THE TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES
CONTINGENT ON CULTURAL FILTERING IN SUBTITLING FROM
ENGLISH TO CHINESE
Jian Li
University of Macau, China
[email protected]
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
They affect the result of the translation;
They are classified by comparison with the original;
They affect micro-units of text;
They are discursive and contextual;
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
(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
Cf. 討厭又不能沒有
(2) Oh, yes, f--k you very much!
討厭鬼！
(3) Nurse: They call it Mexican Measles.
Dentist: (jokingly) Mexican Missiles?
Nurse: Mea--sles.
- 他們叫那是墨西哥麻疹
- 墨西哥導彈？
- 麻疹
Cf. 哦，對了--- 去你媽的！
Cf. - 他們叫那是墨西哥麻疹
- 墨西哥導彈 (Missiles)？
- 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: 498512.
[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.