7.4.1 The group discussion
The group consisted of three persons. Initially there were supposed to be a fourth informant but I was unable to contact the fourth person. The uneven numbers between the groups will be discussed later.
As was the case in the non-expert group, none of the informants claimed either to have seen the film or to have read my Bachelor’s Thesis. All three informants claimed familiarity with Futurama in general. Apparently this familiarity allowed the informants to understand the general “world” ofFuturama as certain expressions uttered by characters and certain general aspects of the series appeared to be familiar. The film did not seem to cause particular amusement: when asked whether anything amusing had taken place, the informants gave only
very short responses and no extensive comments were given. The informants E and F mentioned that they saw certain scenes as amusing, but they were unable to name any examples. G agreed to this and mentioned that even the Futurama-series is not especially funny.
As for any unpleasant instances, the initial comments and opinions were largely similar to non-experts: the first unpleasant instance, mentioned by E, was the vomiting of one of the characters. E found it nauseating and confusing as it reminded her too much of actual vomiting. F, on the other hand, mentioned that sometimes some jokes seemed too underlined.
He did not mention anything linguistic but seemed generally frustrated over the perceived
“force-feeding” or “hammering” of jokes that could be understood without difficulty. In other words, the humor was apparently too explicitly expressed. No examples were pointed out from the film.
When asked whether there was anything that remained unclear, the opinions of the near-experts did not significantly differ from those expressed in the non-expert group: G found the plot somewhat confusing and he was not sure whether the film had an actual, advancing plot.
This created silent signs of approval from the others. As a potential explanation, G doubted his own concentration and consequently did not directly blame the film for being of low quality. Informant E never expected the film to be in any way clear or logical. She did, however, mention one particular scene taking place in an underworld known as Robot Hell.
The sudden appearance of such a scene was confusing to E. Similarly to G, she doubted her own concentration and was not sure whether this particular scene referred to something that had already taken place earlier.
The first perceived errors in subtitles were first mentioned after the third question: did the subtitles assist in understanding the film? Informant E mentioned the retained English word Mom discussed already among non-experts (see example 18) whereas G mentioned a scene where Bender, a robot character, walks into a room after having been absent and says:
Example 20.
Speaker Original Translation
Bender Don’t ask where I was last night. For all you know, I was at home, perhaps baking
a strudel.
Älä kysy missä olin viime yönä. Kaikki mitä tiedät on että olin kotona. Leipomassa
ehkäpä rinkeliä.
According to G, there was a phrase that caught his attention and he quoted in English the words for all you know. He could not remember the exact translation, but the translation apparently had contained something questionable. The idiom had indeed been translated incorrectly.
The original phrase for all you know suggests that Bender does not want to reveal his whereabouts on the previous evening and utters a hypothetical suggestion as to what he had been doing. It is, at this point, known in the story that Bender has joined a secret organization, which explains his rather mysterious behavior. The Finnish translation ‘kaikki mitä tiedät’ of this phrase is rather literal and could be back-translated asall that you know.
It is apparent from earlier events in the film that Bender had not been at home. But the English expressionfor all you know can be associated with something being true. The Finnish translation does not convey this hypothetical eventuality and seems to claim strongly that Bender’s friends firmly believe that Bender had been at home instead of somewhere else. This assertiveness introduced by the translation could be seen as problematic and disturbing in the viewing experience.
Another problematic instance in the subtitles was brought forward by E: in one scene, the characters are being harassed by an octopus-like monster from another dimension. Leela, a female character, notices that Professor Farnsworth has been captured by the monster and has a tentacle attached to the back of his head. Leela warns others this by shouting:
Example 21.
Speaker Original Translation
Leela It got the professor. Minulla on professori.
According to the translation, Leela, and not the monster, has got the professor. E was able to remember this problematic scene quite well. Indeed, this would appear to be an outright error (caused by misinterpretation of the text) and it would be difficult to find any justification for such a solution.
Any potential absence of subtitles was not, according to the informants’ own words, particularly problematic in the group. As the informants were students of English and translation, their knowledge of English could reasonably be expected to exceed that of average viewers. Consequently, such views are not particularly surprising. E would express tentative preference for the presence of subtitles, since, according to her, there had not been any instances that she would not have understood and believed that subtitles helped to understand the film. F mentioned that he could not think of a scene that would have remained unclear. He appeared to be rather passive and indifferent of not having understood something because of faulty subtitles and he mentioned further that he understood some scenes simply by listening to the original language. This could possibly indicate that there had been problematic instances in the subtitles that could have been overcome by simply ignoring them. In addition, these views did not evoke any particular reactions from the others.
The specific question presented by me at this point was whether there had been any instances where the subtitles would not have been helpful. In addition to the rather mild reactions stated above, E did mention a scene where subtitles were indeed not seen as helpful: the translation contained a retained English word.
E mentioned the scene where robots emerge from a volcano and a sign that reads Mount St.
Hellhas been translated as Pyhä Hell-vuori (see example 7 reproduced here for convenience).
Example 7. Partially retained English
Original Translation
Mount St. Hell Pyhä Hell-vuori
Informant E remembered that some kind of translation did exist. Indeed, the Finnish translation does not seem particularly fluent and idiomatic: it is a rather peculiar mixture of English and Finnish. E remembered in particular that the word Hell had been present in both the original sign and its translation. When asked, she said that it was perhaps disturbing that the sign had been translated in the first place.
After this, G mentioned that there had been a wordplay somewhere that he had noticed, but could not retrieve. After this, E mentioned another scene with yet another problematic expression. At first, E simply recalled a scene where the head of the former president of the United States, Richard Nixon, meets two professors at the White House. E recalled that what was said during the exchange in the Finnish subtitles was somehow problematic. F agreed to this and appeared to remember a problematic instance as well. At this point I, as the moderator of the discussion, mentioned the wordpoindexterit present at the scene. Both E and F agreed actively. The actual words used in the scene by Nixon were as follows:
Example 22.
Speaker Original Translation
Nixon Now look here, you poindexters.
Katsokaapa nyt, senkin poindexterit.
As can be seen, the English word is retained and simply adapted by adding the vowel i to the end of the non-existent Finnish adaptation (poindexteri). Oxford English Dictionary defines poindexter as an American English slang word: ‘An overly diligent student, an extremely intelligent person; (also) a person lacking in social skills.’
The broad meaning of the word could potentially be deduced from the context, but perhaps not without difficulty. It should be noted, however, that both E and F agreed that the word poindexterit did not clarify anything and was apparently remembered as a result. F suggested further that the word could have been omitted altogether. This created silent approval from the others.
My following question was whether there had been any differences between the original text and the subtitles. Initially there was a moment of silence in the group, then E remembered a scene introduced above where Bender mentioned the word strudel translated as rinkeli,
‘bagel’ (see example 20). This, of course, is only a minor issue, but E had managed to remember the instance. As another example she mentioned theIt got the professor scene once more (see example 21). There were no noticeable reactions from the others.
F inquired whether this included all potential errors. In response to this, I asked openly whether there were any errors in the subtitles, albeit, as also noted by G, these had already been under discussion. Despite this, E mentioned another error: during one scene, the English word Cameroonianwas translated as kameronialainen (see example 14). The correct Finnish word is ‘kamerunilainen’, as also mentioned by F. Informant E used the word kameronilainen. This is, of course, a minor deviation from the actual error and, in any case, the erroneous instance had been noticed by E.
One alleged case of inconsistent terminology in the subtitles was mentioned. According to E, the English word anomaly was translated as ilmiö and on another occasion asanomalia. She was not certain whether this would constitute an actual error, but she admitted that such use of different equivalents is inconsistent. This was met by signs of agreement from others. I examined the film and I was unable to locate an instance where the word anomalia would have been used, but in one scene I noticed the use of the Finnish adverb anomaalisesti (irregularily, abnormally):
In example 23, Fry is in the grips of the alien monster and tries to persuade his friends to embrace the experience by being compassionate towards the monster. He says:
Example 23.
Speaker Original Translation
Fry Only when the space
anomaly opened, could it finally express a billion years
of longing.
Kunnes avaruus aukeni anomaalisesti, se pystyi viimein osoittamaan miljardin vuoden kaipuunsa.
By space anomaly Fry means an unusual rupture in the sky that has existed throughout the film. The Finnish translation also refers to something that opens in an unusual manner.
Therefore, this translation is technically correct even though the Finnish adverb anomaalisesti could sound cryptic for some viewers. It would therefore appear that there was in fact no reference to ilmiö asanomalia. The wordsanomaly andanomalia simply sound alike.
After the previous exchange, I prompted the informants to think of anything other to say concerning the subtitles, be it positive or negative. As a result, two particular observations were made: first of all, F mentioned a scene, reminded by the mentioning of anomaly-translations, that anomaly had once been translated as ilmiö when necessitated by wordplay, to which E seemingly agreed. F could not remember the exact words used, but he recalled that the Finnish wording had, according to him, the same idea. The exact words in the context were as follows:
A group of characters is approaching a rupture in the universe on a spaceship. The rupture is a spectacular electric sight that can be found very awe-inspiring. While being impressed and staring into the anomaly, Bender makes a stating remark, followed by Amy:
Example 24.
Speaker Original Translation
Bender The anomaly. Ilmiö.
Amy It’s so anomalous. Se on niin ilmiömäinen.
Whether this is an actual wordplay in the true sense of the word could be contested, and a more appropriate Finnish translation for anomaly would be, for example, poikkeama.
Consequently even the success of the translation could in fact, at least in theory, be questioned, even though the translator may have prioritized something creative as opposed to proving an accurate translation. This is the only instance, in either group, when the translation is actually mentioned to contain a successful solution whether the solution could be deemed as such or not.
Secondly, E made a particular striking remark on the quality of the subtitles: although she found them to contain occasional oddities,she would not deem the overall quality no-good.
More remarkably, the other informants did not react to these claims in any particularly noticeable manner.
Furthermore, despite previous notions of questionable solutions, E commented that the subtitles did not deviate from what was said in the original text. This could lead to suggest that she could not, beyond certain individual instances, criticize the translation as a whole.
Again, there were no noticeable protests from the rest of the group.
Despite these initial comments and apparent lack of resistance to them, G added that occasionally some of the translations seemed too literal, to which others apparently agreed silently. When prompted, G mentioned having noticed several expressions even though he was unable to mention any particular instances. F added that he had a similar feeling, but when prompted he could not think of any particular wordings, either. He merely had a vague recollection of a scene involving one of the characters, a space captain and a cabin. This presumably referred to an actual scene where the captain escapes a space monster with two ladies and they hide in a cabin. F had noticed something which could simply not be recalled.
When I examined the scene later, I could not think of an instance where there would have been particularly literal translations as the subtitles of that particular were not, in my opinion, particularly problematic. Therefore it was difficult to ascertain what F referred to in his comment. It is possible that he would have noticed a problematic instance elsewhere and transferred this issue to an unrelated scene. In any case, F apparently had a sensation of something too literal being present somewhere in the subtitles, which apparently occurred in the vicinity of the abovementioned cabin-scene. It would be merely speculative from my part to give any further suggestions as to what the instance or instances could have been. Other members did not noticeably react to or comment these discoveries.
The next question was inspired by the earlier group discussion with non-experts and this particular question was exclusively presented to near-experts. I asked the group how they would have felt if they would have had a pen and a piece of paper for noting down observations. This eventuality did not appear to raise noticeable support from the informants:
E replied that there would be so many potential aspects to consider and the viewing process could have been interfered. Other members seemingly agreed to this and G added that the situation would not be real and, according to F, the informants would seize to be viewers and would become researchers or critics. However, E did briefly consider a potential benefit in the ability to note down observations: they would be fresh in memory.
Despite this apparent benefit, my initial decision not to instruct the informants, in either group, was based on the assumption brought forward by F and G. The aim of the study was to
maintain an atmosphere that would simulate an actual, casual viewing situation as much as possible. The principal purpose of the question was to discover whether the near-experts would share the view expressed in the non-expert group. It became apparent that near-experts believed that noting down observations would be artificial.
To conclude the interview, I asked whether anyone had anything further to add. After initial silence, E repeated her earlier comment on the generally acceptable quality of the subtitles.
She deemed the quality to be “quite okey” but mentioned the retained wordMom once more.
Interestingly, G raised the question of the translators working conditions: has the translation been made by simply following a text? Has the visual tape not been available at all? He mentioned thinking of a scene he could not retrieve and mentioned that if the visual material had not been available to the translator during the commission, translations could not be done properly. Other members of the group did not react in any particular way to these views, which seemingly are a contradiction to earlier claims of the translations’ acceptable overall quality. E would enlist once more the wordMom andpoindexterit as reminded of the latter by F.
As final comments, the subtitles were, once again, deemed acceptable. More specifically, F compared the usual quality of subtitled DVD-films and, according to his assessment; the general quality did not stand out in particular and could be seen to be of average level. G agreed that the subtitles of this particular DVD represent usual quality in DVD-subtitles. He did not specify further as to how he perceived this “usual” level, but evidently the translation did not stand out in his mind as particularly problematic, even though the quality could actually be rated as poor (see chapter 6).
E apparently could not neither fully agree nor to disagree with opinions presented by F and G.
She mentioned that she often watches films on NetFlix, an internet-based film site. She apparently compared the quality of the translation of the film to those she had observed on Netflix and could not really decide her stand whether the translation of this particular film would be inferior or superior to those AV translation she was most familiar with. In spite of this indecisiveness on this particular occasion, she did claim earlier that the overall quality was acceptable, although it contained minor oddities. The concluding impression concerning the general quality of the subtitles was that the quality, as a whole, could be seen as acceptable and not rejected while not being particularly complemented either.
7.4.2 Individual profiles of the near-experts
As in the case of non-experts, I will present the individual profiles of the informants in the near-expert group.
Informant E
Informant E is a 29-year old female and the only female in the group. She had claimed in the questionnaire that she did not normally pay particular attention to subtitles. She mentioned that she mainly views subtitled programs online through NetFlix. Interestingly she placed the Finnish wordvirheet (errors) in parentheses. The reason for this is not known, but this seems to suggest a relatively casual attitude toward subtitle errors in general.
Despite this claim of not attributing much attention to subtitles, informant E was particularly talkative during the discussion and the most successful in pointing out problematic instances.
She had noticed retained English words in particular, such as Mom and Hell and the rather unidiomatic, semi-retained word poindexterit, which she found confusing. She also noticed certain incorrect translations.
Despite her findings she did not, eventually, deem the quality of the subtitles noticeably poor
Despite her findings she did not, eventually, deem the quality of the subtitles noticeably poor