Individual profiles of the non-experts

In addition to these general findings, I now present the individual profiles of the informants in more detail in order to highlight their personal differences and similarities and the general atmosphere during the discussion more extensively. I will conclude this chapter with an overview of any potential translation issues raised by the discussion and I present the estimated quality of the translation as perceived by the informants in the group.

Informant A

Informant A was particularly talkative during discussion and had a seemingly positive attitude toward the film and the entire situation. She found the film relaxing as it did not necessitate any particular cognitive processing, and she did not appear to possess a particularly analytical frame of mind as, in her opinion, it was not necessary to take it seriously. This rather casual attitude could also explain the fact that, despite several obvious problematic instances in the subtitles, she found the language simple and concise and believed that this simple language and phrase structure would help in preventing errors in translations. Many observations made by her included extra-linguistic elements of the film, such as action on screen and the apparent lack of ethnic accentuation of characters. She claimed to have poor memory and could only see the film as a whole. Consequently she was unable to recall any particular erroneous instances even though she did claim that there were instances that bothered her.

One character that was referred to as Bigboots was seemingly the only proper example of something unusual that she could recollect after prompting. This sensation of having seen problematic instances and yet, on the other hand, believing that animations do not contain a substantial amount of errors in general does seem somewhat contradictory. She also mentioned the fact that she did not know what to look for and consequently her attention was not fixated on any particular factor of the multimodal experience. Despite this, her attitude towards Finnish subtitles was apparently trusting and accepting.

Informant B

Informant B was another of the two particularly active participants in the discussion. She was the first one to comment on the film and made her negative views extensively known. The viewing experience had apparently been particularly unpleasant for her and she was very critical of the film itself as a whole concerning the content, execution and general position as entertainment. She stated that she hated films such as the one seen and was disappointed to learn the nature of the film to be observed. Even during viewing B displayed signs of boredom and inattentiveness: she spent some time constructing an ornament out of a piece of paper apparently in order to fight the monotony. As mentioned earlier, this could have even affected her perception and attentiveness. It was, however, interesting that she could point out an individual phrase in the original language (Sally in the alley) and discuss the translation and have an opinion of it. This could, of course, be the result of a coincidence and she could have been vigilant by chance when this particular instance happened to appear.

Furthermore, B claimed not to be a particular consumer of AV products in general. She claimed not to watch television and claimed to do other things on her free time. In fact, she extended her negative views to any viewers of such films as the one seen and could not understand the general appeal that some people have for them. She utilized external reality as a means of justifying the very existence of such a product: since they exist and are being distributed in society there has to be market and fans for films such as this.

The fact that the informants were not by any means instructed as to what to look for during viewing was apparently particularly annoying for B. As shown above in section 7.3.1, she presented an extensive list of possibilities and was seemingly frustrated during the discussion for not having been able to concentrate on anything particular. She claimed to have initially tried to concentrate on all of these aspects and having given up eventually. She mentioned that means of noting down observations would have been helpful, since, in accordance with A, she could not, in her own opinion, recollect many instances. As for any particularly memorable instances, whether positive or negative, she could recollect mainly extra-linguistic instances either by herself or when mentioned during the discussion, such as amusing or annoying individual scenes, for instance shooting lasers irritating her eyes, or the general communicational reality between characters.

Despite such strong negative sensations, B did provide some insight into the discussion. For instance, she mentioned that the subtitles were sometimes apparently quite fascinating: they allowed to see how certain source language expressions had been translated into Finnish. She was also aware of the fact that certain expressions only exist in certain languages and transferring such meanings is not always effortless. Perhaps the most noteworthy claim made by B was that, in her opinion, the film had been appropriately translated. Since it was apparent, based on reasons stated above, that she had not observed the film with particular attention and had a notably negative and reluctant stance towards it, this evaluation should be approached with caution. For instance, her claim of the use of informal language in the subtitles could not be seen as particularly accurate as the subtitles did not, for instance, attempt to simulate colloquial register and it is therefore not certain what she intended to communicate with this observation. However, her claim of apparently sufficient quality of the subtitles did not evoke any noticeable reactions from other informants and was consequently quietly accepted without visible contest. This would suggest that the quality of the subtitles was not seen as particularly problematic.

Informant C

Informant C was more passive during the discussion compared to A and B. On many occasions her contributions were silent gestures of approval to other peoples’ comments.

When prompted as to whether there would have been something that would have remained unclear, she commented that one should have to be familiar with the series (my question did not specify whether the informants should comment of the subtitles or the film as the intention was to discover whatever comments the informants could think of). Her comment seems to suggest a rather passive stance towards any attempt to make sense of the film.

Apparently she understood the question to be aimed at the film itself. She made no comments about anything linguistic having remained unclear. According to her, even without subtitles the main points would have become clear. Perhaps some jokes would not have been understood.

Despite this, C was the most successful in naming particular instances that she had found troublesome. She mentioned the suicide-booth scene and the incorrect translation as well as the English words Mom and Bigboots retained in the Finnish subtitles (see examples 17, 18

and 19). She agreed to a view suggested by D according to which the subtitles were less vivid than the original dialogue. In general, she could not think of anything particular worth criticizing in the subtitles and expressed signs of passive acceptance.

Informant D

Informant D could be regarded as the least active member of the group as she remained relatively passive throughout and mainly offered views only when being prompted to do so.

Like other members of the group, she did not have anything particularly extensive to offer and, like C, did not seem to be particularly concerned of not understanding something. She mentioned that certain elements not necessarily essential to the plot of the story, such as screaming do not have to be included in the subtitles. As for potential errors in subtitles, she apparently had not perceived the quality of subtitles particularly poor and contended to point out that there are sometimes misspellings in translations. She could not, however, mention any examples of such instances. Secondly, the translation of this particular film was not, according to her, particularly lively. She suggested that it lacked imagination and creativity, to which C agreed. As an example, D mentioned the seemingly uninviting translation of the rather colorful exclamation Sally in the alley first mentioned by B. She found the general quality of the translation acceptable and did not have, apart from this one rather isolated instance, anything in particular worth criticizing concerning the subtitles or the film in general.