The findings presented in the previous section indicate that any problematic instances in AV products, whether dubbed or subtitled, tend to pass unnoticed and are, broadly speaking, trusted. Since the reception of AV translations has received relatively little attention in translation studies, the study conducted by Tiina Tuominen (2012) is of particular interest.
Her study and conclusions are heavily relied on in my study and I find it particularly essential to compare my own results to this preceding study that could be thought of as a pioneering project.
For her study, Tuominen observed informants divided into three groups based on the level of familiarity with AV translation. The informants observed a cinematic film and discussed it afterwards. It should be noted that Tuominen did not investigate the perception of errors in particular. Rather, she investigated the general process and processing strategies of AV products. I will introduce some of her findings as these are of particular interest in my own study. Henceforth, informants not identifiable as experts in AV translations or translation in general will be referred to as “non-experts” and subjects more familiar with translation as
“near-experts.”
According to Tuominen (2012: 295 296), non-experts tended to concentrate on personal reception strategies and the authority of the subtitles was relied on. As for any problems in the subtitles, the non-experts tended to name things that were problematic for themselves, not generally speaking. Any findings included individual phrases and expressions with very little suggestions for improvements. One of the most striking discoveries with non-experts was that, in one of the two groups, none of the informants had noticed any errors and were unable to mention any examples even when specifically invited to do so (see Tuominen 2012: 228).
Tuominen (2012: 231) mentions that viewers that are not particularly familiar with subtitling often discuss subtitles in a critical light. It is, therefore, noteworthy that such views were not particularly strong in non-expert groups in her study. Tuominen (2012: 198) does, however, acknowledge the possibility of “response-bias,” which means that the informants would be
inclined to behave “diplomatically” towards the researcher present in the discussion, but as she states about one of the non-expert groups, the overall tone of the discussion was not solely negative. These findings would suggest that overall criticism is not as pervasive as believed to be.
As for the near-experts, a group consisting of translation students, the answers were often significantly longer and more analytical with some critical comments and suggestions for better translations. Unlike the non-experts, the near-experts in Tuominen’s (2012) study also commented and analyzed translation problems in general, not necessarily those problematic for themselves. They had more general view of translation issues and could contemplate on any potential problematic instances for people in general. For example, some translations were seen as too formal or too colloquial for the context. There were also some comments on overall stylistic choices and source text interference as well as suggested improvements.
Other comments included considerations for the everyday reality of translators working in the industry, such as working conditions and restrictions in time and available space. Despite the differences mentioned above, the overall reception strategies, as concluded by Tuominen (2012: 293) did not, in fact, differ significantly between near- and non-experts.
According to Tuominen (2012: 272), the reading process of subtitles tended to be cursory, superficial, automatic and dictated by the pace of the film. As a result, the viewers’ attention was not attentively focused on the features and characteristics of translation. As a result, the recollection of subtitles can be difficult afterwards. She also states that much of the criticism expressed during the discussions was aimed at the film itself, not the subtitles (2012: 284).
This is not necessarily surprising, as viewers of any kind could aim at comprehending the film and its message without necessarily paying considerable attention to minor details especially when not invited or instructed to do so. Furthermore, according to Tuominen, both near- and non-experts mentioned often the same parts of the film and the subtitles (Tuominen 2012:
301).
According to Tuominen (2012: 281 285), it was difficult for the informants to point out any problematic solutions without prompting. However, the particular cinematic subtitles were not of particularly poor quality containing only one evident error. Despite this, her observations do suggest that viewers do not necessarily form strong opinions about the quality of subtitles.
In all of the groups the attitude towards the quality of subtitles tended to be either neutral or cautiously positive with slight puzzlement and uncertainty over personal interpretations.
Concrete examples from the subtitles were difficult to point out and many problems appeared to be quite negligible as many details of subtitles were either forgotten or overlooked.
According to Tuominen, it is easier to simply follow a film than to focus on subtitles errors as subtitles only form one part of the multimodal whole. Due to multimodality, close attention would prevent from following the rest of the film.
These findings suggest that subtitles are disposable products that do not, on average, evoke specifically strong sentiments in one direction or another. According to Tuominen 2012:
284), much of the criticism was directed at the film itself rather than the subtitles. According to Tuominen (2012: 240), the reading of subtitles was “accidental” and rather superficial.
It is of course possible that all informants, both more and less familiar with translation, confined themselves to observing a product they are simply unfamiliar with. A film already seen could potentially enable them to overlook the whole and concentrate on details even when not specifically instructed to do so.
Whether this was the case cannot be ascertained, but the tendency not to question the subtitles was also evident in the amount of actual quotations from the film. According to Tuominen (2012: 127), quoting the subtitles is a sign of trust as the translated words are treated as original words with authority. As for actual quotes from the film, the discussions in one group of non-experts contained approximately ten quotes in Finnish and five in English (Tuominen 2012: 177). The other non-expert group had over 20 quotes in Finnish, 15 in English and four quotes could be regarded as mixtures of the two (Tuominen 2012: 242). In other words, Finnish was more often quoted by non-experts than English. Even though not all Finnish quotes were entirely accurate with variations between the two non-expert groups, both languages had obviously been noted and Finnish subtitles were seen in “serious light,” not merely as a derivative text. As for the one near-expert group in Tuominen’s study, it was remarkable that the general quoting pattern did not differ from non-experts to a substantial degree: the quotes contained approximately 20 quotes in Finnish and 15 in English. Even though the near-experts quoted English more often in relation to Finnish and, according to Tuominen, comfortably quoted English and switched languages whenever suitable, the English quotes were relatively short consisting mainly of “keywords.” In other cases, they often quoted Finnish (Tuominen 2012: 213 214). These observations of “homogeneity” are an important consideration for my own study: can such differences truly be as negligible as indicated by Tuominen’s study?
The quoting patterns brought forward potential problems and errors: albeit the quality of the translation was appropriate, the subtitles did not escape criticism altogether. For example, unconventional solutions attracted attention and were a possible source of confusion. In particular, the use of unidiomatic Finnish was regarded as striking even if such instances were technically and grammatically correct (Tuominen 2012: 279). Such unidiomatic translations could potentially be seen as errors but they could not be universally regarded as such. The test situation may also have affected such perceptions, as the situation was not entirely natural and the informants were not aware of the precise purposes of the study.
Based on the findings discovered above some deductions of potential translation errors can be made: it would appear that particularlyunconventional solutions andunidiomatic language attract unwelcomed attention in subtitles. Such features could be seen as particularly pervasive translation errors in subtitles. It remains to be seen whether my study will yield similar results. In the following chapter, I will introduce the material and method of the present study.
5 Material and method
This study observes the perception of the subtitled Finnish translation of an American animated film The Beast with a Billion Backs (the Finnish title of the film is Moniniskainen Monsteri, which means roughly ‘a monster with many necks’; the film will henceforth be referred to by its English title). The material was chosen on the basis of the perceived lack of quality of the translation. With this questionable quality in mind, the purpose is to discover the nature of perceptions made by informants in the course of a relatively casual viewing experience. Some of the informants were more familiar with AV translation than the others.
The study is qualitative. Hirsjärvi et al. (1997: 164) provide a list of features that can be inherent to a qualitative study. According to their guidelines, as could be expected in the case of human-centered study, the study allows the informants’ “voices” to be heard and the study brings forward unexpected information not dictated by any moderator and entail a multiple and detailed analysis of the material thus obtained. This approach seems more ideal as opposed to conducting a quantitative study. In the case of qualitative study, the “living rhythm” allows to see personal differences and human interaction more closely, and it is these free opinions and views that are of interest in this study. As Hirsjärvi et al. (1997: 161) mention, the point of departure in qualitative study is the description of real life containing the idea that the reality is diverse.
The study was conducted as a focus group study involving a combination of structured questions and open conversation with the lead of myself as the moderator. Since the perception process of AV products is naturally very subjective and lively, this method proved its usefulness.