Production process of audiovisual translation and its relation to quality

greatly differ from each other. Comparable results on subtitling guideline differences were discovered by Lång (2013), as he studied the guidelines set by the most prominent subtitling suppliers operating in Finland, such as Yle, SDI Media, Pre-Text and MTV Media. Despite the similarities in the guidelines, the subtitling quality of those suppliers is considered very different: for example, Lång (2013: 51) presents Yle as the supplier that is “known for the quality of the subtitling it broadcasts”, whereas Netflix‟s subtitling has been under scrutiny since it launched its services in Finland (Jansson 2012, Pseudonym U 2012). However, Netflix has made continuous efforts to improve the quality of subtitling on its content, by implementing internal guidelines to ensure quality (Netflix2, Netflix3) and tests, such as HERMES, to ensure the translators‟ language skills are at a professional level (Netflix5).

Therefore, it is important to discuss other differences between subtitling suppliers to examine which of those differences could possibly affect the quality of subtitling. Abdallah (2012) has studied the production processes of AV translations from the translator‟s viewpoint. In Abdallah‟s (ibid.) study, it was concluded that the way a translator is assessed as a part of the process can be linked to the subtitling quality, especially when evaluated through subtitling errors. This subsection discusses the subtitling production processes and how they have been studied in relation to subtitling quality.

As mentioned earlier and expressed by Lång (2013: 52), translators are still usually considered as the sole culprit of translations errors found in subtitling. However, producing subtitled programs involves many other actors in the process than solely a translator; the most prominent being considered as the commissioner (broadcasting network), the translation company, and the translator (Abdallah 2007).

19 In Finland, the subtitling industry is primarily divided into two sectors: public and private (Abdallah 2007: 272). In the public sector, represented nowadays mostly by Yle, the broadcasting network has their own in-house translators with the addition on freelancers, whereas in the private sector, a broadcasting network outsources their translation needs to a detached translation company. One of the often discussed differences in public and private sectors (see Abdallah 2012, Lång 2013), is the compensation translators receive from their work and expertise. For example, on the public sector Yle has agreed to adhere to the Yhtyneet agreement, which guarantees adequate compensation for AV translators and sets other guidelines to ensure the translators‟ working conditions are reasonable (av-kääntäjät.fi 2012). However, on the private sector, it is argued that as broadcasting networks provide an increasing number of content that requires subtitling, the competition between translation companies for clients and the amount of production increases with it, which in turn is causing the decreasing of compensations freelance translators receive of their work (Lång 2013: 51, Abdallah 2012). Lång (ibid.) further argues that this causes the decline of subtitling quality, as decreasing compensation causes the professionals to abandon the field, and the remaining translators are left with the intensive pressure to try and handle the increased work load while being underpaid. Another difference between the public and private sectors is how the translators are employed. Generally speaking, the Finnish public sector, Yle, has its own in-house translators (150 in-in-house translators in 2013) with the addition of freelance translators, whereas on the private sector, the translators work mostly as independent freelancers (Lång 2013). Lång (ibid.) explains that this means that on the public sector, the translators are able to interact with each other, yet on the private sector, the translators work mainly independently. Understandably, the in-house translators working under the Yhtyneet agreement can be considered more involved in the production process compared to the freelancers, as the in-house translators are a constant part of the production with less intermediate actors between them and the commission. Abdallah (2007: 273) further expresses that the translators working for Yle have a solid position in Yle‟s organization and are therefore able to influence the processes and deadlines more and negotiate an adequate compensation for their work. However, the freelance translators working in the private sector have more intermediate actors between them and the commission, which consequently causes there to be more opinions on the quality requirements, thus complicating the quality criteria standardization when quantity is valued over quality (Abdallah 2007: 273). The subtitle production processes were further studied in Abdallah‟s (2012) doctoral dissertation, where the conclusion was that the translators‟ poor working conditions, i.e. long production chains

20 and poor compensation, negatively affected the subtitling quality, as the translators have less time and resources to properly apply their expertise.

Subtitling quality differences between in-house translators and multinational translation companies have been studied by Palosaari (2016), using episodes of the British soap opera Emmerdale as an example. In Palosaari‟s study, episodes translated by the in-house translators of the show‟s broadcaster in Finland, MTV, were compared to episodes translated by Broadcast Text International‟s freelance translators after the translation production was outsourced. In the study, Palosaari (2016: 79–81) came to the conclusion that the number of translation errors discovered from the episodes translated by in-house translators had fewer translation errors than in the episodes translated by the freelance translators. In reflection to the studies on subtitle production processes and their relation to subtitling quality (such as Abdallah 2007; 2012) the studies indicated that the production processes and the translators‟ working conditions would have an effect on the subtitling quality (Palosaari 2016: 80).

Because Netflix can be considered a broadcasting network, and relatively large one at that, it is not trivial how the production of subtitling is handled. When Netflix first launched its services in Finland, it received questionable publicity when it was discovered that some of the subtitling was illicitly acquired from DivX Finland, a fan subtitling site (Pseudonym U, 2012). After the negative publicity, Netflix moved to more appropriate subtitling providers, BTI Studios and SDI Media, with BTI Studios earning the title of being Netflix‟s „preferred vendor‟ for „timed text and originals localization‟ (BTI Studios). The interesting aspect of the preferred vendor title in the context of this study is that the title list

„timed text‟ and „originals localization‟ separately, evidently referring to subtitling and subtitling Netflix Originals as different from subtitling non-Originals. This would imply that Netflix would treat content that requires subtitling bought from other networks and content produced by Netflix differently. As one of the main focuses of this thesis is to study whether the subtitling quality of the non-Originals is different than the Originals, this apparent separation made by Netflix is rather notable. If the assumed separation is true, it would then imply that the subtitling production process of the Originals would be treated differently from the subtitling production process of the non-Originals on some aspects.

However, whether BTI Studios is the only subtitling provider to Netflix cannot be claimed, as Netflix does not appear to disclose that information even when requested (Mäkelä 2016). In his article, Mäkelä (2016) explains that even though Netflix listed translators in Wired magazine as an important actor in gaining global success, the wage level

21 is still under question, as it is suggested that especially freelancers would receive payment as little as under three euros per content minute from their work. In the article on Wired (Greenberg 2016), it was reported that in order to ensure the subtitling quality on Netflix‟s first Original talk show Chelsea, the translators went through strict screening to ensure that the jokes would be adequately translated. Chelsea aired three times a week and was broadcast worldwide in the streaming service, in other words, new episodes would be added to Netflix‟s content library three times a week simultaneously in the countries Netflix is available, only one day after the episode was filmed. To ensure the subtitling was of good quality, 5,000 translators were tested to ensure that the jokes, idioms and „cultural jargon‟ would be well-translated to their target audiences (ibid.). Greenberg‟s (2016) description of the process gives good indication on the subtitling process in this particular case: first, the filmed content went through a voice-recognition software and generated a rough transcript of the show, the transcript was then cleaned up by an editor, noting idioms and current events necessary for the translators, and the script was translated by a team of three to six translators in each target language. According to Greenberg (ibid.), the entire process was done in about twelve hours.

Additionally, Greenberg (ibid.) suggests that in a normal situation, translating a feature film, for example, would take the team about a week.

On this basis alone, it could be argued that Netflix is well aware of the importance of good translation quality and its effect on the viewing experience, and thereby the subscription services‟ success. Netflix has further verified these suggestions with their introduction of HERMES, explaining that as the work of AV translators reach millions of people daily, the Netflix wishes to ensure that the quality of subtitling is at a level that preserves the “creative intent and [is] mindful of cultural nuances” (Netflix5). Therefore, it would be assumed that the translation quality would be well-monitored and regarded as worth the investment by Netflix. However, Netflix further explains that while they are able to influence the quality of subtitling by choosing their subtitling supplier, they cannot ensure that the supplier strives for the same standards on quality as Netflix (ibid.). Therefore, the subtitling production processes of the providing translation companies and how the processes should be improved remains an important issue to discuss.

The following subsection 2.1.4. will explain how subtitling quality can be examined through reception studies, and how the quality has been discussed to affect the viewing experience.

22 2.1.4. Viewers’ quality expectations and reception

With so many actors involved in the process of producing subtitling, the quality of subtitling cannot be discussed without acknowledging the viewer‟s importance. As the viewer is the one that requires subtitling as an aid to fully enjoy and understand content in a foreign language (Vertanen 2007b), the quality of subtitling is not insignificant, and neither should be viewer satisfaction. Especially with commercial providers, such as Netflix and the American movie industry (Remael 2010), the usability of a product and customer satisfaction would be expected to play an important role. The viewer‟s role is emphasized by James (2001: 152, discussed in Tuominen 2013), by stating that “[o]f all the clients, viewers and their expectations are the most important”. This is further reinforced by Chiaro (2008: 250, discussed in Tuominen 2013), noting that the “[e]nd users should not be enduring mere adequacy but have the right to expect top quality translations on TV just as they would expect tip top services in any other walk of life”, thus comparing subtitling to any product that has been produced for a purpose. With the long tradition of subtitling foreign content in Finland, it could be expected that the viewers would have their expectations on the quality of subtitling, as discussed in subsection 2.1.2. of this thesis. This is further supported by Mäkelä (2016), by reporting that people can be unwilling to watch foreign content with poor-quality subtitling, as even though the translation errors may not be noticed by the viewer, but if the message is conveyed inaccurately, the whole viewing experience can be negatively affected by poor translation decision and poor language. This subsection discusses the reception studies executed on audiovisual translation and how the results of those studies can be used to discuss viewers‟ expectations on subtitling quality.

The quality of any product can be determined on the basis of how well the product serves its purpose. Therefore the purpose of subtitling must first be defined, as was done in subsection 2.1.1. of this thesis. From there, we can conclude that the main purpose of subtitling is to work as an aid for the viewer to be able to follow the plot of the show, and to ensure that the viewing experience of the subtitled content is as similar as possible to watching the show without the need of subtitling (Vertanen 2007b). Added conventions and practices are designed to ensure the readability of the subtitling, so that the subtitling would appear invisible to the viewer, thus creating an illusion that the viewer understands the original dialogue (ibid.: 151). To create that illusion, the subtitling should not draw unnecessary attention to itself; instead the focus of the viewer should stay on the original audiovisual content (ibid.), or as Tuominen (2013: 31–32) further states: “subtitles are not the

23 primary objective of the viewing experience but a facilitator for understanding, and if they demand too much of the viewer‟s attention, they can have a detrimental effect on the entire experience”. To ensure this „natural flow‟ (Tuominen ibid.) of subtitled content, the subtitling should adhere to the conventions of Finnish language (Immonen 2005: 166), so that the viewer does not need to try and decipher the unnecessarily difficult message while simultaneously trying to keep track of the original plot.

The amount of support viewers require from the subtitling cannot be objectively studied, as the individual viewing experience is always dependent on the viewer‟s background (Tuominen 2013: 117). English language is widely studied in Finland, and thus, as a sizable portion of the programs subtitled for Finnish viewers is in English, both on Netflix and on the

„traditional‟ broadcasting networks, i.e. channels, most of Finns can therefore understand at least some of the original linguistic elements (Tuominen 2013: 67), thus being able to possibly notice the erroneous subtitling. However, whether or not the translation errors are noticed from the subtitling by the viewer, should not be the only criterion on evaluating subtitling quality, as errors in any product affect the product‟s usability regardless of their noticeability. In Mäkisalo‟s (2012) study, it was discovered that a problem in a translation that is most often noticed by the viewers were problems concerning the captions‟ timing issues.

This could arguably suggest that the false information caused by mistranslations would remain unnoticed by the viewers, still possibly affecting the viewer‟s experience (see, for example, Vehmas-Lehto 2005). For that reason, it could be further argued that translation errors have an effect on the viewing experience regardless of their visibility to the viewers, and therefore all errors in subtitling should be taken into account when evaluating subtitling quality. However, the noticeability aspect cannot be overlooked, as not only does the error‟s visibility affect the visibility of the subtitling, the noticeable errors are also the ones viewers mention when discussing subtitling quality (Heikkilä 2014, discussed in subsection 2.3.).

One way to examine the quality of subtitling from the viewers‟ standpoint is via reception study. As can be understood from the term, a reception study is used to determine how the subject of the study, here subtitling, is received by its audience. Tuominen (2013) has studied the execution of reception studies for audiovisual translations in her doctoral dissertation, where many concepts as well as possible problems regarding them are discussed.

However, the expectations viewers have on subtitling quality may not be uniform, as there is a number of variables present in the process of reception (Tuominen 2013: 54–55). In her dissertation, Tuominen mentions two strategies in executing a reception study: institutional and statistical. The institutional reception strategy refers to studies that are executed via the

24

„gatekeepers‟, referring to non-ordinary viewers, who are in an influential position to the distribution of the material, and are used to determine how well the translation would be received (Tuominen 2013: 53). The statistical reception strategy, in turn, refer to acquiring numbers on the distribution of translated material and reading habits, to formulate statistics and abstract scenarios (ibid.). In other words, the statistical reception strategies are used to collect data that can be generalized for a larger public to create theories on the reception of audiovisual translations. Even though these strategies may not provide comprehensive information on the ordinary viewer‟s viewing experience on their own, Tuominen (2013: 55) suggests that by combining the two strategies, important information can be acquired to generalize the reception of subtitled content by creating a general impression on what aspects the ordinary user requires from the translation, and thus creating a general picture of the viewer‟s reception and then using other empirical means to determine how well this general picture is represented in the research material. Furthermore, as Translation Studies cannot be considered as an exact science, rather often segments of foreign language can be translated in various ways, yet all of them correct and of good quality (Toader 2007), personal opinions and backgrounds can affect both the translation process and the viewing experience.

Therefore, to conduct a study to determinate the quality of subtitling without a focus group, as is done in this thesis, can be difficult, yet not impossible.

Reception studies have been applied to examine how translation errors are noticed by viewers by, for example, Mäkisalo (2012). In his study, Mäkisalo (ibid.) discusses that translation errors often go unnoticed by viewers, if they match the picture or the plot.

However, as mentioned earlier, a large portion of the content subtitled for Finnish viewers, both on Netflix and on the „traditional‟ broadcasting networks, is in English, most Finns can therefore understand at least some of the original linguistic elements (Tuominen 2013: 67), thus, the Finnish viewer is able to possibly notice the potential erroneous subtitling. As Netflix, like many others, only offers one version of subtitling for Gilmore Girls instead of multiple options based on individual viewer‟s language skills, the assumption is that it should be able to supply an acceptable quality of translation for all viewers regardless of their comprehension of the English language. Therefore whether or not a translation error is noticed by an individual does not mean that the error is insignificant, as another individual may very well be able to notice it. Furthermore, even if the error is not noticed in the translation, it does not necessarily mean that it has no effect, as it can still hinder the understanding or cause confusion and draw attention away from the show (Vehmas-Lehto

25 2005: 64–69). Thus, this MA Thesis will not only focus on the errors viewers would notice, but all the errors found in the subtitling.

Tuominen (2013: 56) further presents two levels on conducting empirical research: micro and macro. On micro-level, the translation can be studied through specific instances, such as humor, to determine how the viewer reacts to those elements, and on macro-level, the reception situation is studied as a whole (ibid.). Tuominen mentions that while these levels investigate very different aspects of a translation, still combining elements of the two is common in research. How the levels can be combined is explained next.

As mentioned, micro-level research studies the translation through specific instances to investigate how the audience reacts to them instead of studying the translation as a whole (Tuominen 2013: 57). These instances can vary from linguistic or stylistic choices to humor and to the subject of this thesis, translation errors. As an example, Tuominen mentions a study conducted by Chiaro (2007), where the difference in understanding translated humor were studied by comparing a British group viewing the original content in English and an

As mentioned, micro-level research studies the translation through specific instances to investigate how the audience reacts to them instead of studying the translation as a whole (Tuominen 2013: 57). These instances can vary from linguistic or stylistic choices to humor and to the subject of this thesis, translation errors. As an example, Tuominen mentions a study conducted by Chiaro (2007), where the difference in understanding translated humor were studied by comparing a British group viewing the original content in English and an