes outrageous” kind of humour (Bucaria
2008: 215-216) is subject to how far recipients are accustomed to it, and to
the socio-cultural expectations regarding specific text types such as
cartoons or video games. Such cognitive and socio-cultural grounds
determine the differences in the adaptation of the original humorous
discourse, and indeed they justify some conventional strategies in Italian
audiovisual translation, which produce domesticated versions of the source
scripts. Examples in this sense are also the TV shows such as the series
1000 Ways to Die (1000 modi per morire, 2008-2012), or Curious and
Unusual Deaths (Strani modi per morire, 2009-2012), where the
conventional linguistic strategies of popularization (cf. Gotti 2005;
2013)—generally deployed in documentaries—interact with the cognitive
and arousal/safety strategies of humorous discourse. This hybrid
characterisation, which results in a mixture between the genres of
documentary programs, comedy shows and docufiction, has consequences
in terms of audiovisual translation, as well. In fact, those TV shows are
translated by means of voice over, which is easier in terms of time and
cost. Yet, the fact that voice over is associated with documentaries, and
therefore conveys a higher sense of credibility (Espasa 2004), may not be
consistent with the over-the-top characterisations of these series, and
eventually leads to concerns in terms of equivalence.
Besides relying on the cognitive dimension, according to the humorous
disparagement technique (Zillman 1983; Ross 1998), humour may be
achieved by marking certain characters derogatorily, targeting particular
social or ethnic groups, though the specificity of such connotations may
represent a difficult feature to adapt for a different type of audience. In this
light, the choice of particular dialects, or diatopic and diastratic varieties,
determines peculiar characterisations that influence the features of source
and target texts. Such language variations, in fact, depend on the place
where they occur (for example, Romanesco from the area of Rome,
Siciliano from that of Sicily, and Napoletano from the area of Naples) and
on the speakers’ social status, whereas the dialects represent local varieties
that “differ from the standard language code in relation to morphology,
lexicon, syntax, and phonology” (Guido 2004: 43). As the analysis shall
illustrate, their inclusion in the Italian translations of the selected corpus of
humorous audiovisual texts is connected to the production of derogatory,
disparaging representations. What is more, when these linguistic resources
are not in the source scripts, but stem from the translators’ interpretation of
the source illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions, the degree of
equivalence in the audience’s response may change, due to TT-centred
translations where the translators’ interpretative, top-down retextualisations
prevail.
Finally, the integration between the cognitive and the socio-linguistic
levels may lead to the humour strategy of nonsense, which Shultz (1976)
considers as a deviation from incongruity theory, since differently from
the latter technique, in nonsense the gap between the cognitive and the
linguistic dimensions is not closed. For this reason, the audience may just
laugh at the strange nature of what is watched, without having the devices
to explain such inconsistencies. This kind of humour is prevalent in the
analysed video games, where the receivers have to accept the existence of
counterfactual characters or places, or the presence of animals that
communicate by means of human language. In other words, the theory of
nonsense accompanies the development of adventures in “possible worlds”
(Hintikka 1989), thus affecting original linguistic and extralinguistic
features. Besides exploiting nonsense, video games may also resort to a
“self-referencing” (Mangiron 2010) strategy of humour construction,
consisting in including intra- and inter-textual references and allusions in
scripts, aimed at players with a prior knowledge of video games in general,
or specific series. This strategy, though, could lead to mistranslations, for
if translators are not acquainted with the text types they are dealing with,
such references may be not rendered, and important elements for the
appropriate adaptation of the author’s intentionality are removed. Due to
this lack of prior knowledge, equivalent Italian versions are sometimes not
produced (cf. Chapters 6 and 7 below), and the original integration between
the conventions of the fantasy genre and the audiovisual actualisation of
the counterfactual features is not preserved, but modified by means of
diatopic/diastratic varieties, or by neutralising the language variations,
resorting to the standard variety. By way of example, consider the
mistranslation of “self-referencing” discussed by Iaia (2014b: 523-525),
when he deals with the failure to render the pun “Monty Bros.” based on
the “Monty Moles”, recurring characters in the Super Mario video-game
series (see also Section 6.1.2 below).
In conclusion, due to the novel strategies of construction of audiovisual
text types, to the hybridisation of genres, as well as to the diffusion of
54 Chapter Three
particular constructions of humorous discourse, it is claimed that

audiovisual translation studies need to further explore these subjects, in
order to support and improve translators’ training, who should be
acquainted with how source scripts are produced, with how they could be
retextualised, and with what receivers may expect from specific types of
multimodal scripts. In particular, when it comes to humorous discourse,
since several perspectives interact to trigger laughter, equivalence should
originate from a critical analysis of the source-text linguistic and
extralinguistic features to identify and render the script oppositions, the
socio-cultural and linguistic, and the intra/intertextual grounds that need to
be adapted for the target receivers.
3.2 The Translation of Humorous Discourse

Scholars have approached the translation of humour from two main
perspectives, focusing on the types of equivalence to be achieved and the
possible strategies to be adopted, according to the different linguacultural
backgrounds of the source and target texts. Nida’s (1964) “dynamic
equivalence”, for example, represents those localisation strategies based
on the creation of parallel target versions, whose similarity to source texts
may not be defined pragmalinguistic, but only pragmatic, such adaptations
being mainly focused on the “correspondence of purpose and effects of a
discourse in both its original and translated versions” (Guido 2012: 66),
without paying attention to the original lexical or textual dimensions. In
terms of AVT, this approach would correspond to the production of
remakes of the original TV series or movies in order to suit the target
audience’s taste, with a similar basic plot, but different actors and different
situational scripts that would not be perceived as “estranged” when
watched—an approach mainly adopted by American producers and
broadcasters.24
Rather than completely creating a new AV text, Attardo (2001) and
Bassnett (2002) propose alternative approaches respectively based on the
pragmatic and cognitive dimensions (see the GTVH explained above). As
for Bassnett, in fact, target versions should aim at achieving equivalence
both “linguistically and contextually”, so that the TT would correspond to
the original one “in a literal way, but also in a pragmatic way” (Guido
2012: 67). In this sense, the re-creation of STs supported by “dynamic
equivalence” (Nida 1964) is replaced by a different approach aimed at
preserving the original linguistic dimension as well as the communicative
function, in search of strategies prompting a pragmalinguistic type of
equivalence.
The interaction of the linguistic, cognitive and pragmatic dimensions in

the translation of humorous discourse is also advocated by Alexieva
(1997: 153) and Veisbergs (1997: 155-157), who see such integration as
one of the conditions that allow equivalent renderings of the original
effects, by combining literal and figurative interpretations. It is therefore
by means of the interaction between the ST-analysis and creative
contributions that the original conflicts at the basis of the humorous
response are identified and reproduced, and it is for this reason that the
Interactive Model (see Chapter 4 below) underscores the integration
between the bottom-up cognitive processes of textual analysis and the top-
down cognitive strategies of adaptation for the equivalent translation of
humour in audiovisual texts.
Scholars have also developed specific taxonomies of the translation of
humorous discourse. Delabastita (1994), for example, identifies eight
strategies to translate puns:
(i) pun Î pun;

(ii) pun Î non-pun;
(iii) pun Î related rhetorical device;
(iv) pun Î zero pun;
(v) ST-pun Î TT-pun;
(vi) non-pun Î pun;
(vii) zero Î pun;
(viii) editorial technique.
Strategies (i)-(viii) are listed from the “foreignising”, or literal, to the

“domesticating”, or free, ones—strategy (viii) being dedicated to written
texts only—from the approaches totally or mainly focused on the lexical
and semantic dimension of the original jokes (strategies (i) and (ii)), to
those aiming instead at describing the modifications to the source scripts
due to the socio-cultural differences between the sender and the recipients.
A joke may indeed require a sort of explanation or modification, resorting
to a parallel version rooted in the target culture, in order to suit the
audience’s expectations (strategies (iv) and (v)). Yet, the domesticating
tendency may lead to translations that discard linguistic and pragmatic
equivalence, thus adding new jokes in the TTs in order to repair previous
omissions, or due to a translator’s free choice (strategies (vi) and (vii)).
The “cross-eyed-torso joke” in Family Guy is a case in point (cf. Iaia
2011a: 178-179), since the Italian translators have added a taboo joke
which was not present in the source script, actually deliberately rejecting
the tendency of neutralising sexual references, and representing an
example of strategy (vi).
56 Chapter Three
Zabalbeascoa (1996) also identifies six types of humorous discourse

that could be found in source texts, underlining the possible challenges
that translation of them may pose, due to their linguistic and socio-cultural
features (cf. Guido 2012: 79):
(i) international or bi-national jokes;

(ii) national-culture-and-institution jokes;
(iii) national sense-of-humour jokes;
(iv) language-dependent jokes;
(v) visual jokes;
(vi) complex jokes.
Jokes (i) and (iv) represent those that would be easily adapted, whereas
the others are generally based on socio-cultural conventions that need to
be shared. As for the link between the linguacultural background and the
response to humorous stimuli, Guido (2012: 51-52) identifies two possible
responses from the receivers—and hence the translators. According to her,
humorous discourse may be approached from either a “motivational”
perspective or a “structural” one. In the former case, the recipient shares
the original socio-cultural conventions, thus appropriately responding to
the comic stimuli; in the latter, there are possible paths that may be
followed and that affect the rendering process. Translators, indeed, may:
(i) adopt a perspective of estrangement “and appraise the joke only from
the perspective of semantic-structural incongruity” (Guido 2012: 52); (ii)
interpret the joke according to their own cultural schemata, “flouting […]
the Sender’s socio-cultural” ones (ibidem); (iii) choose the path of
“acculturation” (Schumann 1986), “familiarizing” themselves with the
sender’s socio-cultural schemata (Guido 2012: 52); or (iv) establish “a
cross-cultural pragmatic communication with the Sender, starting an
‘interactive discourse’” (ibidem) between the sender’s socio-cultural
schemata and the recipient’s ones.
Strategy (iv) represents a significant translation approach, and in fact
the Interactive Model devised in this book is focused on the translator’s
active role and the interaction between the source-text analysis and the
creative contribution to TTs, in order to produce scripts that, by inferring
and identifying the author’s illocutionary force, prompt an equivalent
response from the audience. For example, the theories introduced above
would represent one of the elements informing the audiovisual translators’
procedural and factual competence (see Section 4.2.1 below), for they are
supposed to be acquainted with the possible strategies for jokes
production, as well as the possible kinds of puns and quips that they may
find, in order to integrate such knowledge in the critical analysis of STs.
As for the text types under analysis, though, due to their multimodal
nature, the above theories of humour production have to be integrated with
the “fixed frame” (Guido 2012: 67) represented by the audiovisual
elements on screen, since the visual and acoustic modes of discourse may
support the construction of humour. It is for these reasons that the notions
of multimodality and multimodal construction have already been
introduced (Chapter 2 above). Their account is in fact vital for the
achievement of pragmalinguistic equivalence, but it is also important that
translators consider such a frame as a means to infer the appropriate
interpretation of the semantic dimensions, instead of exploiting the
extralinguistic elements to support the changes that they make, as
exemplified by extract (5) above (see pp. 35-36). That interaction is now
transcribed again—as dialogue (7)—to explore the differences in humour
construction from a more detailed perspective:

Howard: “If that’s a “Ho notato che
working hai uno
stethoscope, stetoscopio –
maybe you’d ausculteresti il
5 like to hear my mio cuore che
heart skip a salta un battito?”
beat.”
Woman: “No, thanks.” “No, grazie.”
10 you can: I have ausculterò il tuo want [to hear my
transient canyon, non è un heart skip a
idiopathic problema per beat], I will
arrhythmia.” me.” auscultate your
canyon, I don’t
15 mind.”
According to the theories of humorous construction explained above,

humour is here triggered by means of a cognitive clash between the
expected and unexpected carrying out of the event consisting in a man
approaching a woman at a fancy dress party. Precisely, the contrast relies
on Howard’s characterisation as a nerdy young post-graduate, who does
not conform to the “expected” behaviour in common social situations, as
exemplified by the specialised language he uses in an inappropriate
communicative context. The grounds of such a clash are exemplified by
(7a)-(7d) below:
58 Chapter Three
Expected situation Unexpected situation

(7a) A fancy dress party. A fancy dress party.
(7b) The woman dressed as a nurse The woman dressed as a nurse
may not be a real nurse. is a real nurse.
(7c) The man infers (7b), and The man may infer (7b), so he
therefore tries to approach her approaches the woman
according to an “expected”, according to an “unexpected”
conventional strategy. strategy.
(7d) Due to (7c), the man tries to Due to (7c), the man tries to
approach the woman by asking approach the woman by asking
generic questions (name, job, questions consistent with her
the party itself). (presumed) job.
Whereas a common situation would originate from Howard inferring

that the woman may not be a real nurse, the fact that he resorts to a
specialised lexis represents a possible clash between the situational script
of an “expected romantic approach” and the one of an “unexpected
romantic approach”. The woman’s reaction exemplifies the identification
of the breach in the conventional schema, and indeed she rebuffs his
approach. The same bases of humour construction are preserved in the
lines following the rejection, where by justifying his utterance and
mentioning his arrhythmia, Howard’s conduct is still unpredictable and
consistent with his disparaging characterisation, since he does not show
himself to be aware of the conventional processes illustrated in (7c) and
(7d). On the other hand, as discussed in Section 2.1 above, the reference to
the woman’s cleavage in the Italian script (ll. 9-11) plays on her sexually-
oriented representation, and it may exemplify the choice of a national-
sense-of-humour joke (Zabalbeascoa 1996) in the production of the target
script, while preserving Howard’s tendency to use specialised lexis (e.g.,
“auscultare”, ‘to auscultate’, l. 10). The two versions of Howard’s reply
therefore convey different types of humour, with the source version
keeping on playing on cognitive clashes and disparaging representations,
and the target one enhancing such features in order to suit its script to the
expectations of the Italian audience, who may be more familiar with a sort
of “smutty” humour as the one identified in the commedia all’italiana
genre (cf. Sections 5.1.4 and 7.6.2 below).25
3.3 Conclusions
The translation of humorous discourse challenges translators due to the
integration between the cognitive, socio-cultural and linguistic features
that interact in its construction and interpretation. Furthermore, when the
translators’ retextualisations are exclusively affected by their socio-
cultural background, there is a prevalence of the bottom-up cognitive
mechanisms, in opposition to an interactive relationship between the
textual features and the individual interpretation, which produces
equivalent target versions from a pragmalinguistic perspective. However,
when it comes to audiovisual texts, the construction of humorous
discourse may also resort to particular relations between the linguistic,
acoustic and visual dimensions. For these reasons, audiovisual translators
should be acquainted with those theoretical notions and practical strategies
that may help attain appropriate interpretations and representations of the
source-text semantic dimensions, by means of a multimodal type of
analysis, at the basis of equivalent target versions. Discussions of the
production and translation of humorous discourse conclude the definition
of the theoretical grounds informing the Interactive Model, which is
introduced in the following chapter, and which is later applied to the
analysis of the official and alternative translations of the selected corpus of
audiovisual texts.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE INTERACTIVE MODEL,

METHOD AND CORPUS
This chapter shall introduce the Interactive Model, which is here

applied to the translation of humorous discourse in order to support the
analysis of source scripts and the production of equivalent target versions
of audiovisual texts. Firstly, the rationale justifying the construction of the
Model shall be illustrated, along with its objectives (4.1). Then, the phases
and notions connected to its use shall be discussed, such as the notion of
Cognitive-Mediated Semantic Representation (4.2) and the factual and
procedural competences which translators are supposed to possess when
translating audiovisual texts (4.2.1). In the following Sections, it will be
offered, in turn: a description of the phases of the Interactive Model (4.3);
an introductory illustration of a practical application (4.3.1); a method of
investigation (4.4); and finally, the selected corpus of audiovisual texts
(4.4.1).
4.1 The Interactive Model: Rationale and Objectives

According to this Model, translators are called upon to focus on the
three dimensions of meaning—locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary
ones—in order to avoid the imposition of their own individual
interpretations of the source text upon the target one, opting instead for a
mediation between the respect for textual evidence and their creative
contributions. Translators should therefore be acquainted not only with the
linguistic characteristics and cultural features of the source and target
cultures, but also with the rules of construction of audiovisual texts, as
outlined in the previous, theoretical chapters. The development of the
Interactive Model is the result of a multidisciplinary approach to AVT
studies, encompassing notions from linguistics, pragmatics, critical
discourse analysis as well as the social semiotic approach to multimodal
scripts in order to meet some scholars’ requests for models specifically
thought out for the translation of AV texts (cf. Munday 2001; Chaume
62 Chapter Four
2004; Bogucki 2011). The explicit inclusion of the multimodal dimension

in the processes of analysis of source script and creation of target versions
foregrounds the interaction between the linguistic features and the non-
linguistic modes of discourse conveying the source meanings.
As Chesterman (2000) states in developing his “Causal Model”, in
fact, the lexical and syntactic features of target texts (“TT”) are determined
by the translator’s socio-cultural background (defined “CC”, from “Causal
Conditions”), which has particular effects (“EF”) on the receivers. Though
supporting the relationship between the CC and EF which leads to specific
choices by the translators, it is here argued that—when it comes to AV
texts—multimodality is another type of causal condition that affects the
production of the target texts and their reception and which has to be
accounted for, thus avoiding “the risk of inaccuracies” (Filmer 2012: 132)
by focusing on a pragmalinguistic type of equivalence between the source
and target versions. Indeed, the “fixed” audiovisual frame of the selected
corpus (cf. Guido 2012) forces translators to deal with what is seen and
heard, since “communication is also possible through sound, music,
images and gestures” (Bogucki 2011: 12), thus exemplifying the need for
the inclusion of the multimodal dimension in the development of a model
thought for AVT.
The starting assumptions behind the development of the Interactive
Model are:
(i) all forms of translation (e.g., AVT) are meant as cross-cultural,

dynamic processes of communication between two or more
linguacultural backgrounds;
(ii) the investigation by means of a process-related approach
(Kussmaul 1995) allows for an enquiry into the multimodal
actualisation of those cognitive, linguistic and socio-cultural
constructs which prompt specific functions and effects in the
reception of both source and target scripts.
The Model is constructed by surmising the interaction during the

translation process between two main phases—one of multimodal, critical
analysis of scripts and one of their multimodal retextualisation—so that
the audiovisual translators’ interpretation may coincide as far as possible
with the original illocutionary intent. Additionally, the Model is
considered a valid resource for training translators to get beneath the
surface meaning, since the focus on the denotative-semantic and
connotative pragmatic dimensions shall lead to the unveiling of the
original ideological choices in the source versions as well as the avoidance
of inappropriate ideological choices in the target ones. The adjective
The Interactive Model, Method and Corpus 63
“ideological” is here used in a neutral way, in order to merely stress the

influence of the authors’ and recipients’ linguacultural backgrounds in the
construction and adaptation of texts, and to emphasise the need for their
mediation while pursuing equivalence in translation. The main objectives
of the Interactive Model here proposed are:
(i) to provide a tool for translators and analysts, to critically

examine source texts in the search for those ideological markers
that affect their production and reception;
(ii) to allow retextualisations of source scripts aimed at producing
target versions based on a correct interpretation of the original
meanings, in order to achieve a pragmalinguistic type of
equivalence.
The adjective “pragmalinguistic” (cf. Section 1.5.1 above) describes a

type of equivalence that rather than being focused on the lexical and
structural dimensions only, also accounts for the functional perspective.
With AVT, this also includes the identification of those textual and
multimodal constructs that are meant to prompt specific effects in the
source audience, and which need to be reproduced for target receivers.
Though the Model is here applied to the construction and translation of
humorous discourse, it may be nonetheless adopted for any genre of AV
texts; furthermore, it is argued that it may have pedagogical applications as
well, by training translators and analysts to identify and speculate on the
cognitive mechanisms activated at the time of producing source texts and
their translations.
After having dealt in this section with the rationale justifying the
creation and development of the Interactive Model and defining its
objectives, it is now time to analyse its construction, from the introduction
of the notion of Cognitive-Mediated Semantic Representation, to the
description of the translators’ competences and the phases of the Model.
4.2 The Interactive Model: Mediated-Cognitive Semantic

Representation
From the definition of translation as a communicative and interpretative
process, it follows that the retextualisations of source texts are based on
what meanings translators derive from their analysis of the original
versions. This intermediate stage between the reception of source scripts
and their modifications into target ones has been defined as “Universal
Semantic Representation” (USR—cf. in this sense Peden’s metaphor of
the ice cube, mentioned in Guido 1999b). Yet, the term “universal” in this
64 Chapter Four
context could be questioned because the acquisition of texts is connected

to the influence of specific cognitive and socio-cultural features, which
have to be shared by the members of the discourse communities, in order
to attain common interpretations and effect. In fact, when the
linguacultural backgrounds are different, the translators’ and receivers’
responses may not coincide with the author’s representation of reality.
Therefore, when scripts are examined, translators may activate two
cognitive processes—“bottom-up” (i.e., text-based) and “top-down”
(knowledge-based)—with different functions, which typically interact in
order to gain the appropriate semantic representation. The bottom-up
processes may help to identify the features of texts at the cognitive, formal
and pragmatic/functional levels, whereas the top-down ones may serve to
critically analyse such original textual evidence. What is more, by being
acquainted with both source and target linguacultural backgrounds,
translators may even bridge the gap between source and target socio-
cultural conventions. For these reasons, the notion of “Universal Semantic
Representation” is here developed into that of Cognitive Semantic
Representation, as the interpretation on which TTs are based is the
outcome of a critical analysis of STs carried out by means of the
integration between the top-down and bottom-up mental operations. And
yet, due to the specific construction of multimodal texts, the extralinguistic
dimension does represent a further hint to infer the right intention, hence
such a cognitive representation is here defined as Mediated, signifying that
by decoding the rules of composition of audiovisual texts (see Chapter 2
above) it is possible to enquire into the pragmatic dimension of the
original utterances, getting beneath the surface meaning.
To sum up, once the source texts are received and analysed for the first
time, translators resort to several levels of analysis linked to their factual
and procedural competences (explained below) in order to achieve the
Mediated-Cognitive Semantic Representation (Me-CSR), on which their
target versions are based.
4.2.1 Levels of Analysis and the Translator’s Competences

Guido (1999a: 68-71) identifies three levels of source-text analysis—
(i) text-type; (ii) discoursive-genre; (iii) text-token—each denoting a
different perspective from which semantic representations are derived. In
particular, level (i) corresponds to the cognitive construct of the genre that
the text belongs to, and thus it represents an abstract feature; level (ii)
identifies the formal features of the text—namely, how the abstract genre
in (i) is linguistically actualised by focusing on its register; level (iii) deals
with the functional dimension of the actual extract—i.e., introduced in a

communicative context—eventually allowing an enquiry into the implied
effects the author was trying to achieve and the empirical ones prompted
on the receivers.
Applied to the AV texts representing the corpus of this book, the three
levels of analysis may be reformulated as follows:
(i) text-type level:

1. audiovisual text;
2. topic of the analysed text;
3. construction of the humorous discourse.
(ii) discoursive-genre level:
1. register analysis (cf. Halliday 1978);
2. interaction between linguistic and extralinguistic codes (cf.
Kress and van Leeuwen 2006).
(iii) text-token level:
1. Seven standards of textuality (cf. de Beaugrande and
Dressler 1981);
2. pragmatic analysis;
3. grammar of visual design (cf. Kress and van Leeuwen
2006).
The above chart displays the adaptation of Guido’s (1999a: 68-71)

levels of analysis to the reception and retextualisation of multimodal
scripts. The cognitive dimension is integrated by adding the abstract
notion of “audiovisual texts” ((i).1), which should create the expectation—
on the part of the translators—of an interaction between linguistic and
extralinguistic elements in conveying the message. Such an interaction
may be affected by the topic of the analysed text ((i).2) and by its genre:
according to the plot of a movie, or of an episode of a TV series, in fact,
intertextual and/or intratextual links (i.e., allusions and references) to other
episodes or to other series or films may be included in the scripts,
requiring specific competences from the translators. Furthermore, as for
the genre, the construction of humorous discourse ((i).3) may lead analysts
to expect a flouting of the cognitive, linguistic and socio-cultural
conventions, following the theories of humour production (see Section 3.1
above).
At the discoursive-genre level, translators enquire into the actualisation
of the constructs affected by the source linguacultural background. Due to
the construction of the selected text types, such an analysis is carried out
from two perspectives: the linguistic one—for example resorting to
Halliday’s (1978) register analysis, so as to allow an investigation into the
field, mode, and tenor of the corpus ((ii).1)—and the multimodal one
66 Chapter Four
((ii).2), looking at the interaction between the linguistic and extralinguistic

codes, applying the social semiotic and visual design rules (see Chapter 2
above).
Finally, as for the functional level, translators may confirm their initial,
cognitive considerations, actualising them in the reception of source texts
and the development of target scripts. This would give coherence to the
latter versions from a linguistic perspective, insofar as retextualisations are
rooted in the identification and reproduction of the original textual and
pragmatic relations. For example, by resorting to the analysis unveiling the
role of what is unsaid ((iii).2), thus recognising the specific roles of
implicature and presupposition, it is possible to identify how humour is
constructed in the original scripts, as well as how to reproduce it for target
receivers. It is however worth explaining that the inclusion of De
Beaugrande and Dressler’s (1981) “Seven standards of textuality” ((iii).1)
is aimed at envisaging a possible, more general development of the
adoption of the Model—which is here employed only for humorous
texts—to complete the pragmatic analysis. Finally, concerning the
multimodal perspective, it is also important to pursue an equivalent
interaction between the several modes of representation, in order to
prompt specific responses from the recipients ((iii).3) and to respect the
original illocutionary level, avoiding the exploitation of the fixed frame for
the ideological modifications.
The analysis advocated by the Interactive Model is defined “critical” as
it is intended for the identification of the original semantic dimensions,
from the denotative level, to the one affected by the authors’ ideology, by
their linguacultural background. By resorting to the interaction between
the top-down and bottom-up cognitive processes, it is possible to avoid the
production either of foreignised texts, which would preserve obscure parts
of the ST that may not be accessible to the audience (cf. Venuti 1995), or
of domesticated texts based on a top-down process—as in the case of the
translation of video games (cf. Chapters 6 and 7 below)—or based on
scheduling concerns—as in the case of the translation of the earlier
seasons of Family Guy (cf. Iaia 2011a; 2011b), where taboo jokes were
softened or neutralised, due to the cartoon being broadcast in the
afternoon.
In order to mediate between the source and target linguacultural
dimensions, translators have to resort to their competences, generally
divided into “factual” and “procedural” ones (cf. Guido 1999a: 103-105).
These notions are also adapted here for the multimodal texts. As for
“factual competence”, besides knowing both source and target languages
and source and target cultural backgrounds, it is important that translators
enquire into the actualisation of the linguistic conventions in visual and

acoustic terms, as exemplified by the identification of the role of
represented participants, as well as their function of vectors (see Section
2.2 above), along with the “Theme-Rheme” pattern suggested by Kress
and van Leeuwen (2006: 179-185) and illustrated by figure 2-5 above (p.
44). At the same time, “procedural competence” aims at developing
equivalent target versions focusing on the functional level, by trying to
adapt the original construction of textually-, visually-, or acoustically-
conveyed humorous discourse for the target receivers. In this sense, the
Model proposes a different approach that discards conventional choices
such as the (ab)use of the diatopic/diastratic varieties and dialects that
causes specific pragmalinguistic misrepresentations (cf. Sections 5.2 and
6.2 below), but which advocates an interaction between the respect for
textual evidence and the translator’s creative contributions, as exemplified
by the alternative translations presented in Chapter 7 below. The levels of
analysis and the types of competence are obviously meant as parts of the
same, complex process activated by the translators, here represented by the
Interactive Model, composed by two main phases bridged by the construct
of Me-CSR, the “Mediated Cognitive Semantic Representation”, as will be
now described.
4.3 Phases of the Model: “MuCrAS” and “MuReTS”

The Model encourages a critical analysis of source texts, allowing the
production of pragmalinguistic equivalent translations by focusing on the
integration of the multimodal dimension in the phases of reception of the
original versions and their retextualisations. For these reasons, two main
phases are identified—defined as “MuCrAS” and “MuReTS”—
respectively indicating the “Multimodal Critical Analysis of Scripts” and
the “Multimodal Re-Textualisation of Scripts”. Figure 4-1 below
exemplifies the phases of the Model and provides a brief summary of their
objectives:
68 Chapter Four
Figure 4-1: P
Phases of the Intteractive Modell and a descripttion of their objectives.
The twoo phases reflect the cognitiive and proceedural stages activated
during the translation prrocess. Phasee #1 aims at inferring thee original
illocutionaryy force by enquiring
e into
o the linguisttic dimension n and its
interaction wwith the multimodal dimenssion (Mu). Sinnce—as exem mplified in
the theoreticcal backgrounnd—multimod dal texts are cconstructed by
y creating
a relation of integration or even oppo osition (especcially as for humorous
h
discourse) bbetween the linnguistic and extralinguistic
e c components, “Mu” is
intended as an element thhat translatorss should consstantly consid der during
their criticall analyses of scripts
s (CrAS). It is duringg such analysees that the
strategies inntroduced in the theoreticaal chapters, ssuch as the pragmatic
p
analysis or the consideraations regardin ng the constrruction of hum mour, are
activated inn order to iddentify and in nterpret the ooriginal semaantic and
functional ddimensions. Furthermore,
F the analysis is defined ass critical,
whereas thee translators’ modifications are labelledd ideological,, because
they are innfluenced by their linguaacultural backkground, such h as the
selection of specific languuage varieties, or of lexical and syntacticc features,
which do nnot correspondd to those ap ppearing in thhe source scrripts, and
which are taailored to the implied
i audien
nce’s expectattions.
The Inteeractive Model, Method and Coorpus 69
In the seelected corpuss, in fact, hum

morous discouurse is actualiised from
both the linnguistic and multimodal perspectives. For the form mer, this
happens by means of thee contrasts bettween the exppected and un nexpected
lexico-semaantic and synntactic featurees; for the llatter, the au udiovisual
elements innteract with thhe linguistic features, thuss conveying the same
humorous inntent throughh a visually-in ncongruous reepresentation, (such as
the “Sparklee Hunting” phhases in the video
v game Loollipop Chain nsaw—cf.
Section 6.2 below), groteesque visual characterisatio
c ons and musiccal scores
underlining the expected amused respo onse from thee audience. Du uring this
phase of annalysis, translaators questionn the illocutio nary intent an
nd unveil
those socio-cultural feattures that maay require addaptation in order to
achieve a ppragmalinguisttic equivalentt for target reeceivers. At the same
time, analyssts can also iddentify the traanslators’ ideoological modiifications,
actualised bby the differrent lexical, syntactic annd pragmatic features
determined by the target linguaculturaal backgroundd. The MuCrA AS phase
mainly affeccts the cognittive and disco oursive-genre levels, and trranslators
are supposedd to resort to their factual competence.
c F
Furthermore, as for the
cognitive opperations that are activated,, the analysis is focused on inferring
the author’ss intent from textual evideence by meanns of the activation of
bottom-up pprocesses, eveen though an active cognittive effort maay still be
needed wheen some gapps in the reeception of tthe original semantic
dimensions are to be briddged. Figure 4-2 4 below dissplays the leveels of the
MuCrAS phhase:
Figure 4-2: L
Levels of the “M
MuCrAS” phasee.
The resuults of the muultimodal critiical analysis aallow the ach

hievement
of the Mediiated-Cognitivve Semantic Representatio
R on, or Me-CSR, which
70 Chapter Four
also represeents the startinng point for thhe retextualisaation of sourcce scripts.
The translattor resorts agaain to the integration betw ween the lingu uistic and
extralinguisttic dimensionns, as the targeet lexical and syntactic choices have
to preserve the originall relation to the “fixed fframe” (Guid do 2012).
Compared too MuCrAS, however,
h the MuReTS
M phasse follows thee opposite
path, as it sstarts from the analysis of the pragmatiic dimension and ends
with the muultimodal actuaalisation of eq quivalent scrippts for target receivers,
r
achieved byy means of syntactic and d lexical chooices reprodu ucing the
relation betwween the linguuistic and non n-linguistic feaatures which are
a meant
to be equivaalent to the orriginal one. Th he process off retextualisatiion in the
MuReTS sstage mainlyy exploits th he translatorr’s top-down n mental
mechanismss to provide allternative (tho ough hopefullyy equivalent) solutions
to the origiinal features. In fact, due to the praagmalinguisticc type of
equivalence advocated inn this book, th he activation oof bottom-up processes
p
is still needded to avoidd the imposition of the trranslator’s id deological
modificationn and ideoological inteerpretation th that may resultr in
pragmalinguuistic misrepresentations th hat prompt diffferent respon nses from
the audiencee. Figure 4-3 below
b illustrattes the levels oof the MuReTTS phase:
Figure 4-3: L
Levels of the “M
MuReTS” phasee.
The passsage from MuuCrAS to MuReTS is meannt as a dynam mic and—

above all—aan interactive one, for translators are callled to constaantly refer
to the originnal multimodal constructioon to test theiir interpretatio
on and to
enquire intoo the level of pragmalinguis
p stic equivalennce between th he source
and target sccripts. Figure 4-4 below pro
ovides a schemmatic represen ntation of
the Interactive Model here proposed an nd discussed:
The Inteeractive Model, Method and Coorpus 71
Figure 4-4: S
Schematic representation of thee Interactive Moodel.
72 Chapter Four
After this theoretical introduction and discussion of the phases of the

Model, it is now time to turn to a description of one of its pedagogical,
practical applications.
4.3.1 A Practical Application of the Interactive Model

Regarding the practical, pedagogical application of the Model, it is
useful to adopt a gradual approach, starting with written texts only, in
order to enquire into the linguistic actualisation of the cognitive processes
affecting the lexical, syntactic and pragmatic features of both source and
target texts. Then, the introduction to the multimodal grammar (see
Chapter 2 above) could help to develop the linguistic analysis by focusing
on the interaction with the extralinguistic features.
The example below deals with the adoption of the Model in English-
Italian Translation courses at the University of Salento. In particular, a
group of undergraduate students was asked to provide a translation of the
clip New Movie-Based Barbie Dolls, from the American late-night talk
show Conan, broadcast by TBS. The host, Conan O’Brien, and his partner
on stage, Andy, appear in the sketch—whose script is partially reproduced
in (8) below—consisting in a preview of a sample of new Barbies inspired
by popular movies (actually, all the dolls except for the first one are
invented):26
(8) Conan: “Mattel just announced it’s gonna release a new Barbie
based on the Hunger Games main character, Katniss
Everdeen. That’s a photo of the Barbie. It’s about time
Barbie had a crossbow!”
5 Andy: “Right, right!”
[…]
Conan: “[…] [T]he Hunger Games is not the only movie getting
its own Barbie doll. This is a trend, now. Mattel is
releasing Barbies based on other popular films, as well.
10 And we have an exclusive sneak peak at some of the
dolls.”
[…]
Conan: “There is this one—There is ‘Lorax Barbie’ right here.”
Andy: “I would make it a nice bottlebrush.”
15 […]
Conan: “[…] Check this out! Very popular movie franchise,
‘Get-Your-Own Ghost Rider Barbie’.”
Andy: “Wow!”
Conan: “This is terrible!”

20 Andy: “Er… This—do it from the neck up!”
[…]
Conan: “[…] Next Barbie is based on the upcoming movie
Battleship, you’ve all heard of this Battleship movie?
Yeah! It’s called ‘Battleship Barbie’. Right here.”
Humorous discourse in (8) is based on the interaction between various

dimensions and modes of representation, from the linguistic and socio-
cultural ones, to audiovisual features. As for the former, consider the use
of some expression such as do it from the neck up (l. 20), or of typical
claims, as Get-Your-Own (l. 17), together with the fact that most of the
puns are based on the titles of the mentioned movies; as for the latter, the
creation of specific cognitive oppositions depends on the physical
properties of the Barbies, but also on the “give and take” structure of the
dialogue between the host and Andy. Finally, multimodality affects the
pragmatic dimension as well, by means of the inclusion of the audience’s
and the comedians’ laughter, which is meant to underline the presence of a
joke, as happens in various sitcoms.
Since the Interactive Model has been devised to foreground the
interaction between the linguistic and extralinguistic characteristics, in the
script reproduced below notations regarding the acoustic and visual
elements have been added, in order to provide a partial multimodal
transcription of the sketch, as in (8a) below:
(8a) Conan: “[…] Check this out! Very popular movie franchise,
‘Get-Your-Own Ghost Rider Barbie’ [Conan takes the
doll].”
Andy: “Wow! [the audience laugh and applaud]”
5 Conan: “This is terrible!”
Andy: “Er—Just do it from the neck up!”
[…]
Conan: “[…] Next Barbie is based on the upcoming movie
Battleship, you’ve all heard of this Battleship movie?
10 Yeah! It’s called ‘Battleship Barbie’. [Conan takes the
doll] Right here [the audience laugh and applaud].”
Only one example of the proposed translations is here analysed,

dealing with the rendering of the claim “Get-Your-Own Ghost Rider
Barbie”, whereas a deeper analysis and comment of the interaction shall
be provided in Section 7.3 below. By means of the MuCrAS phase, the
74 Chapter Four
Me-CSR—namely, “Conan’s intention to reproducing the language of

advertisement”—has been identified, thus rejecting lexical equivalence in
favour of the pragmatic one. In fact, the original utterance has been
translated as “Compra la tua Barbie Ghost Rider [‘Buy your Ghost Rider
Barbie]”, which on the one hand reproduces the original parody of the call
for children to ask their parents for the doll, but which on the other
replaces the verb “to get” with “to buy”, which would sound more natural
to an Italian receiver.
Secondly, the critical retextualisation has also determined the different
Italian syntactic structure that postpones the modifier—i.e., the title of the
movie—to the name of the doll, and therefore it contrasts with the English
feature of “premodification” (cf. Gotti 2005: 73-77). Again, rather than
focusing on a syntactic type of equivalence, the target script supports a
pragmalinguistic one, where the denotative-semantic dimension is
preserved while accounting for appropriate renderings of the connotative-
pragmatic level. Despite the changes, indeed, the target version still
preserves the function of provoking a cognitive clash due to the expected
and actual presentations of a product supposedly intended for children.
The toy, in fact, is modelled after the character of the movie Ghost Rider
(Mark Stephen Johnson, 2007), and the prop makers definitely create a
doll that is not suitable for young girls, for although it has the body of a
human being and is riding a pink motorbike, it has the face of a skull.
Finally, the audiovisual features—such as the audience’s laughter at
Conan’s acting—allow viewers to infer the intentional disruption of the
conventional schemata, eventually resulting in their entertainment.
4.4 Method and Corpus

The analysis will investigate the cognitive, linguistic and pragmatic
features of the source and target versions, focusing on the multimodal
construction of scripts and on the level of equivalence between the original
and translated ones. Data will be represented by the original and translated
scripts, by the alternative translations, and by the responses to the
questionnaire on audience reception, whereas the Interactive Model will be
used for the analysis of the official translations and the production of the
alternative ones (as in the extract (8) from Conan). Furthermore, the
Think-Aloud technique (cf. Ericsson and Simon 1984), consisting in tape-
recording “everything that went on in [the translators’] minds while they
were translating” (Kussmaul 1995: 7), will be resorted to for the
identification of the cognitive processes activated by the translators.
Finally, the choice of submitting the questionnaire to groups of
undergraduate students will help to compare the implied and actual

audience receptions. In the course of the analysis, a multimodal
transcription will be adopted, noting down in the same transcript the
utterances and nonverbal features (such as body movements, the phonetic
characteristics, the staging indications). The time frame of the selected
scenes will be indicated, except for video games, when—due to the
variable length of any game and play sessions—it will be replaced by
indications of the plot development where it is possible to find the
analysed fragments.27 By integrating the qualitative analysis with the
representation of important images it will be possible to illustrate the
multimodal construction of the case studies, whereas the results of the
questionnaire and the features of the alternative translations will contribute
to the investigation of audience reception and of the influence of the
cognitive construct of “implied receivers” on target-text production.
4.4.1 Corpus
The first part of the analysis will be devoted to the description and
discussion of the conventional strategies for the Italian translation and
dubbing of humorous discourse. The corpus—which includes films, TV
series and video games—is indicated below:
x TV Series:
a. The Big Bang Theory (episodes “The Hamburger
Postulate”—3T6604; “The Middle-Earth Paradigm”—
3T6605);
b. Bob’s Burgers (episodes “An Indecent Thanksgiving
Proposal”—2ASA19; “Mother Daughter Laser Razor”—
2ASA15);
c. Family Guy (episodes “Business Guy”—7ACX11; “The
Former Life of Brian”—6ACX04; “Partial Terms of
Endearment”—7ACX10);
d. Futurama (episodes “Cold Warriors”—6ACV24; “The
Silence of the Clamps”—6ACV14 “The Six Million Dollar
Mon”—7ACV04);
e. Happily Divorced (episode “Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza
Place”—213);
f. The Simpsons (episodes “22 Short Films about
Springfield”—3F18; “All about Lisa”—KABF13; “The
Computer Wore Menace Shoes”—CABF02; “Homer’s
Triple Bypass”—9F09; “The Italian Bob”—HABF02; “Kiss
Kiss Bang Bangalore”—HABF10; “The Last of the Red Hat
Mamas”—GABF22; “Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy”—1F12;
76 Chapter Four
“Sideshow Bob’s Last Gleaming”—3F08; “Treehouse of

Horror V”—2F03).
x Movies:
a. Looking for Alibrandi;
b. Stan Helsing.
x TV Shows:
a. Conan.
x Video games:
a. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim;
b. Final Fantasy IX;
c. Lollipop Chainsaw;
d. Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story;
e. Mass Effect 2;
f. Mass Effect 3;
g. Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch;
h. Super Paper Mario.
The criteria for corpus selection are linked to the genre of the
audiovisual scripts, the type of humour employed, the features of the
implied receivers and the presence of diatopic/diastratic varieties in the
Italian translations. With regards to genre, both animated and live action
shows respect the conventional features of sitcoms (situation comedies)—
dealing with the adventures of fixed families or group of friends within
fixed contexts—and develop the humorous discourse on the improbability
of the plots, or the exaggerated representations of characters. For example,
consider the unconventional relationships between parents and children in
The Simpsons, or the presence of talking dogs or babies in Family Guy; the
emblematic schematic representations of the intelligent, “nerdy” post-
graduates and their neighbour—a less educated but more worldly-wise
waitress who aspires to become an actress—in The Big Bang Theory; or
the cognitive clash provoked by having female characters speaking with
male voices in Bob’s Burgers (2011-present). Furthermore, the selected
texts also resort to the conventional, cognitive and linguistic strategies of
humorous construction to depict clumsy or bullying characters, or to mock
foreigners and social outsiders. The analysis will compare the original and
translated versions in order to identify the features of “ideological
modification”, generally exemplified in the selected corpus by the use of
Central- and Southern-Italy diatopic/diastratic varieties, even when the
represented participants are clearly depicted as non-Italian (e.g., Indian)
characters, or when the adoption of the varieties seems to be arbitrary, in
cartoons such as The Simpsons, Family Guy or Futurama (cf. Chapter 5
below). As for video games, humorous discourse resorts to a multimodal
and intertextual actualisation of the conventional theories introduced
above, usually directed at the experienced audience, by integrating the

linguistic and audiovisual features of the scripts, by depicting
counterfactual characters, or by including specific language variations.
This book will also present alternative translations of the following
extracts, obtained by applying the Interactive Model:
(i) a disparaging representation of an Italian man, from Family Guy;

(ii) a dialogue between Josie and her grandmother, and Josie’s
thoughts, from Looking for Alibrandi;
(iii) “New Movie-based Barbie Dolls”, from Conan;
(iv) examples of intertextual humour, from Lollipop Chainsaw;
(v) the characterisation of an Indian character, Raj, from Ni No
Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch;
(vi) a dialogue between Zidane, Quina and Quale, from Final
Fantasy IX.
Alternative translations (i)-(vi) have been selected for the following

reasons: the adoption of diatopic/diastratic varieties in extract (i) to
produce a target version that preserves the original illocutionary
dimension; the inclusion of an Italian lingua-franca variation and the
adaptation of the references to Christianity on which the original
humorous effect of extract (ii) is grounded; the intertextual connections to
successful films and characters in example (iii). In addition to this,
alternative translations (iv), (v) and (vi) deal with the multimodal and
intertextual construction of humour typical of video games, exemplifying
again the influence of implied receivers in the production of the official
translations, and the inappropriateness of conventional translation choices.
Extract (vi) will also contribute to the examination of the responses to the
questionnaire submitted to groups of undergraduate students, who
represent an empirical audience, aimed to test their reception of both
official and alternative translated versions.
4.5 Conclusions
The Interactive Model adopts a process-based, functional investigation
of AVT so as to provide translators with specific types of competences
concerning the rules of linguistic and extralinguistic construction, the
interaction between language and culture, as well as the multimodal
actualisation of the socio-cultural and cognitive constructs affecting the
source meanings. Furthermore, its application pursues a pragmalinguistic
type of equivalence originated from the mediation between the respect for
textual evidence and the translators’ creative contributions, in order to
78 Chapter Four
produce target scripts more acceptable and accessible to receivers. The

conventional strategies in the Italian dubbing translation of humorous texts
will be explored in the following chapters by means of a qualitative
analysis of the influence of the socio-cultural ideological constructs, which
lead to different lexical, syntactic and functional choices, according to the
implied audience’s expectations. Secondly, the alternative translations
obtained by means of the Interactive Model will be examined as well,
eventually investigating the reception of a case study on game localisation,
detailing the differences between the implied-audience’s and empirical-
receivers’ reactions. The description of the conventional translation
strategies, the introduction of alternative renderings and the discussion of
the survey will provide a picture that contributes to the development of the
AVT studies by enquiring into the possibility for the creation of critical
and multimodal approaches to the translation of audiovisual texts, by
providing models for the specific training of audiovisual translators, and
by exploring novel areas of research.
CHAPTER FIVE
ANALYSIS OF FILMS AND TV SERIES
This chapter will be divided into sections according to the main

solutions adopted by the translators. Firstly, the inclusion of the Italian
diatopic and diastratic varieties in the corpus of comic texts will be
enquired into (5.1) in order to question the appropriateness of such
retextualisation strategies, and to explore their socio-cultural and cognitive
features. Secondly, the analysis will focus on the pragmatic
misrepresentations activated by the Italian scripts, where the female
characters in particular are represented as more naïve or less sophisticated
than their original counterparts, even by means of the creation of a
different type of humorous discourse (5.2), thereby targeting an audience
presumably made up of childish and sexist male receivers. Finally, some
extracts will exemplify alternative adaptation strategies for the rendering
of foreigners and Italian-Americans (5.3), which try to prompt an
equivalent type of humorous effect in the target text to that achieved in the
source version.
5.1 The Adoption of Diatopic/Diastratic Varieties

in Films and TV Series
The comic effect in the analysed corpus of audiovisual texts is
generally constructed on references to American pop-culture, on the
cognitive clashes between the represented participants’ expected and
actual actions, or on stereotypical representations of people from other
nationalities, who are depicted with exaggerated traits following the
derogatory strategies of humorous discourse (Zillman 1983). The latter
characteristics, in particular, follow the tendency of individualist cultures
(Triandis et al. 1988) to provide their receivers with specific
characterisations entailing processes of inclusion and exclusion related to
their shared socio-cultural schemata. Hence, Italian-Americans are easily
identifiable by the way they are presented visually (cf. Section 5.1.1
below) or by their peculiar way of gesturing while speaking, whereas the
Hispanic Bumblebee Man from The Simpsons—who speaks both Spanish
80 Chapter Five
and English, with some invented words (see extract (37), p. 119)—is a
source for slapstick humour. On the other hand, when foreigners are not
involved, the humour is often found in unexpected turn-taking systems or
sequences of “moves” (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975; Burton 1980) in the
conversational patterns, as well as in the socio-culturally shared schemata
activated by professional figures such as doctors, or police officers.
Whereas the former are expected to use specialised terminology, and the
latter are expected to adopt a high status towards suspects when taking the
floor, such expectations are systematically subverted by the analysed
interactions. As for the Italian versions, though generally respecting the
original conversation patterns, the retextualisation processes exemplify
ideological associations between the represented participants’ attitudes and
their diatopic/diastratic varieties, reminding one of the lexico-semantic and
structural modifications in game localisation (see Section 1.4 above),
which produces an effect for the target audience which is not deemed
equivalent from the pragmalinguistic perspective, since it originates from
the translators’ deliberate changes to the original scripts, so as to suit the
cognitive constructs that the translation process entails.
5.1.1 The Neapolitan Diatopic/Diastratic Variety

One of the most common features in the Italian versions is the
inclusion of Southern diatopic and diastratic varieties, such as Napoletano
(i.e., Neapolitan as it is known in English), the variety from Napoli and its
area, thus relying upon the strategies of social inclusion and exclusion
connected to the sense of national identities (cf. Moran 1998) in the
construction of humorous discourse. The socio-cultural, geographical
stereotypes create a clear-cut distinction between Northern and Central-
Southern Italy, eventually marking the “Otherness of the South”, which is
“one profitable and well-tested cultural narrative of and for the Italian
nation” (Ferrari 2010: 19). According to Dickie (1996: 27-28), in fact, “the
South and concepts of the South are profoundly implicated in definitions
of the Italian national space”, thus evoking the “economic
underdevelopment and organized crime” as the most common concepts
associated with Southern people and their diatopic/diastratic varieties. It
follows that Italian audiovisual texts resort to stereotypical representations
to save the audience’s “cognitive energy” (Hart 2007: 215) needed to
recognise specific groups or individuals. The “regional stereotypes”
(Ferrari 2010: 14) and “social and geographical problems” (Hart 2007:
214) are indeed a “well-tested strategy for domestication” (Ferrari 2010:
14) included in the dubbing translation of film, sitcoms and cartoons to
Analysis of Films and TV Series 81
represent the characters’ otherness, producing humorous discourse according

to cognitive clashes (Raskin 1985; Attardo 1994; 2001) between the
expected/unexpected and possible/impossible situations, as well as to the
derogatory representations of characters “marked by a great power
distance” (Guido 2012: 43), generally depicted as “criminal, ignorant, or
socially inept” (Hart 2007: 217). As for the Neapolitan diatopic/diastratic
variety, its conventional adoption for the adaptation of humour is
confirmed by the case studies below. For example, Chief Wiggum from
The Simpsons shares some physical features with Fat Bastard (‘Ciccio
Bastardo’) in the Italian version of Austin Powers: the Spy who Shagged
Me (Austin Powers – La spia che ci provava, 1999). This leads to the
assumption that similar characterisations aim to mark low-status
participants by means of multimodal derogatory representations, these
being their linguistic dimension—characterised by diatopically- and
diastratically-marked expressions—accompanied by their being represented
visually as awkward, fat, and scruffy.
When it comes to the audiovisual texts under analysis, it is also
possible to identify two main groups of people speaking Napoletano: one
concerning the adaptation of the original Italian-American characters and
the other the cognitive contrast between the expected and unexpected
attitudes according to the characters’ jobs. As for the former group, Luigi
Risotto and Mr Panucci—respectively owners of an Italian restaurant and
“Panucci’s Pizza”, in The Simpsons and Futurama—represent cases in
point: Luigi exemplifies the conventional traits of an Italian character with
a big moustache, usually moving his hands while speaking, and wearing
clothes that visually indicate his job. At the same time, Panucci’s
representation embodies the “power distance” (cf. Hofstede 1983) between
native-born Americans and immigrants, as the source audience see a man
dealing in food who does not wear a uniform—unlike Luigi—but conveys
instead connotative dimensions that mark the deviance from the norm,
such as a poor sense of hygiene, which, put together, develop a humorous
strategy based on his “otherness”.
With regards to their counterparts in the Italian translations, both Luigi
and Panucci preserve the connotations entailed by their visual
representations, which may be considered as “joke universals” (Chiaro
1992). However, humour is also in the linguistic construction of their
lines, as standard lexical and syntactic features alternate with peculiar
diatopically- and diastratically-marked expressions, coinciding with the
domestication strategies of appropriation and adaptation of the original
socio-cultural and cognitive features, which are generally employed in
film and sitcom dubbing translations (cf. Guido 2012). The inclusion of
82 Chapter Five
the Neapolitan variety implies a link between the target audience and their
socio-cultural background and therefore it provides specific, geographically-
based disparaging representations integrated by the linguistic modifications.
The representations are here defined “disparaging” since characters have
low-status, and are generally the butts of jokes aimed at marking their low
schooling, their mispronunciations. For example, in episode TS-GABF22,
Milhouse teaches Lisa some Italian, as he used to spend his summer
holidays to his grandmother’s house in Tuscany. During one of the lessons
in Springfield’s Little Italy, they meet Luigi, who communicates his
inability to speak Standard Italian ((9): extract from 00:11:30 – 00:11:54):

Luigi: “Ah, Mr “Uh, signore “Uh, Mr
Milhouse, Milhouse, Milhouse,
thank-a- menomale, va’! good!
goodness! Potete tradurmi Could you
5 Could you e aiutarmi a translate for me
translate and comprare i and help me buy
help me buy formaggi per le cheeses for my
cheese for my mie lasagne?” lasagne?”
lasagna?”
10 Milhouse: “But, Luigi, “Ma Luigi, non “But Luigi,
surely you parli italiano, can’t you speak
speak Italian.” tu?” Italian?”
Luigi: “[huffs] No, I “Ah, no, mi “Uh, no, I’m
don’t. I only dispiace assai, very sorry,
15 speak—uh— non lo parlo. Io I can’t. I only
how you say? parlo solo… speak…
Uhm… comme se how do you
fractured dice?... In say?... dialect.
English. It’s dialetto stretto. That is what my
20 what my parents È quello che parents spoke
spoke at the parlavano i miei at home, in
home.” a casa mia a Pozzuoli.”
Pozzuoli.”
The decision to use Napoletano is challenged by the original script:

during the MuCrAS phase it is in fact possible to identify a contrast
between the expected situation (Luigi can speak Italian) and the actual one
(Luigi needs Milhouse’s help). As for the linguistic part of the analysis, it
is worth realising that the conversation pattern is respected by the Italian
version, hence the modifications only affect Luigi’s utterances. In fact, in

both interactions the man recognises Milhouse’s high status, justifying
why he needs the child’s help (turns 1 and 3), whereas what changes is the
stereotypical, diatopically- and diastratically-marked characterisation,
exemplified by the fact that Luigi cannot master Standard Italian, resorting
to words deviating from the norm like “comme” (l. 17), which replaces
“come” [‘how’]. Furthermore, also the deliberately-added reference to the
region of Campania—in particular, the town of Pozzuoli—creates an
ideological modification, as it provokes Luigi’s affiliation to a particular
type of socio-cultural, stereotypical representations of people from
Southern Italy, a conventional strategy for the production of humour based
on Italian regionalisms (cf. Ferrari 2010), according to which people
speaking with Southern accents—the butts of jokes—are represented as
inferior, stupid, and have negative characteristics such as laziness and
being bad workers all round (cf. Attardo 1994; Guido 2012: 62, and see
also extracts (11) and (12) below).
The production of diatopically- and diastratically-marked representations
is confirmed by Panucci in the following interaction (10), from F-
6ACV24. Fry—the main character—is recalling episodes from his youth,
as when he met his rival, Josh Gedgie, at “Panucci’s Pizza”. As the
analysis reveals, even though the owner’s poor schooling is preserved in
the target version, the latter increases this trait, by means of variations
from standard lexico-semantic and syntactic features (00:07:36 –
00:07:44):

Josh: “Pi over four “Una porzione “A slice of
radians of pizza, di pizza – pizza – 90
please.” angolo a 90 degrees angle.”
gradi.”
5 Panucci: “What is that, “E che d’è? “And what is
about a slice?” Nu that? A
quartino? quartino?
[ride]” [laughs]”
Josh: “More like “Sí, diciamo che “Yes, let’s say it
10 exactly a slice. è un quartino. is a quartino
[giggles]” [ride]” [laughs]”
The source text plays on Josh’s characterisation as a brilliant, but nerdy

and egocentric student, who uses a specialised language also when he
orders a pizza or talks to non-experts such as Panucci (Me-CSR). In fact,
84 Chapter Five
he says, “Pi over four radians of pizza” (ll. 1-2), instead of the more
common word “slice”. Panucci’s reaction therefore marks a communicative
failure due to Josh’s utterance and when the former asks for clarifications,
the latter “popularises” the original notion, with a pleased giggling.
The Italian script does not respect the original pragmalinguistic
features, as the translation of Josh’s request—“angolo a 90 gradi” (ll. 3-
4)—does not entail the original communicative features, and what is more,
“90-degree angle” actually does not mean “Pi over four radians”, which
stands for “45-degree angle”. Despite this mistranslation, the Italian choice
exemplifies that target versions are modelled according to the cognitive
construct of the implied audience of cartoons, which in the analysed
extract has led to a simplification of the original utterance, eventually not
conveying an equivalent text or effect for the target receivers. This
ideological modification is identified during the lexical and syntactic
levels of the multimodal, critical analysis, since due to the
diatopic/diastratic varieties in target characterisations, Panucci sounds like
a less educated character resorting to diastratically-marked syntactic and
lexical features such as “nu” replacing the standard “un”, ‘a’ (l. 6), or “che
d’è?”, replacing “che cos’è?”, ‘what is that?’ (l. 5). As a result, whereas
Josh’s original mocking laughter only aims to highlight his snobbish
attitude towards non-specialists—like Sheldon from The Big Bang
Theory—the target version of his laughter may also be interpreted as a
humorous reaction towards the Italian man resorting to Napoletano to talk
to him.
Besides examples (9) and (10), there are two more characters, with
whom the adoption of the Neapolitan accent accompanies the original
breach of the shared schemata, thus allowing the identification of the
ideological connection between the selected language variety and the
resulting characterisations. Indeed, both Chief Wiggum and Dr Nick, from
The Simpsons—the former a clumsy police officer and the latter a less-
experienced doctor—satirise the socio-cultural expectations activated by
their jobs, for they are supposed to show professionalism, expertise and—
Dr Nick in particular—use of appropriate, specialised register, belonging
to a community of specialists (cf. Gotti 2005). Instead, the latter reveals
himself as a clumsy doctor (e.g., in (12)) unable to even master the
medical “jargon” (Turner 1980). Additionally, the choice in the Italian
version to have him speak Neapolitan accent is considered not consistent
with his Hispanic origins in the source script, thus revealing the
ideological inclusion of Southern diatopic and diastratic varieties when
source characters are interpreted as less-experienced and less capable.
In the extract (11) below, from episode TS-9F09, Dr Nick introduces

himself to Homer, who has to undergo a difficult operation after a heart
attack (00:13:36 – 00:13:49):

Dr Nick: “Hi, everybody! “Salve, uaglio’! “Hi, uaglio’!
I’m doctor Nick Qui in corsia Doctor Nick
Riviera!” per voi, il Riviera is in the
Dottor Nick ward for you!”
5 Riviera!”
Man: “Doctor “[female, not “Doctor
Riviera. Doctor male voice] Riviera. Doctor
Nick Riviera, Dottor Rivera. Il Riviera
please report to dottor Riviera si immediately
10 the coroner, rechi go to the
immediately.” immediatamen- coroner.”
te dal medico
legale.”
Dr Nick: “The coroner? “Medico legale “The coroner –
15 I’m so sick of – me so’ rotte I’m so sick of
that guy!” [to proprio di that guy,
Homer] Well, quello lí, eh! [a eh! [to Homer]
see you in the Homer] Bene, Well, see you
operating allora noi ci soon
20 place.” vediamo tra nu in the operating
mumend’ in room, then.”
sala operatoria.”
The portrayal of Dr Nick satirises professional doctors right from his

introduction (“Hi, everybody!”, l. 1), and the ways he refers to his
colleagues or conventional places, such as the coroner or the operating
room, which he calls the “operating place” (ll. 19-20). It is therefore clear
that humour is in the cognitive contrast between Nick’s behaviour and
what is expected of doctors in general (Me-CSR), which the Italian script
boosts with a diatopic characterisation that—as with Luigi Risotto—
displays peculiar lexical and phonological features. Firstly, the Italian
script lacks the reproduction of the linguistic features on which the source
humour is originally based: “operating place” is rendered as “sala
operatoria” (ll. 22), which is the correct translation of “operating theatre”,
therefore depriving target receivers of the language-based humour, where
the doctor does not seem to know specialised lexis. Furthermore, like
86 Chapter Five
Panucci’s lines in extract (10), Dr Nick’s utterances are characterised by

specific lexical or syntactic variations that accompany the acoustic
dimension in developing his use of Napoletano; “me so’ rotte proprio” (ll.
15-16), or “tra nu mumend’” (ll. 20-21) define the character’s diastratically-
and diatopically-marked language and create a specific version of the script
adapted along the lines of target-language conventions, which does not
respect the original features. In particular, “me so’ rotte proprio” is a
diastratically-marked translation of the original lexico-semantic dimension,
replacing the Standard expression “mi sono proprio rotto” (“I’m so sick of
that guy!”, ll. 15-16); as for “tra nu mumend’” (‘in a short time’—ll. 20-
21), its addition may be justified simply by the aim to create plausible,
diatopically-marked representations: its lack in the source script indeed
denotes the prevalence of the translators’ retextualisations over the
original technical and linguistic features, and what is more, besides
disrespecting the original locutionary level, the inclusion of the alternative
line raises problems concerning the respect for the original time interval of
the utterance—Herbst’s (1996) “quantity synch”.
Sometimes, the use of diatopic and diastratic varieties also leads to
further modifications in the original scripts to cope with the ideological
representations which the target versions provide. Consider extract (12)
below, from the same episode as above, where Lisa helps Dr Nick, who
cannot remember how to perform Homer’s heart-surgery operation
(00:19:53 – 00:20:14):

Lisa: “HEY! THE “EHI, “HEY, THE
INCISION IN L’INCISIONE INCISION IN
THE NELL’ARTE- THE
CORONARY RIA CORONARY
5 ARTERY CORONARICA ARTERY
MUST BE DEV’ESSERE MUST BE
MADE FATTA MADE
BELOW THE SOTTO AL BELOW THE
BLOCKAGE. BLOCCAG- BLOCKAGE.
10 BELOW!” GIO. SOTTO!” BELOW!”
Dr Nick: “THANKS, “VABBO’, “OK,
LITTLE GIRL! VABBO’, OK,
Then, elbows RAGAZZI’! LITTLE GIRL!
connected to Allora, vediamo Then, let’s see:
15 that. Something, un po’: la rotula the kneecap is
the something del ginocchio è connected to
connected to collegata a something…

that. Red thing, qualcosa… Ah, Ah, this
the red thing’s questo qualcosa something is
20 connected to my è collegato a connected to a
wrist watch— una cosa red thing…
Oh-oh!” rossa… Questa This red thing
cosa rossa è is
collegata… connected…
25 Mannaggia Damn, my
l’orologio!” watch!”
The Italian translation does not create equivalence from a lexical

perspective as it changes the original nouns, from “elbow” to “kneecap”
for example, together with changing communicative functions. When Lisa
suggests how to operate, Dr Nick thanks her in the source script, whereas
the target answer denotes less kindness and gratitude by shouting “Vabbo’,
vabbo’, ragazzi’!” (ll. 11-13). Indeed, while in the original Dr Nick sounds
more dependent on Lisa’s suggestions, the modification seems justified by
the Italian version cognitive representation of the man as a Neapolitan
doctor, and thus non-expert, poor-mannered and poorly-skilled. Such a
process would correspond to the Mediated-Cognitive Semantic
Representation obtained after approaching source texts, due to the
influence of the target linguacultural background.
Dr Nick shares some features with Chief Clancy Wiggum (named
Winchester in the Italian versions—maybe a reference to rifles), who is a
lazy and clumsy officer. He speaks again Napoletano and also his lines are
modified to suit the target-culture-based cognitive representation. For
example, in extract (13) below, from episode TS-3F08, Sideshow Bob—
who is in jail—is called to help organise a military parade. Yet, since Bob
is planning his escape, he is distracted and therefore reproached by
Wiggum (00:04:06 – 00:04:23):

Wiggum: “Hey, you! The “Ue’, uaglio’, lo “Hey, uaglio’,
State’s not Stato non ti the State’s not
paying you five paga cinque paying you five
cents an hour to centesimi l’ora cents an hour
5 stand around. per nun fa’ for not doing
[indicating Bob] niente, anything,
Get busy!” [indicando Bob] [indicating Bob]
iamm’ bell’, iamm’ bell’,
ia’!” ia’!”
88 Chapter Five
10 Bob: “Oh, I’ll get “Oh, mi darò da “Oh, I’ll get

busy… I’ll get fare… Mi darò busy… I’ll get
very busy molto da fare… very busy
indeed… [starts [inizia a ridere]” indeed… [starts
laughing]” laughing]”
15 Wiggum: “[starts laughing “[inizia a ridere “[starts laughing
along with Bob] insieme a Bob] along with Bob]
You still got it, Quanto si’ How nice of
Bob!” bello, Bob!” you, Bob!”
The humour in extract (13) depends on the opposition between the

expected and unexpected conversation patterns between a police officer
and a criminal (Mediated-Cognitive Semantic Representation). Indeed, the
interaction starts with Wiggum reproaching Bob, pushing him to continue
working, culminating in the order “Get busy!” (l. 7). As for the
construction of the humorous effect, only from a superficial level of
analysis does Bob seem to cooperate in terms of Grice’s (1975) maxims.
In fact, he seems to accept Wiggum’s high status, providing an answer that
is relevant to his interlocutor’s request. Yet, if the connotative level of
Bob’s utterance is considered during the multimodal, critical analysis of
the source script, his implicit meaning of being ready for his plans to
break-out and threaten Springfield with an atomic bomb is revealed,
exemplifying his flouting of the maxims of quality and quantity (Grice
1975). Since the audience knows this part of the plot, receivers can catch
both semantic dimensions thus accessing the criminal’s pragmatic
dimension and revealing his real intentions (cf. Levinson 1983). This
would activate their humorous response, also due to the disparaging
representation of Wiggum. In fact, the police officer laughs along with
Bob without knowing what has caused it, hence his characterisation and
naïve response provide further space for a humorous reaction. In
particular, the utterance “You still got it” (l. 17), insists on the cognitively-
incongruous, unexpected characterisation of a police officer who praises a
criminal for his comic qualities (see (13a)-(13c) below), since he refers to
Bob’s past as a character of the TV show for children Krusty the Clown:
(13a) Wiggum is a police officer.

(13b) Expected representation: “Wiggum should have take on
a high status towards Bob, a criminal”.
(13c) Unexpected representation: “Wiggum is friendly towards
Bob, praising him”.
The Italian script respects the original conversation patterns, where

Bob seems to accept Wiggum’s high status, and the latter praises his
receiver. Yet, “Quanto si’ bello, Bob!” (ll. 17-18) only reproduces a
typical exclamation in Napoletano which is not relevant to the interaction,
for it only seems to be a nice comment about Bob. Furthermore, it is not
equivalent from the pragmatic perspective either, since it does not contain
the intratextual reference to his past as a comedian. Also “iamm’ bell’, ia!”
(ll. 8-9) preserves the original function of motivating the criminal, but
modifies the source lexical and structural dimensions in order to adapt
them to Winchester’s characterisation as a Neapolitan, indeed producing a
pragmatically inappropriate representation (see Section 1.5.1 above),
where an American police officer is heard speaking with a Neapolitan
accent.
The examples above are only a few illustrations (the others being
included in Appendix A) that exemplify the cognitive, lexico-semantic,
structural and pragmatic modifications triggered by the ideological choices
influenced by the target linguacultural background and revealed by the
multimodal and critical analysis that the Interactive Model instigates. The
changes do not affect the scripts alone, but also the characters’ names—as
in Wiggum’s case—or the name of local products, such as the “donut,
bagel, cruller and bear claw” that Clancy cites in TS-CABF02, and which
are rendered as “ciambelle, taralli, babà e ciucciú” for the Italian
audience, again creating a recognisable link with the characters, the
language they speak, the stereotypical representations developed and their
geographical identification, following the conventional rules of the
domestication strategy, which affects cartoons, sitcoms and films.28
Finally, Napoletano is not the only Central/Southern diatopic and
diastratic variety adopted; Sicilian is also used for several characters, and
with similar intents, as will be evident from the following examples.
5.1.2 The Sicilian Diatopic/Diastratic Variety

The diatopic and diastratic variety of Siciliano—from Sicily—is
generally adopted for those people connected with Mafia style organised
crime syndicates (for example, Fat Tony in The Simpsons and Donbot in
Futurama), though its inclusion may also entail an arbitrary production of
ideological scripts when it is associated to characters that are neither
criminal nor human, or even monsters, and it only serves to construct a
type of humour relying on target-culture conventions. In Futurama, with
Donbot—leader of the so-called Robot Mafia—and his two lackeys,
Clamps and Joey Mousepad, the construction of the humorous discourse
90 Chapter Five
follows one of the hallmarks of the show, where human stereotypes,

clichés and dynamics in the invented 31st-century society are also shared
by the robots. Hence, the Robot Mafia represents the robotic version of
criminal organisations depicted in films like The Godfather (Il padrino,
1972). Yet, the stereotypical characterisation is differently tailored
according to the analysed scripts: as for the source one, Donbot represents
the “Hollywood Mafioso” (Hart 2007: 220) generally accompanied by his
lackeys and “associated with crime, intimidation, honour, violence and
power” (219). As for the Italian script, on the one hand the correlation
between the Sicilian diatopic/diastratic variety and the traits of “family
honour” and “Mafia” (cf. Consigli 1988; Rappoport 2005; Rossi 2007) is
respected; on the other hand, the inclusion of Siciliano is affected by
ideological modifications to the source characterisations, which transform
the speakers as less glamorous, ignorant and socially inept (cf. Hart 2007:
217-219). The ideological nature of the connotation is confirmed by the fact
that Siciliano is sometimes deliberately attributed to diverse characters, even
without cognitive, socio-cultural or multimodal reasons to justify such a
translation strategy. For example, in episode F-6ACV14—where Bender,
one of the protagonists, falls in love with Donbot’s daughter—many of the
characters are dubbed into Sicilian, from members of Robot Mafia, to
judges, to even Amy—another main character—whose occasional
comments are uttered with a Sicilian accent absent in the original version.
As for Donbot’s lackeys, consider extract (14) below, where Leela has
a delivery for Clamps (00:01:34 – 00:01:45):

Leela: “Delivery for… “Consegna “Delivery for…
[reads from the per… [legge dal [reads from the
box] Francis X. pacco] Francis box] Francis X.
Clampazzo?” X. Pinzaccio.” Clampazzo.”
5 Joey: “We don’t got “Qui non c’è “There is no one
nobody here nessuno che si here with that
with that alias.” chiama accussí” name.”
Clamps: “[off screen] “[fuori campo] “[OS] Hey,
Hey, hey, that’s Ehi, è pi’ mia! that’s for me!
10 me! Are those Sono Are those my
my new le pinze new clamps?”
clamps?” nuove?”
Joey: “[to Clamps] “[a Pinza] Ti “[to Clamps]
Your name’s chiami Your name’s
15 ‘Francis’? ‘Franzis’? ‘Franzis’?
[laughs]” [ride]” [laughs]”
There are some insertions in Siciliano that—as with the Napoletano—

have function as localisations of the original utterances, modifying the
original scripts; “è pi’ mia!” (l. 9), for example, produces a slightly
different connotation if compared to “that’s me!” (ll. 9-10). In fact, the
former lacks the reference to the dimension of the nicknames and aliases
typical of the Robot Mafia, which explains why Joey is surprised to hear
Clamps’s name, since he thought that “Francis X. Clampazzo” was an
alias he did not know. In the Italian version the effect of surprise is still
preserved, but the loss of the semantic dimension of aliases and double
identities is also exemplified by the additions such as “accussí” (‘that
way’, l. 7), which is only intended to diatopically mark the character. In
other words, if the inclusion of Siciliano were not followed by the lexical
changes, the choice would have produced an equivalent translation from
the functional perspective, for also the target script would have preserved
the intent to merely stereotypically represent the members of Robot Mafia.
This intent is in the original version, where the Italian accent contributes to
their conventional characterisation as Italian-Americans. The translated
version is instead ideologically modified, and all the secondary characters
of the episode—as has been anticipated—speak in Siciliano, including
Judge 723 and Judge 724, two more robotic judges presiding over the trial
of Donbot ((15), 00:05:27 – 00:05:45):

J. 723: “Organised “Il crimine “Organised
crime is a organizzato è crime is a
plague on our una piaga della plague on our
society, and I nostra società e society and
5 will not tolerate durante il during this trial
any form of processo non I will not
intimidation permetterò allow
during—[gets nessuna forma any form
shot; dies]” di intimidazione of
10 [colpito da uno intimidation
sparo; muore]” [gets shot;
dies]”
Usher: “All rise for the “In piedi: entra “All rise: Judge
honourable il Giudice 724.” 724 enters.”
15 Judge 724.”
92 Chapter Five
J. 724: “Good day. I’d “Buongiorno! “Good day!

like to say I’m Tengo subito a I want to point
prepared to precisare che out that during
tolerate several durante il this trial
20 if not all forms processo sarà all forms of
of intimidation permessa ogni intimidations
during this forma di will be allowed,
trial.” intimidazione, aah!”
aah!”
The association between the speakers and Siciliano is arbitrary and out
of context, since it does not reproduce the contrast between the Robot
Mafia and the presiding judges—at least the first one, who is indeed
assassinated (Me-CSR). Instead, by resorting to that diatopic/diastratic
variety for both robots, the humorous intent of alternating a judge against
Donbot and one in his favour is lost. Furthermore, from the phonological
and lexical perspectives, modifications are included to render the diatopic
non-equivalent representations more credible, such as the exclamation
“aah!” (l. 24) closing Judge 724’s lines, and the way Judge 723
pronounces “permetterò” (l. 7), where the initial occlusive voiceless sound
/p/ is replaced by its voiced correspondent /b/. Besides the acoustic and
structural features, there is another characteristic that does not create an
equivalent script for the Italian audience: according to the lexical and
syntactic levels of the MuCrAS phase, Judge 724’s language displays the
typical features of legal discourse, such as redundancy (Gotti 2005: 50-
53)—“to tolerate several if not all forms of intimidation” (ll. 18-21)—
contributing to the construction of a comic effect based on the contrast
between the solemnity of the register and the content of the message.
These aspects are not rendered into Italian, where the original utterance is
only simplified as “ogni forma di intimidazione” (‘all forms of
intimidation’, ll. 21-23), probably to cope with the quantity-synch
constraint (Herbst 1996) in order to include the final exclamation, which
does indeed mark the judge as in collusion with the Robot Mafia through
shared geographical- and socio-cultural based connections.
Siciliano is also adopted in some episodes of The Simpsons for the
translation of Italian characters, and it is again possible to define the
adoption of the variety as a sort of laughter-trigger based on stereotypical,
socio-cultural conventions. Extracts (16)-(18) below indicate the ideological
modifications ranging from the production of a disparaging representation
of Southern people to the conventional association—“particularly evident
during the sixties and seventies” (Hart 2007: 219, but see also Consigli
1988; Rossi 2007)—between Siciliano and the Mafia. When Lisa needs to
learn Italian in episode TS-GABF22, a particular solution is needed to
render the source script in an equivalent way, and in the target version she
ends up learning Siciliano. This decision actually leads to modifications to
the subplot concerning the lessons that she follows, turning the original
references to Italian culture into a confused mixture between Mafia (which
is nonetheless present in the original plot—at least as far as the following
extract is concerned) and Italian history. Firstly, Lisa resorts to the
audiocassette entitled Italian for Italian-Americans (showed with bullet
holes on the cover), which she discards after the first listening ((16),
00:06:21 – 00:06:27):

Man: “Voglio affittare “Chista è ’na “This is a
una barca cassetta pe’ i cassette to learn
piccola. I want primi storie dei the early
to rent a small fatti vecchi. histories of
5 boat.” Arripeti cu’ ancient events.
mmia!” Repeat with
me.”
Lisa: “Voglio affittare “Questa è la tua “This is your
una barca prima lezione di first Ancient
10 piccola.” storia antica. History lesson.
Ripeti.” Repeat.”
Man: “Progetto di “Cu fu “Who
scaricare chisto c’ammazzau du assassinated
corpo gran figghiu de Julius Caesar,
15 nell’oceano. I Giulio Cesare? that great man?
plan to dump Fu ’nu A cornutazzo
this body in the cunnutazzu!” was!”
ocean.”
Lisa: [looks at the [guarda
20 audiocassette] l’audiocassetta]
Man: “Chesto è chello “Accussí “This is what
che prendi per t’inzegno a you get for
fare domande! essere being ignorant!
This is what you ’gnoranti! Gran Piece of shit!
25 get for asking pezzo di sceccu! [shots from the
questions! [spari dalla cassette]
[shots from the cassetta]”
cassette]”
94 Chapter Five
The above scene has undergone a similar process to the one adopted
for the translation of Chief Wiggum’s utterances (cf. extract (13) above,
pp. 87-88). Yet, this time the lexical and phonological features tend
towards the dialect, probably to justify Lisa’s translation into Italian of the
first lines from the cassette (ll. 8-11). Both source and target versions
present deviations from the Standard pronunciation, but they are
respectively linked to the poor quality of the translation from English into
Italian and to the aim to reproduce a truthful pronunciation into Siciliano.
For example, the source version displays the variation of “chisto” (l. 13)
and “Chesto” (l. 21) for “questo”, ‘this’, but also a non-conventional
morpho-syntactic structure in ll. 21-23: “Chesto è chello [= quello] che
prendi per fare domande” lacks the correct temporal relations between the
main and dependent clauses, for the infinite “fare domande”, ‘to ask
questions’ should have been replaced by “per aver fatto domande”, ‘for
asking questions’. As for the Italian translation, to be consistent with the
decision of having a mix between references to Mafia and Italian Ancient
History, the cassette content has been completely modified and distorted,
mentioning a hypothetic lesson about Julius Caesar’s assassination, held
by an impatient teacher.29
If the adoption of Siciliano may be justified in extract (16) because of
Italian-Americans’ stereotypical representations, the following example
may be compared to (15) above in presenting an inappropriate selection of
diatopic and diastratic varieties. After abandoning the audiocassettes, Lisa
is taught Italian by Milhouse, who used to spend his summers in Italy with
his grandmother, Sofia. The target-version choice of Siciliano is
completely arbitrary and again forcedly justified by a twist in the Italian
script, as Milhouse introduces his relative as a Sicilian woman living in
Tuscany, whereas in the English version she only lives in Tuscany ((17),
00:09:44 – 00:10:07):

Sofia: “Questi – il mio “Chisti ca’ – i “Those – can
cherubino – viri, gioia mia you see them,
sono delle bedda? – su’ my joy? – are
olive.” alive, lu olive, did you
5 capisti?” understand?”
Milhouse: “I love you, “Ti voglio bene, “I love you,
nanna.” nonna Sofia.” Grandma
Sofia.”
Sofia: [slaps [schiaffeggia
10 Milhouse] Milhouse]
Milhouse: “Ouch!” “Auh!” “Ouch!”

Sofia: “Idiota!” “Scimunitu!” “Scimunitu!”
Milhouse: “[off screen] “[fuori campo] “[off screen]
Every time I Tutte le volte Every time I
15 spoke English, che non le didn’t speak
she hit me. [in parlavo in dialect with her,
screen] Ouch, dialetto, mi she slapped me.
that hurt!” dava uno [in screen]
schiaffo. [in Ouch, that
20 campo] Ahi, che hurt!”
male!”
Sofia: “Idiota!” “Babbassunaz- “Babbassunaz-
zu!” zu!”
Milhouse: “I’m so sorry “Auh! Scusa se “Ouch! I’m
25 I’m so stupid.” sono cosí sorry I’m so
stupido.” stupid.”
Sofia: “Milhouse “Milhouse “Milhouse
Mussolini van Mussolini van Mussolini van
Houten, parla Houten, devi Houten, you
30 l’italiano, parlare in must speak
idiota!” dialetto, pezzu dialect, pezzu ’i
’i ligni!” ligni!”
As for the target script—as in (16)—rare exclamations are included,

such as “Scimunitu” (l. 12) or “Babbassunazzu” (ll. 22-23), both trying to
render the original “Idiot” in the dialect of the grandmother. Yet, the
choice of Siciliano is out of context in the analysed scene, which is set in
the Central Italian Tuscan countryside, and which constructs its original
humour by resorting to superiority theory. Both Milhouse—who generally
represents an unlucky person—and the Italians are the targets of
disparaging representations, because of Sofia’s habit of slapping her
grandson and the inclusion of the surname “Mussolini” (l. 28), a clear
reference to the period of Fascism in Italy, when it was at war with the
USA.
The episode continues with a trip to Springfield’s Little Italy (see also
extract (9) above), where Milhouse is greeted with “baciamo le mani”, a
greeting typically reserved for “godfathers”, replacing the original
Standard-Italian formal greeting “buongiorno” [‘Good morning’]. The
Interactive Model may help to critically analyse the selected fragments and
to reveal the exploitation of the original visual features for the multimodal
support of the target-script modifications. For example, the different
96 Chapter Five
greetings mentioned above are supported by Milhouse wearing a white hat

and jacket, in the style of a “man of honour”. Finally, the alternative
subplot is still present when Milhouse is seen with another girl. Even
though Lisa becomes jealous, her violent reaction confirms to him that his
“student” has finally completed her course ((18), extract from 00:15:47 –
00:15:55):

Lisa: “E poi la “Cosa facisti “What did you
prendo con con quella do with that
questa Messalina, ah?” Messalina, ah?”
sgualdrina!
5 [‘And then I
find you with
this tramp!’]
Milhouse: “Lisa! You’re “Lisa! Ormai “Lisa! You now
speaking in sai tutta la storia know all the
10 perfect Italian!” antica!” ancient
history!”
As exemplified by extract (16), the source script has been modified to

suit the alternative subplot, as confirmed by Milhouse’s answer (ll. 8-10):
Lisa mentions “Messalina” (l. 3)—Roman Emperor Claudius’s third
wife—who replaces the original “tramp” (l. 4) according to Delabastita’s
(1994) strategy of substituting a ST-pun with a TT-pun. What seems
indeed superfluous is again the inclusion of Siciliano (which is used by the
Italian version of Lisa in extract (18)). The decisions to modify Italian-
language lessons with Italian ancient history ones and the way in which
Milhouse’s supposedly Tuscan grandmother speaks appear in fact as a
clear example of ideological modifications, for the novel target text is
modelled according to the implied socio-cultural expectations, eventually
imposing a disparaging view of a specific group of actual people.30
The same variety of Italian has been adopted for the comic film Stan
Helsing (Horror Movie, Bo Zenga, 2009), a parody of horror movies—like
the Scary Movie series—dealing with a group of friends that embody
typical American socio-cultural stereotypes, and who try to defeat a group
of monsters satirising—among others—the famous Freddy Krueger,
Pinhead and Jason Voorhees. Stan Helsing represents an interesting case
in point because the inclusion of diatopic and diastratic varieties of
Siciliano and Calabrese (from the region of Calabria—see also section
5.1.3) and the pragmalinguistic misrepresentations entailed by the
modifications to the source script (see section 5.2 below) show how the
analysed strategies are rooted in Italian audiovisual translation, seemingly
being influenced by the cognitive construct of implied audience. Consider
extracts (19) and (20) below, respectively where Pinhead (speaking
Siciliano) starts chasing Stan and his friends and threatens the group once
he finds them ((19), 00:07:20 – 00:07:34; (20), 00:38:51 – 00:39:02):

Pinhead: “His scent leads “L’odore porta “The smell
to this store. But a questo leads to this
remember: I get negozio. E io store. And I will
the first taste of per primo be the first to
5 his [Stan’s] raw assaggerò il taste his
flesh.” sapore della sua [Stan’s] raw
[di Stan] carne flesh.”
cruda.”
[a man steps on [un uomo pesta
10 Pinhead, who il piede a
gets angry] Pinhead, che si
arrabbia]
Freddy: “[to Pinhead] “[a Pinhead; in “[to Pinhead; in
It’s not worthy. calabrese] Calabrese]
15 Not worth it!” Fermo: non ne Stop: it’s not
vale la pena!” worthy!”

Pinhead: “Prepare “Che minchia “What the hell
yourself to die, è? Preparatevi a is that? Prepare
mortal!” morire, yourselves to
picciotti!” die, picciotti!”
Both extracts show that the film has undergone a typical process of
domestication, due to which the monsters’ original features have been
twisted, together with their original illocutionary and perlocutionary
dimensions. Indeed, alternative, peculiar cues or exclamations are added—
such as “picciotti” (l. 4) in extract (20). Like the modifications already
analysed while detailing the translation strategies for Chief Wiggum or
Milhouse’s grandmother, such additions are modelled so as to suit the
translators’ cognitive representations of the original characters, achieved
by means of arbitrary additions of lines that are not present in the source
98 Chapter Five
script (e.g., “che minchia è” in (20)), thereby aiming to make the target
characterisations more credible. It is actually argued that such a translation
strategy produces instead pragmatically inappropriate, non-natural
representations and a shift in the construction of the humorous effect. It is
possible to delineate the mediated-cognitive representation activated by
the inclusion of Siciliano—(20e)-(20k)—and the differences from the
original illocutionary dimension—(20a)-(20d):
(20a) Pinhead is a monster.

(20b) Pinhead has an exaggerated and cognitively-incongruous
characterisation.
(20c) (20a) + (20b) lead to a cognitive contrast.
(20d) (20c) creates a humorous effect.
(20e) Pinhead is a monster.
(20f) Pinhead has an exaggerated and cognitively-incongruous
characterisation.
(20g) Pinhead has a geographically-specific characterisation.
(20h) (20e) + (20f) lead to a cognitive contrast.
(20i) (20g) creates a disparaging representation.
(20j) (20h) + (20i) create a humorous effect.
(20k) Yet, (20g) reveals an ideological modification.
The same chart could be applied to the analysis of Freddy’s target

scripts, as he speaks Calabrese, the variety of Italian from the Southern
region of Calabria. Finally, also other elements of the film have been
modified to suit the geographically- and socio-culturally-specific
representations: when Pinhead demands some “tamales” (00:08:40), the
target version replaces the Mesoamerican dish with cannoli piccanti,
actually creating a mixture between his “origins”—cannoli are typical
Sicilian sweets—and Freddy’s Calabrese, as one of the conventional traits
of the local cuisine is that of being spicy.
In conclusion, what such modifications reveal is that target versions
seem to be modelled according to the target socio-cultural and
stereotypical conventions, but also to an ideological view of the
audience—here defined as the cognitive construct of implied receivers—
who seem to be considered able to enjoy only comic texts with clear
references to the Italian regionalisms. Such a view seems outdated, as the
characterisations based on the contrast between Northern, Central and
Southern diatopic and diastratic varieties may be replaced by a more
appropriate, cross-cultural approach to convey the original illocutionary
and perlocutionary dimensions. In particular, since the original humorous
discourse is mainly constructed on the power distance between American

and Non-American, or on unexpected conversation moves and
cognitively-incongruous representations of socially shared schemata,
possible solutions would be: (i) to resort to an Italian accent “that is as
close as possible” to the one spoken by “a person living in the same place
the fictitious character comes from” (Guido 2012: 72), or (ii) to avoid the
imposition of the translators’ top-down, cognitive-based interpretations,
omitting—when not necessary—the marked “otherness” of Southern
people. It is in fact claimed that target receivers would laugh at Wiggum’s
unexpected reaction in (12) above even if he did not speak with a
Neapolitan accent.
5.1.3 The Calabrese Diatopic/Diastratic variety

Calabrese is used, in the Italian versions of Futurama, for a robotic
police officer, URL, generally accompanied by his human colleague
Smitty, embodying a satire of the unskilled, yet self-confident police
officers. Also the inclusion of Calabrese is arbitrary, as the character is a
robot reminiscent—according to a Wiki Website—of the style of “1970s
Blaxploitation films” (http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/URL) and therefore
unlikely to speak a specific language variety ((21), F-6ACV24, 00:04:53 –
00:05:00; (22), F-7ACV04, extract from 00:05:20 – 00:05:35).
Furthermore, the following examples are also important as they seem to
confirm another feature allowed by the inclusion of diatopic and diastratic
varieties (see also extract (16) above): that of softening the effects caused
by the inclusion of swear-words in cartoons, according to the cultural
notion—which is sometimes actually challenged—that the latter are
products mainly suitable for children (cf. Iaia 2011a):31

URL: “You are hereby “Resterete in “You will be
quarantined quarantena tutto quarantined as
until such time il tempo long as
as it is deemed necessario necessary, until
5 safe to enter and finché non we can safely
shoot your potremo entrare enter
asses.” in sicurezza e and
spararvi ’intra shoot your
’e chiappe.” asses.”
100 Chapter Five

URL: “Freeze, “Fermo là, “Freeze,
bagwad!” coglionazzo!” coglionazzo!”
The analysis of the English lexico-semantic features of extract (21)—

MuCrAs phase—provides a truthful representation of a self-confident
officer who—also due to his persuasive and resolute voice—has high
status compared to his interlocutors, as also exemplified by his explicit
language (ll. 6-7 in (21) and l. 2 in (22)). The Italian version may appear
lexically or syntactically equivalent, but the inclusion of Calabrese
produces a pragmalinguistic misrepresentation because of its multimodal
actualisation: his voice changes, being less resolute, and the substitution
with stereotypical and offensive expressions such as “’intra ’e chiappe”
(ll. 8-9 in (21)) and “coglionazzo” (l. 2 in (22)) provides again a less
plausible and a specifically geographically-based (and therefore
ideological) representation. The effects of the inclusion of vulgar
expressions seems to be mitigated as ascribable to a grotesque,
exaggerated, stereotypical representation of the speakers, though such a
view does not coincide with the original illocutionary dimensions, and
therefore does not provide equivalent target versions.
Those consequences connected to the inclusion of an ideological
modification are even more evident in episode TS-HABF10, when Homer
is sent to India to run the local nuclear plant owned by Mr Burns. The
original aim is to exploit local workers—who are clearly depicted as
Indian characters—and the episode satirises the economic strategies
employed by multinationals that open branches in developing countries.
The importance of the visual characteristics is one of the crucial elements
in the Interactive Model, since the interaction between the linguistic and
extralinguistic features is meant to avoid arbitrary and ideological choices
like the one adopted in this episode, where the Indians speak Calabrese!
The choice is non-natural not only because of the visual dimension, but
also due to the script itself: when Homer speaks with a local man, the
latter communicates their system of beliefs (00:12:56 – 00:13:00), saying
that there are many Gods. The integration between the denotative
dimension—the Indian system of beliefs—and the audiovisual
representation does not match the target-language variety, producing a
pragmatically-inappropriate representation. Furthermore, the translation
strategy is incoherent with another character from the same series—Apu—
who speaks with an Indian accent, and who is translated with a similar
pronunciation in Italian. This contradictory strategy, then, leads to surmise
the prevalence of ideological constructs in the translation of episode TS-
HABF10, which may have consequences on the connotative dimension

activated as the plot develops. While in India, Homer introduces to local
workers the existence of trade unions and their rights, confounding
Burns’s original intent. Indeed, when the latter finds out, Homer is sent
back to Springfield and the Indian plant is closed, with an unexpected
reaction from the employees ((23), 00:18:55 – 00:19:05):

Burns: “YOU’RE “SIETE “YOU’RE
FIRED! LICENZIATI! FIRED!
YOU’RE ALL SIETE YOU’RE
5 FIRED! LICENZIATI! FIRED!
FIRED!” LICENZIATI!” FIRED!”
Woman 1: “Two-month “Due mesi di “Two-month
severance!” liquidazione!” severance!”
10 Woman 2: “Early “Pensionamento “Early
retirement!” anticipato!” retirement!”
Man: “Golden “Scivoli d’oro “Golden ramps
parachutes for per tutti!” for all!”
all!”
The humorous effect in (23) is triggered by a specific reference to a

current socio-cultural and economic tendency, and produces a bittersweet
laughter due to the Indian workers’ reaction, as they are happy to be fired,
because of the welfare system Homer had introduced to them (Me-CSR).
The inclusion of Calabrese creates a partial equivalent effect, as it seems
to link their status to that of Southern workers—due to the language
variety they speak. What is more, since Italian workers should already
know their welfare system, the reaction in the target version may be
interpreted as a happy response to a future without working, but with the
money from retirement and severance, thus contributing to the
stereotypical representation of Southerners as welfare scroungers (target-
version Me-CSR).
As anticipated in (19), Calabrese is also adopted for the translation of
the character of Freddy Krueger, from Stan Helsing, following a similar
strategy to Pinhead’s Italian version ((24), 00:38:51 – 00:39:02):
102 Chapter Five

Freddy: “Can you say, “Com’è ca se “How do you
‘bitch slap’ dice? ‘Un say? ‘A wicked
[slaps the main malrovescio da backhand’
characters]?” paura’ [slaps the main
5 [schiaffeggia i characters]?”
protagonisti]”
As usual, the target version is partially modified so as to suit the

character’s cognitive representation, exemplified by Freddy’s lexical and
phonological deviations, such as “ca” instead of “che”, ‘that’ (l. 1). What
is more, the modifications produce different effects for the receivers: as
will be enquired in section 5.2 below, the film resorts to a humorous effect
based on women’s disparaging representation, thus providing a
connotative dimension to Freddy’s cues, for “bitch slap” (l. 2) both
deictically indicates what he is going to do and disparaging refers to the
female characters as “bitches” and implies that they can be made the
objects of arbitrary violence. The translation as “malrovescio” (l. 3),
instead, only fulfils the denotative aspect of Freddy’s threatening
utterance, but it fails in conveying the original connotative dimension, as
exemplified by (24a)-(24g) below:
(24a) Source script: disparaging representation

(24b) Freddy: “Bitch slap”.
(24c) (24b) +> Freddy is going to slap a group of women
whom he defines as “bitches”.
(24d) Target script: ?disparaging representation
(24e) Freddy: “Un malrovescio da paura [‘A wicked
backhand’]”.
(24f) ?(24e) +> Freddy is going to slap a group of women
whom he defines as “bitches”.
Instead:
(24g) (24e) +> Freddy is going to slap a group of women.
Also an analysis of how Calabrese has been adopted for the translation
of humorous audiovisual texts has revealed the reiteration of the
ideological and stereotypical conventions. It is now time to enquire into
the last of the Southern diatopic and diastratic varieties identified in the
analysed corpus of audiovisual texts: Barese, spoken in the city Bari
(Apulia) and its surrounding area.
5.1.4 The Barese Diatopic/Diastratic Variety

Similarly to the previous extracts, also the adoption of Barese follows
specific, stereotypical features to provide domesticated representations of
the target characters, disrespecting the original, multimodal characteristics.
The following examples will detail the Italian-version strategies for the
adaptation of an Irish character and the rendering of two foreigners. As for
the former, Barese has been unexpectedly adopted for O’Reilly the
Leprechaun in episode TS-KABF13 (00:10:30 – 00:10:42). Homer and
Bart are trying to complete their collection of American coins; when they
jump into a wishing well to collect as many cents as possible, they are
eventually found by the angry O’Reilly. The Italian version of the
Leprechaun clearly represents a parody of characters played by Italian
comedian Lino Banfi in comic films of the commedia all’italiana genre,
where plots were constructed on the clashes between dialects and
regionalisms. In particular, one of Banfi’s hallmarks was the sentence “ti
spezzo la noce del capocollo”, which is included almost faithfully in the
target script. Despite this association, however, the adoption of Barese is
arbitrary and does not suit the visual features of O’Reilly, who instead
displays stereotypical Irish dress, green, and features, red hair and beard.
Barese is also adopted in the Italian version of Family Guy for two
particular characters, Tomak and Bellgarde. The men embody the
stereotype of foreigners who have lived in the United States long “enough
to sound American”, as Stewie defines them in extract (25) below, from
episode FG-6ACX04. The comic effect is indeed based on their
mispronunciations and lexical deviations from US English, thus producing
a superiority-theory-based type of humour (extract from 00:02:29 –
00:02:58):

Stewie: “Brian, this is “Brian, trovo “Brian, I think
painful! It’s like tutto questo this is painful.
listening to penoso. È come It’s like
those two ascoltare quei listening to
5 foreign guys due stranieri al those two
down at the bar che siccome foreign guys at
coffee shop vivono negli the bar that
who’ve been Stati Uniti da un since they’ve
living in the US po’ di tempo, been living in
10 almost enough credono di the United
to sound sapersela cavare States for a
104 Chapter Five
American.” con la lingua.” while, think

they can
speak English.”
15 Tomak: “Oh, man! “Oh, chevolo! “Oh, man!
What a good Una serata da What a great
bunch of stallo in quella night at that
partying at that discoteca! discotheque!
discotheque! Hanno suonat’ They also
20 They played anghe una cos’ played a thin’
one of my che avev’ I hav’
audience richiesto!” requested!”
requests!”
Bellgarde: “Way “Dài, chevolo! “Come on,
25 awesome! I Io mi sono fatto man! I had five
myself drank cinque talloni di heels of beer!
like five litres birra! Angora One more and I
of beer— un altro e sarei would have
anymore and I finito allo ended up in
30 would have speziale, hospital, man!”
ended up in amico!”
hospital, man!”
The humorous effect lies in the contrast between what Tomak and
Bellgarde say, what they mean and their attitude, as they show self
confidence despite the fact that their language reveals that they do not
master English yet. It is for this reason that the source script includes
utterances such as “bunch of partying” (ll. 17-18) or “one of my audience
requests” (ll. 21-23). The Italian version has caught the illocutionary
intent, but the latter has been adapted by resorting to Barese, producing
again an ideological modification by means of the reference to a specific
group of people, which proves inappropriate also due to Tomak’s and
Bellgarde’s appearance. In particular—from the perspective of the
MuCrAS phase—as the target version includes lexical and structural
deviations such as “stallo” [‘stalemate’] instead of sballo [‘hoot’],
“talloni” [‘heels’] instead of galloni [‘gallons’] and “speziale”
[‘apothecary’] instead of ospedale [‘hospital’], the selection of Barese
seems arbitrary, even though the peculiar phonological deviations like
“chevolo” standing for cavolo [‘geez’] are suggested by this choice.
Tomak’s and Bellgarde’s language, actually, seems to satirise what
could be defined as an endonormative English lingua-franca variation
(ELF) used by non-native speakers (Seidlhofer 2011: 7), for the scripts
include its distinguishing features, like examples of lexical creativity,

fragmented syntax, and simplified verbal forms that deviate from standard
uses (MacKenzie 2013). As such, an equivalent type of Italian lingua-
franca variation could have been identified and adopted for the production
of the translation. This would be a variation that is not the same as
“doppiaggese” (cf. Raffaelli 1994) or “dubbese” (Pavesi and Perego 2006),
which is becoming “adaptable to any formal and informal communicative
situation” (Guido 2012: 72). Instead, such variation would include peculiar
lexical and syntactic deviations—deprived of any diatopically and
diastratically-marked characterisations—thus being consistent with the
original intent, namely to highlight the power distance between native and
non-native speakers, the latter trying to integrate by imitating slang or
everyday expressions, but ultimately failing.
The prevalence of Central and Southern diatopic and diastratic varieties
denotes an ideological tendency to characterise specific protagonists,
according to what seems to be an automatic association between clumsy,
misfits and their geographically and socio-culturally based representations
into Italian. Indeed, this assumption is confirmed by the analysis of those
interactions where a Northern variety is used, as will be now discussed.
5.1.5 Other Diatopic/Diastratic Varieties

The Simpsons and Futurama also include different translation
strategies, where Northern accents and varieties are reproduced to suit
specific characterisations, in opposition to the previous case studies.
According to Ferrari’s (2010: 98) “The Simpsons’ re-territorialization”
map, only two characters speak a Northern diatopic and diastratic variety,
namely Otto Mann, the school-bus driver, and Carl Carlson, one of
Homer’s colleagues at Springfield nuclear plant, respectively speaking
Milanese (from Milan and its surrounding area) and Veneziano (from
Venice and its surrounding area). As for the two men, the humour
prompted by their characterisations is in the cognitive clash between the
expected and unexpected behaviours—Otto drives the school bus, but he
has a childish attitude inappropriate for his responsible job—though this
mismatch may not be grounded at all in their diatopically-marked
language, differently from what has been identified during the analysis of
the previous characters. In fact, the following extracts confirm the
presence of different levels of ideological modification behind the
production of the Italian translations. Furthermore, language-variety
selection seems to be justified by the translators’ cognitive interpretations
of the original characters rather than by the respect for some constraints
106 Chapter Five
provided from the original plots—already seen in (17) and (23) above,
where an old Tuscan woman speaks with a Sicilian accent, or Indian
workers use the Calabrese diatopic/diastratic variety.
In episode TS-HABF02, the Simpsons go to Italy to collect Mr Burns’s
new car—a “Lamborgotti”—but they are forced to stop in the town of
“Salsiccia” to have it repaired. Both nouns actually denote the American
power distance towards Italian receivers, as the former mocks the car
brand “Lamborghini”, whereas the latter is an invented town that implies
the stereotypical link between Italy and food, “salsiccia” meaning
‘sausage’. When the family meets the car dealer ((26), 00:03:50 –
00:03:53), the man speaks with a Northern accent that brings to mind the
conventional, iconic character of a rich man appearing in Italian comic
movies such as Vacanze di Natale (Carlo Vanzina, 1983) or Yuppies – I
giovani di successo (Carlo Vanzina, 1986), generally played by comedian
Guido Danieli, invariably dressed in suit and tie (indeed like the car dealer
from the episode) and schematically opposed to Central/Southern people,
contributing to the inclusion/exclusion dimension conveyed by the use of
Italian regionalisms (Dickie 1999; Ferrari 2010):

Man: “This car is the “Questo è un “This is an
ultimate esemplare ultimate
marriage of all’ultimo grido item where
design and perché sposa design and
5 technology.” design e technology get
tecnologia.” married.”
Marge: “Uh, marriage!” “Oh, si “Oh, they get
sposano!” married.”
The multimodal representation allows the identification of the

character’s features: the man is well dressed and reproduces a stereotypical
representation, actualised in the Italian version not only by means of the
linguistic features, but mainly from the audiovisual perspective: in fact,
though the lexical and structural types of equivalence are achieved in (26),
the adoption of a Northern variety and the inclusion of the particular
pronunciation of “r” as /v/ draw upon stereotypical conventions to allow
receivers to recognise archetypal representations of original characters.
A similar strategy is adopted in Futurama for Scruffy, the janitor. The
type of humour entailed by this character is based on a cognitive clash
between his social role and behaviour, as he is supposed to work and obey
his leaders, but he is actually seen as a lazy person, refusing to complete
any tasks, reading instead adult magazines. As for his translation, the
Italian version exploits the acoustic dimension to support the cognitive
clash behind the humorous effect by selecting a similar, Northern
diastratic variety stereotypically indicating him as a janitor that speaks in
the same way that rich characters are conventionally represented. Consider
extract (27) from episode F-7ACV04, where he explains his duties during
an inspection of the “Planet Express”, the delivery company the main
characters work for (00:01:19 – 00:01:27):

Scruffy: “My job? “Che faccio? “What is my
Toilets and Gabinetti e job? Toilets and
boilers. Boilers caldaie. Caldaie boilers. Boilers
and toilets. Plus e gabinetti. and toilets.
5 that one boiling Specie quel Especially that
toilet. Fire me gabinetto che boiling
iffen you dare. ribolle. toilet.
[reads a Licenziami se Fire me if you
book]”32 hai il coraggio. dare. [reads a
10 [legge un book]”
libro]”
Scruffy’s attitude and answer clearly characterise him as a slacker who

does not want to work. It is then interesting to realise, by means of the
multimodal, critical analysis, that Italian scripts are not heavily modified
from the lexico-semantic and syntactic perspectives (also cf. (26) above),
whereas in the previous examples names of food or local expressions were
sometimes added. What is more, the original Mediated-Cognitive
Semantic Representation of (27)—“Me-CSR”, i.e., “Scruffy as work-
shy”—is preserved in both versions. It therefore seems that as for these
different, educated, and/or rich, characters, the selection of a specific
accent is enough to allow their ideological and multimodal representations.
It is in fact only possible to highlight the presence of “Plus” (l. 4)
translated as “Specie” (‘Especially’, l. 5) into Italian, but there is no
evidence to decide whether it is a mistranslation or a deliberate choice on
the part of the translators.
Finally, in the same episode from which extract (26) is taken, people
from “Salsiccia” speak Fiorentino—typical of Florence and its area—
which is one of the varieties from the Central and Northern Italy less used
in AVT. Consider for example the following dialogue (28) between
108 Chapter Five
Homer and an old woman, when the family arrives to “Salsiccia” (extract
from 00:05:52 – 00:06:20):

Homer: “Hey, do you “Lei sa qualcosa “Do you know
know anything di come si anything about
about fixing aggiustano le fixing
sports cars?” macchine sports
5 sportive?” cars?”
Woman: “Scusi?” “Te tu c’hai “What did you
detto?” say?”
Homer: “It’s a “È una “It’s a
Lamborgotti Lamborgatti Lamborgatti
10 Fasterossa XT- [sic] Sportivosa Sportivosa X-
550 with ABS X-550 con 550 with ABS
Sport Tech pacchetto ABS Sport Tech
package.” Sport Tech.” package.”
Woman: “Eh… “Te tu sei mica “Are you
15 Americano?” Americano?” American?”
Like Scruffy or the car dealer, the woman in the Italian script (28) only
uses the Fiorentino variety, carefully reproducing its peculiar features such
as the repetition of the second person pronoun “tu” as “Te tu” (l. 6).
Besides this linguistic choice, the target script is equivalent to the source
one, confirming that two main strategies seem to be adopted according to
the varieties included. In other words, the humorous effect lies on Homer’s
characterisation as a dim-witted man who asks an old woman whether she
knows how to fix sports cars (Me-CSR); on the other hand, in the previous
extracts where Southern varieties were adopted, humour deriving from the
original puns and jokes was integrated with the use of diatopically- and
diastratically-marked sentences and expressions contributing to the
production of easily accessible, disparaging representations (Consigli
1988; Rappoport 2005).
The examples analysed have illustrated the adoption of diatopic and
diastratic varieties in target texts that contain arbitrary contributions from
the translators (or the commissioners) with the intent of triggering
reactions that are tailored to their receivers. Yet, some questions are raised
about the level of equivalence between the source and target scripts, the
limits of the translator’s freedom, and the influence of ideology and target-
culture cognitive schemata in the definition of the adapted jokes and the
implied receivers’ features. Similar questions are nonetheless raised by the
other solutions identified by means of the multimodal critical analysis

provided by the Interactive Model, such as the production of
pragmalinguistic misrepresentations, which the next section will investigate.
5.2 Pragmalinguistic Misrepresentations

The modifications in the selected corpus of target texts are not limited
to the lexico-semantic and structural dimensions of the original scripts;
they also provide different representations of the characters’ original traits,
for instance by means of the target voice. Also such strategies confer
similar types of ideological modifications that reveal the influence of
specific, target-culture-based schemata in the development of the
alternative characterisations, particularly of female characters. And what is
more, such ideological representations are not consistent with the original
illocutionary intent, but embody the tendency of domestication typical of
dubbing, together with a mono-cultural process of retextualisation of
original texts.
The procedure—which involves films, sitcoms and cartoons—is
exemplified at first by extracts (29)-(30) below, from episode TS-1F12,
which contains a subtle criticism towards the representation of women in
media and as toys. Lisa, in fact, is disappointed by the sexist and
stereotypical phrases uttered by the latest version of her favourite doll—
“Malibu Stacy”—indicating women as housewives that have to prepare
“cookies for boys” or to put on make up to find a boyfriend. The little girl
then decides to meet the creator, Stacy Lovell, to convince the latter to
produce a novel plaything. The character of Stacy Lovell—originally
played by actress Kathleen Turner—represents an educated, rich person
torn between her role as a single, successful woman, and the temptations
from her previous partners. The Italian version of the episode sees a
debatable translation strategy having the Sicilian actor Leo Gullotta
playing Stacy Lovell, thus adding his accent to the woman, and producing
a target version that recalls the fictitious character of “Mrs Leonida”, one
of his hallmarks in a satirical TV show that was popular when the episode
was initially aired, in 1995. The communicative value of the episode
therefore becomes completely twisted, whereas the addition of Siciliano
triggers a humorous effect no longer based on the sophisticated subplot of
the episode, but actually constructed on the cognitive clash between Stacy
Lovell’s physical appearance, her voice and her attitude. This is
exemplified by the interaction between Lisa and Stacy when the former
rings her bell (00:12:49 – 00:13:03). As with the translation of Chief
110 Chapter Five
Wiggum, Stacy Lovell uses a peculiar type of pronunciation, distant from

the standard, contributing to the creation of diatopically-marked, easily-
recognisable, exaggerated and disparaging representation. For example,
the word “bambini” is pronounced as “pampini”, where the occlusive /b/ is
replaced by its voiceless version /p/. Besides the phonological deviations,
though, to resort to specific diatopic varieties and to select a male actor
provide a representation of the original character which could be seen as
profoundly sexist (and this in an episode against sexist representations!),
eventually revealing the extent to which such modifications are
ideological. In fact, they are based on a view of translation as a process
where domesticating strategies overcome the respect for the original
communicative dimensions, definitely in contrast with its notion as a
dynamic, communicative process that this book argues for here.
What is more, the original lexico-semantic dimension is modified to
add local expressions, as already underscored in some of the previous
examples ((29), extract from 00:13:24 – 00:13:44), or to suit Stacy’s
representation to the female character that Gullotta used to play ((30),
extract from 00:15:09 – 00:15:31), who resorted to coloured expressions
sometimes as closers for her jokes:

Stacy: “I see exactly “Capisco quello “I see what you
what you mean. che intendi, mean, bidduzza,
This is a bidduzza, è un it is a problem.
problem. But pobblema. Ma But what do you
5 what do you che t’aspetti che expect me to
expect me to io faccia?” do?”
do?”
Lisa: “Change what “Cambiare ciò “To change
she [the che [la what [the doll]
10 doll] says. It’s bambola] dice. says. The
your company.” La ditta è sua.” company is
yours.”

Stacy: “John, I told “John, ma “John, how
you: it’s over. quante volte many times
Release me t’ho detto che è have I told you
from your kung finita, eh?! it’s over, uh?
5 fu grip.” LIBERAMI RELEASE ME
DALLA TUA FROM YOUR
PRESA KUNG KUNG FU
FU, PI GRIP,
FAVORI!” PLEASE!”
10 John: “Fine. I’ll burn “E va bene. “Fine. I’ll be
your house to Sarò costretto a forced to burn
the ground, far saltare in your house to
missy. [exits the aria la tua casa, the ground,
house]” pupa. [lascia la missy. [exits the
15 casa]” house]”
Stacy: “PUPA C’HU “GO AND SAY
DICI A ‘MISSY’ TO
SORETA!” YOUR
SISTER!”
Extracts (29) and (30) above again exemplify the Italian strategy of
modifying the original scripts so as to achieve peculiar effects for target
receivers. This intent has been highlighted in the backtranslation by
preserving the deviations from the standard uses, here considered as
examples of ideological modification, as resulting from a target-culture
based, precise choice that produces a different characterisation of Stacy
Lovell. In fact, she is no longer an elegant, educated rich woman, but she
speaks with a Sicilian accent, displaying less “feminine”, more vulgar
behaviour. For example, Stacy’s last lines in (30) arbitrarily include an
insult that could be literally rendered as “Go and say ‘missy’ to your
sister!” and which is not present in the source text. The latter modification
in particular—which nonetheless may be interpreted as a way of opposing
the Italian stereotypical representation of Sicilian female characters (cf.
Hart 2007: 224), generally portrayed “as sensual or as homely” (ibidem)—
is both ideological and multimodal. In fact, on the one hand, it reproduces
a cognitive contrast between Stacy’s expected and actual attitudes by
means of an upset reaction that is not consistent with her original
characterisation. On the other hand, the addition—which only aims to
make explicit the presence of Leo Gullotta as a guest dubbing actor—is
112 Chapter Five
allowed for by the fact that Stacy has her back to the camera, thus
permitting the inclusion of the new lines.
Finally, local expressions are also added near the end of the episode
(00:20:39 – 00:20:43). The new doll—“Lisa Lionheart”—is less
successful than Malibu Stacy’s new version (actually having only a new
hat). Anyway, a little girl does choose Lisa’s creation, so Stacy Lovell
congratulates the little girl, uttering again two different encouraging lines,
according to the analysed version. The addition of the utterance “gioia del
mio cuori” in the target script, for example, is another way of highlighting
the presence of the actor who plays Stacy, and it contains a phonological
deviation in “cuori”, which is pronounced with the final “i” instead of the
final “e” (“cuore”, ‘heart’) out of context and unnatural if related to the
original, intended representation of the woman.
The strategy of having male actors play female roles is also included in
the cartoon Bob’s Burgers, about the adventures of Bob Belcher, his wife
Linda and their children, Tina, Gene and Louise. Linda and Tina are
played by male actors in both source and target versions, and the choice
indeed leads to a humorous effect based on the clash between their
expected features (from Linda depicted as a housewife devoted to her
family, to Tina as a typical teenager) and unexpected realisations by means
of their voices. From this perspective, the cartoon’s characterisations may
remind one of the play Cloud Nine, by Caryl Churchill, where women’s
stereotypes produced by male cultures are represented by male actors. As
for the Italian version, Linda’s role in particular shows some additions—
mainly from the phonological perspective—that accompany the original
tendency to improvise songs, and which actually provide an equivalent,
exaggerated representation of the woman, who has a particular voice and a
peculiar pronunciation of specific consonants and vowels, as respectively
exemplified by extracts (31) (BB-2ASA19, 00:13:55 – 00:14:04) and (32)
(BB-2ASA15, 00:00:25 – 00:00:30) below:

Linda: “You know, I’m “Sapete, sono “You know, I’m
so emotional cosí so excited: we
[huffs]. What a emozionata: really
wonderful… abbiamo have…
5 [huffs] family davvero… uhm… a
we have and uhm… una wonderful
it’s—it almost famiglia family and all
brings tears to stupenda e tutto this brings
my eyes.” questo mi fa tears to my
10 venire le eyes.”
lacrime agli
occhi.”

Linda: “All right, all “Ragazzi, ho “Guys, I’ve
done with the lavato tutto alla perfectly
disheees! Time perfezione! È washed
for family-game l’ora del giuoco everything! It’s
5 night!” in famiglia!” family-game
time!”
The original cognitive clash caused by Linda’s characterisation is

based on her way of speaking and pronouncing specific sounds, such as
the vowel “e” in “dishes” ((32), l. 3). As for (31), it is based on Linda’s
love for acting and singing—in fact, when Mr Fisheder, Belcher’s
landlord, forces her to pretend to be his wife during a dinner with a lady he
likes, she decides to improvise a dramatic and realistic representation by
huffing and crying as if she were on a stage. Those features are adapted for
the Italian audience mainly by resorting to specific pronunciation of the
consonant “z”, which is generally pronounced voiced (/dz/), replacing the
standard, voiceless version (/ts/). Furthermore, Linda also resorts to non-
standard pronunciations of “ci” in “Piacere, Linda” (‘Pleasure to meet
you, I’m Linda’, from BB-2ASA19), or “gi” in “gioco” (‘game’, (32), l.
4), including a middle, non-existent and unnecessary vowel. “Piacere” is
therefore uttered as “piaciuere” and “gioco” as “giuoco” (thus adding the
“u”), reproducing a parody of an educated, formal pronunciation that
indeed suits Linda’s intention to be considered as a sophisticated lady.33
Even though Linda’s target lines may look and sound more equivalent
from the functional perspective, it is claimed that modifications such as the
ones performed for Stacy Lovell and Bob’s wife have the objective of
suiting the audience’s expectations, indeed revealing that the same
cognitive construct of target receivers is ideological and based on
stereotypical assumptions.
Similar shifts in women’s characterisations are also present in some
episodes of The Big Bang Theory. This sitcom deals with the adventures of
four nerdy postgraduates and their neighbour, Penny, and it basically
constructs its comic effect on the opposition between the four “experts”
and ordinary people: “non-experts”, and the unexpected use of a
specialised register in everyday situations (cf. Iaia 2013). As for the Italian
version, the main characters’ features have been sometimes adapted in a
114 Chapter Five
way that seems to be compared to the clash between the schematic

representations of “nerdy male characters” and “beautiful, naïve female
characters” represented by the Italian version of the reality show The
Beauty and the Geek (La pupa e il secchione), broadcast by the same
channel—Italia 1—which premiered the sitcom’s earlier episodes. Extract
(33) below, from episode TBBT-3T6604, exemplifies the modifications
applied to Penny, when Sheldon—who mainly embodies the expert
participant—tries to explain to her what Semiotics is (00:07:51 –
00:08:07):34

Penny: “Ow, hey, “Ciao, Sheldon, “Hi, Sheldon,
Sheldon! come va?” how’s it
What’s going going?”
on?”
5 Sheldon “I need your “Mi serve la tua “I need your
opinion on a opinione su un opinion on a
matter of argomento di matter of
Semiotics.” semiotica.” Semiotics.”
Penny: “I’m sorry?” “Non faccio “I don’t do
10 giardinaggio.” gardening.”
As for Sheldon, the target script conveys an equivalent pragmalinguistic

representation, as he is still the nerdy male who decides to ask a question
about Semiotics to his neighbour but—though fully aware that Penny does
not share his expertise—suddenly starts speaking without explaining or
introducing what he is talking about. Penny’s reaction in both versions
reproduces the communicative failure due to the participants’ cognitive
distance, yet the Italian script exemplifies an ideological modification in
creating a joke which is absent in the source script and which is based on a
linguistic pun, since the noun “giardinaggio” (‘gardening’, l. 10) seems
suggested by a sound association between “semiotica” (l. 8) and the word
“semi”, ‘seeds’. Due to this modification, whereas her original response
may represent the general, non-experts’ reaction, the target version only
constructs the comic effect on Penny’s disparaging representation (cf.
(33a)-(33e) below):
Source script
(33a) Penny: “I’m sorry?”.
(33b) (33a) ||- Penny does not know Semiotics.
Target script
(33c) Penny: “Non faccio giardinaggio [‘I don’t do
gardening’].”
(33d) (33c) ||- does not know Semiotics.
What is more (target-script ideological modification):
(33e) (33c) +> Penny thinks Semiotics is connected to
gardening, due to the association between the letters
“semi” in “semiotica”, ‘Semiotics’, and the word “semi”,
‘seeds’.
A similar strategy was adopted for the translation of extract (34)—

already mentioned as (5), pp. 35-36, and (7), p. 57 above—from TBBT-
3T6605, where Howard’s lines are modified to refer to a specific part of
the female body (00:09:22 – 00:09:33):

Howard: “If that’s a “Ho notato che “I’ve noticed
working hai uno you have a
stethoscope, stetoscopio – stethoscope—
maybe you’d ausculteresti il would you
5 like to hear my mio cuore che auscultate my
heart skip a salta un heart skipping a
beat.” battito?” beat?”
Woman: “No, thanks.” “No, grazie.” “No, thanks.”
10 you can: I have ausculterò il tuo want to, I will
transient canyon, non è auscultate your
idiopathic un problema per canyon, I don’t
arrhythmia.” me.” mind.”
Example (34) also displays a more truthful male characterisation:

Howard is in fact a nerdy expert who has problems dealing with women in
a conventional way, as shown by his behaviour and language (which the
Italian version indicates as specialised by means of the verb “auscultare”,
‘to auscultate’, ll. 4; 10). On the other hand, his receiver is affected by an
ideological modification actualised by Howard’s final utterances, since in
the target version a direct reference to the woman’s body—precisely, to
her cleavage—is added. A double source for the construction of the
humorous effect is therefore created: a superiority-theory-based joke for
the male audience that would share Howard’s comment as well as a
116 Chapter Five
disparaging representation of the woman, mainly referred to because of a

specific physical characteristic of hers (cf. (34a)-(34n) below):
Source script
(34a) Howard: “[…] maybe you’d like to hear my heart skip a
beat.”
(34b) Woman: “No, thanks.”
(34c) Howard: “[…] seriously, […] I have transient idiopathic
arrhythmia.”
(34d) (34a) +> Howard is trying to know the girl.
(34e) (34b) +> the woman does not want to know Howard.
(34f) Due to (34c), (34a) >> Howard has a medical condition
that justifies his request.
(34g) Me-CSR: “Howard’s approach fails and he tries to
justify his request”.
Target script
(34h) Howard: “[…] ausculteresti il mio cuore che salta un
battito? [‘would you auscultate my heart skipping a
beat?’]”.
(34i) Woman: “No, grazie [‘No, thanks’]”.
(34j) Howard: “[…] io ausculterò il tuo canyon [‘I will
auscultate your canyon’]”.
(34k) (34h) +> Howard is trying to know the girl.
(34l) (34i) +> the woman does not want to know Howard.
(34m) Due to (34j), (34a) >> Howard only likes the woman’s
body.
(34n) Me-CSR: “Howard’s approach fails, but he still aims at
watching the woman’s body” [ideological modification].
The production of gender misrepresentations is also exemplified by

Stan Helsing, though a reverse process is actually adopted. The film
contains a vulgar, trivial type of humour mainly based on its characters’
stereotypical, schematic representations, according to which boys
generally think about girls and the latter are represented as mainly worried
about their physical appearance. The Italian version softens the original
sexual references and it provides an alternative characterisation of Mia,
who eventually appears a little less naïve than in the original version. It is
thought that the modifications entailed by extracts (35) and (36) below are
suggested again by the construct of implied receivers, not coinciding with
the original audience. For example, while at a gas station, after coming
back from the bathroom dressed as a cheerleader, Mia asks the boys a
precise question, about a specific part of her body ((35), extract from
00:23:08 – 00:23:38):

Mia: “OK, you guys, “Ok, ragazzi, “OK, guys, be
be totally siate sinceri: le sincere: are my
honest: does my mie gambe sono legs crooked,
vagina make me storte, forse?” maybe?”
5 look fat?”
[Stan and Teddy [Stan e Teddy
comment on commentano il
Mia’s body and corpo di Mia e
the camera la camera
10 shows her skirt mostra la gonna
and legs] e le gambe]
[…] […] […]
Stan: “I’m gonna use “Devo andare in “I’ve got to go
the bathroom. bagno. Io… to the bathroom.
15 I—[lowers his [abbassa lo I… [lowers his
eyes] I can’t see sguardo] mai eyes] I’ve never
your vagina.” notato nulla alle noticed
gambe.” anything about
your legs.”
In the nonsensical dialogue above, Mia’s lines produce a sexist

representation of a girl worried about her body, but differently from the
source script, the Italian version is softened and deprived of the sexual
references. Anyway, this extract also serves to exemplify the possibility—
by means of the Interactive Model—to enquire into the multimodal
construction of both versions, as the camera movements and the direction
of Stan’s gaze allow the alternative target script. By framing Mia’s skirt
and legs, it is in fact not possible to realise the non-equivalent level of the
translation without accessing the source text. Yet, despite the multimodal
support, the translation of (35) still modifies the original illocutionary
dimension conveying a pragmalinguistically-different version.
What is more, the modifications also soften the humorous construction
of some scenes, as when the protagonists meet some lap dancers who
impress them ((36), 00:55:20 – 00:55:26):
118 Chapter Five

Teddy: “Yeah, I think “Una di quelle “One of those
that one girl was ragazze era girls was even
ambidextrous!” anche ambidextrous!”
ambidestra!”
5 Mia: “Wow, I’d give “Wow! Darei il “Wow! I’d give
my right arm to braccio sinistro my left arm
be per essere to be
ambidextrous!” ambidestra!” ambidextrous!”
The change in (36) actually produces an alternative joke, as by

mentioning her left arm, Mia confirms her characterisation as a naïve,
superficial girl who does not even know the meaning of the adjective she
mentions, thinking that “ambidestra” (‘ambidextrous’, l. 4) means “with
two right arms”. This cognitive dimension is not present in the original
interaction, probably because the word “ambidextrous” may not be so
transparent to an English receiver as it is to an Italian.
The analysed case studies exemplify the actualisation of the ideological
modifications by means of specific diatopic and diastratic varieties, but
also by misinterpreting or disrespecting the original illocutionary—and
sometimes locutionary, as well—dimensions. It is nonetheless true that,
especially in recent years, there are attempts to follow alternative paths,
thus resorting to a different cognitive construct of implied receivers, who
respond to a comic stimulus without geographically-marked, disparaging
representations, limiting the freedom of the translators’ contributions
while adapting the original lexico-semantic, structural and functional
features.
5.3 Different Translation Strategies

The analysis of the selected corpus of films and TV series ends with
the investigation of two foreign characters—Bumblebee Man and Cookie
Kwan from The Simpsons—and the Italian-American Frankie from
Happily Divorced, to illustrate how the original pragmalinguistic features
are rendered. In particular, as for the animated sitcom, the characters rely
on the stereotypical representations of respectively Spanish and Asian
American people, the former being a comedian for Channel Ocho and the
latter an estate agent. As for the man, he speaks Spanish in the original
version, sometimes using invented words, whereas in the Italian version he
resorts instead to a hybrid mixture of typical Italian syntactic structure and
Spanish lexis. To exemplify the linguistic features of both scripts, extract

(37) below will be considered, from episode TS-3F18, where Bumblebee
Man comes back home and tells his wife and dog about the terrible day he
had at work (00:12:41 – 00:13:02):

B. Man: “Ehi, ¡qué día “Ahi, che “Ahi, what a
miserable a giorno miserable day at
trabajo! miserabile al trabajo!
Primero, el trabajo! Primero, the
5 ataque del Primero, l’ataco ataco of the
woodpequero. del picchio crazy
Luego, un pazzo. woodpecker.
desastre de Poi, un disastro Then, a disaster
electricidad. Y, de electricidad. with
10 finalmente, una Y finalmente, electricidad. Y
catastrofía con una catastrofe finalmente, a
una pelota de con una pelota catastrophe with
baseball.” de baseball.” a baseball
pelota.”
The Italian translation of (37) is deemed equivalent from the

pragmalinguistic perspective as the original lexico-semantic features are
respected, and similar effects are also achieved, by means of a humorous
discourse based on Bumblebee Man’s disparaging representation together
with a visual, slapstick type of humour prompted by the accidents he
undergoes at work. Finally, though replacing the original, mainly Spanish,
language, the Italian script preserves the presence of mispronunciations
such as “woodpequero” (l. 6) by resorting to words such as “ataco” (l. 5).
The latter in fact twists the original noun “attacco”, ‘attack’, and reflects
the Spanish form “ataque”. What is more, such linguistic choice is also
consistent with the multimodal dimension, as the visual representation
clearly identifies the man as Latin-American, thus defining the translation
strategy in (37) as more appropriate and eventually opposed to the
production of non-natural representations triggered by the adoption of
Italian-language varieties that clashes with the characters’ visual
representation (cf. extract (23) above, p. 101).
A similar translation strategy is adopted for the character of Cookie
Kwan. Also this estate agent is recognisable as Asian American due to her
physiognomy and accent, which is rendered into Italian by resorting to the
peculiar pronunciation of /r/ as /l/—reproduced in the backtranslation—
120 Chapter Five
often used to stereotypically represent Asian people in general ((38), TS-

GABF22, 00:03:33 – 00:03:42):

C. Kwan: “Way to blow “Bel modo di “Nice way to
out a tea, falci saltale il tè, blow out oul
Marge! That’s Malge! Quello è tea, Malge!
the last l’ultimo That’s the last
5 refrigerator calendalio lefligelatol
metal calendar magnetico da magnetic
you get from fligo che calendal you’ll
me.” licevelai da get flom
me.” me.”
10 Homer: “We throw “Tanto li “We throw
those out buttiamo nel them down the
anyway!” cesso.” toilet anyway!”
C. Kwan: “You lie! Stop “Bugialdo, non “Lial, don’t
lyin’!” dile bugie!” lie!”
Despite the illocutionary dimension—i.e., “the stereotypical

representation of an Asian American woman”—is respected, a critical
analysis of the target text reveals indeed a usual ideological modification
due to the intent to create a kind of humorous discourse tailored to the
expected receivers. In fact, when Homer speaks, he resorts to a more
vulgar version of the original script, mentioning the toilet (l. 12) and
therefore uncovering a childish construction of the comic effect. The
original trait of a stubborn, selfish man who is not worried about having
ruined his wife’s meeting is altered by means of a lexico-semantic
dimension recalling those modifications to cartoon scripts (Iaia 2011a;
2011b) aimed at rendering animated shows in general more appealing to a
younger (or childish) audience, even if they were originally targeted at
different receivers.
It could be therefore surmised that the Bumblebee Man and Cookie
Kwan’s translation strategies do indeed reveal the existence of alternative,
more appropriate paths for the production of equivalent Italian versions,
but at the same time they still preserve the influence of cognitive,
ideological constructs such as that of the implied receivers, which
overcome the respect for textual evidence and the search for an equivalent
effect for the audience. What is more, the ideological modifications may
also reveal the commissioners’ influence over the translators’ work: as the
analysis of the case studies above seems to suggest, broadcasters are
sometimes to blame for the identification of dominant socio-cultural and

cognitive features in the adaptation of the original scripts. It is in this light
that the following extracts from Happily Divorced are analysed: to
question whether being broadcast on different channels—such as satellite
ones—may lead to the production of different, more equivalent target
versions.
Created by Fran Drescher, the sitcom Happily Divorced is based on her
story, after her husband confesses to being homosexual. In search for a
new partner, she likes both Elliot and Frankie, the latter an Italian-
American who owns a pizzeria. The dialogue (39) below, from episode
HD-213, exemplifies the lack of Italian diatopic/diastratic varieties in
Frankie’s characterisation (00:00:32 – 00:00:57):

Frankie: “How about I “Ti accompagno “I’ll walk you
walk you out?” fuori io.” out.”
Elliot: “[laughs] “[ride] Dici sul “[laughs] Are
Seriously?” serio?” you serious?”
5 Frankie: “Yeah, let’s “Sí, facciamo “Yeah, let’s
take a walk due passi.” have a walk.”
outside.”
Elliot: “Oh, I have an “Io ho un’altra “I have another
idea: why don’t idea: perché non idea: why don’t
10 we stay? ’Cause restiamo qui? we stay here?
you’re gonna Tanto ’Cause you
wind up here [in comunque è qui would end up
a hospital] [in un here [in a
anyway.” ospedale] che hospital]
15 finiresti.” anyway.”
The interaction above shows that there is no need to resort to diatopic

and diastratic varieties or to ideological modifications to the original
illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions. Indeed, equivalent target
versions are provided, thus allowing the construction of similar types of
humorous discourse, for example by leaving the communication of
Frankie’s nationality to other strategies such as flirtatious jokes as the one
uttered by Fran in extract (40) below, from the same episode, when she
does not want Frankie to go back to work (00:03:24 – 00:03:35):
122 Chapter Five

Frankie: “Believe me: I “È l’ultima cosa “That’s the last
don’t want, but che vorrei fare, thing I’d do, but
I gotta get back ma devo tornare I gotta get back
to my pizza in pizzeria.” to the pizza
5 parlour.” parlour.”
Fran: “NO!” “NO!” “NO!”
Frankie: “How about I “E se ti facessi “And what if I
send you a nice recapitare subito sent you
piping hot una bella a nice
10 Sicilian?” siciliana hot
piccante?” Sicilian pizza?”
Fran: “I like the one I “Il siciliano “I already have
got right here.” piccante ce l’ho a hot Sicilian
già qui.” guy right here.”
Even though the lexical equivalence of Fran’s last lines may be

questioned, extract (40) is still important as it satisfies its pragmatic aim,
consisting in producing a joke based on Frankie’s nationality (Me-CSR).
A similar type of humorous discourse was already included in The Nanny
(by the same creator), but the Italian version of that show was the result of
a different approach that again focused on the domestication of the
original elements (such as the references to Jewish traditions and places
being turned into Italian ones in the dubbed version) by resorting to
ideological modifications mostly affecting the characters’ nationality and
employing Italian regionalisms (Denton 2007; Ferrari 2010; Guido 2012).
5.4 Conclusions
The investigation of the inclusion of diatopic and diastratic varieties in
the Italian translations of the selected films and TV series has revealed the
prevalence of the socio-cultural, stereotypical interpretations of the source
scripts in order to produce pragmatically-inappropriate representations
based on the adoption of the Southern-Italian language varieties for
clumsy, lazy or less-educated characters, as opposed to the selection of
Northern varieties for a different group of people, generally linked to well-
paid professions or sophisticated attitudes.
As for the production of pragmalinguistic misrepresentations—
particularly of female characters—the analysis of the target versions has
identified the respect for the implied receivers’ expectations by modifying
the lexico-semantic and structural features of the source scripts, together
with the influence of target-culture stereotypical and schematic features in

the construction of a humorous discourse based on gender oppositions and
diatopically-marked representations, disrespecting the original illocutionary
dimensions.
Finally, it has been underscored that there are alternative translation
strategies of foreigners or Italian-Americans, which discard the
conventional solutions and try to render the original humorous discourse in
an equivalent way. This aspect in particular has led to the proposal of a
provocative link between the channels premiering the analysed audiovisual
texts and the translation strategies adopted, according to which the
production of equivalent target versions may also be due to the
commissioners’ (i.e., broadcasters’) intent rather than to the translators’
deliberate choices.
It is important to stress that the inclusion of diatopic and diastratic
varieties is not here seen as a completely inappropriate strategy: in fact, an
alternative translation shall be proposed in Section 7.1 below, where the
Italian diatopic and diastratic variety of the area of Rome is considered
appropriate to produce an equivalent multimodal construction of the
original humorous effect. What is here supported is instead the
development of an audiovisual, critical analysis of source texts where the
integration of the lexical, syntactic, pragmatic and audiovisual dimensions
would allow the production of equivalent target versions. So far, the
analysis has focused on the cartoons, sitcoms and humorous films. The
Interactive Model will next be applied to the investigation of video-game
scripts, to enquire into the reiteration of the conventional translation
choices and their appropriateness when related to the original construction
and the responses from the empirical audience.
CHAPTER SIX
ANALYSIS OF VIDEO-GAME SCRIPTS
This chapter enquires into the cognitive-semantic, structural, pragmatic

and socio-cultural aspects of the Italian retextualisation strategies of the
humorous discourse found in the selected corpus of video-game scripts.
The comparisons of the English and Italian versions will account for the
multimodal constructions, in order to detail the conveyance of the
semantic dimensions by means of the interaction between the linguistic
and extralinguistic features. The structural dimension of the examples will
be also considered, to explore the ideological modifications prompted by
the language varieties, and to outline the inclusion of new moves and acts
in the dialogues, which suit the alternative characterisations specific for
the target linguacultural background. The structure follows the same lines
as those of the previous chapter: after discussing the adoption of diatopic
and diastratic language varieties (6.1), the production of pragmatic
misrepresentations for target receivers will be examined (6.2), as well as
the alternative translation strategies producing more equivalent versions
from a pragmalinguistic perspective (6.3).
6.1 The Adoption of Diatopic/Diastratic Varieties

in Video-game Scripts
Italian translation strategies regarding video-game scripts share the
ideological modifications based on the target linguacultural background
already identified in the previous extracts from films and TV series, and
mainly exemplified by the adoption of specific language varieties. Yet,
since the adventures of the selected corpus of video games are set in
possible (Hintikka 1989), fantastic worlds, the association between real
language varieties and counterfactual characters (distinguished from the
human ones by their audiovisual representation) may lead to non-natural
representations, different characterisations, and even to pragmalinguistic
misrepresentations, in particular when such linguistic choices are only
evident in the target versions. Furthermore, this reiteration of the
conventional AVT strategies of humorous discourse may not be perceived
126 Chapter Six
as appropriate for video games, or appreciated by their players (also cf.

Sections 7.5 and 7.6.2 below). Indeed, it may be that this reiteration
depends on partial knowledge and analysis of the text types under
discussion, that is to say translators may not be acquainted with such text
types’ peculiar linguistic and extralinguistic constructions, and consequently
they may not grasp specific intertextual references that contribute to the
conveyance of the semantic dimensions. For these reasons, it is vital to
develop and promote the translators’ linguistic and multimodal training, to
support the interpretation of how the meanings are transmitted by means
of the interaction between the linguistic and audiovisual characteristics, as
well as to focus on the importance of pragmalinguistic equivalence in
translation, and on the actual characteristics of the typical video-game
audience, who have specific attributes in terms of age and expertise (cf.
D’Alessandro 2008; ESA 2011). In general terms, translation strategies
can be divided into two main groups: one that respects the features of
source scripts, and another that opts for the inclusion of cultural references
or language varieties typical of target cultures. An ideological connection
is actually surmised between the genre and the translation techniques (cf.
Section 6.3 below), since the more dramatic the tone is, the more
equivalent strategies are selected.
As for the following analyses, the Italian scripts are compared to the
English ones because—apart from some exceptions (cf. Chandler and
Deming 2011)—video games are generally translated for the European
market from the English versions. Yet, due to the fact that some of the
analysed examples are produced in Japan, the investigation will also
explore the extent to which the English scripts first—and the Italian ones
later—adapt the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the Japanese
source texts.
6.1.1 Final Fantasy IX

The ninth episode of the Japanese video-game series tells the stories of
the character Zidane, the band of thieves he belongs to and the people he
meets, such as Princess Garnet. It also presents a group of characters that
stretches the sense of credibility by means of fantastic, not-true-to-life
visual representations, such as humans with tails (like Zidane, the main
character), or counterfactual communities, like the Qu tribe. The latter is
characterised by non-conventional habits (e.g., they eat frogs) and it
contributes to the breaking of socio-cultural shared expectations, for its
members are sometimes represented as childlike, lacking gender
characterisations, and yet they discuss about life and death, or the
Analysis of Video-game Scripts 127
importance of improving one’s education. Their counterfactual dimension

and their foreignness are also multimodally conveyed, since their visual
features (for example, they have big tongues hanging out of their mouths)
interact with the linguistic ones. What is more, in both Japanese and
English versions the characters’ utterances have the functional role of
activating in the receivers the identification of them as foreign speakers. In
Japanese, Quina’s lines end in katakana, “the syllabary used for foreign
terms, to […] show language deviance” (Mangiron 2010: 96), whereas the
English script is characterised by a fragmented, simplified syntax and
lexical creativity. Even though such variation, adopted for the construction
of language-based humorous discourse, is generally defined as “broken
English” (Mangiron 2010), its peculiar lexical and syntactic features
suggest an alternative definition, that of “scripted lingua-franca
variations”. On the one hand, this definition is proposed because the
utterances reflect the characteristics of real lingua-franca variations (cf.
Seidlhofer 2011; MacKenzie 2013); on the other hand, the adjective
“scripted” determines that such variations are created on purpose, to mark
the foreignness of specific characters. Furthermore, the definition also
entails that the selected interactions involve at least one “non-native
speaker” who cannot master the native language, i.e., the language spoken
by human beings, which generally coincides with Standard English. In fact,
due to the possible worlds of video games, the distinction between native
and non-native speakers is extended in order to include the differences
between two groups: the “native” one, mainly composed by human
characters that generally speak standard varieties, and the “non-native”
group, whose differences are marked in their linguistic as well as
audiovisual dimensions (also cf. section 6.3 below). Finally, even though the
interactions under analysis are not real, their constructions actually reflect
the authors’ (and translators’) ideological representations of the variations
spoken by foreign participants in real dialogues, and hence study of them is
consistent with the investigation of how the cognitive and linguacultural
background affect the production and adaptation of scripts.
The Italian translation of Final Fantasy IX resorts instead to several
diatopic and diastratic varieties, mainly from Central and Southern Italy,
such as Sardo (from Sardinia), Romanesco and Siciliano, thus developing
humorous effects no longer exclusively based on the players’ suspension of
disbelief, coherent with its fantastic setting, but affected by the target socio-
cultural characterisations, eventually distorting the original ones. A case in
point is Quina, from the Qu tribe. This character is originally rendered as
childish and clumsy, in contrast with the other community members, such as
his/her Master represented in extract (41) below, who is of high status and
128 Chapter Six
who reproaches Quina for his/her inappropriate behaviour.35 On the

contrary, the selection of Romanesco for the members’ language contributes
to their stereotypical representation as feast lovers (Consigli 1988), actually
not consistent with the attributes entailed by the English script:

Quina: “You got frogs! “C’hai ’na rana! “You’ve got a
Frogs very Le rane sò frog! Frogs are
good. Mmmm!” bone! Me good! I like
piaciono ’na them very
5 cifra.” much.”
Zidane: “Who the heck “Ma chi sei?” “Who are you?”
are you?”
Quina: “Me? [the “Io sò… [il “I am… [the
player can giocatore può player can
10 decide the decidere il decide the
name]” nome]” name]”
Zidane: “Quina, do you “Quina, vuoi la “Quina, do you
want this frog?” rana?” want this frog?”
Quina: “Yes, yes! | “Sí, la vojo! | Sí, “Yes, I do! Yes,
15 Yes, yes!”36 la vojo!” I do!”
Zidane: “…Alright. “Ok, tieni.” “Ok, here.”
Here.”
Quina: “Yaaay! | Mine, “Grazie, dottò! | “Thanks, sir! | I
mine!” Nun t’a ridò won’t give it
20 mica!” back to you!”
Quale: “You pathetic, “[>] Quina! Che “Quina! What
Quina. Can’t cosa fai? Te fai are you doing?
even feed pijà le rane Do you let
yourself. | [the dall’altri? Ce others catch
25 group enters a n’hai ancora da frogs for you?
room] Can’t imparà! | [il You still have a
master the art of gruppo entra in lot to learn! |
eating just una stanza] [>; [the group
chasing frogs, n] Quina, se enters a room]
30 Quina.” continui a Quina, if you
magnà rane, nun keep eating
te imparerai mai frogs, you’ll
l’arte der never master the
magnà, fija art of eating, my
35 mia!” child!”
Quina: “But, master, “[>; n] Lo sò, “I know,

frogs very signora maè. | teacher. | But,
good! | Frogs [n] Però guardi look what a big
here best! | che ranocchiona frog he caught!
40 Better than m’ha pijato! I couldn’t
Alexandria’s.” Nun potevo dije refuse. | I’ve
de no. | Nun never seen a
l’ho mai vista better frog than
una piú bona de this!”
45 questa!”
Quale: “Quina, you in “[>; n] Se sei “If you content
darkness. Need contenta con yourself with
some light.” due rane, vor dí just a pair of
che te manca frogs, you still
50 parecchio pè have to learn a
affinà l’arte der lot to master the
magnà, bella art of eating, my
mia!” darling!”
FFIX is not revoiced, and utterances are inserted in balloons whose

size can be adapted according to the length of the translators’
retextualisations. In fact, the Italian version contains longer sentences and
the position of the balloons is modified according to the script length, so
as not to cover the speakers. As for the transcreative strategies, they also
affect the characters’ names: for example, “Zidane” becomes “Gidan” in
the European versions of the game, since the original one could be
confused with the famous footballer Zinedine Zidane, whereas “Quale” is
replaced by “Quera” in the Italian version. The English script exemplifies
that the humour is in the suspension of disbelief prompted by Quina’s
behaviour and his/her appearance, as well as in his/her disparaging
representation, since Quina’s clumsy character is not common in the Qu
tribe (the Mediated-Cognitive Semantic Representation). Master Quale
actualises the disparaging representation of his/her pupil and their social
distance, for example when s/he reacts angrily towards Quina (“You
pathetic, Quina. Can’t even feed yourself”, ll. 21-24). The MuCrAS phase
reveals that Quina’s lines are in fact simple and based on repetitions
(“Yes, yes! Yes, yes!”, ll. 14-15), onomatopoeia (“Mmmm!”, l. 3) and
justifications (“But, master, frogs very good!”, ll. 36-38), whereas Quale
sometimes resorts to cryptic messages, as in “Quina, you in darkness.
Need some light” (ll. 46-48).
130 Chapter Six
On the other hand, the Italian transcreative script is modified, maybe to

suit the younger audience’s expectations, as is suggested by the
identification of the domesticated expressions aiming at conveying
Quina’s childish attitude, such as signora maè (l. 37), which is generally
adopted by children when talking to their teachers. As for the conversation
patterns, the younger age of implied receivers seems to be confirmed also
by the creation of more explicit utterances, which in turn creates a
different sequence of moves in the target version. For example, when
Zidane offers the frog to Quina, s/he shows contentment by means of a
childish repetition of the pronoun “mine” (ll. 18-19), but the Italian script,
in rendering this sequence, adds an explanation move with the speaker
informing Zidane that the frog will not be given back to him (ll. 18-20). A
similar strategy is also employed for the translation of Quale’s reproach:
the English script expresses the social distance from Quina by means of
the alternation between downgrading and explanation moves (for example,
“You pathetic, Quina”—ll. 21-22—and “Can’t even feed yourself”—ll.
22-24), the Italian script instead produces a longer retextualisation that
begins with a question (“Che cosa fai?”), which is then followed by an
explanation. The translation is equivalent only from a denotative
perspective, but it is more verbose, for instance due to the repetition of the
verb “magna’” (‘to eat’, ll. 31 and 34). This level of redundancy makes
Quale’s illocutionary level explicit, and the same is evident during Quina’s
turn. When responding to Quale’s reproach, in fact, the Italian script
contains a series of justifications not present in the English master-pupil
interaction, characterised by simple responses and the lack of unnecessary
explanations or verbose excuses.
Finally, the selection of Romanesco in the translation exemplifies the
process of ideological modification, by means of which the speakers’
attitudes are associated to a specific diatopic and diastratic variety,
reflecting what was highlighted in the analyses of the different
characterisations and interpretations in the dubbing translations of The
Simpsons or Futurama (cf. Chapter 5 above), and hence sharing the intent
to direct audiovisual texts at younger audiences. Actually, implied
receivers may not coincide with the expected audiences of source scripts,
and indeed players have debated the Final Fantasy IX translation on line,
voicing displeasure and controversial views about the Italian linguistic
choices (see also Section 7.6.2 below).
The adoption of Southern diatopic varieties and the production of
characterisations that are reminiscent of the dubbing translation strategies
of humorous discourse are confirmed by extract (42) below, from one of
the initial fight scenes between Zidane and a masked enemy that is
eventually revealed as Zidane’s boss, Baku, who speaks Siciliano for the
Italian audience:

Baku: “UGHUUA! | “Ahi-ahi-ahi! | “Ahi-ahi-ahi! |
Oh, my head! | Mi scoppia la My head’s
Go easy, you testa, ah! | exploding, ah! |
guys!” Come vi How dare you
5 pemmettete col with your boss,
vostro boss, ah?”
ah?”
Extract (42) shares features with the audiocassette Lisa Simpson uses
to learn Italian (cf. extract (16), p. 93), since Siciliano is associated to a
character—Baku (named Kalò in the Italian version)—who acts bossy, and
whose lines display those lexical deviations from standard rules that
reproduce the diatopically-marked pronunciation in written form, such as
the verb “permettete” (‘to dare’) written as “pemmettete” (l. 5), where the
double “m” replaces the standard spelling. Also in this case the structural
and lexical types of equivalence are discarded, in favour of a top-down
retextualisation of the original utterances, where the translators’
interpretations based on their schematic representations (Guido 1999a) are
preferred. It may be surmised that besides characterising Baku as a bossy
figure, the selection of Siciliano eventually creates an ideological,
diatopically-marked connection. In fact, in a wiki website on the video
game it is possible to read that “[i]n the Italian translation [… Kalò]
speaks with a Sicilian dialect, similar to a Mafia boss”.37 The latter
statement confirms what is here supposed, i.e., that the adoption of
specific diatopic and diastratic varieties actualises the ideological,
schematic associations that affect the production and reception of target
versions. In fact, their interpretation prompts specific effects, provided that
receivers share the translators’ linguacultural background, which is
required for the activation of specific cognitive processes.
Another language variety adopted in the Italian version is the less-
commonly used Sardo (spoken in Sardinia), which appears in The
Simpsons for the character of the Groundskeeper Willie—indeed a Scot
turned into a Sardinian. In FFIX, Sardo is spoken by the members of the
Nero Family—Zenero, Benero and Genero—who are called as Puddu,
Poddu and Paddu, according to stereotypical, distorted features of the
selected variety, such as the presence of doubled consonants. By way of
132 Chapter Six
example, consider the interaction (43) below, from the event called “Long
Time No See” in disc three:

Zenero
and “Been a long “Quanto temppo “Been a long
Benero: time!” è!” ttime!”
Genero: “Been a while!” “Quanto temppo “Been a long
5 è!” ttime!”
Zenero: “Where have “Dovve sei “Wherre have
you been?!” statto tutto you bbeen all
questo this ttime?”
temppo?”
10 Benero: “We were “Cossa hai fatto “Whatt have
worried!” tutto questo you ddone all
temppo?” this ttime?”
Genero: “Sorry, I’ve “Allenatto mi “I’ve been
been training!” sono!” trainning!”
15 Zenero
and “Allenatto ti “Have you been
Benero: “Training!?” sei?!” trainning?”
Genero: “Yeah, “Sí. Capitto mi “Yeah, you ddid
training!” avete!” understand me!”
20 Zenero: “Training for “E dovve, “And wherre,
what?” dovve?” wherre?”
Benero: “Tell us!” “E quando, “And when,
quando?” when?”
Extract (43) confirms that transcreation may result in the construction

of a different type of humorous discourse based on socio-cultural
conventions, which does not create an equivalent experience for target
receivers, due to the modifications to the speakers’ language. In fact, also
the selection of Sardo shows that the humorous intent has been modified
and tailored according to the implied audience’s expectations. This
strategy affects the linguistic features of the above interactions, which the
backtranslation tries to reproduce. For example, the words “tempo”
(‘time’), “cosa” (‘what’) and “allenato” (‘trained’) are respectively written
as “temppo” (l. 2), “Cossa” (l. 10) and “allenatto” (l. 13), to render the
stereotypical pronunciation where consonant are doubled. Secondly,
sentences have a peculiar syntactic structure that generally ends with verbs
(MuCrAS phase), as in “Allenatto mi sono” (ll. 13-14), which postpones
the verb “to be”, and which reproduces the humorous construction of the
diatopic/diastratic variety from Sardinia when adopted in Italian comic
films and TV shows (such as, for example, those of the group of Italian
comedians called “Il Bagaglino”, where similar characteristics are
identified in the imitation of former Italian President Francesco Cossiga,
from Sardinia).38 Even though the conversation pattern is generally
respected, the interaction ends with a different reaction from Benero
according to which version is being examined. In fact, the exclamation
“Tell us!” (l. 22) is turned into a question, and despite the fact that the
illocutionary level (i.e., to encourage Genero to speak) is preserved, the
humorous discourse is developed on the lexical and structural deviations
typical of the Sardo variety adopted for comic purposes, such as the
repetition of the word “quando” (‘when’, ll. 22-23), to imitate the previous
question “E dovve, dovve?” (‘And wherre, wherre?’, ll. 20-21). The
comparison between scripts also reveals that sometimes lines are invented
(cf. ll. 10-12; 18-19) to allow the inclusion of the diastratically and
diatopically marked alternative versions, providing utterances that do not
share the denotative dimension with the original ones. For example,
“Cossa hai fatto tutto questo temppo?” (ll. 10-12) can be seen as an
arbitrary and unnecessary modification that does not convey Benero and
Genero’s concern.
Actually, even preserving the use of Sardo, a more equivalent
version—at least from the lexical and syntactic perspectives—could have
been produced by having Benero utter, “Preoccupatti ci siammo”
[‘Worriedd we werre’]. That would provide both lexical and syntactical
types of equivalence to the source text, while keeping the stereotypical
features of the humorous adoption of the language variety, doubling the
“t” and “m” respectively in “Preoccupatti” (instead of “preoccupati”) and
“siammo” (instead of “siamo”). Besides FFIX, Romanesco and
Napoletano are included in other translations, whose analyses denote
analogous retextualisations with the intent of creating target versions for
younger receivers.
6.1.2 Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story

and Super Paper Mario
The video games from the Super Mario series encompass several
genres—from platform games to role-playing ones—sharing the main
protagonists and the basic plot of the Italian plumber saving Princess
Peach. The two episodes under analysis resort to Romanesco to
characterise some bossy, violent characters that face Mario. As for MLBIS,
134 Chapter Six
the variety is selected for the translation of the Monty Moles, a group of
talking moles serving the main enemy, Bowser. In the interaction (44)
below, they are excavating a tunnel to help their leader kidnap the
princess:

Mole 2: “Yeah, so our “Ce semo messi “We have
secret tunnel a scava’ er started
mission is going tunnel segreto excavating the
super smooth!” come Sua secret tunnel as
5 Coattità c’aveva Your Loutjesty
ordinato.” ordered us.”
Bowser: “Secret tunnel? “Un tunnel “Secret tunnel?
First time I segreto? Di che What on earth
heard of it!” accidenti parli?” are you talking
10 about?”
Mole 5: “Remember “Sua “Your
Bro—I mean, Turpitudine Basenessty
Bowser! You voleva ’sto wanted this
wanted an tunnel ppe’ tunnel as an
15 escape tunnel scappa’ in fretta easy escape
for kidnapping quando rapiva after kidnapping
Peach?” ’a the Princess…”
principessa…”
Mole 4: “The big tunnel “Er tunnel “The secret
20 project… you segreto… Er tunnel… The
named it Project “Proggetto BB”. “BB Project”! |
K! | And you | C’ha incaricati You did charge
handed it off to Lei de faje ’sto us with doing
us, the Monty tunnel!” this tunnel!”
25 Bros., because
we rule dirt!”
The scripts entail different socio-cultural and cognitive dimensions: the

English version presents moles that recall the schema of “loutish members
of a criminal group”, thus constructing a humorous discourse based on the
contrast between their behaviour and visual dimension, as they are still
represented as little, harmless moles (source-version Me-CSR). On the
other hand, the use of Romanesco produces a diastratically-marked,
disparaging representation of the animals, proposing a schematic
association already adopted in the earlier seasons of The Simpsons, where
that language variety was spoken by the character of Snake, a criminal.

Also the lexico-semantic and structural features of the scripts are different:
the English moles talk to their leader using slang, like in “Remember
Bro—” (ll. 11-12), or in “because we rule dirt” (ll. 25-26), denoting a
dimension of subordination to Bowser that is actualised by their utterances
and Bowser’s language. The latter, in fact, plays high status by speaking
Standard English, thus confirming the disparaging representation of the
moles, which recognise their hierarchical structure, as exemplified by
Mole 5 correcting himself (ll. 11-13), when “Bro—” is suddenly modified
as “Bowser”. As for the Italian version, the relation of subordination is
rendered by the presence of the social deictic “Lei” (l. 23) and by resorting
to lexical creativity in the puns “Sua Coattità” (‘Your Loutjesty’, ll. 4-5)
or “Sua Turpitudine” (‘Your Basenessty’, ll. 11-12), which are based on
the notions of “coatto”, ‘loutish’, and “turpe”, ‘base’, and which mock the
Italian form for “Your Majesty”, “Sua Maestà”. In addition to this, as with
FFIX, it could be surmised that the Italian version of the video game under
analysis is directed at a younger audience, for the original cognitive
incongruity between the “little moles” and “criminal characters” schemata
seems to be overcome by Bowser’s disparaging representation: Mole 4’s
last lines define the boss as someone who wants to rule a group of
criminals, but who even forgets his own orders. This is absent in the
original script, where Mole 4 just explains with pride why they were
chosen to carry out the criminal task. Finally, the source humour is also
constructed by means of the intertextual references typical of video games,
according to the strategy defined as “self-referencing” by Mangiron (2010:
95): the name “Monty Bros.” mocks the conventional “Monty Moles”, but
the Italian version lacks this content, since it does not create an equivalent
translation based on the target correspondent, “Tantatalpe”.
Romanesco is also employed in the translation of SPM for O’Chunks—
one of Mario’s enemies (see extract (45))—who shares the same schematic
representation as the moles:

O’Chunks: “You shouldn’t “Nun lo dovevi “You shouldn’t
’ave crossed the fà. Nun dovevi have done it.
count! Now I’m infastidí er You shouldn’t
gonna ’ave teh conte! Mo’ te have bothered
5 get chunky on faccio nero!” the Count! I’m
yeh!” going to beat
you!”
Fairy: “You… You’re “Tu… sei uno “You… are one
136 Chapter Six
one of the degli sgherri of the Count’s

10 Count Bleck’s del conte, non è lackeys, aren’t
thughs, aren’t cosí?” you?”
you?!”
O’Chunks: “O’Chunks is “So’ Pugnazzo, “I’m Pugnazzo.
me name! An’ se er conte If the count
15 I’m no common ordina, io ve orders, I will
thugh, lass. | I strapazzo! | E mistreat you. |
thug for the nun so’ mica And I’m not a
count o’counts, uno sgherro common lackey,
Count Bleck qualunque, baby! I’m THE
20 hisself! | One bambola! Io so’ lackey of Count
word from me LO sgherro der Ash! | One
Blecky-boy, an’ Conte Cenere! | word only from
I come teh Me basta ’na the Count and I
make yeh feel parola sua e ve turn you into
25 some riduco in chops!”
hammage!” braciole!”
Mario: “Huh?” “Huh?” “Huh?”
O’Chunks: “Hammage? | “Braciole? | “Chops? | I
Ehhh… Make Volevo dí meant
30 that ‘damage’!” ‘briciole’!” ‘crumbs’!”
The comic effect is based on O’Chunks “unexpected” characterisation,

since he is supposed to frighten Mario and the Fairy by means of his
utterances, but he actually has to correct what he says, because of his use
of the wrong word “Hammage” (ll. 28-30). From the multimodal
perspective, the extract is also directed at young receivers, because of the
bright colours used in the scene, the setting which seems to be drawn on
paper (indeed a peculiar choice by the creators, justifying the word
“Paper” in the title—Super Paper Mario), and the sounds replacing the
speakers’ voices—in fact, this video game is not voiced (or revoiced)
either. As for the linguistic choice of the diatopic/diastratic variety spoken
in Rome and its area, it creates an easily-recognisable characterisation of a
loutish character, even though the adventure is set in a possible,
counterfactual world, as well as the fact that O’Chunks does not represent
an actual human being—his name indeed deictically refers to his visual
characteristics, since he is made of chunks. Furthermore, though the
character’s name and colours of his body (i.e., red and black) may denote
him as a parody of an Irish man, this ideological link has not been
explicitly mentioned by the translators or the producers, and the players
who debate the topic in dedicated online forums have not reached a shared
conclusion yet.39
By means of the multimodal, critical analysis, it is possible to identify
the lexical and morpho-syntactic deviations from the Standard uses that
characterise O’Chunks’s language. For example, consider the vowel
reduction when uttering “me” (l. 14) instead of “my”, the particular,
maybe dialect, forms of “you”—“yeh” (l. 6) and “to”—“teh” (l. 4), as well
as the two different pronunciations of “himself” and “have”, respectively
“hisself” (l. 20) and “’ave” (l. 2). Furthermore, examples of lexical
creativity are also identified, for example in “Blecky-boy” (l. 22), a
diminutive used to refer to his leader, Count Bleck. If, on the other hand,
Pugnazzo’s utterances are examined, it is possible to realise that the
original mix between adult-like and child-like features is modified,
actually leaning towards the latter, as exemplified by the rhyme between
“Pugnazzo” and “strapazzo” (‘mistreat’, ll. 13-16), where the verb
“strapazzare” softens the violent action of “beating someone up”. Finally,
the original mispronunciation is rendered by the words “braciole”
(‘chops’) and “briciole” (‘crumbs’, ll. 28-30) and once more it leads to the
construction of a childish humour that modifies the speaker’s violent
characterisation by resorting to the semantic field of food, whereas the
source script is based on that of fight, by mentioning “damage” (l. 30). As
with FFIX, some names have been adapted for the target receivers: for
example, also “Pugnazzo” involves a pun as in the original counterpart,
but whereas “O’Chunks” refers to the character’s physical representation,
the transcreative name entails the word “pugni”, ‘punches’, modified by a
derogatory suffix in Romanesco, “–azzo”. It thus prepares the ground for
the ideological and schematic link provided by his socio-cultural and
linguistic characterisations. However, it is important to underline that
some of the recent video games show a different translation strategy,
according to which diatopic and diastratic language varieties are not
adopted (see Section 6.3 below).
So far, the analyses have exemplified the exploitation of the
conventional audiovisual translation strategies to achieve certain imagined
reactions on the part of the receivers, modelling the cognitive construct of
the implied audience on the “TV viewers” schema, who are expected to
listen to Italian dialects or diatopic and diastratic varieties when scripts
have to prompt humorous effects. Furthermore, the retextualisations do not
affect the lexical and structural features alone, as they also produce
pragmalinguistic misrepresentations of female characters, or
misinterpretations of the illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions in
138 Chapter Six
the characterisation of counterfactual creatures, as the examples in the

following sections will illustrate.
6.2 Pragmalinguistic Misrepresentations

in Video-game Scripts
The production of target scripts is generally affected by the cognitive
construct of “implied receivers of video games”, which may lead to
lexical, syntactic and functional modifications in order to satisfy their
expectations and hence create versions that suit the audience’s
linguacultural background by means of the diatopic and diastratic
varieties, as explored in Sections 5.1 and 6.1 above. The following extracts
will reveal that besides falling into the age group of the young and being
mainly composed by male players, the receivers of video games are
sometimes not expected to be so experienced as the source ones, especially
due to the fact that the target scripts are missing many of the original
intertextual or cultural references. This aspect is included in this
discussion because it is considered one of the causes of pragmatic
misrepresentations and changes in the domesticated adaptations, which do
not contain similar characterisations or connections with other video
games or texts, at the basis of the source-text illocutionary and
perlocutionary dimensions. In this perspective, the video games Lollipop
Chainsaw and Ni No Kuni represent cases in point. As for the former, it
undergoes a process of modification of its adult humour similar to the one
identified during the analysis of the film Stan Helsing. The Italian version
of the latter instead misrepresents the character of Mr Drippy, the fairy
who accompanies the protagonist, Oliver, on his journey to save his
mother. At the same time, it also exemplifies the greater level of freedom
in transcreating source scripts for a younger audience, for whom new
moves are proposed, or the utterances are rendered more accessible, by
explaining the speaker’s intentionality in more explicit forms.
Some extracts from the Italian version of LC are analysed to comment
on the pragmalinguistic differences provoked by the adaptation of the
original illocutionary dimension and humorous construction for a wider
audience, resulting in a mitigation of references to drug and sex, of sexist
jokes and of the intertextual links typical of video games, which contribute
to the construction of the source script.40 In particular, the original
multimodal construction draws from comics, movies such as Karate Kid
or Lucio Fulci’s horror films, pop music from the ’80s and classic video
games such as Pac-Man. In addition to this, the audiovisual construction
also affects the humorous discourse, which is mainly grounded on
cognitive and nonsensical clashes between expected and unexpected

representations. For example, the main character—Juliet—is a zombie
hunter that embodies the cultural stereotype of American cheerleaders
worried about their physical appearance, as well as her boyfriend Nick,
who is nothing but a talking head, after having survived an attack from the
monsters, and who embodies a conventional representation of American
college boys. Also the enemies contribute in this sense, by reflecting
human concerns and habits even though they are dead, and by
participating in the inclusion of the intertextual links, which are activated
by their habits, clothes, and utterances. Finally, the role of the multimodal
construction in the activation of the cognitive clash determining the
humorous discourse is in their relation of contrast with what happens on
screen, or what speakers say. For instance, in the “Sparkle Hunting”
sections the audiovisual actualisation of incongruity is in the presence of
hearts, rainbows and stars accompanying Juliet’s violent extermination of
the zombies.
The presence of blood, drug and sexual references in the original script
determines the definition of LC as a video game designed for an adult
audience, which plays on gender stereotypes and which is mainly directed
at male players: for example, one of the trophies/achievements (the
rewards that players get after performing specific actions) is called “I
Swear! I Did It by Mistake” and it consists in moving the camera so as to
look up Juliet’s skirt. The interaction (46) between Juliet and Zed, one of
the main enemies, includes and exemplifies the above features. At the end
of the first part of their fight and before progressing to the second stage,
the girl manages to slash him using her chainsaw. Yet, the zombie—
characterised as a trivial, violent and misogynist character (Me-CSR)—
heals himself and threatens his opponent:

Zed: “You think that “Credi di “You think you
hurts me? I just avermi fatto hurt me? You
jizzed a little.” male? Mi hai just tickled me.”
solo fatto il
5 solletico.”
The original linguistic features interact with the audiovisual ones, for
the multimodal actualisation of Zed’s lines allows the identification of the
denotative and connotative dimensions. In fact, the verb “to jizz” is a slang
term for male ejaculation during a sexual act, which here seems to be used
to refer to the “ejaculation” of blood caused by being slashed by Juliet’s
140 Chapter Six
chainsaw, and which is also consistent with the zombie’s characterisation,

as illustrated in (46a)-(46h) below:
Source script
(46a) Zed: “I just jizzed a little.”
(46b) (46a) +> Zed is not severely injured by Juliet’s
chainsaw.
(46c) (46a) >> Zed is trivial and violent, and is excited by
pain.
(46d) (46a) ||- Zed has an orgasm.
Target script
(46e) Zed: “Mi hai solo fatto il solletico [‘You just tickled
me’]”.
(46f) (46e) +> Zed is not severely injured by Juliet’s
chainsaw.
(46g) (46e) >> Zed is trivial and violent.
(46h) The original entailment (46d) is not preserved.
The target script softens the connotative dimension and the sexual
reference by modifying the last part of what Zed says, with the inclusion
of the expression “fare il solletico” (‘to tickle’). At the same time, it
provides a lower level of multimodal coherence and cohesion, for the
focus is on the fact that the zombie was not severely injured by Juliet’s
chainsaw, but it lacks the connotative link to the blood in the scene.
Instead, the denotative dimension is respected, since both versions present
a challenging move (cf. Guido 2012: 108), with a similar logical content
and characterised by an elicitation act followed by an informative one (cf.
Guido 2012: 105-107). An alternative Italian translation of extract (46)
will be proposed in Section 7.4 below, to exemplify the application of the
phase of multimodal critical retextualisation in order to produce a
pragmalinguistic equivalent, accounting for the several dimensions that
interact in the source-text construction.
Humour in LC is also to be found in the references to famous people in
the English-speaking world or to other video games, selected for the
expected and experienced audience. Also in those cases, the Italian version
entails a different cognitive construct of implied receivers, showing
incongruities in the adaptation of the references, sometimes missing the
intertextual links. For example, in extracts (47) and (48) below, Juliet
respectively mentions the brand Birkenstock and Prof. Stephen Hawking
to convey disparaging representations of the “hippie zombie” Mariska and
Josey, the “funky zombie”. The latter kidnaps Juliet’s sister, Rosalind, and
his scenes are set in an amusement arcade, the “Fulci Fun Center”, with
dance music from the ’70s and psychedelic colours:

Juliet: “Choke on your “Ti faccio “I’ll make you
Birkenstocks, ingoiare quei swallow your
psilocybin- sandali hippy, hippie sandals,
munching stupida stupid
5 moron!” strafatta!” bombed!”

Juliet: “Dude, give us “Amico, libera “Man, free
Rosalind, now! subito Rosalind. Rosalind now.
And quit E smettila di And stop
making fun of parlare con speaking with
5 Stephen quella stupida that stupid
Hawking! He’s voce. Sembri un voice. You
a great man, maniaco sound like a
you perv!” pervertito!” perverted
maniac!”
Both extracts refer to pop culture, brands and celebrities to create a

disparaging, safe-arousal type of humour that contributes to the
nonsensical tone of the video game and to the characterisation of its
universe—for example, because the clash between the presence of Stephen
Hawking in a possible, alternative world is not explained, and because the
insults directed at Mariska target, by extension, the whole schema of “drug
addicted people”. The Italian script resorts to condensation and
neutralisation strategies (cf. Gottlieb 2005: 19) respecting the technical
limitations of subtitles (the game preserves the English voice acting), but
missing linguistic and pragmatic equivalence. Generalisation in (47) in
fact affects both the brand of sandals (l. 2) and the name of the
hallucinogenic mushroom (l. 3), perhaps to deal with possible pragmatic
failures (Grice 1975), since the Italian audience may not be familiar with
either notion. At the same time, though, the omission of the reference to
Stephen Hawking in (48)—determined by the zombie’s electrically
modified voice—is more difficult to justify, due to the translators’
incoherent strategies. After kidnapping Rosalind, in fact, the monster
invites the protagonist to the “Fulci Fun Center”, and in the English and
Italian versions of the phone call the reference to Prof. Hawking is
preserved; furthermore, he appears in other audiovisual texts sharing part
142 Chapter Six
of LC’s expected audience—from Family Guy, to The Simpsons, to The

Big Bang Theory—thus surmising that the original reference could and
should be received and understood also by Italian receivers. The official
translation completely modifies the source script, without generalising it as
in (47), but only mentioning a “stupid voice” (ll. 5-6 in (48)), which does
not render the original semantic dimensions. Example (48) will also be the
object of an alternative Italian script in Section 7.4, by applying the
Interactive Model to produce a version that both suits the illocutionary
dimension and respects the spatial limits of subtitling.
Finally, the Italian translation of LC also provides a non-equivalent
representation of self-referential humour in video games (Mangiron 2010).
While in the “Fulci Fun Center”, Juliet has to pass a series of stages
reminiscent of classic video games, before fighting Josey. Besides relying
upon audiovisual construction, the intertextual links are also activated by
means of specific lexical choices in both the girl’s and the monster’s
utterances, whose target versions do not present similar levels of
intertextuality. Consider, for example, extracts (49) and (50) below,
respectively indicating one of the enemy’s menacing lines and Juliet’s
comment after defeating him:

Josey: “The one you “Quello che non “The one you
ain’t gonna riuscirai mai a will never beat.
level up on. […] battere. […] […] I can’t wait
I can’t wait to Non vedo l’ora to dance on
5 party with your di ballare sul your corpse!”
corpse like it’s tuo cadavere!”
1983!”

Juliet: “Looks like “Mi sa che la “I think you ran
you’re out of tua fortuna si è out of luck,
coins, weird- esaurita, tizio stupid-voice
voice guy!” dalla voce guy.”
5 stupida.”
Verbs such as “level up” (l. 3 in (49)), or nouns like “coins” (l. 3 in
(50)) directly recall classic video games, as justified by the year “1983” in
Josey’s turn (l. 7). In fact, the notion of “levelling up” refers to the
characters’ growth generally associated with role-playing video games,
according to which the more enemies that are defeated and the more quests
that are completed, the more experience points are gained to improve the
powers of the player in the game. Secondly, by mentioning “coins” Juliet
explicitly refers to amusement arcades where the earliest games could be
played only by inserting money. Furthermore, “party […] like it’s 1983”
(ll. 4-7) may refer to the line “[…] tonight I’m gonna party like it’s 1999”
from the 1982-song 1999, by Prince. For these reasons (MuCrAS phase),
the Italian version should preserve the year, since its omission definitely
conveys a different pragmalinguistic representation, also considering that
the original references in (49) and (50) could be identified and enjoyed
also by the Italian experienced players. A different translation of (49) will
be proposed and commented in Section 7.4, but an alternative lexical
choice for the rendering of (50) is here discussed: the noun “fortuna”
(‘luck’) referring to the original “coins” could have been replaced by
selecting “gettoni”, the lexical correspondent to the original term, thus
having “Sembri rimasto senza gettoni [‘It looks like you’re out of coins’]”,
which would also result appropriate to the audiovisual context of the stage
and its intertextual dimension.
Sometimes, the different pragmalinguistic misrepresentations are
affected by the translators’ re-interpretations of the original characters, as
happens in Ni No Kuni for the translation of Drippy, the fairy that
accompanies the protagonist, Oliver. Firstly, it is worth underlining that
the character himself exemplifies the cognitive features of the humorous
discourse in video games. In fact, though being considered as a fairy,
Drippy is a male character, and this creates an “expected/unexpected”
clash. What is more, the conflicting association between counterfactual
and factual characteristics is also actualised by the fairy’s language. In the
Japanese version, the character resorts to the Osaka dialect, which is
“assigned to money-oriented, funny” (Hiramoto 2010: 237), chatty, food-
loving, unsophisticated characters (cf. Carroll 2013); in the English
version, the choice of the Welsh accent preserves his role of comic relief
as well as his main features of a talkative creature; finally, the Italian script
opts for the diatopic/diastratic variety from Rome and its area, which still
defines Drippy as a humorous and chatty character, though his
characterisation becomes nonetheless inclined towards the being clumsy.
This alternative description is confirmed by the inclusion of jokes that do
not exist in the English version and which are aimed to suit the traits that
are lingua-culturally suggested by Romanesco. The fairy’s name itself
entails transcreative processes: both the English “Drippy” and the Italian
“Lucciconio” refer to an episode of his life, when he overcomes his fear of
darkness by wearing a lantern on his nose. Even though the fairy’s names
deictically refer to his act of crying while in the dark, the English one is
144 Chapter Six
connected to the tears dripping, the Italian “Lucciconio” recalls instead his
diatopic and diastratic characterisation, as “lucciconi” is a term used in
Romanesco to indicate tears.
An example of the additions of new jokes and diatopically-marked
lines is in Drippy’s comment to the secondary mission (called “errand”)
number 47, included in extract (51) below. A boy asks Oliver to find his
talking birds, which are all over the fictitious town of Al-Mamoon. When
the mission is accomplished, Drippy comments on their success:41

Drippy: “Tidy! Let’s go “Gajardo! “Great! Let’s go
back and see Tornamo dar back to the
Pigeon boy piccionaro, piccionaro,
then, shall we? I daje! come on! I bet
5 bet he’ll have a Scommetto che he’ll thank us
nice thank-you ce ringrazierà with all his
for us.” co’ tutto er heart. Wah ah
cooore. Wah ah ah! Great joke,
ah! Bona isn’t it?”
10 questa, eh?”
As already identified during the analyses of Final Fantasy IX, or of the

two episodes from the Super Mario series, humour in the Italian version of
NNK is modified to suit younger receivers, by respecting the stereotypical
association between people using Romanesco and their clumsiness, their
extroversion—which is reflected by the inclusions of Drippy’s joke in the
target script (ll. 8-10)—and by creating new moves aimed at rendering the
speakers’ intentionality more explicit and accessible to the audience.
Transcreation in (51) thus disrespects the truthful representation of the
source-text semantic dimensions (Gottlieb 2005) in favour of retextualisations
mostly based on the translators’ cognitive interpretations, and it does not
convey equivalent target versions from a pragmalinguistic perspective. In
fact, “Scommetto che ce ringrazierà co’ tutto er cooore” (ll. 5-8) produces
a humorous effect with different bases: in the English script, Drippy refers
to the reward they will get from the boy, thus creating a funny
representation of a fairy concerned about receiving gifts (Mediated-
Cognitive Semantic Representation); as for the Italian version, humour is
in the link with an easily-recognisable, socio-cultural group of people (the
target-script Me-CSR). Furthermore, extract (51) exemplifies that the
complete retextualisation granted by transcreation also consists in
restructuring the locutionary dimension according to the translators’
wishes and needs. Indeed, “cooo”—in “cooore” (l. 8)—resorts to the

expression that the talking birds had adopted in previous interactions, and
its exclusive inclusion in the Italian script has the function to characterise
Drippy as a funny character that mocks the animals after completing the
mission. Finally, also the translation of NNK displays the conventional
features of Romanesco, from the different pronunciations, as in
“Tornamo” (l. 2), replacing the standard “torniamo” (‘let’s go back’), or
“Bona” (l. 9), instead of “buona” (‘great’), to the inclusion of diatopically-
marked nouns: “piccionaro” (l. 3), conveys the original “Pigeon boy”, but
it is strictly related to the area of Rome, where the noun is used, like the
exclamations “Gajardo” (‘great’, l. 1) or “daje” (‘come on’, l. 4). It is
finally worth underlining that the existence of a different type of implied
audience is suggested by the new moves that are added so as to suit the
target characterisation. In (51), Lucciconio ends his lines with an
acknowledging move that is not present in the English script, but which
functions as a further source for comic relief. In fact, he explains his
joke—eventually confirming his stereotypical representation—but by
doing so, the characteristic of being “money-oriented”, which is conveyed
by both the English and Japanese scripts, is actually softened.
Besides affecting the semantic and pragmatic dimensions, the inclusion
of alternative jokes is significant from the technical perspective as well. In
particular, since the addition of further turns or lines may increase the
length of the target versions, sometimes three-line subtitles are needed.
The latter are typical of a creative, non-professional form of subtitles (also
known as “fansubs”, cf. Díaz Cintas 2005; Massidda 2015), which may
arouse concerns in terms of audience’s reception and their readability (cf.
Perego and Taylor 2012, but see also Section 7.5 below), because three-
line subtitles are more difficult to read in short time intervals, especially in
non-interactive videos, when players cannot decide when to move to the
next turn or lines. Consider, by way of example, extract (52) below, with
the transcreative rendering of Drippy’s introduction to Al-Mamoon
(rendered into Italian as “Muccakesh”, playing on “Mucca”, ‘cows’, the
symbolic animals of the town):

Drippy: “Bananas are “’E babane so’ “Babanas are
what Al er vanto de what makes Al
Mamoon’s Muccakesh. So’ Mamoon
famous for, see? sicuro che famous. I’m
5 You’ve never nunn’hai mai sure you’ve
eaten a fruit like mangiato ’n never eaten a
146 Chapter Six
it. Gorgeous, frutto bono fruit as tasty as

they are.” come ’na a banana…
babana… When you bite,
10 Quanto your taste buds
l’addenti ’e explode into
papille gustative fireworks.”
sparano i fochi
d’artificio.”
Also in (52) Drippy’s lines are transcreated into Italian by adding new
lines (ll. 10-14) that retextualise a notion that the English script
communicates by means of a single adjective (“Gorgeous”, l. 7). In
particular, Drippy’s explanation “Quando l’addenti […] fochi d’artificio”
suits the translators’ interpretation of the fairy as a clumsy, talkative
creature, and at the same time it entails the translators’ contributions in
retextualising source script. A supporting move at the end of Lucciconio’s
turn is in fact created, transforming the notion expressed by the English
adjective (l. 7) into a more explicit and accessible way for target receivers.
Yet, since the alternative script has to respect the time interval of Drippy’s
acting, the three-line subtitles cause problems connected to the temporal
limits, because they have to be read in a short interval, and also because it
may not be as easy for all Italian receivers, unfamiliar with the specific
diatopic and diastratic variety, to read long subtitles in Romanesco.
Lollipop Chainsaw and Ni No Kuni have been included in the selected
corpus of video-game scripts to exemplify the pragmalinguistic
misrepresentations conveyed by the Italian translations when source texts
are analysed without valid background knowledge in terms of similar text
types and of the characteristics of most of video-game receivers, which
would allow the identification of the intertextual references in the scripts,
and the interpretation of the influence of the audiovisual construction in
the conveyance of the semantic dimensions. Actually, alternative
translation choices are employed in some video games, meaning that
different types of equivalent versions are already available, as proved by
the following section. A small detour is nonetheless now needed: the
investigation of the scripts in the following sections is important to detail
the coexistence of different methods and strategies in game localisation,
but the selected examples do not pursue the triggering of humorous
responses.
6.3 Different Translation Strategies in Video-game Scripts

The existence of different translation strategies in Italian video-game
scripts reflects what seems to be a cognitive-based distinction between
humorous and non-humorous series that influences the way in which the
adaptations of source texts are carried out, for the translations of the video
games belonging to the former group generally involve the inclusion of the
diatopic/diastratic language varieties. In particular, this section will focus
on the rendering of the non-humorous texts from the corpus, where
specific language variations are met, spoken by specific characters and
defined as scripted lingua-franca variations. As has been explained (see
Section 6.1.1 above), this definition is proposed because such forms of
language present peculiar deviations from standard uses, mainly from
lexical and structural perspectives. With regards to the series under
analysis, Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
belong to the fantasy genre, and their plots are developed in fantastic
worlds inhabited by human beings and other races, such as Professor
Mordin Solus—an alien scientist—or the Riekling tribe, whose members
are represented as little animals who cannot master human language (i.e.,
Standard English) with the exception of their chief. The language that they
employ can be defined as scripted types of ELF variations, since speakers
resort to lexical creativity, fragmented syntactic structure or simplified
verbal forms, preferring the simple past or simple present, and they aim at
making their utterances accessible and acceptable to their listeners. On the
other hand, the latter focus on the achievement of “the fullest
communication possible” (Seidlhofer 2011: 18), without underlining the
formers’ mistakes, or mispronunciations, but “co-constructing a viable
modus operandi to achieve a communicative goal” (ibidem). Those
features could be identified in the scene with Quina, as well—extract (41)
above—but that interaction is not included in this section because the
selection of Romanesco in the Italian translation (partially, at least)
changes the illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions. Finally, it is
claimed that the cognitive distinction between the humorous and non-
humorous genres—at the basis of the different translation strategies—may
also be suggested by the multimodal features, since FFIX presents a
cartoon-like style and a less dramatic story, if compared to the plots
dealing with life extinction in ME, or the rise of the Dragonborn—a
saviour—in Skyrim, the latter also proposing realistic and credible
representations of their characters—at least of the human ones. Indeed,
this would exemplify one of the assumptions behind the construction of
the Interactive Model, according to which the interpretation of the
148 Chapter Six
audiovisual construction is an ideological and cognitive process, which is

influenced by the translators’ linguacultural background.
An example of alternative translation strategies is provided by extract
(53) below, where Commander Shepard—the main character of Mass
Effect 2 and 3—meets Mordin Solus for the first time, in ME2:

Shepard: “Professor “Il Professor “Professor
Mordin Solus?” Mordin Solus?” Mordin Solus?”
Mordin: “Don’t “Non riconosco “Don't
recognize you di quest’area. recognize from
5 from area. Too Troppo bene this area. Too
well armed to armati per well armed for
be refugees. No rifugiati. refugees. No
mercenary Nessuna mercenary
uniform. uniforme uniform.
10 Quarantine still mercenaria. Quarantine still
in effect. Here Quarantena in effect. Here
for something ancora attiva. for something
else. Vorcha? Qui per else. Vorcha?
Crew to clean qualcos’altro. Crew to
15 them out? Vorcha? eliminate them?
Unlikely. Squadra per Unlikely.
Vorcha a eliminarli? Vorcha only
symptom, not a Improbabile. symptom, not
cause.” Vorcha solo cause.”
20 sintomo, non
causa.”
Both source and target scripts present specific linguistic features that
interact with Mordin’s visual representation as an alien, to convey his non-
native-speaker status. The definition of “non-native speaker” is here
developed and adapted according to the characteristics of the video games
under analysis. Since a distinction is made between human beings and
counterfactual characters, and since the former speak Standard English, it
is claimed that the aliens and counterfactual characters may be collected
under the label of “non-native speakers”. This distinction is at the basis of
the linguistic analysis of the selected scripts, and it further justifies the
consideration of such language variations as scripted forms of lingua
franca. As has been already clarified, the adjective “scripted” entails that
the interactions are not real, though they are constructed respecting
specific conversation patterns that resemble real dialogues, and which

represent part of the authors’ (and therefore translators’) background
knowledge. With reference to example (53), during the linguistic
dimensions of the multimodal, critical analysis of the source script
(MuCrAS phase), Mordin’s syntactic fragmentation is identified in his
short, simple sentences. In fact, he uses few verbs, e.g., “recognize” (l. 4),
whereas the verb “to be” is omitted, for example in sentences such as
“Quarantine [is] still in effect” (ll. 10-11). Furthermore, the utterances
generally lack a subject, as in “[I] Don’t recognize you from area” (ll. 3-5),
or “[You are] Too well armed to be refugees” (ll. 5-7), whereas the simple
syntactic structure is exemplified by the question “[Are you the] Crew to
clean them out?” (ll. 14-15). As for the relationship between speakers,
Mordin and Shepard respectively play low and high status, though the
former does not accept his role—at least when they meet for the first time
(cf. the following extract)—but he challenges his receiver by means of a
rapid rhythm and by firing a sequence of questions and considerations.
The Italian script is pragmalinguistically equivalent to the original one,
sharing the lexical and syntactic features. For example, the few verbs
Mordin uses—“riconosco” (l. 3) and “eliminarli” (l. 17)—are uttered in
the present simple and infinitive, whereas the subject is omitted and simple
syntactic structures are identified in the translation as well. Consider “[Io]
Non [vi] riconosco di quest’area” (ll. 3-4), where the non-native speaker
omits the subject “I” and the direct object (‘complemento oggetto’) “you”,
and “[Siete la] Squadra per eliminarli?”, which reproduces the
fragmented syntactic structure from the source script.
Extract (54) shares the lexical and syntactic features and a similar level
of equivalence. In the interaction between Shepard and Mordin, the latter
preserves his scripted lingua-franca variation in both English and Italian
versions, showing however a different attitude, as he accepts the former’s
higher status by omitting the challenging moves:

Shepard: “Mordin! Is the “Mordin! È “Mordin! Is the
cure ready?” pronta la cura?” cure ready?”
Mordin: “Yes. Loaded “Sí. Caricata per “Yes. Loaded
for dispersal in dispersione in for dispersal in
5 two minutes. due minuti. Ma two minutes.
But Eve dead.” Eve morta.” But Eve dead.”
Shepard: “What “Cos’è “What
happened?” successo?” happened?”
150 Chapter Six
Mordin: “Stress “Stress di “Stress

10 sampling too prelievo troppo sampling too
intense. Too intenso. Trauma intense.
much trauma. eccessivo. Excessive
Wanted to stop. Volevo trauma. Wanted
She refused. fermarla. Ha to stop. She
15 Her decision.” rifiutato. Sua refused. Her
decisione.” decision.”
Mordin’s English contains the same features identified in the analysis

of (53), such as the morpho-syntactic deviations, from the lack of subject
to the omission of the verb “to be”, thus confirming that his language shows
“non-conformity to the established norms of grammar” that define the
standard variety (Seidlhofer 2011: 94). Consider, for example, “[I] Wanted
to stop” (l. 13), or “But Eve [is] dead” (l. 6), and their Italian equivalents in
“[Io] Volevo fermarla” (ll. 13-14) and “Ma Eve [è] morta” (ll. 5-6).
Also the Riekling Chief, from the video game Skyrim, resorts to a
similar, scripted type of lingua-franca English when needing the
Dragonborn’s help. The members of the tribe are depicted as animal-like
creatures that communicate only by a limited set of sounds. Those
audiovisual characteristics integrate the linguistic construction in denoting
their non-native, counterfactual status. In fact, since the tribe cannot use
Standard English (which represents the language of the “native speakers”,
i.e., the human characters), when the leader asks for a favour from the
main character (extract (55)), the latter is surprised:

Riekling: “You. Fol. “Tu. Segui “You. Follow
Low. Me.” me.” me.”
Dragonborn: “Who taught “Chi ti ha “Who taught
you to talk?” insegnato a you to talk?”
5 parlare?”
[…] […] […]
Riekling: “You strong. “Tu forte. “You strong.
Help tribe- Aiuta tribú.” Help tribe.”
kin.”
10 Dragonborn: “Who are “Chi sei?” “Who are
you?” you?”
Riekling: “You. You “Tu. Tu forte. “You. You
strong. Help Aiutare tribú.” strong. Help
tribe-kin.” tribe.”
15 Dragonborn: “What is going “Cosa succede “What is going

on here?” qui?” on here?”
Riekling: “We family. “Noi famiglia. “We family.
We strong, you Noi forti, tu piú We strong, you
stronger.” forte.” stronger.”
20 Dragonborn: “Are you “Stai dicendo “Are you
saying you che vuoi il mio saying you
want my aiuto?” want my
help?” help?”
Riekling: “Bilgemuck “Bilgemuck “Bilgemuck
25 run. Prize corre. Bravo runs. Good
beast, run. Fool animale corre. animal runs.
tribe-kin, chase Stupido Fool tribe-kin.
away. fratello. Chased away.
Bilgemuck Scappato. Bilgemuck
30 fear. You Bilgemuck fear. You
bring, he paura. Tu porti, bring, he
follow you. lui segue te. follows you.
Yes?” Sí?” Yes?”
The chief’s different attitude towards the high-status participant (part

of the Mediated-Cognitive Semantic Representation) is stressed by his
praises (for example, ll. 18-19), which display the simple syntactic
structure characterised by the omission of the verb “to be” and adversative
conjunction: “We [are] strong, [but] you [are] stronger”. At the same time,
the Dragonborn asks for some feedback (“Are you saying you want my
help”—ll. 20-23) to avoid communicative breakdowns and understand the
non-native speaker’s intention. As for the latter, he resorts to simple verb
tenses and forms, preferring the imperative and simple present over the
simple past or present perfect: see for example “Help tribe-kin” (ll. 8-9)
and “Bilgemuck run” (ll. 24-25), the latter lacking the “s” marking the
third person singular. Additionally, the Riekling Chief seems to adopt the
strategy of repetitions (“You strong”, l. 7 and ll. 12-13), which is identified
as typical of real ELF interactions (cf. Dewey 2007; Cogo 2009). The
Italian version respects the original linguistic and multimodal
constructions, by including imperative and infinite as the main tenses, and
displaying morpho-syntactic deviations. As for the latter features, consider
“Aiuta tribú” (imperative—l. 8) and “Aiutare tribú” (infinite—l. 13), or
the utterance “Noi famiglia. Noi forti, tu piú forte” (ll. 17-19), which a
native speaker would render as “Noi [siamo una] famiglia. Noi [siamo]
152 Chapter Six
forti, [ma] tu [sei] piú forte”, with the inclusion of the verb “to be”
(“siamo” and “sei”) and the adversative adjective “ma”.
It is finally worth noting that the status of scripted lingua-franca
variation is confirmed by the fact that non-native speakers do not omit
those elements that they consider relevant to convey their illocutionary
dimensions, despite the incomplete syntactic structure, whereas native
participants succeed in inferring the formers’ intent by cognitively filling
the textual gaps, thus avoiding communicative breakdowns (cf. Seidlhofer
2011: 17-19; Mauranen 2012: 167; MacKenzie 2013: 49). Furthermore,
the selection of a scripted Italian lingua-franca variation does not produce
pragmalinguistic misrepresentations, but instead it allows players to
identify themselves with the native speakers, sharing their cooperative
attitudes. An objective that would not have been achieved by using
diatopic and diastratic varieties, since their inclusion would have led to a
disrespect of the original illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions, and
to the production of non-equivalent target versions.
6.4 Conclusions
The analysis of the selected corpus of English and Italian video-game
scripts has exemplified the incoherent, mixed strategies for the production
of target versions of text types that are generally directed at a specific type
of audience, already familiar with their genres or the conventional features
of specific series. It is therefore important not to simply reiterate the
conventional strategies of the audiovisual translation of films, cartoons and
sitcoms, in order to render the original illocutionary and perlocutionary
dimensions in equivalent ways. In fact, the inclusion of diatopic and
diastratic varieties provides alternative characterisations by means of new
conversation moves and acts that suit the implied audience’s expectations,
creating a different, mostly childish, humour that replaces the original
construction, as well as incongruous or disparaging representations due to
the ideological modifications allowed by the great level of freedom given
by transcreative strategies. The translators’ retextualisations might also
originate pragmalinguistic misrepresentations—as in Lollipop Chainsaw
and Ni No Kuni—since the target versions do not include the original
intertextual references contributing to the multimodal construction of
source texts. Finally, this chapter has also enquired into the alternative
translation strategies from Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim, which
respect the original linguistic construction. In particular, the types of
English language adopted by some counterfactual characters have been
defined as scripted lingua-franca variations, in order to account for the
inclusion of deviating features from the lexical and syntactic perspectives,

as well as for the communicative features of the examined interactions.
The Italian retextualisations of those extracts reproduce the original lexical
and morpho-syntactic deviations, rejecting the diatopic/diastratic language
varieties, and eventually creating equivalent effects for the target players.
So far, the Interactive Model has been employed to critically and
multimodally analyse source texts. In the following chapter it will be
applied to the production of alternative, pragmalinguistic Italian
equivalents of selected extracts from some of the audiovisual scripts
already analysed, illustrating the integration between the ST-based
analytical processes and the translator’s creative contributions in the
production of target versions.
CHAPTER SEVEN
ALTERNATIVE TRANSLATIONS
AND AUDIENCE RECEPTION
This chapter deals with the adoption of the Interactive Model for the
production of the alternative translations of a selected group of the
previously analysed extracts. Sections 7.1-7.6 explore the lexico-semantic,
structural and functional features of the new target versions. The latter
result from the interaction between the critical multimodal analysis of the
source texts and their top-down retextualisations, and aim at rendering the
original semantic and pragmatic dimensions accessible to the target
receivers. In particular, the use of diatopic and diastratic language varieties
is accompanied by the construction of scripted Italian lingua-franca
variations, as well as by the respect for the original intertextual references.
Finally, section 7.6.2 analyses the results of a questionnaire on the
empirical audience’s reception of both the official and alternative
translations of the examined interaction between Zidane, Quina and Quale,
from Final Fantasy IX.
7.1 Alternative Translation from Family Guy

The first example presents an alternative translation of a cutaway gag
from FG-7ACX10 that includes a stereotypical representation of an Italian
man. In the new version, a specific diatopic and diastratic language variety
shall be adopted to prompt humorous effects, and that would simplify how
the multimodal analysis and retextualisation provided by the Interactive
Model may help dubbing translators to overcome the possible constraints
related to the original culture-specific representations. It also illustrates
that the adoption of language varieties is not discarded, but that they
should be selected when they represent the most appropriate solution
according to the illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions. In FG-
7ACX10, Lois meets Naomi—her ex girlfriend—and Dale—Naomi’s
husband—and she is eventually asked to be surrogate mother for their
child. In order to explain that it is difficult for her to take that decision,
156 Chapter Seven
Lois resorts to the metaphor of an Italian man going to the doctor ((56),
00:05:56 – 00:06:08). In the cutaway gag that follows, the former man is
dressed in a white under shirt, according to a conventional, disparaging
visual representation of Italian male characters at home, also identified in
Panucci from Futurama (see Section 5.1.1 above):

Lois: “This is a life- “È una cosa che “This is a life-
altering choice! ti cambia la altering thing!
Yeah, you vita, questa! Like an Italian
know, like an Come un that has to get
5 Italian choosing Italiano che glasses.”
to get glasses.” deve mettersi
gli occhiali.”
Doctor: “OK. Read the “OK. Legga la “OK. Read the
third row down, terza riga dal third row from
10 please.” basso, per the bottom,
favore.” please.
Man: “Ei-ei-o-ei-o-o- “Ei-ei-o-ei-o-o- “Ei-ei-o-ei-o-o-
ei.” ei.” ei.”
Firstly, the official Italian script contains a mistranslation: the doctor

indicates “the third row from the bottom”, whereas in the source version
he refers to the third row only, as it is confirmed by what it is shown on
screen. In addition to this, the patient’s voice is not changed in the target
version of the cutaway gag, resulting in a man that reads the letters (only
“a”s and “o”s) according to the English pronunciation. For these reasons,
laughter is mainly prompted for the type of audience who have the
possibility of inferring the illocutionary dimension by sharing the original
socio-cultural conventions, whereas a puzzled response may be activated
by those target receivers who do not have the possibility of decoding the
humorous intent. A different translation strategy is therefore needed to
render the original humorous discourse into Italian, thus leading to the
alternative version (56a), where the multimodal and linguistic features
interact in order to preserve the disparaging representation of the male
character and to account for the presence of the letters that are read. In FG,
in fact, Italians are usually the butts of jokes that represent them as loutish
and ill-educated, and since in the extract (56) the patient only reads “a”s
and “o”s, the translator opts for the inclusion of the diatopic and diastratic
variety of Romanesco, so as to reproduce a humorous effect based on
Alternative Translations and Audience Reception 157
stereotypes and connected to the visual frame, “ao” generally being

associated with people speaking such language variety:
(56a) Alternative
English script script Backtranslation
Lois: “This is a life- “È una scelta “This is a life-
altering choice! che ti cambia la altering thing!
Yeah, you vita, questa! Like guy from
know, like an Come un Rome that
5 Italian choosing romano che decides to get
to get glasses.” decide di glasses.”
mettere gli
occhiali.”
Doctor: “OK. Read the “OK. Legga “OK. Read the
10 third row down, dalla terza riga, third row down,
please.” per favore.” please.
Man: “Ei-ei-o-ei-o-o- A-ao-ao-o-a. “A-ao-ao-o-a.”
ei.”
By means of this choice, the original functional features are preserved,

in fact also the Italian version resorts to the stereotypical conventions that
lead to disparaging representations, as explained by (56b)-(56m) below:
(56b) The source script constructs the disparaging

representation from a multimodal perspective.
(56c) Visual dimension: The man is represented as loutish.
(56d) Acoustic dimension: The man speaks in a conventional
Italian accent.
(56e) Linguistic dimension: Only two letters are displayed,
producing a stereotypical, diastratically-marked
representation of an Italian man.
(56f) The official Italian script constructs a neutral
representation.
(56g) Visual dimension: The man is represented as loutish.
(56h) Acoustic dimension: The man speaks Standard Italian.
(56i) Linguistic dimension: Only two letters are displayed, but
such dimension does not interact with the visual and
acoustic ones, and the humorous intent may not be
identified.
158 Chapter Seven
(56j) The alternative Italian script constructs the

disparaging representation from a multimodal
perspective.
(56k) Visual dimension: The man is represented as loutish.
(56l) Acoustic dimension: The man speaks Romanesco.
(56m) Linguistic dimension: Only two letters are displayed,
producing a stereotypical, diastratically-marked
representation of an Italian man speaking Romanesco.
Extract (56) is selected as the first of the alternative translations since it

explains that the Model does not aim at neglecting the conventional
humorous strategies in Italian audiovisual translation, but rather at training
translators to become acquainted with the multimodal construction of
source texts and to use that knowledge—one of the competences that they
should develop—in order to create pragmalinguistic equivalents. In this
way, the construction of ideological representations could be avoided, by
opting instead for the selection of the most appropriate forms to produce
equivalent humorous effects, according to the following criteria: the
respect for the original intentionality—in (56), the construction of a
humorous discourse based on derogatory stereotypes of Italians—and the
need to exploit the retextualisation strategies of translation processes—in
(56a), selection of a specific language variety. As a result, the ideological
interpretations would be discarded, in favour of equivalent representations
from both audiovisual and linguistic perspectives, attained by means of the
interaction between the source-text based analysis and the influence of the
translators’ linguacultural background.
The following extract shall enquire into the application of the Model to
a whole interaction drawn from another of the scripts already analysed.
7.2 Alternative Translations from Looking for Alibrandi

Looking for Alibrandi is an Australian movie about a girl, Josie, who
tries to fit in with the rest of Australian society despite her family’s Italian
origins. As a consequence, she is usually in contrast with her grandmother,
Katia, who embodies her family’s roots, and for these reasons, the
interactions between the two women generally entail a connotative
dimension of anger, which can be identified in the analysis of the
discourse structures they use, as in (57) below. In the dialogue, the girl
claims that she is not her grandmother’s property, when the latter wants to
know where she spent her time after school (00:18:21 – 00:18:32):

Josie: “Who do you “Non sono mica “I was not born
think I belong nata sotto un under a
to? Go on, who? cavolo! Ti cabbage! You
Yeah, I bet you piacerebbe? wish I were,
5 wish I did Già, ma sono don’t you? But
belong to you.” sangue del tuo my blood is
sangue, che tu your blood,
lo voglia o no!” whether you
like it or not!”
10 Katia: “You “Tu male “You
misintrepid intrepidi tutto!” misintrepid
everything!” everything!”
Josie: “Oh, it’s “Oh, ‘male “Oh,
‘misinterpret’!” interpreti’, ‘misinterpret’,
15 casomai!” by the way!
When Josie takes the floor, she plays high status and resorts to
challenging moves trying to prevail over her interlocutor. The interaction
is mainly based on the girl’s rejection of her origins, as emphasised by the
repetition of the verb “belong” (ll. 2; 6) and when, at the end of the
interaction, she opts for a sudden conversation break. That is also
multimodally conveyed, as the young woman goes upstairs leaving her
grandmother alone after stressing the latter’s mispronunciation
(“misintrepid”—l. 11—rather than “misinterpret”—l. 14). Katia’s English
actually represents the lingua franca variation employed by immigrants,
which is characterised by a peculiar, non-standard accent, lexis and syntax,
as evident from the verb she uses in l. 11.42
The official translation does not focus on Josie’s origins, which are
only mentioned at the end of the first turn, when the girl defines herself as
“sangue del tuo sangue” (ll. 6-7), and it does lead to a complete
subversion of the original illocutionary dimension. In fact, whereas in the
English interaction, Katia is challenged by Josie’s refusal of her Italian
ancestry, in the target version, the latter only plays a conventional
representation of a rebel teenager, who eventually (and paradoxically)
claims that they share the same blood, in contrast with the denotative
dimension of the girl’s original turn. Besides this linguistic and pragmatic
deviation, it is also worth noting that Katia’s mispronunciation has been
rendered as “male intrepidi” (ll. 10-11), by uttering a non-standard
pronunciation of the word “interpreti” (‘interpret’). The choice is
suggested by the fact that Katia does not resort to an Italian lingua franca
160 Chapter Seven
variation (ILF), but instead to a code-switch between the Standard

pronunciation and another one reminiscent of the Sicilian dialect, Sicily
being the woman’s birthplace.
An alternative translation (57a) is now proposed, aimed to reproduce
the original connotative and denotative dimensions of the turns, but also to
give Katia an ILF variation:
(57a) Alternative
Josie: “Who do you “A chi pensi “Who do you
think I belong che think I belong
to? Go on, appartengo? to? Tell me,
who? Yeah, I Dimmelo, a who? Well, I
5 bet you wish I chi? Be’, per think you wish I
did belong to me vorresti che belonged to
you.” io sia di tua you.”
proprietà.”
Katia: “You “Tu frintendi “You
10 misinteprid tutto” misinteprid
everything!” everything!”
Josie: “Oh, it’s “Oh, si dice “Oh, it’s
‘misinterpret’!” ‘fraintendi’!” ‘misinterpret’!”
As for the alternative translation, the first turn has been completely
reconstructed so as to respect the original lexical and communicative
features. In fact, Josie’s challenge move is now preserved, together with its
structure of acts—a starter followed by elicitation, acknowledge and
informative acts—reproducing the pattern of the English script, whereas
the official Italian version presents a different sequence, displayed in
(57b)-(57d) below:
(57b) Source script

Josie’s turn Î acts: starter + elicitation + acknowledge
+ informative; moves: eliciting + challenging +
informing.
(57c) Italian script
Josie’s turn Î acts: informative + check + acknowledge
+ informative + comment; moves: informing + eliciting
+ informing.
(57d) Alternative script

Josie’s turn Î acts: starter + elicitation + acknowledge
+ informative; moves: eliciting + challenging +
informing.
Besides the structure of the interaction, the denotative dimension is

preserved as well, and the girl in fact claims that she is the one who
controls her own life, which does not belong to Katia. With regards to the
inclusion of a scripted ILF variation, the grandmother’s mispronunciation
aims at reproducing the lexical and syntactic—but also phonological—
deviations that are recognised as distinguishing features (cf. Seidlhofer
2011). Hence, the deviated form “frintendi” in the alternative script (l. 9)
represents a mispronunciation or approximation of the correct verb
“fraintendi” (‘misinterpret’), eventually corrected by the granddaughter,
thus respecting the original structure of the interaction.
The inclusion of Italian stereotypes, from music, to customs, to
religion, is also at the basis of the film’s humorous discourse, as
exemplified by the extract (58) below, when Josie talks about her father
(00:06:09 – 00:06:16):

Josie: “Mummy used “Mi beavo dei “I was delighted
to tell me I was racconti di mia by the stories
an ‘Immaculate madre my mother told
Conception’— sull’Immacolata about the
5 until I found out Concezione, Immaculate
it was just the fino a quando Conception, till
boy next door.” non scoprii che I found out that
nel mio caso era in my case it
stato un Pinco was just Mr
10 Pallino Such and Such.”
qualsiasi.”
As explained in 1.5.1 above, Josie’s lines produce a humorous effect

based on the pragmatic dimension of the comparison between her and
Jesus’ conceptions, both being “immaculate”. Obviously, this comparison
leads to the activation of a cognitive clash of the “possible/impossible”
kind, actualised by the statement of the girl’s intent, when she reveals that
she does have a “real” father, whom she defines as “the boy next door” (ll.
6-7). The Italian translation softens the illocutionary dimension and creates
a less explicit link, since by saying “Mi beavo dei racconti di mia madre”
162 Chapter Seven
(ll. 1-3), the girl suggests that her mother used to tell her stories about the
“famous” Immaculate Conception, whereas the lack of the expression “I
was” (l. 2 in the English version) does not prompt the activation of the
cognitive clash.
The alternative translation (58a) tries to restore the “impossible” type
of cognitive incongruity, by means of a script that respects the original
features:
(58a) Alternative
Josie: “Mummy used “La mamma mi “Mum used to
to tell me I was raccontava tell me about
an ‘Immaculate della mia my ‘Immaculate
Conception’— ‘Immacolata Conception’…
5 until I found Concezione’… Until I found
out it was just Finché scoprii out it was just
the boy next che fu un any boy.”
door.” ragazzo
qualunque.”
By preserving the original subject—Josie’s mother—and denotative

dimension—the mother suggesting that her daughter’s conception was
immaculate—the alternative translation reproduces the construction of the
humorous discourse in the film, based on the creation of a cognitive
incongruity that is finally solved by the explicit acknowledgement that a
“boy next door” (ll. 7-8 in the original script) is indeed Josie’s father.
From the pragmatic perspective, in fact, it is possible to surmise that:
Source script
(58b) My mother used to tell me I was an “Immaculate
Conception”.
Target script
(58c) Mi beavo dei racconti di mia madre sull’Immacolata
Concezione [‘I was delighted by the stories my Mother
told about the Immaculate Conception’].
Alternative script
(58d) La mamma mi raccontava della mia “Immacolata
Concezione” [‘Mum used to tell me about my
“Immaculate Conception”’].
(58e) Josie’s mother’s pregnancy was not the result of sexual
intercourse.
(58f) (58b) >> (58e).

(58g) ?(58c) >> (58e).
(58h) (58d) >> (58e).
Besides the pragmatic perspective, which is preserved in the original

and alternative scripts but not in the target one, it should be considered that
also the “impossible/possible” cognitive clash is only activated by the
English and alternative versions:
Source script
(58i) until I found out it was just the boy next door.
Target script
(58j) fino a quando non scoprii che nel mio caso era stato un
Pinco Pallino qualsiasi [‘till I found out in my case it
was just Mr Such and Such’].
Alternative script
(58k) Finché scoprii che fu un ragazzo qualunque [‘Until I
found out it was just some boy’].
(58l) Josie’s conception was not immaculate, and in fact she
does have a father like everyone else.
(58m) (58b)+(58i) Î (58l).
(58n) ?(58c)+(58j) Î (58l).
(58o) (58d)+(58k) Î (58l).
Example (58) illustrates the need for a multimodal training of

audiovisual translators to avoid the ideological interpretations of source
texts, favouring target versions that would turn out as equivalent not only
from the cognitive-semantic, lexical and morpho-syntactic perspectives,
but also from the functional one, and which would respect the
illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions. The same objective is
achieved in the following alternative translation, from the American late-
nigh talk show Conan.
7.3 Alternative Translations from Conan

Extract (59) below was partially reported as extract (8) above (Section
4.3.1, pp. 72-73) when the Interactive Model was introduced from the
theoretical and practical perspectives, and the whole interaction is included
here to point out the equivalence between the Italian and the English
versions in terms of its lexico-semantic, morpho-syntactic and functional
features. After mentioning the real doll based on the movie The Hunger
164 Chapter Seven
Games, Conan (the host) shows Andy (his partner in the sketch) and the
audience other, invented Barbies based on popular films:

Conan: “[…] There’s “[…] C’è “[…] There’s
this one— questa—[Conan this one—
[Conan picks a prende una [Conan picks a
doll] there’s bambola] doll]. Here it is:
5 Lorax Barbie, Eccola qui: Barbie Lorax
right here [the Barbie Lorax [il [the audience
audience laugh pubblico ride e laugh and
and applaud]. applaude]. […] applaud]. […]
[…] There’s C’è quest’altra, There’s also this
10 this one, right dopo il ritorno one, after the
here, ’cause of nei cinema, return in the
the re-release, [Conan prende cinemas,
[Conan picks a una bambola] [Conan picks a
doll] the 3D re- per la versione doll] for the 3D
15 release—Titanic in 3D, c’è version, there’s
Barbie [the Barbie Titanic Barbie Titanic
audience laugh [il pubblico ride [the audience
and applaud]. e applaude]. laugh and
[…] Check this […] E ora applaud]. […]
20 out! Next attenzione! La Attention, now!
Barbie is based prossima Barbie Next Barbie is
on the è ispirata inspired from
upcoming al film the movie
movie Battleship, Battleship, the
25 Battleship, quello sulla one on battaglia
you’ve all heard battaglia navale. navale.
of this Bene! [Conan Great! [Conan
Battleship prende una picks
movie. Yeah! bambola] È a doll] It’s
30 [Conan picks a Barbie nave Barbie ship of
doll] It’s called della battaglia the battle [the
Battleship [il pubblico ride audience laugh
Barbie [the e applaude].” and applaud].”
audience laugh
35 and applaud].”
The multimodal critical analysis helps to identify the sources for the
“possible/impossible” type of incongruity prompting the humorous effect,
as illustrated in (59a)-(59g) below. In fact, the existential clauses (Halliday
1985) introduced by “there is” (ll. 1; 9) entail that the Barbies are existent
participants (cf. Guido 2004: 216), even though this is in contrast with the
dimension of counterfactuality activated by the dolls, which in fact do not
exist outside of the context of the sketch and are not available in shops to
buy:
(59a) There’s this one [Lorax Barbie].

(59b) There’s this one [Titanic Barbie].
(59c) (59a) ||- Lorax Barbie is a real doll.
(59d) (59b) ||- Titanic Barbie is a real doll.
(59e) Audience’s shared knowledge: Lorax Barbie and Titanic
Barbie do not exist.
(59f) ?(59c), because of (59e).
(59g) ?(59d), because of (59e).
The visual dimension interacts with the linguistic one thus producing a
further cognitive contrast—this time of an “expected/unexpected” kind—
for the former Barbies dedicated to Lorax and Titanic depict the characters
of the films, whereas the last doll in (59), Battleship Barbie, displays the
same object which is mentioned in the title of the movie, i.e., a Barbie doll
with her body replaced by a miniature battleship:
Source script
(59h) Lorax Barbie and Titanic Barbie depict the characters of
the films.
(59i) Because of (59h), the audience expects that all the
Barbies depict the characters of the films.
(59j) Battleship Barbie displays the object mentioned in the
title of the film.
(59k) Because of (59j), Battleship Barbie is unexpected and it
prompts the humorous effect.
The translation of this comic clip has also been the main topic of a
workshop in audiovisual translation during the English-Italian Translation
Courses held at the University of Salento, aimed to train undergraduate
students in a process-based approach to translation, and to underline the
importance of the multimodal construction of audiovisual texts for the
production of target versions. During the workshop, students were also
166 Chapter Seven
asked to adopt a Think-Aloud Technique (cf. Ericsson and Simon’s (1984)

“Think-Aloud Protocol”), consisting in tape-recording “everything that
went on [in their] minds while they were translating” (Kussmaul 1995: 7).
The Italian translation was carried out, once the above features at the basis
of the humorous discourse construction were identified, by means of the
critical and multimodal analysis conveyed by the Model. The first two
Barbies resulted easier to render, requiring only a structural shift to suit the
conventional Italian morpho-syntactic structure, where the adjective usually
follows the nouns, thus having “Barbie Lorax” (l. 6) and “Barbie Titanic” (l.
16). The analysis of the Think-Aloud Technique (“TAT”) reveals that
students, too, decided to adapt the original lexical and syntactic features to
the target linguacultural conventions, in order to produce an equivalent
effect for target receivers, as exemplified by (59l) below:
(59l) Italian TAT Translation

“Vabbe’, noi mettiamo “Well, we put ‘Barbie’ first.
‘Barbie’ prima.”
As for the third Barbie, the Mediated Cognitive Semantic

Representation (Me-CSR) is achieved after the phase of Multimodal
Critical Re-Textualisation of Scripts (MuCrAS), realising that—differently
from the source script—Battleship in Italy only refers to the film title,
lacking the connection to the game, which has a different name, Battaglia
Navale. The critical and multimodal retextualisation therefore serves to
create a source for humorous effect accounting for the Italian
linguacultural background, and aiming at the production of an equivalent
functional dimension for target receivers. Hence, an addition to Conan’s
lines is proposed, with the intent to prepare the ground for the punchline,
as revealed by the analysis of the TAT transcriptions (59m):
(59m) Italian TAT Translation

“‘Battleship’ in inglese è “‘Battleship’ in English also
proprio anche il gioco, refers to the game ‘battaglia
‘battaglia navale’ […] e navale’ […] and then after
allora dopo che [Conan] cita [Conan] mentions the
5 il film, possiamo dire movie, we can say ‘that on
‘quello sulla battaglia battaglia navale’.”
navale’.”
The inclusion—which is possible both when dubbing and subtitling the

clip, respectively replacing the original soundtrack with the target script,
or adding specific lines—creates a cognitive link to the Italian name of the

game, and it leads to the identification of the cognitive clash triggering the
humorous effect:
Italian script
(59n) Barbie Lorax and Barbie Titanic depict the characters of
the films.
(59o) Because of (59n), the audience expects that all the
Barbies depict the characters of the films.
(59p) “quello sulla battaglia navale” creates a cognitive link to
the Italian name of the game.
(59q) Because of (59o), Barbie la nave della battaglia is
unexpected and prompts the humorous effect, since it
does not refer to one of the characters, but to the object
included in the film title.
Besides Battleship Barbie, Conan also mentions the Ghost-Rider

Barbie. The Italian version in (60) tries to produce an equivalent effect for
target receivers by exploiting the multimodal construction:

Conan: “‘Get-Your- “‘Compra la tua “‘Buy-your-
Own Ghost- Barbie Ghost own Ghost-
Rider Barbie’ Rider’ [Conan Rider Barbie’
[Conan picks prende la [Conan picks
5 the doll].” bambola].” the doll].”
Andy: “Wow! [the “Wow! [il “Wow! [the
audience laugh pubblico ride e audience laugh
and applaud]” applaude]” and applaud]”
Conan: “This is “Questa è “This is
10 terrible!” terribile!” terrible!”
Andy: “Er—Just do it “Aaah, fatela “Aaah, just do it
from the neck solo dal collo in from the neck
up! su!” up!”
Andy and Conan stage an interaction that ends with a quarrel for
humorous effect. After the sequence containing an appreciation move (turn
2), an exclamation from Conan (turn 3) and Andy’s downgrading move
(turn 4), in fact, the latter—who is reproached by the host because of his
comment—eventually explains that he referred to “the Ghost Rider part”.
Actually, after the analysis of the structure of the interaction, the Me-CSR
168 Chapter Seven
is not achieved yet, because the connotative dimension of turn 4 may be

completely identified only when considering the audiovisual features as
well. Conan’s partner, in fact, moves his left hand as if he was implying
that the doll was created with less care than the others. His comment is
thus interpreted as a source for disparaging humour towards the writers
and prop makers, who created the less-elaborate version of the Barbie. In
fact (cf. 4.3.1 above), it has only the face of a skull, which is reminiscent
of the movie, while preserving a human body and conventional accessories
for a doll, like a pink motorbike. For these reasons, two main changes
characterise the Italian script: one regarding Conan’s invented movie
franchise, and one regarding Andy’s comment (ll. 11-13). As for “Get-Your-
Own Ghost-Rider Barbie” (ll. 1-3), since the host imitates the language of
advertisement, using the imperative and the possessive adjective “your” to
convince the receivers to buy the doll, the Italian version uses the verb “to
get” as “comprare” (‘to buy’), which sounds more natural to target
receivers. With regards to Andy’s comment, it is retextualised by creating a
lexical adaptation of his exclamation (from “Er” to “Aaah”—l. 11) and
trying to prompt an equivalent humorous effect by respecting the original
and target lexico-semantic and syntactic features:
Source script
(60a) “Just do it from the neck up!” is an instruction, due to
the presence of the imperative.
(60b) The visual aspect of Andy conveys an air of haughtiness.
(60c) (60b) interacts with the lexical features in (60a)—e.g.,
“Just”—to achieve the connotative dimension of
haughtiness.
(60d) The multimodal analysis ((60a)+(60b)+(60c)) constructs
a humorous discourse based on a disparaging
representation.
Italian script
(60e) “Fatela solo dal collo in su!” is an instruction, due to the
presence of the imperative.
(60f) The visual aspect of Andy conveys an air of haughtiness.
(60g) (60f) interacts with the lexical features in (60e)—e.g.,
“solo”—to achieve the connotative dimension of
haughtiness.
(60h) The multimodal analysis ((60e)+(60f)+(60g)) constructs a
humorous discourse based on a disparaging representation.
The adoption of the Model for the production of target versions, but
also for the translators’ training, underlines the importance of the
interaction between the linguistic and audiovisual features to avoid the
imposition of ideological interpretations, like the following one produced
by a group of students who did not account for the critical analysis of
Andy’s utterances. An alternative script was in fact proposed, which
modifies the above translation by means of a disparaging representation
that transforms the female body into the butt of the joke. By rendering
Andy’s comment, in fact, as “guardala solo dal collo in giú [‘Look at the
Barbie only from the neck down’]”, the receivers’ attention is not focused
on the prop makers, or on Barbie’s face, but on the doll’s body, actually
reflecting a conventional adaptation strategy of humorous discourse as the
one identified in the interaction (5) above (pp. 35-36), from The Big Bang
Theory, when Howard’s joke on his arrhythmia was changed into an
alternative one involving his female interlocutor’s cleavage.
So far, the Model has been adopted for the production of three groups
of alternative translations from the analysed films, TV series and TV
shows. In the following sections, it will be employed for the translation of
three case studies from the selected video-game scripts, following the
same approach that highlights the interaction between the source-text
linguistic and extralinguistic features and the achievement of
pragmalinguistic equivalence by means of the alternative translations.
7.4 Alternative Translations from Lollipop Chainsaw

As explained when analysing the official Italian translation in section
6.2 above, Lollipop Chainsaw is a video game aimed mainly at a male,
adult audience, and its humorous discourse is based on a series of
intertextual references and on disparaging, sexist and stereotypical
representations of American socio-cultural figures, such as cheerleaders,
or high-school students. One interaction incorporating these features is that
between Juliet—the protagonist—and the punk-rock zombie named Zed,
who directs sexist, trivial lines at his interlocutor, despite the fact that he is
mortally wounded by the girl’s chainsaw. When enquiring into the official
Italian translation (see also extract (46), p. 139), the target version was
defined as only partially equivalent to the source script because of the lack
of the connotative dimension referring to sexual intercourse, which
contributes to Zed’s characterisation. For this reason, an alternative script
(61) is here proposed:
170 Chapter Seven
(61) Alternative
Zed: “You think that “Secondo te fa “You think that
hurts me? I just male? Ho solo hurts me? I just
jizzed a little.” schizzato un jizzed a little.”
po’.”
Differently from the official translation in (46), which rendered the

verb “to jizz” as “to tickle”, (61) preserves the coarse language while
providing an equivalent representation of the monster. In fact, the source
and alternative scripts entail a denotative dimension referring to the
splashes of blood that are visible on screen by means of the verbs “to jizz”
and “schizzare” (‘to spurt’), but they also convey a connotative dimension
to male ejaculation consistent with the zombie’s misogynist and coarse
characterisation. Both versions also produce a disparaging type of humour,
which is meant to break the audience’s expectations prompted by the
setting and the speaker’s status, due to the interaction between the
linguistic and extralinguistic features. The novel script thus respects the
original multimodal construction, and it is tailored to be accessible to a
different type of audience—i.e., adults mainly males—compared to the
official translation:
(61a) Zed is slashed by Juliet’s chainsaw.

(61b) The audience expect him to die.
(61c) Unexpected reaction: Zed threatens Juliet.
Source script
(61d) Challenge act: “You think that hurts me?”
(61e) Explaining act: “I just jizzed a little”.
(61f) (61e) is consistent with Zed’s characterisation.
Official translation
(61g) Challenge act: “Pensi di avermi fatto male?”.
(61h) Explaining act: “Mi hai solo fatto il solletico”.
(61i) ?(61h) is consistent with Zed’s characterisation.
Alternative translation
(61j) Challenge act: “Secondo te fa male?”.
(61k) Explaining act: “Ho solo schizzato un po’”.
(61l) (61k) is consistent with Zed’s characterisation.
Besides the adult humour and taboo-jokes, LC also resorts to

references to pop-culture, famous people, and to the semantic field of
video games, directed at the experienced audience that is therefore
expected to catch and decode the original allusions and references. Yet,
also in those cases the official translation sometimes fails to convey
equivalent versions, neutralising the original references, or omitting
relevant parts of the interactions that may activate the players’
identification and interpretation of the communicative dimensions. For
example, an alternative translation (62) of interaction (48) above (see p.
141) is now provided, in order to include the reference to Professor
Stephen Hawking, omitted in the official target text:
(62) Alternative
Juliet: “Dude, give us “Tu, libera “You, free
Rosalind, now! subito Rosalind. Rosalind now.
And quit E non prendere And stop
making fun of piú in giro quel making fun of
5 Stephen genio di that genius
Hawking! He’s Stephen Stephen
a great man, Hawking, Hawking, you
you perv!” pervertito!” perv!”
Extract (62) also contributes to detail the modification and

condensation strategies that translators may activate to cope with the
spatial and temporal limits of subtitles: the reference to Professor Hawking
is restored, but the morpho-syntactic structure of the utterance is slightly
modified in order to allow the inclusion of the alternative script in the
original time interval of subtitles. For these reasons, while preserving the
original denotative dimension of Juliet threatening and reproaching her
adversary, the alternative translation also restores the construction of a
humorous discourse that targets the girl as well, who misinterprets the
Zombie’s electronically modified voice as the intention to make fun of the
well-known physicist and cosmologist:
(62a) The zombie speaks with a voice box due to its “Disco
Zombie” characterisation.
Source script
(62b) Juliet: “Quit making fun of Stephen Hawking”.
(62c) (62b) +> Juliet misinterprets the zombie’s intertextual
characterisation.
(62d) (62b) >> Juliet challenges the zombie.
172 Chapter Seven
(62e) Juliet: “E smettila di parlare con quella stupida voce
[‘And quit speaking with that stupid voice’]”.
(62f) ?(62e) +> Juliet misinterprets the zombie’s intertextual
characterisation.
(62g) (62e) >> Juliet challenges the zombie.
(62h) Juliet: “E non prendere piú in giro quel genio di Stephen
Hawking [‘And stop making fun of that genius Stephen
Hawking’]”.
(62i) (62h) +> Juliet misinterprets the zombie’s intertextual
characterisation.
(62j) (62h) >> Juliet challenges the zombie.
The respect for the subtitling limits is achieved by means of a

condensation strategy (Gottlieb 2005), merging two of the original clauses
into one sentence: “that genius Stephen Hawking” (ll. 5-7) in fact renders
both Juliet’s threatening her adversary and mentioning Professor Hawking,
when the girl misinterprets the monster’s voice with a parody of the
scientist who suffers from motor neuron disease and has to speak through
a voice synthesiser. As for the technical dimension of subtitling, the
shortened way accounts for the temporal and spatial constraints, and what
is more, the initial “Tu” (l. 1) is meant to create a sort of synchronisation
between the original and target phonological dimensions (even though the
translation has to be read), as well as to produce a more natural rendering
if compared to the original “Amico” (l. 1 in (48) above, p. 141), which
represents one of the conventional dubbese-translations of the American
form of address “Dude” (l. 1).
As for the references to video games, an alternative translation (63) of
extract (49) (see p. 142) is finally proposed, with a different rendering of
the original intertextual links:
(63) Alternative
Josey: “The one you “Per me non “Because of me
ain’t gonna level passerai di you will not
up on. […] I livello. […] Non level up. […] I
can’t wait to vedo l’ora di can’t wait to
5 party with your divertirmi un party with your
corpse like it’s po’ col tuo corpse like in
1983!” cadavere come 1983!”
nel 1983!”
The most important modification of the alternative script is the

inclusion of the year “1983” (l. 8), which is crucial for LC multimodal
construction, since Josey’s stage, the “Fulci Fun Center”, is an amusement
arcade that contains several stages reminiscent of classic video games. As
for the other sections of the monster’s utterances, the differences of the
official target versions in terms of equivalence are again connected to the
pragmatic and connotative dimensions, whereas the new script is more
respectful of the original illocutionary dimension, as exemplified by (63a)-
(63r) below:
Source script
(63a) Josey: “The one you ain’t gonna level up on”.
(63b) “ain’t gonna” entails future prevision.
(63c) “level up” creates a cognitive link to role-playing video
games.
(63d) Josey: “I can’t wait to party with your corpse like it’s
1983!”
(63e) (63d) ||- Josey aims at killing Juliet.
(63f) “1983” contributes to the intertextual reference to classic
video games and amusement arcades.
(63g) Josey: “Quello che non riuscirai mai a battere [‘The one
you will never be able to beat’]”.
(63h) “non riuscirai mai” (future tense) entails future
prevision.
(63i) (63g) does not create a cognitive link to role-playing
video games.
(63j) Josey: “Non vedo l’ora di ballare un po’ sul tuo cadavere
[‘Can’t wait to dance a little on your corpse’]”.
(63k) (63j) ||- Josey aims at killing Juliet.
(63l) (63j) does not contribute to the intertextual reference to
classic video games and amusement arcades.
(63m) Josey: “Per me non passerai di livello [‘Because of me
you will not level up’]”.
(63n) “non passerai” (future tense) entails future prevision.
(63o) “passare di livello [‘to level up’]” creates a cognitive
link to role-playing video games.
(63p) Josey: “Non vedo l’ora di divertirmi un po’ col tuo
cadavere come nel 1983! [‘I can’t wait to party with
your corpse like it’s 1983!’]”.
174 Chapter Seven
(63q) (63p) ||- Josey aims to kill Juliet.

(63r) “1983” contributes to the intertextual reference to classic
video games and amusement arcades.
Therefore, even though the denotative message is preserved by both

translations, the alternative one succeeds in including equivalent
intertextual links and references to the genre of role-playing video games,
to which the notion of “levelling up” generally belongs, and to amusement
arcades, which were popular during the Eighties, thus justifying the need
for the inclusion of the year 1983. What is more, the inclusion of the year
may refer to the massive recession of the video-game industry, which
started in 1983 and “forced a majority of the US video game companies
out of business”, whereas the industrial leadership changed “from the U.S.
to Japan” (Ernkvist 2008: 161). It is thus worth realising that the audiovisual
translators’ training has also to underline the peculiarities of the various
genres of multimodal texts—such as video games—to guide the identification
of the appropriate interaction between the linguistic and extralinguistic
features, but also of the connotative dimensions contributing to the
construction of the original messages and the cognitive clashes or
characterisations at the basis of the humorous effect. Finally, it is also
important to consider that the retextualisations and modifications entailed
by transcreation may not produce pragmalinguistic equivalents, as they
tend to modify the original semantic and humorous dimensions according
to the translators’ ideological interpretations. It is in this light that the two
remaining video games are now introduced.
7.5 Alternative Translation from Ni No Kuni:

Wrath of the White Witch
The alternative translation from Ni No Kuni aims to construct an
equivalent multimodal characterisation of Raj Mahal, from the fictitious
town of Al Mamoon, who prepares and sells curry. It also seeks the
achievement of a similar perlocutionary effect on target receivers as well,
accounting for the lack of the Italian acoustic dimension, being the video
game only subtitled. During a non-interactive clip, in fact, Raj rewards
Oliver (the protagonist) by preparing his famous curry for the boy and his
friends, thus giving English players the possibility of listening to his voice
and identifying his accent. For these reasons, during the MuCrAS phase,
Raj’s nationality is decoded by means of a multimodal construction
resulting from audiovisual features, since he speaks English with an Indian
accent. Yet, due to the lack of the target-language soundtrack, an
alternative translation (64) is now proposed, where a diastratically-marked

Italian variety is adopted, to convey a multimodal actualisation of the
author’s intention:
(64) Alternative
Raj: “According to “Secondo la “According to
the recipe, it is a ricetta, si tratta the recipe, it is a
complex and di un curry complex and
refined curry complesso e refined curry
5 made with the raffinato, fatto made with the
tenderest and con la carne piú most tender and
most succulent tenera e succulent beef.
beef. […] If you succulenta. […] […] If you find
[Oliver] gather Se trova gli the ingredients,
10 the ingredients ingredienti, Lei you will have
for me, you will avrà l’onore di honour to be the
have the honor essere il primo first to taste
of being the first assaggiatore di tikka mahala
to taste the tikka tikka mahala since ancient
15 mahala since dai tempi times! […]
ancient times! antichi! […] Thank you! You
[…] Thank you! Grazie! Lei un è are a most
You are a most giovane piú excellent and
excellent and eccellente e helpful fellow!”
20 helpful young volenteroso!”
fellow!”
The Standard Italian from the official translation is replaced, and the
alternative script follows specific criteria regarding the linguistic and
multimodal dimensions. As for the former, lexical and syntactic deviations
are included: consider for example the formal pronoun “Lei” instead of the
informal “Tu”, in order to provide a form of language that would sound
quite ornate, like the original English, in “Se trova gli ingredienti […] dai
tempi antichi [‘If you find the ingredients […] since ancient times’]” (ll. 9-
16). Finally, other deviations try to be consistent with the characteristics of
the English script like the expression “most excellent” following the non-
definite article “a”, in “You are a most excellent and helpful young
fellow” (ll. 18-21), rendered as “Lei è un giovane piú eccellente e
volenteroso” (ll. 17-20), and containing “piú eccellente”, which would be
176 Chapter Seven
a non-standard form in Italian. By means of these features, the multimodal

actualisation of the illocutionary dimension is respected, in fact:
(64a) The English script conveys Raj’s non-native status

from a multimodal perspective.
(64b) Visual dimension: Raj’s physical representation.
(64c) Acoustic dimension: Raj’s accent in the non-interactive
clip.
(64d) The official Italian script conveys Raj’s non-native
status from a single perspective.
(64e) Visual dimension: Raj’s physical representation.
(64f) Acoustic dimension: Missing, for Raj is not revoiced into
Italian.
(64g) Linguistic dimension: It does not contribute to Raj’s
characterisation, because he uses Standard Italian.
(64h) The alternative Italian script conveys Raj’s non-
native status from a multimodal perspective.
(64i) Visual dimension: Raj’s physical representation.
(64j) Acoustic dimension: Missing, for Raj is not revoiced into
Italian.
(64k) Linguistic dimension: Deviations from the standard
forms.
As detailed in (64a)-(64k) above, the alternative script resorts to the

Mediated-Cognitive Semantic Representation (Me-CSR) to identify and
adapt Raj’s multimodal characterisation, leading to a translation—during
the phase of multimodal retextualisation (MuReTS)—which turns out to
be equivalent from the linguistic and semantic perspectives, but also from
the functional dimension, since it contributes to the audience’s
identification of Raj as non-native. In fact, whereas the English script
entails such a dimension by means of the interaction between the visual
representation and the man’s accent, the alternative target version creates
an interaction between the visual and linguistic features. The creation of
this interaction is due to the lack of the Italian acoustic dimension in the
subtitled version of the video game. At this point, one may argue that the
selection of a diastratically-marked language variety is not consistent with
the development of adventures in possible worlds, as discussed when
analysing the official translations in Chapter 6 above. Actually, the
omission of real language varieties has sense only when they impose
ideological interpretations on source scripts, thus providing non-equivalent
characterisations tailored to the implied audience’s expectations, resorting
to stereotypical associations that are not present—or that are present at

different degrees—in source texts. In fact, as for Romanesco, in analysing
the audience’s reception, two main groups are identified, one in favour and
the other against its inclusion.43 As for the former group, the diastratic and
diatopic variety is considered very humorous and appropriate to the
localisation (which is opposed by the players themselves to the notion of
translation) of the video game. Those data confirm that the selection of
Romanesco is a conventional strategy to render humorous discourse (see
also Section 7.6.2 below) and that the video-game audience is
experienced, since they catch the difference between the notions of
“translation” and “localisation”—the latter being more affected by the
target linguacultural background. On the other hand, the second group
finds the selection of Romanesco an “absurd and obscure [‘assurdo e
incomprensibile’]” choice that “spoilt the atmosphere [‘mi ha rovinato
l’atmosfera’]”. Also this group is revealed as experienced, for some
players link the translation of Ni No Kuni to the one of Final Fantasy IX,
and then they add, “It is tiresome to read subtitles in Romanesco [‘diventa
macchinoso leggere dialoghi in romanesco’]”. Finally, other opinions
confirm the ideological associations between language varieties and
characterisations, when the players from the second group also wonder
whether the inclusion of Romanesco actually entails that “Romani are all
coarse, […] and lout [‘significa che tutti i romani sono rozzi, […] e
burini]”. For all these reasons, it is claimed that the alternative translation
of Raj’s lines contributes to the equivalent rendering of the original
illocutionary dimension. Furthermore, the different retextualisation
strategies do not produce disparaging representations or impose
ideological interpretations and modifications over the original semantic
dimensions.
It is now time to introduce the last alternative script, from Final
Fantasy IX, which is also followed by the results of a questionnaire
submitted to a group of empirical receivers, in order to enquire into the
reception of the conventional and alternative translation strategies.
7.6 Alternative Translation from Final Fantasy IX

and Questionnaire on Audience Reception
The alternative script (65) presents a different translation strategy for
the language of the Qu tribe in the interaction analysed as the above
extract (41). The new script presents a higher level of transcreation if
compared to the alternative translations of LC and NNK, illustrating that,
by accounting for multimodality in both phases of the translation process,
178 Chapter Seven
the Model allows the inclusion of creative contributions that do not aim at
creating deliberate diastratically- or diatopically-marked representations,
but at producing alternative characterisations consistent with the possible
worlds of the selected video game and the authors’ intention.
7.6.1 Alternative Translation of Interaction (41)

By means of the peculiar language for the Qu tribe in (65), also target
receivers are induced to identify their members as non-native English
speakers, by means of the multimodal construction of their
counterfactuality, which respects both Japanese and English scripts, where
the linguistic choices such as the adoption of katakana (see Mangiron
2010 and Section 6.1.1 above), or the inclusion of specific lexical and
syntactic deviations from Standard English interact with the visual
dimension. For these reasons, the scripted ILF variation is integrated by
the inclusion of the form “Qu” and the sound “cra”, which accompany the
tribe’s visual representation:
(65) Alternative
Quina: “You got frogs! “Tu ha rana! “You’ve got a
Frogs very Rane molto frog! Frogs very
good. Mmmm!” qustose! Crande tasty! Great
qusto!” taste!”
5 Zidane: “Who the heck “Ma chi sei?” “But who are
are you?” you?”
Quina: “Me? [the “Qu è io? [il “Who is I? [the
player can giocatore può player can
decide the decidere il decide the
10 name]” nome]” name]”
Zidane: “Quina, do you “Quina, vuoi la “Quina, do you
want this frog?” rana?” want this frog?”
Quina: “Yes, yes! | “Io vuole! Io “I do! I do!”
Yes, yes!” vuole!”
15 Zidane: “…Alright. “Ok, tieni.” “OK, here.”
Here.”
Quina: “Yaaay! | Mine, “Crazie! | “Thanks! |
mine!” Qustosa! Tasty! Tasty!”
Qustosa!”
20 Quale: “You pathetic, “Quina, “Quina, you

Quina. Can’t patetica! Non pathetic girl!
even feed riesce a Can’t catch
yourself. | [the qunquistare rane frogs by
group enters a da solo. | [il himself! | [the
25 room] Can’t gruppo entra in group enters a
master the art of una stanza] room] Quina,
eating just Quina, non può you can’t
chasing frogs, essere esperta become a girl
Quina.” crande expert as a
30 mangiatore solo maneater, just
qucciando chasing frogs.”
rane.”
Quina: “But, master, “Ma, signora “But, Lady
frogs very maestro, rane Master, frogs
35 good! | Frogs molto qustose! | very tasty! |
here best! | Qui rane Frogs best here.
Better than migliori. | Qui | Better than
Alexandria’s.” meglio di Alexandria’s.”
Alexandria.”
40 Quale: “Quina, you in “Quina, tu è “Quina, you’re
darkness. Need poco qulta. not an educated
some light.” Quina meglio se girl. You’d
illuminato.” better be an
enlightened
45 man.”
The ILF variation presents lexical and syntactic deviations conveying

the peculiarity and foreignness of the Qu tribe, such as their passion for
frogs. This peculiarity is conveyed by means of the inclusion of the
phoneme /kra/, thus producing an onomatopoeic script as, for instance, in
“Crande qusto” (ll. 3-4), respectively modifying “grande [‘great’]” and
“gusto [‘taste’]”, or in “crazie” (l. 17), standing for “grazie [‘thanks’]”.
Secondly, their peculiar language is also marked by the inclusion of “qu”,
which recalls the name of the tribe and, at the same time, modifies some
words by replacing the velar, voiced and voiceless sounds /g/ and /k/, in
words such as “Qustosa” (l. 18), instead of “gustosa [‘tasty’]”, or
“qunquistare” (l. 23) replacing the verb “conquistare [‘to catch’]”. As for
the morpho-syntactic variations, the standard agreement between subjects
and verbs is replaced by the selection of either the infinitive, or the present
tense, the latter marked by the lack of syntactic agreement between the
180 Chapter Seven
second person pronoun “tu”, ‘you’, and the third person singular inflection
“ha” (“Tu ha rana!”, l. 1), instead of the conventional “hai”. The features
of the scripted ILF variation are also accompanied by other strategies of
lexical creativity, which respect the original ambiguity of the tribe’s
gender, without indicating Quina as a female character, as happens in the
official Italian script (cf. pp. 128-129). For example, consider Quale’s
“Quina, non può essere esperta crande mangiatore” (ll. 27-30), with the
alternation of the female adjective “esperta”, the male one “crande”
(modifying “grande”) and the male noun “mangiatore”. The alternation is
also applied to other lines, such as “Quina, patetica! Non riesce a
qunquistare rane da solo” (ll. 20-24)—where the female adjective
“patetica” is followed by the male “solo”—or the expression “signora
maestro” (ll. 33-34), with the male noun following a female adjective.
Finally, also the alternative script contributes to characterise Quina as a
childish character by means of the repetition, thus respecting the
reiterations of the same word in the English version, such as “Yes, yes!
Yes, yes!” (ll. 13-14) rendered as “Io vuole! Io vuole!”, or “Mine, mine”
(ll. 17-18), which becomes “Qustosa! Qustosa!” (ll. 18-19) in the
alternative translation.
The aim of the new translation is to provide a multimodal
characterisation equivalent to the original one, also reflected by the
alternative versions of LC or NNK introduced in the previous sections. As
for extract (65), the achievement of equivalent representations and
humorous discourse is detailed in (65a)-(65i) below:
(65a) The English script characterises Quina as a childish

character and a non-native speaker from a
multimodal perspective.
(65b) Acoustic dimension: Missing, as the video game is not
voiced or revoiced.
(65c) Linguistic dimension: Lexical and syntactic deviations
from the standard forms (non-native trait and childish
trait); repetitions (childish trait).
(65d) The official Italian script characterises Quina as a
childish and loutish character from a multimodal
perspective.
(65e) Acoustic dimension: Missing, as the video game is not
voiced or revoiced.
(65f) Linguistic dimension: Diastratically- and diatopically-
marked lexical and syntactic deviations, due to the adoption
of Romanesco (loutish trait); repetitions (childish trait).
(65g) The alternative Italian script characterises Quina as

a childish character and a non-native speaker from a
multimodal perspective.
(65h) Acoustic dimension: Missing, as the video game is not
voiced or revoiced.
(65i) Linguistic dimension: Lexical and syntactic deviations
from the standard forms (non-native trait); strategies of
lexical creativity and repetitions (childish trait).
The alternative script is therefore meant to be equivalent from a

pragmalinguistic perspective, since it tries to reproduce the original
lexical, cognitive-semantic and morpho-syntactic features. It also attempts
to achieve the function of entertaining players by means of a humorous
discourse that does not necessarily aim at triggering laughter, but rather at
puzzling players, at conveying a nonsensical, counterfactual interaction
consistent with the fictitious, possible world where the plot develops. The
achievement of the equivalent functional dimension is also confirmed by
the analysis of the questionnaire submitted to a representative group of
empirical receivers, as discussed in the following section.
7.6.2 Questionnaire on Audience Reception

A questionnaire was submitted to two groups of undergraduate
students from the University of Salento, in order to enquire into the
production—by means of the Model—of target versions closer to the
actual receivers’ expectations. As for the interviewees, 24 out of the 133
participants are male, opposed to the 109 female ones, between the ages of
18 and 25, most of them (56%) not video-game players. The sample group
is selected so as to include students trained in comparing the levels of
equivalence between the original, target and alternative scripts, and to
represent both gamers and non-gamers. Additionally, the members of the
former group generally play once a month (37%), more than once a month
(22%), or once a week (17%). The others are divided into people playing
once a day (10%), more than once a day (2%), or more than once a week
(12%). The questionnaire includes 16 questions, in both open and multiple
choice formats, and it allows one to distinguish between interviewees in
terms of their gender, age, expertise on video games in general and the
Final Fantasy series in particular, with a focus on the character of Quina,
from FFIX (see Appendix B). After obtaining information about the
participants, questions are focused on the humorous discourse in the
source script. Then, the official and alternative target versions are
182 Chapter Seven
evaluated in terms of equivalence first, and then in terms of their humour,

by selecting the answers on a four-point Likert scale (cf. Seliger and
Shohamy 1989; see Appendix B below).
After this stage, subjects are asked to define Quina and the Qu tribe by
considering their language and comparing the characterisations of “Quina
1” (from the English script) and “Quina 2” (first from the official target
version and then from the alternative one), eventually expressing their
opinions on the overall quality and readability of the translations. The
results also show that the Final Fantasy series is known by video game
players as well as by people who do not usually play, but that Quina is
familiar only to those who played FFIX. The character is generally
remembered for his/her passion for frogs, his/her puzzling physical
appearance due to the tribe’s tongues constantly dangling in the middle of
their chests and clothes, and for being naïve.
As for the questions about the original and translated versions, scripts
are indicated by codes including the letters “A” and “B”—i.e., “Transl-1-
A” indicates the first extract of the official translation; “Transl-1-B”
indicates the first extract of the alternative translation. The division into
segments coincides with the different turns in the interaction, signalled by
the change of balloons on screen. Seventy participants are divided into two
groups, so thirty-five people evaluate the official translation and thirty-five
the new script. On the other hand, sixty-three participants are asked to
evaluate both translations. As a result, ninety-eight participants express
their opinions on the official translation, and ninety-eight on the novel
script.
Interestingly, the analysis of the original script shows that the
humorous discourse is not evaluated as “very humorous”, confirming that
its nonsense just aims for a puzzled reaction on the part of the audience, as
also exemplified by the indication of Quina’s most memorable features:
Alternative Translations an
nd Audience Reeception 183
Figure 7-1. L
Levels of humorrous effect in th
he original scrippt.
The extrracts are in fact

f y indicated ass “non humorous”, or
generally
“slightly huumorous”, andd the languag ge of the tribbe is labelled d as “less
educated”, ““childish”, chharacterised byb “repetitionns” and conveeying the
sense of forreignness idenntified during the multimoddal, critical an nalysis of
the original script. When it comes to th he analysis of the official traanslation,
the results rreveal the diff
fferent tone off the Italian sscript, which generally
appears morre humorous than the Eng glish one (figuure 7-3), to which
w the
selected extrracts are indeeed not always considered eqquivalent (figu ure 7-2):
Figure 7-2. L
Levels of equivaalence of the off
fficial translationn.
184 Chapter Seven
S
Figure 7-3. L
he official transllation.
Romanessco is the maain reason fo or the differennt levels of humorous

h
effect. Accoording to the participants,
p th
he inclusion oof the languag
ge variety
produces “ddifferent effectts on the audiience”, and a “funnier scrip pt” where
Quina is “mmore loutish” than
t What is more, they add
the Engliish version. W
Q tribe is acccessible only to Italian
that the targget characterissation of the Qu
receivers, annd that the meembers are ren ndered “coarsee rather than childish”,
c
“more humoorous” but alsso “less educaated”. These reesults actually y confirm
that the muultimodal chaaracterisation entailed by tthe official trranslation
leads to ddifferent conssiderations an nd perlocutioonary effectss on the
empirical receivers, as detailed in (65a))-(65i) above (pp. 180-181)).
When it comes to thee alternative trranslation, it iis generally co
onsidered
more equivaalent than thee previous verrsion (figure 7-4), as conffirmed by
the prevalennce of “partial” and “equivaalent” answerss:
Alternative Translations an
nd Audience Reeception 185
Figure 7-4. L
Levels of equivaalence of the altternative translaation.
Figure 7-5. L
he alternative traanslation.
The equuivalence of thet new transslation seemss not only lex xical and
structural, bbut also pragm
matic: the leveels of humoroous effect bettween the
f very simiilar (figure 7-5 above),
English andd alternative sccripts are in fact
being evaluaated “not hum morous” or “slightly humoroous”, as oppossed to the
186 Chapter Seven
original Italian script, which generally results “humorous” and “very

humorous”. These considerations also reflect the similarity in the
characterisations of “Quina 1” and “Quina 2”, which the audience is called
to evaluate according to their behaviour and languages. The questionnaire
shows that when the English text is compared to the official translation,
most players consider the two characters almost different; instead, when
the English script is related to the new translation, higher degrees of
similarity are identified. Precisely, fifty-four participants consider the
“Quina 2” of the official translation “mostly different”, and thirty-eight
people think both characters are “mostly similar”. Finally, four
participants think that “Quina 2” is “completely different”, and two
students claim that s/he is “completely similar”. On the other hand, when
the alternative version is examined, “Quina 1” and “Quina 2” are “mostly
similar” for sixty participants, and “completely similar” or “completely
different” for eighteen people. Finally, only two students find them
“completely different”.
The language of the official translation is defined more humorous (71
answers) and clear (40), than puzzling (17), confirming that Romanesco is
a conventional strategy for the adaptation of humorous discourse, which is
indeed expected by Italian receivers and included in their linguacultural
background. On the other hand, the language of the alternative translation
is labelled puzzling (54) and humorous (25), instead of clear (23),
presenting again equivalent features if compared to the reception of the
English script. Finally, as for the quality of translations, participants
generally agree that the inclusion of language varieties and the production
of longer utterances contribute to the creation of a different type of
humorous discourse, less directed at the experienced audience of video
games, and which does not respect the original lexical, syntactic and
pragmatic characteristics. As for the alternative translation, the inclusions
of the onomatopoeic sound “cra” and of “qu”, as well as the restoration of
the ambiguity on Quina’s gender, are generally appreciated, since they are
said to convey an appropriate, equivalent characterisation of the creature,
who in fact appears less loutish due to a non-conventional construction of
humorous discourse. Actually, it is also important to underscore that even
though the lexical creativity in the alternative translation may lead to
puzzled reactions at first, the readability level improves once such
strategies are identified.
The results of the questionnaire indeed support the players’ comments
on dedicated online forums. As with NNK, in fact (see Section 7.5 above),
two main groups may represent the empirical audience’s reception, one in
favour and the other against the inclusion of diatopic and diastratic
language varieties.44 The former claims that Romanesco contributes to the

production of creative translations that are sometimes perceived more
humorous than the English versions. According to the latter, instead, the
exploitation of Italian regionalisms is a “poor” strategy, which needs a sort
of renovation, or re-thinking, due to the difficulty met in reading long
dialogues in Romanesco (a similar criticism was directed to translations of
NNK), but also due to the transformation of video games into a “commedia
all’italiana”. The commedia all’italiana genre denotes films where the
butts of jokes are uneducated, loutish and clumsy characters mostly from
the Central/Southern Italy. It is also mentioned when evaluating the
translations of cartoons such as The Simpsons or Futurama, which resort to
ideological modifications or connections to stereotypical characterisations
typical of the target linguacultural background in the adaptation of the
original humorous discourse. This aspect entails that also video games are
translated according to the implied audience’s expectations. The results of
the questionnaire and the analysis of the players’ reaction from online
forums seem to suggest that other translation strategies may be and should
be adopted, without discarding the conventional ones, but selecting the
most appropriate according to the empirical audience’s expectations, the
illocutionary dimensions of the original versions, and the specific text
types under analysis.
7.7 Conclusions
The alternative translations produced by the Interactive Model have
illustrated the construction of target scripts by respecting the illocutionary
dimensions and the multimodal construction of audiovisual texts. The
multimodal, critical analyses of source texts (MuCrAS phase) in fact aim
at identifying the author’s intention and its actualisation by means of the
lexical, structural, functional and audiovisual features of the scripts (Me-
CSR), thus attaining an appropriate interpretation, at the basis of target
versions (MuReTS phase). Furthermore, the alternative translations have
been compared to the official ones, to identify the different types and
degrees of equivalence.
Finally, the analyses of the audience’s reception of both NNK and
FFIX translations—from online forums, as well as from the questionnaire
submitted to a group of empirical receivers—have confirmed that the
implied audience’s expectations, on which target scripts are generally
constructed, do not always meet actual expectations, and that different
translation strategies should be identified and adopted together with the
conventional ones. By following the alternative approach, target scripts
188 Chapter Seven
respect the original communicative and semantic dimensions, avoiding the

production of foreignised scripts that would not prompt an equivalent
response, as well as the imposition of the target-culture based, ideological
modifications, which do not respect the definition of translation as an
intercultural process of mediation and interpretation, or the role of
translators as cross-cultural mediators.
CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSIONS
This book has enquired into the conventional strategies of dubbing

translation, focusing on the rendering of humorous discourse in films, TV
series and video games. In particular, the construction and application of
the Interactive Model has allowed the exploration of the lexical, syntactic
and functional characteristics of the official translations, as well as the
achievement of a pragmalinguistic type of equivalence by means of the
alternative target scripts that originate from the multimodal, critical
identification and adaptation of the original semantic dimensions. In the
following, final remarks, the rationale and structure of this book will be
summarised (8.1), together with the main characteristics and aim of the
Model (8.2) and some of its possible pedagogic applications (8.3). Finally,
the results of this study will be presented (8.4), as well as some indications
for future research (8.5).
8.1 Audiovisual Translation as a Communicative

and Interpretative Process
In this book, audiovisual translation has been presented as a
communicative and interpretative process involving two or more
linguacultural backgrounds, following the suggestions of scholars such as
Chaume (2004), Díaz Cintas (2004), and Guido (2012), who stress the
need to consider the interaction between the linguistic and extralinguistic
elements in the construction and translation of scripts. In fact, also AV
texts are socio-cultural products that communicate the authors’
experiential, cognitive and socio-cultural dimensions (Halliday 1970).
Therefore, their analysis should account for the actualisation of Austin’s
(1962) locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions, which
respectively identify the general purpose of texts, the author’s
intentionality and the effects on receivers. It is in this light that the
conventional approaches to AVT studies have been questioned,
specifically on the grounds that they mainly propose product-based
investigations that compare source and target versions from a functional
190 Chapter Eight
dimension, lacking the focus on the socio-cultural, cognitive and linguistic

perspectives informing the production of source texts and their subsequent
translation. Furthermore, the translators’ multidisciplinary competence has
been defined, ranging from linguistics and pragmatics to multimodality, in
order to achieve a cognitive representation of the source characteristics to be
adapted for target receivers. Consequently, dubbing translators have been
presented as intercultural mediators who are expected to possess specific
cultural and multidisciplinary competences, in order to interact between the
source and target linguacultural backgrounds, as well as to avoid the
imposition of ideological interpretations.
After the introduction of the historical, linguistic and technical features
and limitations of dubbing and game localisation, as well as the
exploration of the notion of equivalence in AV texts (chapter one), the
analysis of multimodal construction (chapter two) provides analysts and
translators with strategies to identify and interpret the conveyance of the
denotative and connotative semantic dimensions, adapting the socio-
semiotic approach developed by van Leeuwen (2005) and Kress and van
Leeuwen (2006). The theories of construction and translation of the
humorous discourse (chapter three) are followed by a theoretical and
practical introduction of the Model (chapter four), and by the analysis of
the selected corpus of audiovisual texts (chapters five to seven). The study
focuses on the cognitive-semantic, pragmatic and socio-cultural dimensions
of target versions, and in particular on how they are actualised by the
adoption of diatopic and diastratic language varieties, and by the
production of pragmalinguistic misrepresentations of the original
characterisations. Those translations resorting to alternative strategies that
produce more equivalent scripts are also examined. Finally, the seventh
chapter introduces and comments upon the new scripts obtained by
applying the Model, eventually describing the empirical audience’s
reception of the conventional strategies of game localisation.
8.2 The Interactive Model: Characteristics and Objectives

The Interactive Model is composed of two main phases each divided
into five sub-stages. The first phase of “Multimodal Critical Analysis of
Scripts” (MuCrAS) draws from linguistics, pragmatics, the socio-semiotic
approach and critical discourse analysis to analyse the lexico-semantic,
structural and functional dimensions of source texts, as well as to classify
the types of relationship existing between the linguistic and extralinguistic
elements affecting the construction of the illocutionary dimensions. The
audiovisual characteristics, in fact, may be in a relation of subordination or
Conclusions 191
opposition with the linguistic dimension of the scripts, thus requiring a

multimodal and critical investigation of the cognitive and socio-cultural
strategies of humorous discourse, as exemplified by the New Movie-based
Barbie Dolls extract, from the late-night talk show Conan. The inclusion
of the method and objectives of critical discourse analysis is fundamental
as well, for it allows the identification of the ideological dimensions of the
source scripts, which are adapted by modifying the original
characterisations at the lexico-semantic, syntactic and pragmatic levels. On
the other hand, the second phase of “Multimodal Re-Textualisation of
Scripts” (MuReTS) has explored the production of the new Italian
translations of some of the selected interactions, which display equivalent
lexical, syntactic and functional levels. It is asserted that such scripts
respect the original illocutionary dimensions and linguistic features, even
though they also include some creative contributions, in order to facilitate
the target audience’s accessibility and acceptability of the original
humorous discourse without imposing the translators’ interpretation of
what is uttered.
The MuCrAS and MuReTS phases are bridged by the “Mediated
Cognitive Semantic Representation” (Me-CSR), or the result of the
translator’s interpretation of source scripts, which leads to the production
of target versions. The modifier “cognitive” underlines the process-based
approach to the analysis and reception of texts. The inclusion of the
adjective “mediated” entails that the audiovisual construction has to be
accounted for in the description and interpretation of the original semantic
dimensions, provided that translators have specific “factual” and
“procedural” competences. The former coincide with the knowledge of the
source and target linguacultural backgrounds, together with their visual
and acoustic actualisation. The latter instead refers to the functional level
of analysis, aiming to adapt the original multimodal construction of
humorous discourse. The two phases of the Model are separately presented
for pedagogic purposes, in order to help translation students become
acquainted with the several dimensions contributing to the production,
analysis and translation of multimodal scripts.
8.3 The Interactive Model: Pedagogic Applications

The pedagogic function of AVT should not coincide only with the
identification of mispronunciations and mistranslations or with the
development of exercises to cope with the temporal and technical
constraints of dubbing, voice over and subtitles—to mention just the most
common modes. Audiovisual translation in educational contexts could also
192 Chapter Eight
be adopted to give analysts and translators appropriate theoretical and

methodological backgrounds for the analysis of the relationship between
the represented participants, and of how the construction and adaptation of
the original cognitive-semantic and linguistic features are influenced by
the ideological, socio-cultural context. The scripted interactions from
audiovisual texts may also (and perhaps unexpectedly) help research on
actual communicative processes. For example, by means of models such
as the Interactive one, cross-cultural mediators and audiovisual translators
could be respectively trained on how to identify the lexical, syntactic and
functional features of the lingua-franca variations used in cross-cultural
interactions (cf. also Iaia 2015) and recognise the cognitive and socio-
cultural influence in their renderings for target receivers. This approach is
currently adopted in the Master Course in Intercultural and Linguistic
Mediation in Immigration and Asylum Contexts from the University of
Salento, and it has revealed itself a valid method for the introduction of
trainee mediators to the transcultural and multilingual situations that they
will encounter.
A specific pedagogic application of the Model has also been explored,
when detailing the production of the target scripts of the comic video New
Movie-Based Barbie dolls. The clip was adopted as the main topic of the
workshops held during the English-Italian Translation courses at the
University of Salento, in order to train undergraduate students to achieve
an equivalent multimodal construction of humorous discourse for target
receivers by focusing on how the interaction between the visual, acoustic
and linguistic characteristics develops the comic effect. The results have
exemplified that the examination of the linguistic and extralinguistic
dimensions has led to the correct interpretation of the denotative and
connotative semantic dimensions on the one hand, limiting the creation of
ideological modifications, on the other.
Finally, also the redefinition of the role of audiovisual translators as
cross-cultural mediators is in itself a pedagogic contribution. It makes
translators aware of one of their basic roles, which consists in identifying
and adapting the original experiential constructs, socio-cultural
implications, and linguacultural dimensions to achieve an equivalent effect
for the target audience, mediating between the respect for the illocutionary
dimension and the audience’s perlocutionary reception. The development
of the pedagogic function of the Model represents one of the reasons why
it has been constructed and applied: it has also served to pursue the
research objectives, which will be now summarised.
Conclusions 193
8.4 Research Objectives and Results

This book has aimed at testing three hypotheses on the conventional
strategies of audiovisual translation and reception of humorous discourse.
The objectives—listed in the Introduction (pp. 5-6)—are here reported
again, together with the obtained results:
(i) to enquire into specific strategies in the Italian translation for the
dubbing of humorous texts—i.e., the adoption of specific
diatopic/diastratic varieties and the production of
pragmalinguistic misrepresentations—focusing on its cognitive-
ideological, lexico-semantic, structural and pragmatic
dimensions;
(ii) to propose an alternative approach to the translation of the
analysed texts accounting for the multimodal construction of the
selected corpus;
(iii) to discuss the results of a questionnaire on the empirical-
audience reception of a case study related to the translation of
video games.
As for objective (i), the multimodal critical analysis exemplified that

the conventional translation strategies of humorous discourse reflect an
ideological intent to exploit existing socio-cultural stereotypes mainly
targeting Central/Southern Italians, who are the butts of derogatory jokes
and lines characterised by diastratically- and diatopically-marked lexical
and syntactic deviations reflecting the adoption of domestication strategies
that do not contribute to the achievement of pragmalinguistic equivalents.
In fact, such modifications seem to comply with expectation of who the
supposed receivers will be, as the analysed corpora of audiovisual text-
types mostly address younger audiences’ cognitive schemata according to
which cartoons and video games are almost exclusively suitable for these
specific receivers, thus softening taboo-jokes or modifying source scripts
to avoid explicit sexual innuendos. And yet, the analysis also showed that
such approaches are inconsistent, since when the supposed audience is
mainly made up of male receivers, no such Bowdlerization occurs; indeed,
female characters become the centre of derogatory or taboo jokes based on
gender opposition and on their physical characteristics, according to
ideological, male chauvinist retextualisations of the original versions.
The Interactive Model also illustrated alternative translation strategies
for the production of new Italian scripts that respect the original
illocutionary dimensions in terms of their linguistic and multimodal
actualisations (objective (ii)). In fact, though adapting the original
communicative and semantic dimensions to the target linguacultural
194 Chapter Eight
background, the exclusive adoption of diatopic and diastratic language

varieties was discarded (for example in game localisation) selecting the
most appropriate solutions—from inserting language varieties, to resorting
to lingua franca variations, or lexical creativity—according to the features
identified during the stage of multimodal, critical analysis.
Indeed, the results of the questionnaire submitted to a group of
empirical receivers (objective (iii)) demonstrated that alternative strategies
of audiovisual translation of humorous discourse are accepted insofar as
they contribute to the creation of target scripts that are regarded as more
equivalent to source versions. Furthermore, it was also confirmed that the
current audiences—particularly of video games, but also of the other
selected text types—are often well informed and highly sophisticated and
acquainted with the original versions, also due to the increasing number of
people watching TV series or movies online in their original languages.
The changing habits of Italian and worldwide audiences, the focus on
the multimodal construction of audiovisual text types, the rise in interest
towards AVT and the new fields related to it show that it is important to
identify new trends in the study of this fascinating and challenging
discipline, some of which are proposed in the following section.
8.5 Research Prospects

Besides the approach to audiovisual translation studies that has been
developed in this book, and which has culminated in the construction of
the Interactive Model for the analysis and translation of AV texts as well
as the training of AV translators, other promising future research trends
include:
(i) investigating the inclusion and function of lingua-franca

variations in the production and translation of audiovisual texts;
(ii) identifying innovative translation strategies for the hybridisation
of genres in audiovisual texts;
(iii) enquiring into the empirical audience’s reception of the
conventional and innovative strategies of audiovisual translation.
The increasing number of scholars contributing to the investigation of

the lingua-franca variations demonstrates that their evolution and growth
is in itself interesting and deserves exploration from the socio-cultural,
linguistic and functional perspectives. This research field is generally
focused on actual interactions between non-native English speakers (cf.
Guido 2008; Seidlhofer 2011; Mauranen 2012; MacKenzie 2013), yet
further research may be devoted to the extent to which such variations can
Conclusions 195
be useful in the construction of scripted interactions from films, TV series,

or even video games, also enquiring into their educational and functional
dimensions. Translators may therefore be trained to identify the strategies
for the rendering of English Lingua-Franca (ELF) variations into
equivalent target-language ones to achieve more appropriate representations
of the original illocutionary, semantic and communicative dimensions. As
for the investigation of the functional dimension, such variations may help
identify the ideological constructions of humorous scripts, where the
actualisation of the socio-cultural characterisations creates oppositions
between high-status and low-status participants. Also video games may
represent significant case studies, since scripted ELF variations—generally
described as types of “broken English” (Mangiron 2010)—are developed
to achieve specific perlocutionary dimensions, from the construction of
humorous discourse, to the identification of non-native speakers, and
therefore an appropriate, critical analysis may lead to their identification
and equivalent rendering.
At the same time, peculiar genres of audiovisual texts are emerging, for
example in the documentary field, by means of the interaction between
humour and the reformulation of specialised knowledge also known as
“popularization” (cf. Gotti 1996; 2005; 2013; Iaia 2013), thus leading to
the identification of new research trends (Gotti 2013: 29). It would be
interesting to enquire into the resulting integration between the
informative and objective, and the entertaining and scripted functions from
the perspective of audiovisual translation, discussing whether to persist in
the adoption of the voice-over technique, or to propose other solutions
(indication (ii)). Voice over is in fact chosen because it is less expensive
than dubbing and due to the level of credibility that it instils (cf. Espasa
2004), but these functional characteristics may clash with the scripted
dimensions entailed by the dramatisations of these new kinds of
documentaries, to which dubbing may be more appropriate.
Finally, since the Interactive Model is expected to function as a tool for
the analysis and the production of translations, and therefore for the
theoretical as well as practical dimensions of AVT studies, further
research should enquire into the empirical audience’s reception (indication
(iii)). For example, questionnaires like the one that was discussed in
Section 7.6.2 may help to investigate the evaluation of translation
strategies, the identification and limitation of the conventional ideological
choices, the contribution of models such as the Interactive one to the
construction of a solid, multidisciplinary framework for the training of
translators and the development of the discipline.
196 Chapter Eight
The label “audiovisual translation” denotes a complex, multidimensional

universe. Different approaches to its study and various areas of expertise
are required and need to be used in conjunction with each other, as
happens in multimodal texts, to reveal the real potential and meaning of
this research field. In fact, such complexity is exactly what makes AVT
fascinating and appealing: what makes it a territory worth approaching,
studying, researching, exploring, and enjoying. Just like any audiovisual
texts, also this book has a denotative dimension and a connotative one. If it
has contributed to shed more light on AVT, its denotative message will
have been revealed; if further research is carried out, and if other
researchers are stimulated to confirm or challenge, test or share what has
been here introduced and discussed, its goal will have been definitely
achieved.
APPENDIX A
OTHER EXTRACTS
1. Bob’s Burgers
1.1 “An Indecent Thanksgiving Proposal”
(2ASA19, 00:07:59 – 00:08:08)

Man: “May I present “Posso “May I present
my wife, presentarti mia my wife,
Linda?” moglie, Linda?” Linda?”
Woman: “Pleasure to “Piacere di “Pleasure to
5 meet you, conoscerti. Sí, meet you. Yes, I
Linda. Ow, I mi piace questo like this name,
like that name, nome, ‘Linda’.” ‘Linda’.”
‘Linda’!”
Linda: “AND I’M “Piacere, “Nice to meet
10 LINDA!” Linda.” you, I’m
Linda.”
2. Family Guy
2.1 “Extra Large Medium”
(7ACX14; extract from 00:05:50 – 00:06:12)

Lois: “Thank you for “Grazie a tutti “Thank you all
your help, per il prezioso for your
everybody!” aiuto!” precious help!”
Bellgarde: “Oh, for “Ah, si figure, “You’re
5 definite! It’ just ci mangasse! È welcome! It’s
like a childhood come quel like that
game of ‘hide gioco di children game,
198 Appendix A
and fun’.”45 bambini, ‘Chi ‘Hide and

cerca tana’.” Seek’.”
10 Tomak: “You said it, “L’hai detto, “You said it,
friend! What amico! Che ne friend! What do
you say if for dici se per fare you say if we
celebration we la festa went out
go dunk our andassimo a drinking for the
15 whistles in the innaffiare il party?”
trunk?” gargarozzo?”
Bellgarde: “Oh, we should “Ah! Mo “Ah! We’ll
totally phone ghiamamo absolutely
Gaspar!” assolutamente phone
20 Gaspargo!” Gaspargo!”
Tomak: “Ow! He would “Gli piacereste “He would like
love to hear this questa favola!” this fairy tale!”
tale!”
Bellgarde: “Ow, but I only “Oh, ma ho “Ow, but I only
25 have 15 centix rimasto con 15 have 15 cents in
on my phone centesimi ’ntr’ a the phone card.”
card” la tessera
telefonica.”
3. Futurama
3.1 “The Six Million Dollar Mon”
(7ACV04, 00:08:19 – 00:08:31)

Fansworth: “Oh, dear! I “Oh, san buco “Oh, holy black
was leaning nero! Ero hole! I was
over the sink proteso sul leaning over the
eating pureed lavandino a sing eating
5 clams when my mangiare un pureed clams,
teeth fell in the purè di cozze, when my
disposal. quando mi è dentures fell in
Scruffy, could caduta la the disposal.
you retrieve dentiera nel Hey, Scrof,
10 them?” tritarifiuti. Ehi, could you
Scrof, potresti retrieve it for
recuperarmela?” me?”
The Dubbing Translation of Humorous Audiovisual Texts 199
Scruffy: “[reading Lady “[leggendo “[reading Lady

Chatterley’s Lady Chatterley’s
15 Janitor] ’Taint Chatterley’s Janitor] I clean
a boiler, nor a Janitor] Faccio only boilers and
toilet. Pass.” solo caldaie e toilets. Pass.”
gabinetti.
Passo.”
4. Stan Helsing
4.1 (00:34:11 – 00:34:14)

Kay: “Your friend “Il tuo amico, “Your friend,
Superman, here, Batman: tu eri Batman: you
signed you up in bagno e vi ha were in the
when you were iscritto.”46 bathroom and
5 in the men’s he signed you
room.” up.”
4.2 (00:46:55 – 00:47:00)

Stan: “Dude, you look “Stai veramente “You really
like shit. You’re uno schifo. look like shit.
like a really Sembri lo Zio You look like a
messed-up Paul Fester massacred
5 Giamatti.” massacrato e Uncle Fester.”
sputato.”
200 Appendix A
5. The Simpsons
5.1 “Funeral for a Fiend” (KABF01, 00:18:44 – 00:18:52)

Wiggum: “Freeze, “Ferma, “Freeze,
Sideshow famiglia Sideshow
Snobs! You’re Telespalla Snobs! You’re
all under arrest, Snob! Siete tutti all under arrest,
5 you have the in arresto, avete you have the
right to remain il diritto di right to remain
silent, but I rimanere in silent, but let’s
hope you don’t: silenzio, ma hope you don’t:
it’s a long way speriamo che the jail is far,
10 to jail, and— non lo fate: la and time has to
[giggle] I love prigione è pass!”
to chitchat!” lontana, e ‘o
tiembo [=
‘tempo’, ‘time’]
15 ha da passa’!”
5.2 “The Italian Bob” (HABF02, 00:18:23 – 00:18:40)

Krusty: “So, I had this “Avevo una “I had a
beautiful tour guida turistica beautiful tour
guide, right? bonazza. Le ho guide. I told her,
And I tell her, ‘I detto: ‘Fammi ‘Show me your
5 wanna see your vedere le tue mozzarelle!”
Naples’, she mozzarelle!’ e and she slapped
slapped me. mi ha preso a me.
[laughs]” pizze. [ride]”
Man: “We call it “[in fiorentino] “[in Fiorentino]
10 ‘Napoli’!” Pe’ quelle lí tu You gotta go to
devi anda’ a Napoli for the
Napoli!” mozzarelle!”
Krusty: “Yeah, it sounds “Ah sí? Magari “Really? Maybe
like you’re all ci siete andati you’ve all gone
15 taking a tutti a Napoli. to Napoli. [in
‘Napoli’! I [in napoletano] Napoletano]
know you’re out Ue’ siete stati a Hey, you’ve
there. I can hear Napoli, jamm’, been to Napoli,

you being paesa’!” come on,
20 greasy.” paesa’!”
APPEND
DIX B
QUESTTIONNAIRE ON AUDIENCE
U E RECEPT
TION
1. Genderr:
Malle Female
2. Age:
<188.
18-225.
26-335.
>355.
3. Do youu play video games?
g
Yess [go to question no.4] No N [go to questtion no.5]
4. If you aanswered ‘Yess’ to question no.3: How frrequently do you
usuallyy play video games?
g
Oncce a day.
Morre than once a day.
Oncce a week.
Morre than once a week.
Oncce a month.
Morre than once a month.
5. Do youu know the Fiinal Fantasy video
v game seeries?
6. If you aanswered ‘Yess’ to question no.5: Have yyou ever play
yed a
video ggame from thee Final Fanta asy series?
204 Append
dix B
7. If you aanswered ‘Yess’ to question no.6: Whichh of the Final Fantasy

episodees have you played?
p
Finaal Fantasy I.477
Finaal Fantasy II.48
4
Finaal Fantasy IIII.

V.49
Finaal Fantasy IV
Finaal Fantasy V.505
Finaal Fantasy VII.

Finaal Fantasy VII
II.
Dirgge of Cerberuus: Final Fanttasy VII.
Crissis Core: Finaal Fantasy VIII.
Finaal Fantasy VII
III.
Finaal Fantasy IX
X.
Finaal Fantasy X.
Finaal Fantasy X-2.
Finaal Fantasy XII.
Finaal Fantasy XII
II.
Finaal Fantasy XII
III.
Finaal Fantasy XII
III-2.
Finaal Fantasy XIIV.
8. Do you u know the ch haracter of Qu uina from Fin
inal Fantasy IX?
I
9. If you aanswered ‘Yess’ to question no.8: How w would you desscribe
the chaaracter of Quina?
__________________________________ _______________________ ________
__________________________________ _______________________ ________
__________________________________ _______________________ ________
__________________________________ _______________________ ________
T
The Dubbing Trranslation of Hu
umorous Audioovisual Texts 205
10. Please aanalyse the extracts [Or-1

1]-[Or-7] from
m the originaal
version
n, then answer:
a. In your view w, how muchh would you rrate this extra
act
humorous?
[Or-1]
1 [not huumorous] 2 [slightly hummorous]
3 [humoorous] 4 [veery humorous]]
[Or-2]
[Or-3]
[Or-4]
[Or-5]
[Or-6]
[Or-7]
b. Would you define Quina a’s and Qualee’s language [more
than one an nswer allowedd]:
humorouus
clear
puzzlingg
c. How would d you define Quina,
Q accord
ding to the language
used?
__________________________ ________________________ _______
__________________________ ________________________ _______
__________________________ ________________________ _______
__________________________ ________________________ _______
__________________________ ________________________ _______
206 Append
dix B
11. Please, analyse the extracts

e [Transl-1]-[Transsl-7] from thee
translated version, then
t answer:
a. How much is the extractt equivalent too the original
version?
[Transl-1-AA]
1 [distannt] 2 [partiaally equivalennt] 3 [equiv
valent]
[Transl-2-AA]
valent]
[Transl-3-AA]
valent]
[Transl-4-AA]
valent]
[Transl-5-AA]
valent]
[Transl-6-AA]
valent]
[Transl-7-AA]
valent]
How much would you ra ate this extraact humorous?
?
[Transl-1-AA]
1 [not huumorous] 2 [slightly hum morous]
[Transl-2-AA]
[Transl-3-AA]
[Transl-4-AA]
[Transl-5-AA]
[Transl-6-AA]
T
The Dubbing Trranslation of Hu
umorous Audioovisual Texts 207
[Transl-7-A
A]
b. Would you define Quina a’s and Qualee’s language [more
than one annswer allowed d]:
humorouus
clear
puzzlingg
12. Focus oon the characcter of Quina and on the laanguage used d in both
versionns you analyseed. Would yo ou define ‘Quuina 1’ (from the
originaal version) and ‘Quina 2’ (from
( the trannslation):
completeely different
mostly different,
d thouugh preservingg some similarr features
mostly similar,
s though h having somee different feaatures
completeely similar
Please, give reasons for your ansswer, focusingg on the language
used.
_______
________________________ _______________________ ________
_______
________________________ _______________________ ________
_______
________________________ _______________________ ________
_______
________________________ _______________________ ________
_______
________________________ _______________________ ________
REFERENCES
1. Bibliography
Abrams, Meyer H. 1958. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and
the Critical Tradition. New York: Norton.
Alexieva, Bistra. 1997. “A Typology of Interpreter-mediated Events”. The
Translator 3 (2): 153-174.
Antonini, Rachele, and Delia Chiaro. 2009. “The Perception of Dubbing
by Italian Audiences”. In Audiovisual Translation: Language Transfer
on Screen, edited by Jorge Díaz Cintas, and Gunilla Anderman, 97-
114. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
—. 2001. Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932. Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bassnett, Susan. 2002. Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
de Beaugrande, Robert, and Wolfgang Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text
Linguistics. London: Longman.
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice.
London: Longman.
Bernal Merino, Miguel. 2006. “On the Translation of Video Games”. The
Journal of Specialised Translation 6: 22-36.
http://www.jostrans.org/issue06/art_bernal.php.
Bogucki, Lukasz. 2011. “The Application of Action Research to
Audiovisual Translation”. In Audiovisual Translation Subtitles and
Subtitling: Theory and Practice, edited by Laura I. McLoughlin, Marie
Biscio and Máire Á. Ní Mhainnín, 7-18. Bern: Peter Lang.
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bucaria, Chiara. 2008. “Dubbing Dark Humour: A Case Study in
Audiovisual Translation”. Lodz: Papers in Pragmatics 4 (2): 215-240.
210 References
Burton, Deirdre. 1980. Dialogue and Discourse: A Sociolinguistic

Approach to Modern Drama Dialogue and Naturally Occurring
Conversation. London: Routledge.
Carroll, Tessa. 2013. Language Planning and Language Change in Japan:
East Asian Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Castellano, Alberto. 1996. “Dalla teoria alla pratica.” In Traduzione
multimediale per il cinema, la televisione e la scena, edited by
Christine Heiss, and Rosa M. Bollettieri Bosinelli, 393-400 Bologna:
Clueb.
Chandler, Heather M., and Stephen o’M. Deming. 2011. The Game
Localization Handbook. Burlington: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Chaume, Frederic. 2004. “Film Studies and Translation Studies: Two
Disciplines at Stake in Audiovisual Translation”. Meta: Translators’
Journal 49 (1): 12-24.
Chesterman, Andrew. 2000. “A Causal Model for Translation Studies”. In
Intercultural Faultiness – Research Models in Translation Studies I –
Textual and Cognitive Aspects, edited by Maeve Olohan, 15-26.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Chiaro, Delia. 1992. The Language of Jokes. Analysing Verbal Play.
London: Routledge.
—. 2006. “Verbally Expressed Humour on Screen: Reflections on
Translation and Reception”. Journal of Specialised Translation 6: 198-
208.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA:
The M.I.T. Press.
Christiansen, Thomas. 2011. Cohesion: A Discourse Perspective. Bern:
Peter Lang.
Cogo, Alessia. 2009. “Accommodating Difference in ELF Conversations:
A Study of Pragmatic Strategies”. In English as a Lingua Franca:
Studies and Findings, edited Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta, 254-
273. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Consigli, Paolo. 1988. “Humor in Italy”. In National Styles of Humor,
edited by Avner Ziv, 133-156. New York: Greenwood.
Crafton, Donald. 1999. The Talkies: American Cinema’s Transition to
Sound 1926-1931. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Culler, Jonathan. 1975. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics
and the Study of Literature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
D’alessandro, Jaime. 2008. “Identikit del videogiocatore europeo. La
console non è una malattia”. La Repubblica, May 27.
http://www.repubblica.it/2008/05/sezioni/scienza_e_tecnologia/videogi
ocatore-chi/videogiocatore-chi/videogiocatore-chi.html.
Delabastita, Dirk. 1989. “Translation and Mass-communication: Film and

TV Translation as Evidence of Cultural Dynamics”. Babel 35: 193-
218.
—. 1994. “Focus on the Pun: Wordplay as a Special Problem in
Translation Studies”. Target 6: 223-243.
Denton, John. 2007. “Audience Reception of Translated Audiovisual
Texts and the Problem of Visual and Verbal Shared/Unshared
Knowledge”. In La lingua invisibile: Aspetti teorici e tecnici del
doppiaggio in Italia, edited by Giuseppe Massara, 23-36. Roma:
Nuova editrice universitaria.
Dewey, Martin. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: An Empirical Study of
Innovation in Lexis and Grammar. PhD dissertation, King’s College
London.
Di Giovanni, Elena. 2008. “Translations, Transcreations and
Transrepresentations of India in the Italian Media”. Meta: Translators’
Journal 53 (1): 26-43.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge. 2004. “In Search of a Theoretical Framework for the
Study of Audiovisual Translation”. In Topics in Audiovisual
Translation, edited by Pilar Orero, 21-34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
—. 2005. “Back to the Future in Subtitling”. In MuTra 2005 – Challenges
of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings, edited by
Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, and Sandra Nauert, 16-32.
http://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/2005
_DiazCintas_Jorge.pdf.
Dickie, John. 1996. “Imagined Italics”. In Italian Cultural Studies: An
Introduction, edited by David Fogacs, and Robert Lumley, 19-33.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
—. 1999. Darkest Italy: The Nation and Stereotypes of the Mezzogiorno,
1860-1900. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
van Dijk, Teun A. 2001. “Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity”.
In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak and
Michael Meyer, 96-120. London: SAGE Publications.
Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.
Ericsson, Karl A. and Herbert A. Simon. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal
Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Ernkvist, Mirko. 2008. “Down Many Times, but Still Playing the Game:
Creative Destruction and Industry Crashes in the Early Video Game
Industry 1971-1986”. In History of Insolvency and Bankruptcy from an
International Perspective, edited by Karl Gratzer and Dieter Stiefel,
161-192. Huddinge: Södertöns högskola.
212 References
ESA (Entertainment Software Association). 2011. Essential Facts about

the Computer and Video Game Industry.
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf.
Espasa, Eva. 2004. “Myths about Documentary Translation”. In Topics in
Audiovisual Translation, edited by Pilar Orero, 183-197.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical
Study of Language. London: Longman.
—. 2001. Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fawcett, Peter. 1996. “Translating Film”. In On Translating French
Literature and Film, edited by Geoffrey T. Harris, 65-88. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Ferrari, Chiara F. 2010. Since when Is Fran Drescher Jewish? Dubbing
Stereotypes in The Nanny, The Simpsons, and The Sopranos. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Filmer, Denise. 2012. “Ethnic Epithets and Linguistic Taboos: Offensive
Language Transfer in Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino”. In Audiovisual
Translation across Europe: An Ever-changing Landscape, edited by
Silvia Bruti, and Elena Di Giovanni, 129-152. Bern: Peter Lang.
Fine, Gary A. 1983. “Sociological Approaches to the Study of Humour”.
In Handbook of Humour Research, edited by Paul E. McGhee, and
Jeffrey H. Goldstein, 159-181. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc.
Fish, Stanley E. 1970. “Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics”. New
Literary History 2: 123-162.
—. 1980. Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretative
Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Frege, Gottlob. 1952. “On Sense and Reference”. In Translations from the
Philosophical Writings of Gottlieb Frege, edited by Peter T. Geach,
and Max Black, 56-78. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gatta, Francesca. 2000. “La lingua della serie televisiva italiana fra
stereotipo e realtà”. In La traduzione multimediale: quale traduzione
per quale testo?, edited by Rosa M. Bollettieri Bosinelli, 85-105.
Bologna: Clueb.
Gotti, Maurizio. 1996. “Il linguaggio della divulgazione: problematiche di
traduzione intralinguistica”. In Tradurre i linguaggi settoriali, edited
by Giuseppina Cortese, 217-235. Torino: Cortina.
—. 2005. Investigating Specialized Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.
—. 2013. “The Analysis of Popularization Discourse: Conceptual Changes
and Methodological Evolutions.” In The Popularization of Specialized
Discourse and Knowledge across Communities and Cultures, edited by
Susan Kermas, and Thomas Christiansen, 9-32. Bari: Edipuglia.
Gottlieb, Henrik. 1994. “Subtitling: Diagonal Translation”. Perspectives 2:

101-121.
—. 2005. “Multidimensional Translation: Semantics Turned Semiotics”.
In MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation:
Conference Proceedings, edited by Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, and
Sandra Nauert, 33-61.
_Gottlieb_Henrik.pdf.
Grice, Herbert P. 1957. “Meaning”. Philosophical Review 66 (3): 377-388.
—. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech
Acts, edited by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41-58. New York,
Academic Press.
—. 1978. “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and
Semantics 9: Pragmatics, edited by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan,
113-128. New York, Academic Press.
Guido, Maria G. 1999a. The Acting Reader: Schema/Text Interaction in
the Dramatic Discourse of Poetry. New York/Ottawa/Toronto: Legas
Publishing.
—. 1999b. Processi di analisi e traduzione del discorso scientifico-
settoriale inglese: Un modello psicopedagogico. Roma: Armando
Editore.
—. 2004. Mediating Cultures: A Cognitive Approach to English Discourse
for the Social Sciences. Milan: LED.
—. 2008. English as a Lingua Franca in Cross-cultural Immigration
Domains. Bern: Peter Lang.
—. 2012. The Acting Translator: Embodying Cultures in the Dubbing
Translation of American Sitcoms. New York/Ottawa/Toronto: Legas
Publishing.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. “Language Structure and Language
Function”. In New Horizons in Linguistics, edited by John Lyons, 140-
165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
—. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
—. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hart, Elizabeth 2007. “Destabilising Paradise: Men, Women and Mafiosi:
Sicilian Stereotypes”. Journal of Intercultural Studies 28 (2): 213-226.
Heiss, Christine, and Lisa Leporati. 2000. “Non è che ci mettiamo a fare i
difficili, eh? Traduttori e dialoghisti alle prese con il regioletto”. In La
traduzione multimediale: quale traduzione per quale testo?, edited by
Rosa M. Bollettieri Bosinelli, 43-65. Bologna: Clueb.
214 References
Herbst, Thomas. 1996. “Why Dubbing Is Impossible”. In Traduzione

multimediale per il cinema, la televisione e la scena, edited by
Christine Heiss, and Rosa M. Bollettieri Bosinelli, 97-115. Bologna:
Clueb.
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1989. “Exploring New Possible Worlds”. In Possible
Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences, edited by Allén Sture, 52-73.
New York/Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hiramoto, Mie. 2010. “Anime and Intertextualities: Hegemonic Identities
in Cowboy Bebop”. Pragmatics and Society 1 (2): 234-256.
Hofstede, Geert. 1983. “National Cultures in Four Dimensions”.
International Studies of Management and Organization 13 (2): 46-74.
Iaia, Pietro L. 2011a. “Adaptation Processes of Taboo-words in the Italian
Dubbing of Family Guy”. Lingue e Linguaggi 5: 173-180. http://siba-
ese.unisalento.it/index.php/linguelinguaggi/article/view/11448/10493.
—. 2011b. “The Italian Translation of Culture-bound Jokes and Cultural
References in American TV Cartoons”. Lingue e Linguaggi 5: 181-
190. http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/linguelinguaggi/article/view
/11449/10494.
—. 2013. “Humour Strategies of Scientific Popularization: A Case Study
on the American Sitcom The Big Bang Theory”. In The Popularization
of Specialized Knowledge across Communities and Cultures, edited by
Susan Kermas, and Thomas Christiansen, 187-202. Bari: Edipuglia.
—. 2014a. “Dimensione multimodale ed interartistica nella costruzione e
traduzione del discorso umoristico dei videogiochi: un caso di studio”.
In Testo interartistico e processi di comunicazione. Letterature, arte,
traduzione, comprensione, edited by Gloria Politi, 61-70. Lecce: Pensa
Multimedia.
—. 2014b. “Transcreating Humor in Video Games: The Use of Italian
Diatopic Varieties and their Effects on Target Audiences”. In
Translating Humour in Audiovisual Texts, edited by Gian L. De Rosa,
Francesca Bianchi, Antonella De Laurentiis, and Elisa Perego, 517-
533. Bern: Peter Lang.
—. 2015. Analysing English as a Lingua Franca in Migration Movies:
Pragmalinguistic Features, Socio-cognitive Implications and
Translation Issues. Lecce: ESE – Salento University Publishing.
Iaia, Pietro L., and Silvia Sperti. 2013. “An ELF Phonopragmatic
Approach to the Analysis of ‘Migration Movies’ in Pedagogic
Contexts: Linguacultural Dimensions of Scripted Interactions”. In
Pedagogical Implications of ELF in the Expanding Circle, edited by
Yasemin Bayyurt, and Sumru Akcan, 283-293. Istanbul: Bogazici
University Publications.
Kramsch, Claire. 1998. Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Kress, Gunther. 1993. “Against Arbitrariness: The Social Production of
the Sign as a Foundational Issue in Critical Discourse Analysis”.
Discourse and Society 4 (2): 169-193.
—. 2009. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary
Communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading Images: The
Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
Kussmaul, Paul. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
van Leeuwen, Theo. 2005. Introducing Social Semiotics. London:
Routledge.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lotman, Yury M. 1982. “The Text and the Structure of Its Audience”.
New Literary History 14: 81-87.
MacKenzie, Ian. 2013. “Lexical Inventiveness and Conventionality in
English as a Lingua Franca and English Translation”. The European
English Messenger 22 (1): 47-53.
Mangiron, Carmen. 2007. “Video Games Localisation: Posing New
Challenges to the Translator”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
14 (4): 306-323.
—. 2010. “The Importance of Not Being Earnest: Translating Humour in
Video Games”. In Translation, Humour and the Media, edited by
Delia Chiaro, 89-107. London: Continuum Publishing Group.
Mangiron, Carmen, and Minako O’Hagan. 2006. “Game Localisation:
Unleashing Imagination with ‘Restricted’ Translation”. Journal of
Specialised Translation 6: 10-21.
http://www.jostrans.org/issue06/art_ohagan_utf_test.php.
Massidda, Serenella. 2015. Audiovisual Translation in the Digital Age:
The Italian Fansubbing Phenomenon. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by
Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moran, Albert. 1998. Copycat TV. Globalisation, Program Formats, and
Cultural Identity. Luton: University of Luton Press.
Morris, Charles W. 1938. “Foundations of the Theory of Signs”. In
International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, edited by Otto Neurath,
Rudolf Carnap, and Charles W. Morris, 77-138. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
216 References
Munat, Judith. 2007. “Lexical Creativity as a Marker of Style in Science

Fiction and Children’s Literature”. In Lexical Creativity, Texts and
Contexts, edited by Judith Munat, 163-182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies. London:
Routledge.
Neves, Josélia. 2009. “Interlingual Subtitling for the Deaf and Hard-of-
Hearing”. In Audiovisual Translation: Language Transfer on Screen,
edited by Jorge Díaz Cintas, and Gunilla Anderman, 151-169.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.
Nord, Christian. 1997. “A Functional Typology of Translations”. In Text
Typology and Translation, edited by Anna Trosborg, 39-66.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
O’Hagan, Minako. 2005. “Multidimensional Translation: A Game Plan for
Audiovisual Translation in the Age of GILT”. MuTra 2005 –
Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings,
edited by Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, and Sandra Nauert, 76-87.
_O'Hagan_Minako.pdf.
O’Toole, Michael. 2011. The Language of Displayed Art. London:
Routledge.
Orero, Pilar. 2009. “Voice-over in Audiovisual Translation”. In Audiovisual
Translation: Language Transfer on Screen, edited by Jorge Díaz
Cintas, and Gunilla Anderman, 130-139. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Paolinelli, Mario, and Eleonora Di Fortunato. 2005. Tradurre per il
doppiaggio. La trasposizione linguistica dell’audiovisivo: teoria e
pratica di un’arte imperfetta. Milan: Hoepli.
Pavesi, Maria, and Elisa Perego. 2006. “Profiling Film Translators in Italy:
A Preliminary Analysis”. The Journal of Specialised Translation 6: 99-
114.
Pedersen, Daniel. 2014. “Exploring the concept of transcreation—
transcreation as ‘more than translation’?”. Cultus 7: 57-71. Bologna:
Iconesoft Edizioni.
Perego, Elisa. 2005. La traduzione audiovisiva. Rome: Carocci.
—. 2010. “La sottotitolazione sperimentale degli anime e le norme
contravvenute: cosa ci dicono i tracciati oculari”. In Dubbing
Cartoonia: Mediazione interculturale e funzione didattica nel processo
di traduzione dei cartoni animati, edited by Gian L. De Rosa, 47-58.
Casoria: Loffredo Editore.
Perego, Elisa, and Christopher Taylor. 2012. Tradurre l’audiovisivo.

Rome: Carocci.
Plourde, Eric. 2000. “The Dubbing of The Simpsons: Cultural
Appropriation, Discursive Manipulation, and Divergences”. Texas
Linguistic Forum 44 (1): 114-131.
Raffaelli, Sergio. 1994. “Il parlato cinematografico e televisivo”. In Storia
della lingua italiana: Scritto e parlato, edited by Luca Serianni, and
Pietro Trifone, 271-290. Turin: Einaudi.
Rappoport, Leon. 2005. Punchlines: The Case for Racial, Ethnic and
Gender Humor. Westport: Praeger.
Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D.
Reidel.
Richards, Ivor A. 1929. Practical Criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace
and Co.
Riffaterre, Michael. 1978. Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Ross, Alison. 1998. The Language of Humour. London: Routledge.
Rossi, Fabio. 2007. “La lingua adattata”. In La lingua invisibile: Aspetti
teorici e tecnici del doppiaggio in Italia, edited by Giuseppe Massara,
87-106. Roma: Nuova editrice universitaria.
Rothbart, Mary K. 1973. “Laughter in Young Children”. Psychological
Bulletin 80 (3): 247-256.
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. “On Denoting”. Mind 14: 479-493.
Sager, Juan C. 1997. “Text Types and Translation”. In Text Typology and
Translation, edited by Anna Trosborg, 25-41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1960. Course in General Linguistics. London:
Peter Owen.
Schumann, John H. 1986. “Research on the Acculturation Model for
Second Language Acquisition”. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 7 (5): 379-392.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca.
Seliger, Herbert W., and Elana Shohamy. 1989. Second Language
Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shultz, Thomas R. 1974. “Order of Cognitive Processing in Cognitive
Appreciation”. Canadian Journal of Psychology 28 (4): 409-420.
—. 1976. “A Cognitive-developmental Analysis of Humour”. In Humour
and Laughter: Theory, Research and Application, edited by Anthony J.
Chapman, and Hugh C. Foot, 11-36. London: John Wiley & Sons.
218 References
Sinclair, John McH., and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis

of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Strawson, Peter F. 1950. “On Referring”. Mind 59, pp. 320-344.
—. 1952. Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.
Suls, Jerry M. 1983. “Cognitive Processes in Humor Appreciation”. In
Handbook of Humour Research, edited by Paul E. McGhee, and
Jeffrey H. Goldstein, 39-58. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc.
Triandis, Harry C., Robert Bontempo, Marcelo J. Villareal, Masaaki Asai,
and Nydia Lucca. 1988. “Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-
cultural Perspectives on Self-ingroup Relationships”. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 54 (2): 323-338.
Turner, Robin. 1980. “A Note on ‘Special Languages’ and ‘Specific
Purposes’”. ALSED-LSP Newsletter 4 (1): 2-13.
Tveit, Jan-E. 2009. “Dubbing versus Subtitling: Old Battleground
Revisited”. In Audiovisual Translation: Language Transfer on Screen,
edited by Jorge Díaz Cintas, and Gunilla Anderman, 85-96.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tytler, Alexander F. 1978. Essay on the Principles of Translation.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Veisbergs, Andrejs. 1997. “The Contextual Use of Idioms, Wordplays, and
Translation”. In Traductio: Essays on Punning and Translation, edited
by Dirk Delabastita, 155-176. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of
Translation. London: Routledge.
Widdowson, Henry G. 1984. Explorations in Applied Linguistics 2.
—. 1992. Practical Stylistics: An Approach to Poetry. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wulf, Friedrich. 1938. “Tendencies in Figural Variation”. In A Source
Book of Gestalt Psychology, edited by Willis D. Ellis, 136-148.
London: Kegan Paul.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zabalbeascoa, Patrick. 1996. “Translating Jokes for Dubbed Television
Situation Comedies”. The Translator 2 (2): 235-257.
Zillman, Dolf. 1983. “Disparagement Humor”. In Handbook of Humour
Research, edited by Paul E. McGhee, and Jeffrey H. Goldstein, 85-
108. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc.
2. Websites
7 Suspected Criminals Who Got Themselves Caught via Facebook:
http://theweek.com/article/index/227257/7-suspected-criminals-who-got-
themselves-caught-via-facebook.
Audience Reception – Final Fantasy IX:
http://www.dailyrando.it/showthread.php/357-Final-Fantasy-IX-in-
italiano-o-meglio;
http://forum.gamesvillage.it/showthread.php?803693-PSN-Arriva-Final-
Fantasy-IX;
http://multiplayer.it/forum/playstation-2-slim/93517-vera-fine-final-
fantasy-ix-9-a.html;
http://forum.gamesvillage.it/showthread.php?872210-2-The-Legend-of-
Zelda-Ocarina-of-Time-3D-Topic-Ufficiale-USCITO!;
http://www.nextrl.it/forum/topic/15013-0257-super-paper-mario-pal/;
http://www.scavenger.ch/venom/forum/index.php?topic=7319.0.
Audience Reception – Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch:
http://www.it.namcobandaigames.eu/community/discussioni/perche-
tradurre-in-romano-i-dialoghi-di-
lucciconio/year/2013/month/01/day/29;
http://theshelternetwork.com/ni-no-kuni-la-minaccia-de-er-re-de-fate/;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMqcQHNhYJg.
Compendio della storia del doppiaggio in Italia:
http://www.sinet.it/baroncelli/doppiatori/compendio.htm.
Final Fantasy IX wiki website (Baku):
http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Baku_(Final_Fantasy_IX).
Futurama wiki website (URL):
http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/URL.
New Movie-based Barbie dolls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV2GJoRtZC0.
O’Chunks: fandubbed scene (in Italian):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=976kRRTPVlk.
O’Chunks’s nationality:
http://www.mariowiki.com/O'Chunks;
http://lillilotus.deviantart.com/art/Scottish-O-Chunks-188011161;
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5419797/4/What-They-Did-to-Us;
http://nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/O'Chunks;
http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/O'Chunks.
Urban Dictionary: “Iffen” definition:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=iffen.
All the websites last visited on April 30, 2015.
220 References
3. Audiovisual Texts
1000 Ways to Die (1000 modi per morire, T. Beers, 2008-2012).
Aliens in America (D. Guarascio, M. Port, 2007-2008).
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (Austin Powers – La spia che ci
provava, J. Roach, 1999).
Battlefield (Electronic Arts, 2002-present).
Battleship (P. Berg, 2012).
The Beauty and the Geek (2005-2008).
Benvenuti al nord (L. Miniero, 2012).
Benvenuti al sud (L. Miniero, 2010).
BeTipul (H. Levi, O. Sivan, N. Bergman, 2005-2008).
Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis (Giú al nord, D. Boon, 2008).
The Big Bang Theory (C. Lorre, B. Prady, 2007-present).
Bob’s Burgers (L. Bouchard, 2011-present).
Brick Lane (S. Gavron, 2007).
Brickleberry (R. Black, W. o’Guin, 2012-2015).
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (Activision, 2007-present).
The Cleveland Show (S. MacFarlane, 2009-2013).
Cloud Nine (C. Churchill).
Conan (C. O’Brien, 2010-present).
Curious & Unusual Deaths (Strani modi per morire, A. Kaufman, C.
Knutson, 2009-2012).
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Bethesda, 2011).
Family Guy (I Griffin, S. MacFarlane, 1999-present).
Final Fantasy IX (Square Enix, 2000).
A Fish Called Wanda (Un pesce di nome Wanda, C. Crichton, 1988).
Futurama (M. Groening, 1999-2013).
Ghost Rider (M.S. Johnson, 2007).
The Godfather (Il padrino, F.F. Coppola, 1972).
Gran Torino (C. Eastwood, 2008).
Happily Divorced (F. Drescher, P.M. Jacobson, 2011-2013).
Hatufim (G. Raff, 2010-present).
Homeland (Homeland – Caccia alla spia, G. Raff, 2011-present).
In Treatment (American version: R. Garcia, 2008-2010; Italian version:
2013-present).
The Jazz Singer (Il cantante di jazz, A. Crosland, 1927).
Kandahar (Viaggio a Kandahar, M. Makhmalbaf, 2001).
Karate Kid (Karate Kid – Per vincere domani, J.G. Avildsen, 1984).
Lollipop Chainsaw (Warner Bros. Interactive, 2012).
Looking for Alibrandi (Terza generazione, K. Woods, 2000).
Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story (Mario & Luigi – Viaggio
all’interno di Bowser, Nintendo, 2009).
Mass Effect 2 (Electronic Arts, 2010).
Mass Effect 3 (Electronic Arts, 2012).
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Monty Python e il Sacro Graal, T.
Gilliam, T. Jones, 1974).
My Big Fat Greek Wedding (Il mio grosso grasso matrimonio greco, J.
Zwick, 2002).
The Nanny (La tata, F. Drescher, P.M. Jacobson, 1993-1999).
Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch (Ni No Kuni – La minaccia della
strega cinerea, Bandai Namco, 2013).
The Office (R. Gervais, S. Merchant, 2001-2003).
Pac-Man (Namco, 1980).
Paramount on Parade (Paramount in festa, E. Goulding et al., 1930).
Pardon Us (Muraglie, J. Parrott, 1931).
La peggior settimana della mia vita (A. Genovesi, 2011).
La pupa e il secchione (2006, 2010).
The Shining (S. Kubrick, 1980).
The Simpsons (I Simpson, M. Groening, 1989-present).
South Park (T. Parker, M. Stone, 1997-present).
Stan Helsing (Horror Movie, B. Zenga, 2009).
Super Paper Mario (Nintendo, 2007).
Vacanze di Natale (C. Vanzina, 1983).
The Worst Week of My Life (M. Bussell, J. Sbresni, 2004-2006).
Yuppies – I giovani di successo (C. Vanzina, 1986).
NOTES
1
The label “audiovisual translation” is not the only one that defines the process of
adaptation of audiovisual texts. Several alternatives have been proposed indeed,
such as “screen translation”, including the translation of texts which are displayed,
and “film translation”, referring only to the translation of movies. The term
“audiovisual translation” is the one adopted in this book and here meant to include
both the above.
2
The debate on terminology starts from the very spelling of “video games”, since
there are some scholars and operators in the industry who choose to merge the two
words, in “videogames” and others in favour of the separation, into “video games”.
3
Italy, indeed, used to translate into Italian the original names, as well.
4
The short history of dubbing is mainly based on the account by Paolinelli and Di
Fortunato (2005) and on the Compendio della storia del doppiaggio in Italia, by
Lorenzo Bassi (http://www.sinet.it/baroncelli/doppiatori/compendio.htm).
5
One of the solutions adopted by American producers was to re-shoot scenes with
Italian-American actors, who preserved their typical inflections.
6
Before dubbing, Italy continued to show mute films or to add captions to talking
pictures. This choice led to the omission of certain scenes to respect the
correspondence between the captions and the portrayed actions (Paolinelli and Di
Fortunato 2005: 7).
7
According to Castellano (1996: 393), in fact, a badly-dubbed film is not
“ascoltabile” (‘pleasant to listen to’).
8
The link between dubbese and the written textual forms is also reflected by the
alternative labels that Italian scholars such as Gatta (2000) have attached to the
specific language of dubbing, from lingua scritta oralizzata to parlato scritto,
which indicate a sort of ‘oralised written-language’.
9
Though Herbst deals with dubbing from an English-to-German perspective, his
considerations about dubbese and the dubbing constraints can be said to have a
universal value.
10
A recent way to add explanations of culture-bound constructs in subtitled AV
texts may be represented by the “pop-up gloss” process, consisting in explanatory
notes appearing on screen (cf. Perego 2010: 47-49), currently used in the
translation of the Japanese anime and actually being the object of a debate on its
being a form of unconventional, abusive subtitling.
11
The relation is further dealt with in Chapter 2, when Kress and van Leeuwen’s
(2006) grammar of visual images is introduced, to identify the multimodal
actualisations of the semantic and communicative dimensions.
12
According to Chandler and Deming (2011: 71-ff.), the expected profits may also
lead to the absence of any localised version, or to the creation of translations in
selected languages only—mainly English, French and German, at least in the
European market. On this aspect, see also O’Hagan (2005) and Mangiron (2007:
310).
224 Notes
13
Creative lexical formations are generally employed in children’s literature to
have a playful effect (see Munat 2007).
14
Possible, invented worlds are common in role-playing or platform video games,
which represent the genres of the selected corpus, opposed to the current tendency
of setting stories in existing (and sometimes current) scenarios, such as in the
series Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, or Battlefield, to mention some of the most
successful.
15
On the complete dissertation on the theories of meaning and of the relationship
between the readers and the text, instead, see Guido (1999b: 76-99).
16
The view of a target text that “works” in the same way when pragmatic
equivalence is obtained seems to correspond to the image of a movie which
“sounds” differently according to the viewer’s perception (cf. also note 7 above).
17
The contrast between expected and unexpected situations does not prompt here a
humorous effect, the scenes lacking the elements that may unveil the author’s
voluntary subversion of the expected schemata. Instead, in the mentioned example
there is only an inappropriate setting and development of a situation according to
the extralinguistic construction of the scene, which is not supported by a punchline,
or by a solution of the cognitive clash.
18
See Levinson (1983: 169-177) for a detailed historical account.
19
Iaia (2011a) identifies similar neutralisations in jokes about Christianity in the
dubbing translation of the fourth season of Family Guy.
20
On different interpretations of the analysed dialogue, also cf. Iaia (2013).
21
For further details on the translation of video games, see Sections 1.4 and 1.4.1
above; on the analysis of the selected corpus of video games, see Chapters 6 and 7.
22
E.g., the video available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=976kRRTPVlk.
23
One of the conventional groups of jokes identified by Chiaro (1992: 50) is
indeed labelled “joke as a narrative form”.
24
By way of example, consider the cases of the psychological thriller Homeland
(Homeland – Caccia alla spia, 2011-present), based on the Israeli series Hatufim –
Prisoners of War (2010-present), of the British comedy series The Office (2001-
2003) and of In Treatment (2008-2010), an adaptation of the original Israeli
BeTipul (2005-2008). Italy is currently producing remakes of European movies or
TV series, such as the adaptation of the American version of In Treatment, or the
movies Benvenuti al sud (2010)—from the French Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis (Giú
al nord, 2008)—and La peggior settimana della mia vita (2011)—from the British
TV series The Worst Week of My Life (2004-2006).
25
On different interpretations of the analysed dialogue, also cf. Iaia (2013).
26
The full clip is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV2GJoRtZC0.
27
Examples of the multimodal transcription have already been adopted in the
analysis of the extract (8), from Conan, or in the exemplification of the multimodal
actualisation of the “Theme/Rheme” pattern in figure 2-5 above, from The Big
Bang Theory.
28
As the analysis details (Section 5.1.5), there seems to be different levels of
domestication strategies according to the varieties included, as when Northern ones
are used, there are less modifications affecting the original lexico-semantic and
structural dimensions.
29
It is for these reasons that some terms in the backtranslation have been left as in
the Italian version, to point out the peculiar characterisation.
30
There is another interesting use of Siciliano in The Simpsons, which will be
analysed in a specific section, as it is connected to the production of
pragmalinguistic misrepresentations (Section 5.2).
31
It seems to be challenged as there are equivalent Italian versions of Brickleberry
(2012-2015), The Cleveland Show (2009-2013) and South Park, characterised by
taboo-jokes and bad language. Yet, there seems to be a link with the channels
broadcasting the sitcoms, which when premiered on satellite television are
generally rendered in more equivalent Italian versions.
32
According to the Urban Dictionary, “iffen” is a colloquial expression meaning
“if and when” (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=iffen).
33
Extract (31) above contains a mistranslation of “emotional” (‘emotiva’) as
“emozionata”—which is rendered as it is in the backtranslation—but the mistake
has not been included in the analysis as not consistent with the topic of the section.
Yet, it may represent a case in point to discuss the little time translators often have
to produce target scripts, not always sufficient for appropriate translations (cf.
Paolinelli and Di Fortunato 2005: 101-102).
34
Examples (33) and (34) were presented as case studies during the PRIN Seminar
“The Popularization of Scientific Discourse in a Changing World: Lexical and
Stylistic Choices – Past and Present” held at the University of Salento, Lecce
(January 26-28, 2012).
35
Extracts (41), (44) and (45) were presented during the Conference “Translating
Humor in Audiovisual Texts” held at the University of Salento, Lecce (November
29-December 2, 2011). Extract (45) was also the object of a discussion after the
presentation of a paper on the adoption of ELF variations in video-game scripts,
during the “ELF6 Conference”, held at the University of Roma Tre (September 4-
7, 2013).
36
The symbol “>” indicates that the boxes in the target version are enlarged to fit
the script size; the symbol “n” indicates that the target version positions the
balloons above speakers—due to the text size—whereas in the English version
they are positioned below them.
37
http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Baku_(Final_Fantasy_IX).
38
A similar syntactic structure is also identified in The Simpsons, for instance in
episode 2F03, during a parody of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (Shining, 1980).
When Homer hits Willie, the latter says, “Ahi! Nella schiena preso mi hai, dolore
mi fai!” (‘Ahi! In the back me you hit, pain to me you cause!’), where the
conventional syntactic construction of the Italian past tense passato prossimo is
changed by postponing the verbs hai and fai, thus turning mi hai preso (‘you hit
me’) and mi fai dolore (‘you cause pain to me’) respectively into preso mi hai and
dolore mi fai. Finally, also consider that the inclusion of the noun “dolore”
represents a diastratically-marked distortion of the Standard expression mi fai male
(‘you hurt me’), a further marker of Groundskeeper Willie’s disparaging
representation.
39
As for O’Chunks’s supposed nationality, see for example
226 Notes
http://www.mariowiki.com/O'Chunks; http://lillilotus.deviantart.com/art/Scottish-
O-Chunks-188011161; https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5419797/4/What-They-Did-to-
Us; http://nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/O'Chunks; http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/
O'Chunks.
40
The intertextual strategies of humorous construction of Lollipop Chainsaw were
presented during the Seminar “Testo interartistico e processi di comunicazione:
Letteratura, arte, traduzione, comprensione [‘Interartistic Text and Communication
Processes: Literature, Art, Translation, Comprehension’]”, held at the University
of Salento (May 20-22, 2013).
41
Extracts (51) and (52) were presented during the conference “Fun 4 All: II
International Conference of Translation and Accessibility in Video Games and
Virtual Worlds”, organised by the Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona (March 13-
14, 2014).
42
Looking for Alibrandi is one of the films selected for the “Cineforum” activity of
the Master Course in “Cross-cultural Linguistic Mediation in Immigration and
Asylum Domains” organised at the University of Salento. The “Cineforum” aims
at training future mediators, helping to identify in a selected list of films the
linguistic and socio-cultural features of the lingua franca variations migrants resort
to when participating in cross-cultural interactions.
43
The analysis is based on players’ discussions on online forums and on comments
on YouTube (http://www.it.namcobandaigames.eu/community/discussioni/perche-
tradurre-in-romano-i-dialoghi-di-lucciconio/year/2013/month/01/day/29;
http://theshelternetwork.com/ni-no-kuni-la-minaccia-de-er-re-de-fate/;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMqcQHNhYJg).
44
The analysis of the audience’s reception is based on the following websites:
http://www.dailyrando.it/showthread.php/357-Final-Fantasy-IX-in-italiano-o-
meglio; http://forum.gamesvillage.it/showthread.php?803693-PSN-Arriva-Final-
Fantasy-IX; http://multiplayer.it/forum/playstation-2-slim/93517-vera-fine-final-
fantasy-ix-9-a.html; http://forum.gamesvillage.it/showthread.php?872210-2-The-
Legend-of-Zelda-Ocarina-of-Time-3D-Topic-Ufficiale-USCITO!;
http://www.nextrl.it/forum/topic/15013-0257-super-paper-mario-pal/;
http://www.scavenger.ch/venom/forum/index.php?topic=7319.0.
45
As explained in the analysis of Tomak and Bellgarde’s utterances (Section 5.1.4
above), their original and Italian scripts are based on mispronunciations and lexical
and syntactic deviations. As for the English version, their lines are meant to play
on the foreign people’s language variation; the Italian version, instead, generally
resorts to the diatopic and diastratic variety of Barese, from Bari (Apulia) and its
surrounding area.
46
The Italian translation is pragmatically inappropriate (cf. Yule 1996), because it
is not consistent with the visual dimension. In fact, the man who is called Batman
is actually dressed like Superman, thus justifying the original reference to the latter
superhero.
47
Including Final Fantasy Origins, for the PlayStation System, and Final Fantasy
I & II – Dawn of Souls, for the Game Boy Advance System, both collections
containing Final Fantasy I and Final Fantasy II.
48
See note 47 above.
49
Including Final Fantasy Anthology, for the PlayStation System, which contains
Final Fantasy IV and Final Fantasy V; also including Final Fantasy IV: The
Complete Collection, for the PlayStation Portable System, which contains Final
Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy IV: Interlude and Final Fantasy IV: The After Years.
50
Including Final Fantasy Anthology, for the PlayStation System, which contains
Final Fantasy IV and Final Fantasy V.

Pietro Luigi Iaia - The Dubbing Translation of Humorous Audiovisual Texts-Cambridge Scholars Publishing (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Pietro Luigi Iaia - The Dubbing Translation of Humorous Audiovisual Texts-Cambridge Scholars Publishing (2015)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pietro Luigi Iaia - The Dubbing Translation of Humorous Audiovisual Texts-Cambridge Scholars Publishing (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Dubbing

By Pietro Luigi Iaia

This book first published 2015

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Copyright © 2015 by Pietro Luigi Iaia

ISBN (10): 1-4438-8038-8

Chapter One ................................................................................................. 9

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 33

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 49

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 61

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 79

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 125

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 155

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 189

Appendix A ............................................................................................. 197

Appendix B.............................................................................................. 203

References ............................................................................................... 209

INVESTIGATING AUDIOVISUAL TRANSLATION

The label “audiovisual translation” (AVT) includes the various forms

specific techniques according to the level of knowledge of foreign

become part of the corpus to be explored at the time of adapting the

1. Book Rationale and Objectives

organisations of experience (labelled as: “scripts”, “frames”, or “schemata”),

(i) films, TV series and TV shows characterised by humour, where

will focus on the translation of a multimodally constructed humour by

(iii) to discuss the results of a questionnaire on the empirical-

The structure of this book is meant to present first the theoretical

This chapter focuses on audiovisual translation, and dubbing in

1.1 The Introduction of Dubbing in Italy

economic and political (or ideological) factors. Originally, the addition of

1.2 The Language of Dubbing: Dubbese

strategies. In particular, it is supposed that Italian translators resort to

1.3 Technical Issues of Dubbing

(i) visual presentation—verbal signs;

Therefore, the acoustic presentation needs to match with the visual

(i) quantitative lip synch;

Though separated, synchs (i)-(iii) are “interactive”, namely they should

1.4 Game Localisation

to be based on the cognitive construct of the implied audience. This

Transcreative scripts are commonly acknowledged as more creative

(1) English script Italian script Backtranslation

Extract (1) above exemplifies the partial semantic type of equivalence:

1.5 Equivalence in Audiovisual Translation

conveying a sort of “super-interpretation”, “passed off as the objective text

(i) what does the author mean by the text?

The questions above identify the fragmentation of meaning reflected

sense of what is communicated. When reading a text, in fact, even in their

(i) semantic equivalence (the original and translated texts are

The semantic dimension, hence, should be integrated with the lexical

of their additions and changes to the original characteristics, so as to avoid

7 Suspected Criminals Who Got Themselves Caught via Facebook

1.5.1 Pragmalinguistic Equivalence in Audiovisual Translation

(namely, the same pragmatic value) of original texts.16 In order to achieve

(i) translators identify the original values and preserve their

generally not consciously aware”, and helps “to reproduce a dominant

[…] through analysis [… the] connections between properties of texts and