3.2.1 General and technical norms for subtitles
There are essentially two kinds of norms in subtitles: norms concerning the expression and content of subtitles and norms that have to do with technical considerations. For example, as the time and space for subtitles are limited, certain alterations are inevitable, such as condensation of the translation. I shall now discuss such strategies in more detail.
In addition to varying density and level of condensation, Pedersen (2011: 73 74) mentions that it is generally accepted that retention, omission, substitution of cultural items, generalization and specification can be used as subtitling strategies (see also section 2.2).
Following and commenting on Chesterman (1998, as cited in Pedersen 2011: 212 216), Pedersen presents and discusses norms specific for subtitles:
the source and target texts have the same function the content of the translation is reduced (condensation) the text type remains the same with structural alterations
the style is reduced (less stylistic features, such as alliteration, rhetorical tropes and register)
there is little or no source-text revision subordinate status to the source text
acceptable language variant: “good native style” (layman view that is not necessarily shared with individual translators)
In addition to general norms described above, Pedersen (2011: 130, 214 216) presents the following technical norms for subtitles. Some of the norms presented below were discussed in section 2.1. For example, the number of lines and characters, time and space, are limited:
Expected reading speed: the speed in which the reader is expected to read a subtitle.
This is measured by the average number of characters per second of exposure time Subtitle density: the number of translated subtitles measured by the number of subtitles per minute. These are measured by the number of subtitles divided by the length of the target text in minutes
Condensation rate: The quantitative differences between the source text and the target text presented as a reduction rate between the languages
Translation not localized Translation not matched Restricted space
Limited time.
Naturally, density may vary and some subtitles are more condensed than others. As examples, Pedersen (2011: 138) mentions that the density of subtitles varies between different genres.
The dialogue in television series, for example, tends to be denser than in film subtitles. The development of electrical cueing used in subtitles also tends to reduce the need for condensation (ibid: 146).
As far the actual structure of the subtitles is concerned, it is therefore evident that subtitles are condensed, syntactically restructured and stylistically diminished translations that are being created under limitations both in space and time.Furthermore, the structure and conventions in subtitling vary between countries and especially between countries that have national traditions either in subtitling or dubbing.
3.2.2 International subtitling norms
National subtitling norms are increasingly challenged by international standards. The use of specific template files with inherent norms has made it possible to work more quickly and efficiently. This has resulted in subtitling norms becoming more uniform internationally (Pedersen 2011: 179). It should be noted, however, that Pedersen studied the development and differences and similarities between subtitling standards in Swedish and Danish subtitles thus concentrating heavily on the Scandinavian region. As for international differences, Pedersen (2011: 150) noticed that there are particular technical differences between subtitling and dubbing countries: in dubbing countries, subtitles tend to reproduce more of the original dialogue. Furthermore, the expected reading speeds tend to be higher, less condensation in used and subtitles are denser than in traditional subtitling countries (see above for technical norms in subtitling). According to Pedersen (2011: 210 211), this could be due to imported Anglophone subtitling norms. Traditional dubbing countries also tend to, at least presently, favor subtitling solution that adhere more closely to the source culture owing to the traditional lack of exposure to Anglophone culture. According to Pedersen, these differences are waning as norms are likely to become more unified in the future both in both technical terms and in terms of content.
It is therefore obvious that subtitles that are perceived as good or less appropriate have to do with both national and international traditions. In the following section, I will present findings aimed at defining what is expected of good subtitles in general terms.
3.2.3 Definitions for good subtitles
In section 2.2, I examined various strategies to be considered in the subtitling process. These strategies and subsequent practical choices have obvious bearing on the perceived quality and success of subtitles. Strategies and recommendations vary and there have been attempts to construct internationally applicable guidelines for optimal subtitles. For example Karamitroglou (1998) offers a wide and extensive list of recommendations concerning the layout and the duration of subtitles as well as notions concerning punctuation and letter case.
According to Ivarsson and Carroll (1998), subtitles should, among other things, be coherent and self-contained entities that take into consideration idiomatic and cultural nuances.
Subtitles should also be semantically straightforward and the register should be appropriate and corresponding. Such lists, particularly the one provided by Karamitroglou, are quite extensive and cover a wide variety of considerations, such as idiomatic and cultural nuances, structure, grammar, duration, correlation between image and the editing process. What is also noteworthy of these two particular normative lists is that both attempt to give international recommendations that would be applicable across Europe. However, the practical application of such recommendations, at least in their entirety does not seem feasible. As Suojanen et al.
(2015: 87) point out, people are used to how things are in their own culture and such harmonization could be contested if viewers would be required to adjust their viewing habits as a consequence. There are further difficulties with these recommendations as some items on the list do seem problematic, especially if designed to be adopted internationally. For the purposes of this study, my aim is not to present such extensive lists in minute detail. Rather, the examples mentioned above serve to illustrate the difficulties of providing guidelines that would take every possible aspect into consideration, especially internationally as cultures and languages with distinct characteristics can vary greatly (for further subtitling guidelines, see e.g. the BBC guidelines, Vertanen 2007 and Georgakopoulou 2009).
In spite of the various difficulties described above, some interesting notions have emerged from various writers concerned with good quality in subtitles. These notions include the following:
The language register must be appropriate and correspond with the spoken word. The language of the subtitles should be grammatically correct as they serve as model for literacy (Ivarsson and Carroll 1998: 157).
A translation should yield the intended interpretation without exposing the audience to unnecessary processing effort (Gutt 2000: 107).
Professionals need to provide viewers with the shortest possible subtitles and spare them unnecessary shades of meaning that hinder the process of image reading (Hajmohammadi 2004).
Subtitles are said to be most successful when not noticed by the viewer. For this to be achieved, they need to comply with certain levels of readability and be as concise as necessary in order not to distract the viewer’s attention from the programme (Georgakopoulou 2009: 21).
When the subtitles are synchronized with rhythm, picture and sound, there is an illusion of understanding when the viewer might not even acknowledge reading a translation at the same time (Vertanen 2007: 132–133).
They should be effortless to process: subtitles are inserts that have to be processed through the visual channels. This makes it more difficult to relax and enjoy the program (Georgakopoulou 2009: 21).
Reading subtitles is different from other conventional reading practices. Any presence of complicated language or details that require specific attention can be a source of distraction or be missed entirely (Tuominen 2012: 272).
Subtitles should be concise and understandable at one, immediate glance (Tuominen 2012: 272).
[S]imple, easily readable subtitles where the words are not too obscure or too innovative, and language that does not deviate too far from a standard register (Tuominen 2012: 280).
Based on the views described above it would appear that subtitles considered of good quality are concise, immediately understandable without effort, uncomplicated devoid of excessive innovation and deviations from standard language i.e. as “invisible” as
possible. To this could be added optimal segmentation and synchrony (see Di Giovanni 2016). Consequently, it would therefore be logical to claim that what could be considered erroneous in subtitles would be the opposite of the views stated above. In other words, errors could be perceived as items and solutions in translations that hinder the “effortless invisibility” of subtitles. In the next section, I will discuss translation errors both in general terms and in the case of subtitles.