Riassunto analitico
This research is based on audio-visual translation’s greatest paradox. It is no denial that audio-visual translation, in its many different shapes and forms, is ubiquitous. Every day more and more content is enjoyed all over the world thanks to screen translation. Yet, the research on such a wide area of study is still limited and little unanimous if compared to classic Translation Studies. What this means is that we are still facing a great deal of confusion that has arisen from such lack of homogeneity because many are the scholars that ventured into giving their own proposed definition of what audio-visual translation is and what it englobes. In fact, almost 60 years after the introduction of the first examples of screen titles, there is no general consensus yet on what audio-visual translation and subtitling are. In addition to confusing and multi-faceted audio-visual and subtitling theories, we also have different subtitling conventions and a clear and uniform practical approach to subtitling seems to be missing. This inevitably means that different scholars have proposed their own set of conventions and strategies. It therefore appears necessary to clear up some of the confusion around such areas. This is possible by proposing a new definition of what subtitling is based on the many definitions outlined. In order to achieve this purpose, I decided to gather some of the most significant interpretations of the two disciplines and then follow a definition-based approach that has culminated in a new broader definition which included the key elements of the scholars’ proposed illustrations. What I have learned from this step is that a new evidence-based definition of audio-visual translation and subtitling is rather long and still remains multi-faceted. More research and further examination of the main theories is needed to come up with a better and more summarising founding theory.
If the research on audio-visual translation and subtitling appears extensive (yet lacking uniformity), the same cannot be said about documentary features. In fact, particularly staggering is how limited the research is when it comes to theories that inform the practices specifically adopted in the audio-visual translation of documentary features. Naturally, some of the overarching theories and strategies of Translation Studies and audio-visual translation apply, but specific, in-depth studies on this area still lack. This means that professionals of the industry are somewhat blind, still missing clear guidelines on how to approach this particular area of their field of study. Contrary to the first problematic, whereby many different theories are available, here it appears necessary to experimentally try to propose a new theorisation and evidence-based approach to the subtitling of documentary films. This is possible by outlining what bibliographical theories and strategies have informed the subtitling of the translation-specific and technical challenges arisen from the chosen documentary clip. I had no choice but to base my findings on the subtitling of the clip, given the scarcity of literature on this field. Only then I tried to theoretically define the translation of audio-visual products such as documentaries. What I have learned from this second step though was that documentary features are usually treated as written texts that are read out loud and therefore some of the most common theories and subtitling conventions usually apply. If anything, given the text typology, documentary features often make use of technical terminology which may give rise to thorny translation-specific challenges. It goes without saying that more research and further examination of the background cinematographical nature of documentary features is necessary to produce a better and more overarching theory of the subtitling of documentaries.
|
