Accuracy errors

58

59 elements which can be left out from the Finnish subtitles if they do not contain any relevant information for the viewer were listed in Chapter 2.1. and place names and time adverbials, for instance, were included in this list (Vertanen 2007: 152–153). From this point of view, the elements omitted in examples 20–22 do not contain any relevant information for the viewer as the viewer can gather from the image and previous events, what or who is meant in the

subtitle. In example 20, the viewer has already seen that Debbie brought a beautiful pink dress for her daughter which is obviously the thing she asks her daughter to wear, while in example 21, the discussion between Natasha and Debbie has been revolving around Mark throughout the scene. Also, in example 22, the viewer already knows that Paddy was supposed to tell Marlon about him and Rhona so it is quite explicit what should have been told and to whom even though the adverbial has been omitted. However, in examples 20 and 22 the object and adverbial are modifiers of the verb which means that according to the target language system they should not have been omitted. Also, with regard to unnecessary omissions, the space and time limitations have to be taken into account. When the number of characters and the pace of the dialogue are evaluated, these omissions are considered unnecessary. In all of these

examples, the number of characters is under 20 which would suggest that even if these are one-line subtitles consisting of 38 characters, there is enough space here to include the omitted elements. Even though in example 20–22 the omitted elements are basic sentence elements and modifiers of the verb, they are evaluated as minor errors. The omissions do not change the original meaning of the source text and they do not seem likely to have an effect on fluency or readability either.

Whereas examples 20–22 are not considered to have omitted relevant information that affects the meaning of the source text, example 23, on the other hand, represents an unnecessary omission that leaves out information that might be relevant to the viewer. In this example, John runs up to Paddy, the local vet, on the street to ask for a favour.

Example 23.

Speaker Source text Subtitle Translator

John I’ve got another delivery of sheep coming in the morning.

Can you come and have a look at them for me?

Voitko vilkaista uusia

lampaita? MTV

In example 23, time adverbial “huomenna” [the next morning/tomorrow] has been omitted.

The source text in example 23 indicates that John does not have the new sheep coming until

60 the next morning and he is asking Paddy to come and have a look at them when they arrive. In the subtitle, however, the part that indicates that Paddy should have a look at the sheep the next day has been omitted. The omission might lead the viewer to think that Paddy should go up to the farm right now. Though this translation leaves out an element that, to me, contains important information, it still retains the core essence of the source text. Thus, this error is also evaluated as a minor error. Still, there seems to be enough space to retain the time adverbial and thus, this is classified as an unnecessary omission. This particular example is a two-line subtitle consisting on average of 75 characters so there seems to be sufficient amount of space to include the omitted adverbial. Also, John’s original line is much longer than the subtitle and the subtitle lingers on the screen for quite some time as John is speaking. This might make the viewer wonder what else John is saying that has not been translated to the subtitle.

Conclusively, the accuracy errors arising from unnecessary omissions are evaluated as minor errors. Usually it is possible to gather from the context what has been left out but at times the omissions can contain some important information for the viewer as in example 23.

However, in my opinion, elements should not be omitted from the translation if the space and pace of the dialogue do not require it. As was previously mentioned, some translators might have a habit of condensing the target text even when there is really no need for it.

The second most common type of accuracy error is a meaning error. Meaning errors occur 14 times in the material. The following two examples are instances of meaning errors.

In example 24, Zak is sitting in the Woolpack when Derek walks in. In a hope of a free drink, Zak is pleased to see his mate.

Example 24.

Speaker Source text Subtitle Translator

Zak Good timing, it’s your round. Satuinpa sopivasti, kun sinä olit täällä.

BTI

In example 24, the source text sentence has been mistranslated. Zak’s line means that Derek walked in in a good time because it was supposedly, at least in Zak’s mind, Derek’s turn to pay for the drinks. The translation gives indications of the translator’s possible

misunderstanding of the second clause in the source text by interpreting that “your round”

means “you’re around”. In addition, Zak’s comment “good timing” refers to Derek having a good timing as Zak is nearly finished with his drink and needs a new one. Also, the

61 translation “kun sinä olit täällä” [as you were here] can cause confusion as Zak has already been sitting in the pub for a while before Derek comes in.

Example 25 is another representative of a meaning error. In this example, Cain is sitting in Natasha’s kitchen and having a sip of her wine when she walks in.

Example 25.

Speaker Source text Subtitle Translator

Cain Nice drop this. Very smooth. Putoilee kivasti. BTI

In example 25, the subtitle is a mistranslation of the first sentence. In this context, “drop”

refers to the alcoholic beverage Cain is enjoying but in the translation the verb “pudota” [to drop] has been used. The message of the source text has been slightly altered in the subtitle which causes the meaning error.

It was found that meaning errors do not always arise from mistranslations. More often the source text is translated in a way which could cause ambiguity and leave room for misinterpretations. Example 26 represents this kind of a meaning error. In this example Nicola is wondering why Mark wanted to use Jimmy’s haulage company to deliver something when he could have gone out to town to take them out himself.

Example 26.

Speaker Source text Subtitle Translator

Nicola Why don’t he take

them out himself?

Miksei hän vie niitä itse?

MTV

Jimmy Well, he’s paying us

double so who cares.

Maksaa tuplahinnan.

Some elements have been left out from the line in example 26 which can cause ambiguity in the reasons why Mark does not want to take the samples out himself. The translation of Jimmy’s original response might lead the viewer to think that Mark does not want to take the samples out because it costs him double to take them out himself. The source text implies, however, that Jimmy does not know or care why Mark does not take the samples himself as Mark is paying Jimmy double for the job.

62 At times, a meaning error can arise from incorrect word choices as well, as in

example 27. Justin and Leyla have just been talking about the custody battle between Justin and Leyla’s sister.

Example 27.

Speaker Source text Subtitle Translator

Justin He means everything to me. Tämä merkitsee minulle kaikkea. BTI

In example 27, the slight meaning error lies in the use of the pronoun “tämä” [this]. As Justin and Leyla have just finished talking about the custody battle, this particular pronoun can mislead to think that the custody battle means everything to Justin, whereas the source text specifically refers to Justin’s son by using the pronoun “hän” [he].

Surprisingly, the material included none of the “amusing” mistranslations that subtitles are famous for and, for example, are the basis of Paakkinen’s books

Yhdeksänmetrinen maasika – Käännöskukkasten parhaita (2003) and Agentti Appelsiini – Käännöskukkasten parhaita 2 (2005) and his website. It was found that meaning errors do not always arise from pure mistranslation but they can be caused by ambiguous translations or by the translator’s personal choices on what to include in the subtitle and what to leave out. At times it was also difficult to classify the errors. For instance, example 26 could have been classified as an unnecessary omission because the error arises from leaving out elements of the source text from the translation. Thus, a more explicit definition of what constitutes an unnecessary omission and what a meaning error had to be established in the course of the analysis. As a result, it was decided that the difference between unnecessary omissions and meaning errors is that even though unnecessary omissions might leave out elements of the source text that contain relevant information for the viewer, they still retain the core essence of the source text and do not have a negative impact on meaning, whereas meaning errors fail to convey the message or change the original meaning of the source text in some way. These kinds of errors which change the original meaning or content of the source text have

traditionally been regarded as the most severe type of errors (Vehmas-Lehto 2005: 53) and this evaluation does not differ from the traditional views. Meaning errors have a negative impact on meaning and they are evaluated as major errors.

The third type of accuracy error appearing in the material is an unnecessary addition.

These errors occur only twice and in both instances, the subtitle is complemented by an extra adverb which was not in the source text and did not provide any new or required information

63 and was, thus, classified as an unnecessary addition. The following example represents an unnecessary addition. Jimmy is recalling to his brother what his ex-girlfriend Kelly told him.

As Jimmy has recently had a bang on the head and lost his memory, he does not quite buy everything Kelly is feeding him.

Example 28.

Speaker Source text Subtitle Translator

Jimmy She said that we were meeting up before all this. Because of the kid.

Tapasimme

kuulemma ennen tätä kaikkea.

Puhuimme kuulemma lapsesta.

BTI

In example 28, the word kuulemma [supposedly] is unnecessarily repeated in the second sentence. The first sentence captures perfectly Jimmy’s mood and tone. He is rather doubtful about Kelly’s story and the word choice kuulemma lets the viewer know that. According to Kielitoimiston sanakirja (Kielitoimiston sanakirja: http://www.kielitoimistonsanakirja.fi, accessed 29 August 2016) kuulemma is often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement. The word is, however, unnecessarily repeated in the second sentence. The viewer already knows Jimmy has his doubts and it is quite obvious that this doubtfulness extends over the second sentence as well. Even though the addition in example 28 is unnecessary, it is, at the same time, rather harmless. Unnecessary additions and repetitions might annoy the viewer and more importantly, take up valuable character space that could be used to express something with a more relevant diegetic value. The addition does not,

nevertheless, have a negative effect on the meaning of the source text and is, in other words, evaluated as a minor error.