Proceedings - Translation Concepts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MuTra 2006 – Audiovisual Translation Scenarios: Conference Proceedings Minako O’Hagan Perego, Elisa (2005): ‘Subtitling, line segmentation and reception’. Paper given at Between Text and Image: Updating Research in Screen Translation conference. 27 October 2005. Forlì, Italy. Quah, Chiew Kin. (2006): Translation and Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Roturier, Johann (2004): ‘Assessing Controlled Language rules: Can they improve performance of commercial Machine Translation systems?’ In Proceedings of 26 th Translating and the Computer Conference. London: Aslib. Somers, Harold. (2003) (ed.): Computers and Translation. A translator’s guide. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sager, Juan. (1994): Language Engineering and Translation: Consequences of automation. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Vermeer, Hans, J. (1992): ‘Describing nonverbal behaviour in the Odyssey: Scenes and verbal frames as translation problems’. In Poyatos, Fernando (ed.): Advances in Nonverbal Communication. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 285-330. Wolf, Mark J. P. & Perron, Bernard (2003): ‘Introduction’. In Wolf, Mark J. P. & Perron, Bernard (eds): The Video Game Theory Reader. New York - London: Routledge. 1-24. 110
Christopher Taylor (Trieste) EU-High-Level Scientific Conference Series MuTra 2006 –Audiovisual Translation Scenarios: Conference Proceedings “I knew he’d say that!” A consideration of the predictability of language use in film Contents 1 Film Language 2 Genre 3 Predictability 4 Concluding remarks 5 References Abstract This paper is based on three essential premises, Firstly the language of film must be regarded as an entity in itself that can be shown to differ, often appreciably, from the spontaneous, authentic discourse of everyday talk. Secondly, language can be categorized in terms of genres, subgenres and ‘genrelets’, each of these subdivisions containing a sufficiently recognisable number of compulsory and optional linguistic features (see Halliday & Hasan 1989) as to be identifiable as distinct entities. Thirdly, following logically on the first two premises, it is possible in some circumstances to predict film language use with a reasonable degree of accuracy, even to the extent of being able to propose strategies and techniques based on the work carried out in the field of translation memory. All of this is to be seen in the light of research activity aimed at refining the strategies involved in screen translation. The methodology proposed is based on the predictability of textual occurrences and frequencies in particular scenarios. Research in Trieste has recently concentrated on the language associated with particular scene types, especially in relation to the multimodal nature of such text. This has firstly involved work on identifying scene types in a range of films by dividing each film into discrete units as they unfold on the screen, for example (1) restaurant scene 04.19 - 04.45 > (2) public row 04.46 - 05.10 > (3) marriage proposal 05.10-06.15 > return to restaurant (Moonstruck, 1987: Reiner). Secondly specific scene types have been isolated and extrapolated from all the films in the sample and studied together. This methodology has enabled us to confirm predictions about language use in particular situations, a concept supported by the theoretical considerations of such linguists as Sinclair (1991) in terms of corpus linguistics and Hoey (2004) in terms of his ‘priming’ hypothesis (see below). Serendipitously, this work has also led us to distinguish the truly original film, that ‘declares its distance’ like any work of art, from the more mundane variety. Indeed, predictability values differ greatly between the extremes of the artistic and the popular. This has important implications for the translator, particularly the subtitler whose need for precision may compete with stylistic, semantic or aesthetic considerations. On the other hand, more ‘run of the mill’ productions could even be candidates for a sophisticated kind of translation memory tool. The paper will report on findings thus far. © Copyright 2006-2007 by MuTra 111
Page 1 and 2:
Marie Curie EU High Level Scientifi
Page 3:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I: Multiling
Page 6 and 7:
MuTra 2006 - Audiovisual Translatio
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Eduard Bartoll (Barcelona) Contents
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Lena Hamaidia (Sheffield) EU-High-L
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
3 Marked Structures MuTra 2006 - Au
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Scene 2: I know Sign Language MuTra
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65: MuTra 2006 - Audiovisual Translatio
Page 70 and 71: Stavroula Sokoli (Athens) EU-High-L
Page 78 and 79: EU-High-Level Scientific Conference
Page 96 and 97: I would like to raise five issues:
Page 126 and 127: Francisco Utray Delgado (Madrid) U-
Page 152 and 153: EU-High-Level Scientific Conference
Page 162 and 163: Sabine Braun (Surrey) Contents EU-H
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
6 The accent of the voice MuTra 200
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
show all

Proceedings - Translation Concepts

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?