THE TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES CONTINGENT ON CULTURAL FILTERING IN SUBTITLING FROM ENGLISH TO CHINESE Jian Li University of Macau, China jamesli@umac.mo Abstract: Translation technique is a significant index of subtitling quality, one that is particularly pertinent to translating culture-bound utterances which film dialogue abounds with. By drawing on Juliane House s functionalpragmatic model of translation evaluation (2001) and its foundation theory of translation as re-contextualization, this paper examines the most frequently used translation techniques as applied in translating those language-specific and culturally alluded dialogue segments in English films into Chinese, and identifies them as of mainly the realized procedures of covert translation by means of cultural filtering. These findings point to a pressing need for further investigation of the crucial role of the cultural filter operating behind relevant translation solutions in the subtitling process and its implication for subtitling quality evaluation. Key Words: subtitling, culturally bound utterances, translation techniques, covert translation, cultural filtering 1. INTRODUCTION Subtitling is an art of cross-cultural communication which involves complicated problem-solving owing to the linguistic and cultural disparities between the two languages involved, in addition to the technical constraints and the cross-medium shift. Film translators, by delivering written lines within limited time and space on the screen, find themselves constantly facing challenges of seeking the optimum equivalent effect in the target language to convey faithfully and tactically the communicative purpose or the pragmatic meaning of the original dialogue. In subtitling English films especially those dialogue-heavy blockbusters, various kinds of connotations and illocutionary functions (Hervey: 1998) behind English colloquialisms, humor, language-specific puns, culturallyalluded elements, and social or stylistic variations need to be treated and approximated into Chinese with special care and skill; otherwise, they could be disastrously missed out or misrepresented. In the case of Chinese-subtitled American movies screened or sold in DVD, it is not infrequent to spot translations of such meaning-laden or meaning hidden utterances that are either ingeniously creative or appallingly mistaken. In rendering those problem-prone items into the target language, one of the major causes that is attributed to the subtitling quality stems from the translation strategy that the translator adopted and actualized by means of translation techniques. A translation technique applied in a given context is the corollary of a decision made by a translator with translation strategy being the inducing factor, and the translation techniques that have been used to solve problems in a translation text are seen as evidence of procedures to analyse and classify how translation equivalence works (Molina & Albir, 2002). Thus, in evaluating a translator s artistry in terms of professional competence, such dynamic categories identified within particular contexts serve as a touchstone of the translator s right choices to strive for translation equivalence, especially of those culturally bound items, where a reflection of the translation quality is most telling. As a functional mechanism that affects only the way micro-units of the text are translated (ibid.), translation technique is
certainly a significant index of subtitling quality, one that is particularly pertinent to film translation with respect to translating culturally diverse and constrained meaning units which film dialogue abounds with. In this paper, I will first specify, from among a corpus of the subtitled films as mentioned above, the kinds of culturebound elements that frequently occur in English film dialogue, those which tend to give rise to translation problems. Next, I will review the issue of redefining and re-classifying translation techniques as opposed to translation strategies expounded in a dynamic and functionalist approach (ibid.), and examine its implication for the key conceptualizations of the overt vs. covert translation distinction, cultural filtering and re-contextualization, which are embodied in the functional-pragmatic model of translation evaluation (House, 2001, 2006). I will then focus on identifying and analyzing the translation strategies and the consequent techniques as applied to subtitling those culture-bound utterances to find out what are the most frequently-used translation techniques involved and their effectiveness. Finally, the place of cultural filtering in subtitling is expected to be confirmed as being a most useful instrument of capturing socio-cultural differences to achieve functional equivalence through an appropriate covert-translation-oriented technique. 2. CULTURE-BOUND UTTERANCES IN FILMS Language is contextualized within a given culture which determines the language delivered in speech or written forms whether to possess meanings universally shared or specific to the background linguistic usage, history, tradition, lifestyle, etc. Film dialogue simulates real-life conversation that is full of culturally specific information. In translating it for the audience in the subtitling mode, the written lines should bear the spoken style as well as the information as completely as the media constraints possibly allow. Obviously this poses double challenges to the translator when it comes to re-expressing in TL the utterances laden with culturally rich meanings. The subtitling art lies in encapsulating such utterances faithfully and creatively on the one hand and, within the temporal and spatial limits, captioning them with ease of reading and immediate comprehensibility on the other hand. The word utterance used in this context refers to any segment of film dialogue that is self-contained in meaning and should be translated as an independent sense group. It does not attach to any particular ranking of syntactic structure, be it a word, a phrase, a clause, a sentence or even an item at a level up. This is particularly appropriate for construing and rendering spoken language, film dialogue included, since the translation of which is based on the unit of intonation (Li, 1999). Dialogue lines in a film are carefully planned in that every word is meant to function in the multiple-semiotic system of the film media, towards the purposes of telling the story, advancing the plot, creating an illusion of life-like characters, or adding an illocutionary meaning for style, subtlety or entertainment. Most of the culture-bound utterances that are hard to translate are attached to linguistic variation or deviation, verbally expressed humour, cultural allusions and social specifics. Those language-specific expressions, such as slang, play on words and swearing, are also regarded as part of culturally unique items for deliberation in this context. Listed below are examples taken from some ten subtitled American movies, which command the translator s linguistic and cultural expertise and wisdom for the translation decision. I will only highlight the culture-bound elements and add notes under each line, leaving aside their Chinese translations for later consideration. 1. Can I buy a vowel? [This line was said in response to the elicited information about a club s sponsors and membership which is full of abbreviations.]
2. You $6.00-haircut loser [society: Six dollars is one of the lowest prices for a men s haircut in North America.] 3. Oh, yes, f--k you very much! [insulting and sarcastic pun] 4. We were up to our elbows in your underwear drawer. It was like touching the Shroud of Turin. [Biblical allusion: Shroud of Turin has been believed to be the shroud of Jesus, the cloth used to wrap his body when he was taken from his crucifixion.] 5. He's so dumb he thought that the Gettysburg Address was where Lincoln lived. [culturally-alluded pun] 6. Come on, go to the Affirmative Action Office to sue me! [social institution: for the speaker s racist talk] 7. Boxing coach: Is it sort of like Snap, Crackle and Pop / all rolled up in one big box? [referring to the Trinity] Pastor: You're standing outside my church/ comparing God to Rice Krispies? [Rice Krispies is a brand of breakfast cereal, made of rice grain. Krispies are marketed with the phrase "Snap, crackle, pop", which is supposed to be the sound made when milk is poured over them.] 8. - Are you a dentist? - Like a cop, a necessary evil. [a meaning-laden metaphor] 9. Inmate: Hey, Red, bump me a deck. Red: Get the fuck out of my face, man! You're into me for five packs already. [underworld slang] 10. Too much football without a helmet? Hah! Lyndon's line on Gerry Ford. [history: former presidents of the U.S., Lyndon Johnson and Gerry Ford] These lines exemplify various types of culturally bound and meaningful elements in film dialogue. Their frequent occurrence is where most culturally re-contexualized translation is approached. While far from being exhaustive, they represent and suggest five major categories of culture-bound utterances in films: (1) linguistic and cultural pun or humour; (2) reference to history, beliefs and literature; (3) slang and swearwords; (4) social realities: customs, facts and lifestyle; and (5) other cultural allusions. How translators tackle these utterances, by using what translation strategies and techniques, will be considered next. But it is necessary to clarify some key concepts and related theoretical issues first. 3. THE TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES AS COVERT TRANSLATION PROCEDURES The classification of translation techniques was initiated by Vinay and Darbelnet half a century ago. In the second edition of the pioneering work on their SCFA theories (Vinay & Darbelnet 1977), the linear set of translation strategies they proposed had grown into a comprehensive model characterized by the more detailed Direct-Oblique dichotomy covering seven translation procedures from the most literal to the most functional. In spite of the far-reaching influence of their model on the later developments found in other schools of translation theories, critical reviews of the former
would focus on its limitation of linearity and low-level shifts (Munday, 2001). Molina & Albir (2002) questions the confusion established by Vinay and Darbelnet between translation process and translation result. With special emphasis, the indiscriminate use of the terms strategy, technique, procedure and method in the translation context is guarded against and the relationship between translation strategy and translation technique is explicated at length. In their view, translation strategies are the procedures relevant to the translation process whereas translation techniques describe the result obtained (ibid.). It is translation technique, not strategy, that is tangible evidence of how translation equivalence is attempted in the translation process, and that is used for classifying different categories of translation tactics. Translation strategies, on the other hand, are the mechanisms used by translators throughout the whole translation process to find a solution to the problems (ibid.). Based on this distinction, they postulate a dynamic and functional approach to translation techniques, which have 5 basic characteristics, viz., 1. They affect the result of the translation; 2. They are classified by comparison with the original; 3. They affect micro-units of text; 4. They are discursive and contextual; 5. They are functional. (ibid.) A proposal of classification of translation techniques then follows, which defines 18 techniques including adaptation, amplification, discursive creation, modulation, reduction, substitution, transposition, etc. As it claims, the classification has been tested in the study of the translation of cultural elements in Arabic translations (ibid.). By clarifying the notion of translation technique and establishing a more functional and applicable classification of translation techniques than Vinay and Darbelnet s version, Molina and Albir s model has succeeded in enabling translation researchers and practitioners to gain new insight into different phases of translation procedures with a better understanding of how a translated text, in comparison with the original text, can be evaluated contextually in terms of the translation techniques used. By the same token, the functional equivalence achieved in translating culture-bound utterances in subtitling is evidenced by the choice of right translation technique. While the implication of Molina and Albir s dynamic and functionalist classification of the available translation techniques for subtitling is obvious and valuable, what operates behind, over and through the translator s decision-making of using translation techniques via re-contextualization as solutions to the translation problems deserves no less attention. In this connection, the conceptualization of overt vs. covert translation as the two types of translation strategy (Fawcett 2001:121) in the perspective of translation evaluation seems to be more relevant than other pairs of opposing translation approaches. House (1977, 1997) distinguished between two different types of translation, overt translation and covert translation, with the former defined as a case of language mention that is more straightforward, as the original can be taken over unfiltered (House, 2001). In overt translation, the translated text is strictly tied to the source culture, or sourceculture-bound. Covert translation, on the other hand, is dubbed as a case of language use, in which the translator tries to re-create an equivalent speech event that enjoys status of an original text in a new context (House, 2007). The translator re-creates this new context by the application of a cultural filter, with the goal for true functional equivalence (ibid.), that is, aiming at giving the target reader the impression that the text is an original and not a translation at all. Both overt and covert translation are outcomes of different types of re-contextualization.
Juliane House s functional-pragmatic model for translation evaluation, which was first proposed in the mid-70s, revised in the late 90s and developed to its maturity more recently (House, 2001, 2006, 2007), has not only presented itself to be a useful instrument for translation quality assessment, but also foregrounded its foundation theory on translation as re-contextualization, which is defined as taking a text out of its original frame and context and placing it within a new set of relationships and culturally-conditioned expectations (House, 2006). The translated text or the new text is further defined as being a text which is doubly contextually-bound: on the one hand to its contextually embedded source text and on the other to the (potential) recipient s communicative-contextual conditions (ibid.). The notion of a translated text possessing this double linkage is regarded by House (2007) as the basis of the equivalence relation and even credited to the conceptual heart of translation (ibid.). What sets the overt-covert distinction apart is therefore the fact that it is integrated into the theory of translation as recontextualization within which these and other related terms are explicated. Among those key concepts, thrusts out cultural filtering, the nature of which helps differentiate between a covert translation and a covert version (ibid.). Covert translation as a translation strategy opens the way to finding a suitable solution to a particular problem. As part of the translation process, the strategy applied leads to using different translation techniques, each being a resultant version of covert translation carried out. 4. TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES MOST FREQUENTLY USED IN SUBTITLING From the above discussion, I assume that translation techniques contingent on cultural filtering could be most suitable for resolving cross-cultural conflicts due to the media stress on transferring the language- and culture-specific elements in subtitling. Here are two examples to illustrate this point. Example 1 From a scene in Scent of a Woman, Frank, the blind Lieutenant Colonel, said to the girl he dances with: No mistakes in the tango, not like life. It s simple. That s what makes tango so great. If you make a mistake, get all tangled up, just tango on. Why don t you try? Will you try? It is hard to have the linguistic pun and humour in the dialogue expressed into Chinese through overt translation without confusing the audience. Translation 1 (Taiwan): 探戈裡無所謂錯步的 / 不像人生 / 它簡單, 所以才棒 / 要是踏錯步或絆倒了 / 繼續跳 / 何不試試?/ 好嗎? Translation 2 (Hong Kong): 探戈裏沒錯步 / 它簡單 / 不像生活 / 所以過癮 / 你如果出了錯 / 亂了步子 / 絆倒了 / 只管接著往下跳 / 你爲什麽不試一下?/ 試一下吧 Translation 3 (Beijing) : 跳探戈不会出错 / 不像生活中会出错 / 简单易学 / 所以探戈才这么棒 / 即使出错 / 搅得一团糟 / 只管继续跳下去 / 你为何不试一试呢?/ 试一下吗? The three subtitled versions sited above all chose to resort to covert translation strategy with the exception of the first segment, get all tangled up, in Translation 3, which is an example of overt translation.
Example 2 From a scene in Silence of the Lamb, Lector the cannibal, said to the FBI agent Starling: Nutrition has given you some length of bone, but you're not more than one generation from white trash... This is a case of translating cultural allusion. Again the three subtitled versions listed below seem to be after some functional equivalent for the meaning of white trash, except for Translation 3. Translation 1 (Taiwan): 雖然你衣食無憂地成長 / 你不外乎是個白種低下層的人 Translation 2 (Hong Kong): 你身體頗強壯 / 但始終窮困 Translation 3 (Beijing): 增加營養也許會讓你長大 / 可是在野外惡劣的環境中 / 也只能活一代 In my opinion, 來自南方的窮人 for this segment would be more functional and so have the best filtering effect resulted from covert translation strategy. According to the classified list of translation techniques as defined by Molina & Albir (2002), I propose that the procedural offshoot of covert translation find the following ramifications of translation techniques: 1. Adaptation: To replace a ST cultural element with one from the target culture ( cultural equivalent ) 2. Amplification: To introduce details that are not formulated in the ST ( explicative paraphrase ) 3. Reduction: To suppress a ST information item in the TT. It is in opposition to Amplification. 4. Discursive creation: To establish a temporary equivalence that is totally unpredictable out of context 5. Established equivalent: To use a term or expression recognized as an equivalent in the TL 6. Generalization: To use a more general or neutral term 7. Particularization: To use a more precise or concrete term 8. Modulation: To change the point of view, focus or cognitive category in relation to the ST (lexical or structural) 9. Substitution: To change linguistic elements for paralinguistic elements (intonation, gesture) or vice versa Most of these techniques can be broadly categorized as the outcomes of the procedures of paraphrasing or reformulation, where cultural compensation instead of cultural transfer takes place (House, 2001).
The following is part of the result of my application of the above classification to a corpus of subtitled film data. The purpose of this scrutiny is to categorize the translations of the culture-bound utterances in terms of translation techniques used. My findings show that most of the translations are of covert translation, although a number of over translation examples were also found. Note that only examples of the former category are listed below; and where there is an alternative subtitle marked Cf., it is followed by either a preferred version suggested by myself to the cited faulty translation, or alternatively, an erroneous translation from a different subtitled version of the same film. Space limited, back translations of the Chinese subtitles are not provided in this paper. 1. Adaptation (1) You re Mr.? 請問貴姓? (2) Can I buy a vowel? 怎麼都是縮寫? (3) Jack: They put it in my pocket! Lovejoy: It s not even your pocket, is it son? Property of A. L. Ryerson. 這外套根本不是你的, 對吧? 是萊爾森的東西 Cf. ( 注名 ) 萊爾森 (4) Boxing coach: Is it sort of like Snap, Crackle and Pop / all rolled up in one big box? 是不是有點像三種不一樣的薩其馬 / 都裝在一個大盒子裡? Pastor: You're standing outside my church/ comparing God to Rice Krispies? 你站在我的教堂外面 / 把上帝比做點心? (5) You $6.00-haircut loser! 你這只剃 6 元头的窝囊废 Cf. 你這個盡吃 30 塊便當的窮鬼 [Note that the cheapest boxed lunch is about NT$40 in Taiwan.] 2. Amplification (1) Alibi 不在犯罪現場證據 (2) - Are you a dentist? - Like a cop, a necessary evil. 就像警察, 人們不喜歡你可又少不了你 Cf. 討厭又不能沒有 (3) Too much football without a helmet? Hah! Lyndon's line on Gerry Ford. 哈, 詹森總統评价福特總統的话 3. Reduction (1) Come, go to the Affirmative Action Office to sue me 盡管去告我種族歧視 (2) l.q. of sloths and the manners of banshees 又蠢又囂張 4. Discursive creation (1) Stay cool 你真是個好人
(2) Oh, yes, f--k you very much! 討厭鬼! Cf. 哦, 對了 --- 去你媽的! (3) Nurse: They call it Mexican Measles. Dentist: (jokingly) Mexican Missiles? Nurse: Mea--sles. - 他們叫那是墨西哥麻疹 Cf. - 他們叫那是墨西哥麻疹 - 墨西哥導彈? - 墨西哥導彈 (Missiles)? - 麻疹 - 麻 疹 ( Measles) 5. Established equivalent (1) - Look, they re Viet Kong. - Good, that ll keep them busy. 很好, 那樣可以拖住他們一下 (2) a Catch-22 situation 不成功則成仁 (3) He knows as much about cars as a beauty queen 他懂車可謂情有獨鈡 6. Generalization (1) It is a Federal violation. 罪可不輕 (2) Costco 大超市 7. Particularization (1) Cable TV 第四台 [In Taiwan, there used to have 3 TV channels before cable TV channels were made available to the viewing public, who habitually call them the fourth channel.] (2) I ll move on. 我要繼續尋找真愛 [said by a heart-broken person being encouraged to seek new love] 8. Modulation (1) Be gentle! 別太狠 (2) Stop it. It s distracting. 我不能專心開車 (3) Son: I don t want to make the decision alone. Mom: No, you re not alone, sweetheart. 我們都支持你 9. Substitution (1) gradual student 研久生 [being despiteful and sarcastic] (2) A: What s the capital of Thai? B: Bangkok ( bang cock! ) [with a pretended punch at the A s private part] 打老二 What I have quoted above is but a small proportion of examples randomly selected from my research database for
analysis of subtitled films. Experimental as it were, it has pointed to at least a pressing need for further investigation that it is imperative to identify the categories of most resorted-to translation techniques in a more media-specific evaluation system. Even though integrated translation techniques are commonly seen in film translation with respect to problem-solving in a particular context, covert translation remains to be the main type of subtitling strategy in actual use which entails a set of effective translation techniques for dealing with culture-bound utterances. It is therefore significant to examine the role of cultural filtering in this context as regards how it actually works during the subtitling process and what parameters to be included in qualifying the procedure. 5. CONCLUSION According to Juliane House s TQS theories, source language text which calls for an overt translation can be more easily transferred across space, time and culture, but is marked by potentially problematic culture-specific elements. By contrast, a covert translation aims at being functionally equivalent, at the expense, if necessary, of Language/Text and of Register. As such, it can also be deceptive (House, 2007). Nevertheless, translating culture-bound utterances for subtitles calls for special procedures of re-contextualization. In most cases, covert translation is used for better results. The associated translation techniques functioning via cultural filtering have led to countless successful translations of the unique cultural items, most of which worked in the service of enlightening and entertaining hundreds of millions of viewers. Problems remain. Linguistics-informed evaluation model for the subtitling quality has been unheard-of. But at least we do hear clearly, at this point, the meaningful reminder being reiterated that [i]n evaluating a translation, it is essential that the fundamental differences between overt and covert translation be taken into account with functional equivalence as an incontrovertible criterion for translation (House, 2001). REFERENCES: [1] Fawcett, P. (2001) Linguistic Approaches. In Baker, M. (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press (authorized by Multilingual Matters Ltd.), 120-125. [2] Hervey, S. G. J.(1998) Speech Acts and Illocutionary Function in Translation Methodology. In Hickey, L. (ed.). The pragmatics of translation. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press (authorized by Multilingual Matters Ltd.), 10-24. [3] House, J. (1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. [4] House, J. (1997) Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Tübingen: Gunter Narr. [5] House, J. (2001) Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus. Social Evaluation. Meta, XLVI, 2: 243-257. [6] House, J. (2006) Text and Context in Translation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 338-358. [7] House, J. (2007) Models of Translation Criticism. (a Powerpoint presentation). http://www.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereiche-einrichtungen/sfb538/ [8] Li, Jian. (1999) Film Dialogue Translation and the Intonation Unit: Towards Equivalent Effect in English and Chinese. PhD thesis, Edith Cowan University, Australia. [also in 7 Microfiches, Call No. 378.242.LIJ, Edith Cowan University Library] [9] Molina L. & Albir, A. H. (2002) Translation Techniques Revisited: A Dynamic and Functionalist Approach. Meta, XLVII, 4: 498-512. [10] Munday, J. (2001) Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge. [11] Vinay, J. P. & Darbelnet J. (1977) Stylistique comparée du français et de l anglais. Paris: Didier. Georgetown University Press.