Note: This is the pre-print version of a journal article and

not identical with the published version.

Reference for published article:

Serenella Zanotti, “Observing translation norms in dubbed

audiovisuals: the case of vague language expressions”, in

Alessandra Molino, Serenella Zanotti (eds), Observing Norms,

Observing Usage: Lexis in Dictionaries and the Media, Bern:

Peter Lang 2014.

SERENELLA ZANOTTI

Observing Translation Norms in Dubbed Audiovisuals: The Case of Vague Language

Expressions

1. Introduction

In descriptive translation studies, translations are seen as the product

of norm-governed behaviour, norms being “the translation of general

values or ideas shared by a community – as to what is right or wrong,

adequate or inadequate – into performance instructions appropriate for

and applicable to particular situations” (Toury 1995: 55). In other

words, norms provide translators with indications as to which strategy

is more appropriate in a given circumstance to solve a particular

translation problem. They can be reconstructed empirically by

examining translated texts in search of regularity of behaviour, for

which purpose corpus linguistic methods have proved to be extremely

useful.

The translation problems that are under study in this paper are

caused by vague language expressions. Vagueness is a common

feature of everyday conversation that is frequently captured in

fictional dialogue (Carter/McCarthy 2006: 202; Biber et al. 1999: 115;

Quaglio 2009: 76-77). The translation of vague language may pose

problems for translators because languages have “different socio-

pragmatic norms and conventions for the appropriate deployment of

vagueness” (Terraschke/Holmes 2007: 198); differences are found not

only in the way they express vagueness, but also in the degree of

vagueness that is allowed in discourse, as well as in the functions

attributed to vague language items (Cutting 2007: 231; Overstreet

2011). The aim of this paper is hence to investigate how vague

language expressions are handled in dubbing translation and to

examine TV dubbing norms. In order to limit the scope of the study,

the analysis will focus on one type of vague language, namely general

extenders.

2. General extenders: formal and functional features

The term general extenders (Overstreet/Yule 1997) refers to a set of

multi-word units such as and everything, or something, and all that,

which often occur in clause-final position (Aijmer 2002: 223). Their

prototypical structure consists of a coordinating conjunction (either

and or or) followed by a noun phrase that includes a quantifier (all,

every, some), a generic noun (thing or stuff), and a comparative (like,

kind of). The range of variants for this collocational pattern is

nevertheless extremely wide and comprises long forms such as and

things like that as well as short, routinised forms such as or something,

and everything, and stuff (Aijmer 2013: 130). These have become

more frequent than their corresponding comparative forms in spoken

English (Biber et al. 1999: 116). Semantically, they do not have

independent reference, but rather serve to indicate that the expression

preceding the conjunction is not to be taken as precise or exhaustive

(Biber et al. 1999: 116). They are found in both spoken and written

registers, but are particularly frequent in informal conversation

(Carter/McCarthy 2006: 203).

Scholars are not in agreement as to how to best describe the

functions of these operators. In earlier studies general extenders were

mainly associated with the notion of vagueness and analysed as

category identifiers (Dubois 1992; Channell 1994), whose function “is

to cue the listener to interpret the preceding element as an illustrative

example of some more general case” (Dines 1980: 22). Recent studies

have put more emphasis on the interpersonal and affective meanings

of general extenders and on the functions they have in the interaction

(Overstreet 1999). According to Overstreet and Yule (1997: 250),

their role in spoken discourse is to function as “markers of

intersubjectivity”. As Overstreet (1999: 73) points out, general

extenders are used by speakers to establish rapport, express familiarity

and reduce social distance; they also mark in-group membership, as

suggested by Evinson et al. (2007). Overstreet (1999: 103) also makes

an important distinction between adjunctive and disjunctive forms:

adjunctive forms such as and stuff are used by speakers as strategies of

positive politeness to mark invited solidarity, whereas disjunctive

forms such as or something function as strategies of negative

politeness, as they serve to mitigate potentially face-threatening

speech acts such as directives, proposals, and suggestions (Overstreet

1999: 105). Other studies have nonetheless emphasised the difficulty

involved in trying to identify a principal function for these markers

owing to their semantic elusiveness and inherent multifunctionality

(Cheshire 2007: 188; Terraschke/Holmes 2007: 199), which makes

them all the more difficult to handle in translation.

3. Vague language as a translation problem

Cross-cultural differences need to be taken into account in dealing

with vague language in translation. According to Joan Cutting (2007:

231), the meanings of English vague language might not be fully

understood by speakers of other languages owing to differences in

“cultural habits as regards explicitness, politeness, cooperative

principles and speech act realizations”. Differences can also be

observed in the social function and status attributed to vague language

across linguacultures, and all of these factors are likely to influence

the treatment of these items in translation. Another problem is

connected with their being multifunctional and context-bound.

According to Channell (1994: 198), it is “apparently impossible to

describe their meanings independently of consideration of context and

inference”. Identifying the specific function played in the specific

context of occurrence by vague language devices is thus essential for

translators in order to adequately convey their meaning. However, it is

often difficult to identify a prevailing function, for expressions that

have one main function might simultaneously have others. Another

difficulty may derive from their being language-specific in both form

and usage; as Overstreet (2005 and 2010) points out, even though

many languages share identical or similar forms or word-formation

processes, there is no overlapping of functions and the conditions of

use are not the same.

It must be noted that the number of studies devoted to vague

language in translation is fairly limited. In regard to audiovisual texts,

Delia Chiaro (2000) observes a tendency to either tone down or ignore

vagueness in the Italian dubbed version of the film Four Weddings

and a Funeral. She argues that vague language items such as kind of,

and everything and or something are used in the film dialogue as

markers of verbal insecurity, which is stereotypically British, and that

their reduction in translation inevitably affects characterisation, for

on-screen speakers seem more assertive, less collaborative and

interactional than in the original.

As far as general extenders are concerned, previous studies have

shown that the cultural dimension has a strong impact on their

frequency and use in discourse. In her study on vague language in

British and Italian EU parliamentary discourse, Cucchi (2010) shows

that general extender forms occur twice as often in the speech of

British MPEs compared to that of Italian MPEs. Imbalance in

frequency is connected by the author to differences in communicative

preferences, since British speakers seem to favour a more synthetic,

inductive and informal communicative style compared to Italian

speakers, who seem to prefer a style which is more detailed, deductive

and formal.1

Cross-cultural differences in communicative preferences are of

major importance when it comes to translation. Contrastive pragmatic

and discourse studies have shown that socio-culturally determined

differences exist in the verbal behaviour of speakers from different

linguacultures which need to be taken into account in translation.

1 It must be noted that little research has been done on Italian general

extenders; a brief discussion of their functions can be found in

Voghera 2012.

House (1997: 84) posits that, compared to German speakers,

Anglophone speakers prefer to express themselves in ways that are

more indirect, implicit, interactional and addressee-focused; plus they

are more prone to using verbal routines. The communicative style

preferred by Italian speakers as described by Katan (2004: 261) is

quite the opposite, in that Italian speakers favour completeness and

details, as well as a more deductive and formal style of

communication, whereas Anglophone speakers favour clarity,

synthesis, and a more inductive and informal communicative style.

Cucchi (2010) argues that, given their association with

vagueness and that their main function in discourse is to express

familiarity and reduce social distance, the use of general extenders can

be related to two of the five cultural dimensions identified by

Hofstede (2003), namely uncertainty avoidance and power distance.

As Katan (2004: 242) explains, in Anglophone cultures, which are low

in uncertainty avoidance, there is a lower need for certainty and

consequently flexibility, choice and options are highly valued,

whereas Italy is high in uncertainty avoidance, which leads to a

reduction of ambiguity and a preference for details. Power distance

has an effect on the level of formality; in cultures with a lower power

distance index a more familiar communication style is favoured, as is

the case with British and American cultures, where there is a stronger

tendency to prefer informal language compared to other European

languages, such as Italian (Katan 2004: 274). Katan shows that this

also has to do with speaker/addressee orientation: an orientation

towards the author/speaker may result in a more formal language,

whereas an orientation towards the addressee will generally require

more informal language.

All of these factors are deemed to have an impact on translation

between English and Italian. As House (2006: 344) points out,

translators tend to adapt the target text to the stylistic preferences and

communicative conventions of the target language community. In

order to implement such adaptations, which are necessary to establish

a relationship of equivalence between source and target text, they

resort to cultural filtering. The notion of “cultural filter” is explained

by House as “a means of capturing cognitive and socio-cultural

differences in expectation norms and discourse conventions between

source and target linguistic-cultural communities” (House 2006: 349).

Cultural filtering thus entails the adoption of re-contextualisation

measures on the part of the translator in order to account for cultural

differences. Since target language norms play the most significant role

in dubbing (Pavesi 2008), we may expect target language

communicative preferences and pragmatic norms to play a major role

in the translation of vague language devices; we may thus presume

that general extenders will be reduced in translation as a result of

translators’ cultural filtering.

4. The televisual dimension

The constructed nature of television dialogue sets it apart from

spontaneous spoken language. However, recent corpus findings reveal

that fictional television language is closer to spoken English than to

written English, as script writers are capable of effectively imitating

key features of spoken language. Studies such as Quaglio (2009) and

Bednarek (2010; 2011) postulate the existence of a common register

of television dialogue characterised by a higher frequency of

emotional/emphatic language and a lower frequency of

vague/discourse marking and narrative language compared to

spontaneous spoken English (see also Mittmann 2006). This has to do

with the hybrid nature of television dialogue, which unfolds on screen

while simultaneously addressing an absent audience, but is also linked

with the specific functions of the televisual genre. According to

Quaglio (2009: 78), vague language is less frequent in television

dialogue than in unscripted spoken language due to two main factors,

namely comprehensibility and entertainment. In using vague language

speakers rely on different levels of shared knowledge, but when it

comes to television products intended for a wide audience this level

has to be as global as possible, i.e. easily interpretable by viewers

throughout the world (Evinson et al. 2007: 149), in order to ensure

successful and enjoyable communication.

Thus, comprehensibility is one of the factors to be taken into

account in the translation of vague language. Goris (1993: 183)

notices that vague expressions tend to become clearer or more precise

in dubbed films, and so does Baumgarten (2005: 202), who observes a

tendency to replace vague, indefinite and ambiguous lexical units with

referentially explicit and denotatively precise items in German dubbed

film dialogues, which leads to increased informational density. It can

thus be hypothesised that explicitation, which has been recognised as

a general norm in translation practice (Toury 1980: 60), will be among

the strategies adopted by dubbing translators in coping with vague

language for the sake of viewer’s comprehension. Another hypothesis

could be that, given the cross-cultural differences that distinguish

Italian from English in terms of communicative preferences, as

outlined in Section 3, the pressure of TL norms will be a decisive

factor in determining the strategies adopted in the text transfer and

will ultimately result in a diminished level of vagueness in translated

dialogues.

There are other factors specific to the medium which may also

affect the translation of vague language. In dealing with audiovisual

texts, translators face the difficulty of finding a translation that is

appropriate and natural in the TL – in other words, a translation that

complies with the standardisation and naturalisation norms identified

by Goris (1993) – and that fits in with the constraints of

synchronisation (see Chaume 2012: 68-9). Hence we may expect

general extenders to be treated in much the same way as other

interpersonal markers, which are likely to be sacrificed in dubbing due

to the limits imposed by the medium, as their removal does not affect

the propositional content nor the grammaticality of the utterance

(Chaume 2004; Valdeón 2008).

5. Corpus and methodology

The corpus used for the study comprises the internet transcripts of two

mainstream television shows, namely Gilmore Girls (henceforth GG)

and Friends (F).2 Fan transcripts were used for the English component

of the corpus, which has approximately 1.2 million words (Table 1).

Friends

(seasons 1-10)

Gilmore Girls

(seasons 1,2,3,6 [1-14])

TOT

n. of episodes 206 78 284

n. of words 604,767 603,675 ca 1.2 million

Table 1. The corpus.

The reasons for selecting these two specific shows are diverse: a) the

frequency of general extenders is known to be greatest in informal,

spoken interaction among familiars (Overstreet 1999: 144), which is

the typical situation depicted in F and GG; b) reliable transcriptions

made by fans, which have been used as a basis for other linguistic

studies (Quaglio 2009; Bednarek 2010), are available on the Internet;

c) the number of different translators involved in the Italian editions of

the two series allows the impact of translator’s idiosyncrasies to be

minimised. In order to limit an otherwise vast field of investigation,

the analysis has focused exclusively on adjunctive general extenders

on the grounds that adjunctive and disjunctive forms can (and should

be) separated in analyses of their use as they do not function as a

uniform group, but are rather specialised in the functions they fulfil.

The procedure followed for the study is the following: I used

the software Antconc 3.3.5w for generating concordance files and

subsequently watched and transcribed only the relevant sequences in

the Italian dubbed versions of the two series episodes, that is, those

2 Gilmore Girls (2003-2010), written by Amy Sherman-Palladino;

Friends (1994-2004), created by Marta Kauffman and David Crane.

Fan scripts are available at the following internet sites:

<http://www.friendstranscripts.tk/>, <http://www.crazy-internet-

people.com/site/gilmoregirls/scripts.html>, both accessed April 2013.

where the lexical units under scrutiny occurred. Annotations regarding

gestures, suprasegmental features as well as camera-shots were added

when relevant. The data thus collected was subsequently analysed and

translation solutions were grouped into categories on the basis of their

having been arrived at through the same or a similar process. The

methodological approach followed in this study is descriptive in that it

draws on the model of analysis developed by Toury (1995); it is also

corpus-based in that it aims at providing empirical evidence for the

proposed generalisations, which are reached through observing

regularities of translational behaviour (Baker 1998: 163).

6. Data and analysis

6.1 Adjunctive general extenders in the GG/F corpus

6.1.1 Frequency and formal features

A total of 120 adjunctive general extenders was extracted from the

corpus. Although creative uses (Aijmer 2002) are attested in the

dialogues (e.g. “Won’t that be awkward, weird, and about 50 other

things like that?” GG505), these forms are actually quite rare, as

general extenders occur almost exclusively in their reduced

phonological form, i.e. without comparative. The fact that long forms

are virtually absent in F and very rare in GG may be imputed to the

fast-paced rhythm of television dialogue.

Short forms F GG Long forms F G

And everything 19 20 And everything like that 0 0

And all 7 17 And all that 1 2

And stuff

31

15

And stuff like that 0 0

Stuff like that 0 2

That kind of stuff 0 1

And things

0

0

And things like that 0 0

Things like that 0 2

And such 0 2 0 0

Etcetera 0 1

TOT 57 55 1 7

Table 2. Long and short adjunctive forms in the GG/F corpus.

Table 2 shows that the dialogues of the two series contain virtually the

same number of short adjunctive forms and that and stuff is the most

frequent extender in F, where it occurs twice as often as in GG. This

may be related to the fact that in contemporary American English and

stuff “is becoming one of the most common markers of connection or

shared experience” (Overstreet 2000: 99) and that it serves as an

identity marker in youth varieties (Winter/Norrby 2000); hence it is

not surprising to find it overrepresented in F, a TV series which

revolves around a group of friends in their twenties. On the other

hand, F has a limited number of occurrences for and all compared to

GG, which seems to suggest that the interplay of generic differences

and sociolinguistic variation does have an impact on the rates of

individual forms in television dialogue.

6.1.2 Discourse-pragmatic functions

Adjunctive general extenders serve as “an appeal to the listener to

construct a referential category” (Overstreet/Yule 1997: 253),

signalling that the preceding element is just an example of a larger

class. And yet there are functions that are specific to individual forms.

For instance, and everything can be used as an intensifier (in

combination with a rise in tone) to signal that the information

presented in the preceding discourse segment is remarkable (Aijmer

1985: 385), as in example (1):

(1) RACHEL: Ok, we can do this now, can’t we Ben? Yes we can, yes we can.

[finishes the diaper] There. I did it. I did it. Look at that, oh, stays on and

everything! (F220)

The marker also frequently appears in formulaic constructions with

but (Overstreet/Yule 2002), as exemplified in (2):

(2) Rachel: Yeah. Y’know umm, uh, umm, about that, umm, Ross I really

appreciate your offer to let me move in and everything, but don’t you think

it’s gonna be weird? (F603)

In the GG/F corpus, and everything typically occurs at the end of

reason clauses introduced by what with, with, since or a non-finite

verb form, as can be seen in example (3):

(3) T.J.: Because I’m trying to be responsible. What with the move and being in

escrow and everything, I’m not exactly flush, so I figured I’d do it myself.

(GG 508)

or after a causative prepositional phrase introduced by with:

(4) LORELAI: I promise I’ll go back. It’s just there’s been a lot going on with the

car and everything. (GG719)

It should be noted that this function of the marker is not discussed in

the literature and may be worth further enquiry.

And all shares most of the functions of and everything, so it can

signal intensity, as in the following example (5):

(5) SOOKIE: Don’t you love how he can pronounce it and all?

LORELAI: Very Cosmopolitan. (GG221)

and it is also found in but-prefaces, as in example (6),

(6) ROSS: Thanks. I know you guys like to give me a hard time and all, but it

really means a lot to me that you like her. Just knowing that you guys are…

(F619)

It also appears to be particularly favoured after a clause or phrase

expressing causal relations, as in Joey’s line below:

(7) JOEY: Hey, look, since we’re neighbors and all, what do you say we uh, get

together for a drink? (F206)

Set-marking is the function most frequently associated with and stuff,

which is also the adjunctive that occurs most frequently in three-part

lists. An example of this is (9):

(8) MONICA: So you can like, bite, and pull people’s hair and stuff?

ROSS: Yeah, anything goes, except ah, eye gouging and fish hooking. (F324)

As Overstreet (2000: 99) points out, and stuff is typically used as a

strategy of positive politeness to mark invited solidarity and shared

knowledge in that it signals that the speaker assumes that the

interlocutor is familiar with the topic; hence it is often found in

combination with you know, as illustrated in example (9):

(9) MONICA: Or, it could mean that-that you saw Chandler and me together and

we y’know were being close and stuff and then you just want to have that

with someone too. (F516)

6.2 General extenders in dubbed television dialogue

Recurring patterns of translational behaviour were detected in the

collected data, which made it possible to identify the following

translation strategies:

1. Direct translation – the general extender is translated literally

or with an equivalent expression in the TL. An example of this

would be (10):

(10) RACHEL: Ohh, it’s gonna be so

great! I’m gonna get to help decide

what we sell, I’m gonna have an

office with walls and everything.

(F409)

RACHEL: Oh, è meraviglioso. Potrò

aiutare a decidere che cosa si vende.

Avrò un ufficio con delle mura e

tutto il resto.

2. Omission – the general extender is deleted and no compensation

strategy is adopted, as in example (11):

(11) JACKSON: Oh, thanks to my best

new friend Ermenegildo Zegna.

SOOKIE: Don’t you love how he

can pronounce it and all? (GG221)

JACKSON: Devo tutto al mio amico

Karin Turgenev.

SOOKIE: Non è adorabile come lo

pronuncia?

3. Substitution involves removing the general extender and

replacing it with another item, semantically unrelated, at the

point where it occurs in the source text, arguably to preserve the

same number of syllables as in the original, as illustrated in

example (12):

(12) JESS: I said, why did you come here?

RORY: Well -

JESS: I mean, you ditched school

and everything. That’s so not you.

Why’d you do it? (GG221)

JESS: Ho detto perché sei venuta?

RORY: Beh…

JESS: Hai perso la scuola, mezza

giornata. Non è da te. Perché l’hai

fatto?

4. Explicitation involves the spelling out of meaning that is

implicit in the source text3 and takes the form of a) addition and

b) specification (see Perego 2003).

a) Addition – the general extender is removed but part of its

meaning is expressed by means of other items either at the point

where it occurs or elsewhere in the target text. This strategy

allows for the reduction of the source text, while at the same

time ensuring that the speaker’s communicative intention is

correctly conveyed, as exemplified in (13) below:

(13) LORELAI: Now, obviously, you

need some pots and pans, and these

are free and all, but they're really

old. (GG609)

LORELAI: Ovviamente a te le

padelle servono e queste sono anche

gratis. Ma sono vecchie.

b) Specification – the general extender is replaced by another item

which qualifies as a possible member of the inferred category.

This strategy consists in the insertion of elements that are not

part of the source text and results in reduction of vagueness; the

target text has a more transparent meaning and contains words

that are more lexically dense than those in the source text.

(15) JOEY: […] Chandler always

supported my career. He’s paid for

acting classes and head shots and

stuff and well this will be my way of

paying you back. (F822)

JOEY: […] Chandler ha incoraggiato

la mia carriera, ha pagato le lezioni di

recitazione, le mie foto e i debiti.

Questo sarà il mio modo di ripagarti.

5. Generalisation – the exemplar and the general extender are both

replaced by a word that is more general in meaning than the

3 Explicitation has been found to characterise both dubbed (Ulrych

2000: 20; Goris 1993) and subtitled films (Perego 2003).

exemplar, as in example (16). This strategy allows some degree

of vagueness to be preserved and the target text to be shortened

so as to comply with the constraints of synchronisation.

(16) CHANDLER: (entering) Oh hey

Rachel, sweetheart? You have got to

tell the post office that you have

moved. Okay? We are still getting all

your bills and stuff. (F611)

CHANDLER: Rachel, senti, devi

assolutamente dire al postino che hai

cambiato indirizzo perché noi non

facciamo che ricevere posta a tuo

nome.

6. Complete reformulation – the target text results from extensive

rewording of the source text, so that no parallel comparison can

be made, and it involves the omission of the general extender.

(17) LORELAI: I don’t know Mom, she’s

16. There’s still a couple of ways I

might come in handy, you know

buying the beer, that kind of stuff.

(GG118)

Ma dai, mamma, ha sedici anni. È

così piccola che la notte vuole ancora

dormire con la lampada accesa.

This strategy is favoured when cultural adaptation is needed, as in the

case of culture-specific references.

Table 3 below gives an overall picture of the translation

strategies that have been identified in the GG/F corpus and their

distribution.

TRANSLATION

STRATEGY

And

everything

And

all

And

stuff

Other

forms

Tot.

GG F GG F GG F GG F GG F GG+F

Direct translation 3 6 1 1 1 8 2 1 7 16 23

(19%)

Omission 6 8 13 4 8 7 5 0 32 19 51

(42%)

Substitution 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 3 4 7

(6%)

Explicitation

Addition 5 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 6 7 13

(11%)

Specifica

tion

3 1 0 0 2 7 0 0 5 8 13

(11%)

Generalisation 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 4 3 7

(6%)

Complete

reformulation

2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 5 1 6

(5%)

Table 3. Translation strategies in the F/GG corpus.

A cursory glance at Table 3 makes it apparent that omission is the

preferred strategy, with a rate of 42% that rises to 47% if we include

complete reformulation, which also involves the deletion of the

extender. Substitution (6%) also qualifies as omission, as the general

extender is replaced in the text with another lexical unit that is

semantically unrelated; the translator arguably opts for getting rid of a

troublesome item and, in order to maintain the utterance isochronous

with the original soundtrack, other verbal material is inserted which

was not part of the source text. On the other hand, direct translation

occurs only in 19% of cases, thus causing a dramatic shift between

source text and target text in terms of vagueness. This is further

amplified by the fact that explicitation ranks as the second most

frequently adopted strategy, with 22% of occurrences. Both in the case

of addition and specification, the meaning of the marker is partially

conveyed, even though the source text level of vagueness and

indeterminacy is diminished, as the target text is more specific and

lexically dense than its source text. This is due to the

multifunctionality of general extenders, which suggest vagueness

while at the same time fulfilling various pragmatic functions. The

strategy of generalisation allows some degree of vagueness to be

retained while achieving textual reduction, since the coordinated

structure in the source text is replaced by a lexical unit in the target

text. These results are in line with those obtained by the author in

previous investigation on a different corpus, which focused on both

adjunctive and disjunctive extenders (Zanotti forthcoming).

The data presented here seems to confirm the initial hypothesis

that vague language items such as English general extenders are

subject to reduction in translation for dubbing when the TL is Italian.

The influencing factors are manifold and include medium-specific

constraints such as mouth articulation and isochrony, which are key

factors in deciding how many syllables the target text should contain

(see Chaume 2012: 73) and often favour the omission of the extender,

as illustrated in (18):

(18) ESTELLE: Don’t worry about it

already. Things happen.

JOEY: So, you’re not mad at me for

getting fired and everything? (F219)

ESTELLE: Almeno per ora non ti

devi preoccupare. Sono cose che

succedono.

JOEY: Allora non ce l’hai con me

perché mi sono fatto licenziare?

Omission is very often opted for in order to make up for the use of

text-space consuming linguistic means in the preceding textual

segment, which occurs when translators prioritise the expression of

explicitness, as illustrated in example (19):

(19) PHOEBE SR: I realize I don’t have

any right to start get all parenty on

you and everything now, but umm

(…). (F411)

PHOEBE SR: Mi rendo conto che

non ho il diritto di cominciare a fare

prediche da vecchio genitore proprio

adesso… ma… ecco…

On the contrary, when deletion affects other items in the preceding co-

text, the general extender can be rendered with an equivalent marker

in the TL, as in example (20):

(20) LORELAI: I mean want me for more

than my ass. Me -- for me, the whole

package. Annoying neuroses and all.

(GG105)

Vorrei uno che mi amasse non solo

per il mio sederino. Ma per me. La

confezione completa. Nevrotica e

tutto il resto.

Another strategy adopted by translators in coping with the constraints

of synchronisation is generalisation, which allows the number of

lexical units in the target text to be reduced, as in (21) below:

(21) MONICA: Really? Cause I’d need

like $500 for all the food and the

supplies and stuff. (F406)

MONICA: Sicura? Perché a me

servono almeno 500 dollari per

mettermi in moto.

Preference for referential explicitness leads to replacing the general

extender with linguistic items that have a higher information load,

thus producing a target text that is more lexically dense than its source

text:

(22) JOEY: When I was little, I wanted to

be a veterinarian, but then I found out

you had to put your hands into cows

JOEY: Quand’ero piccolo volevo

fare il veterinario, ma poi ho scoperto

che bisognava introdurre le mani

and stuff. (F210) nelle vacche e smucinare.

Alternatively, the translator may opt for the addition of verbal material

which conveys part of the meaning expressed by the general extender,

as in example (23) below:

(23) CHANDLER: Look, I just don’t think

Monica and I are ready to get married

yet! Y’know? I mean, I love her and

everything but seeing Ross and

Rachel coming out of that chapel was

like a, like a wake-up call that Monica

and I are moving so fast. (F601)

CHANDLER: Ecco. Il fatto è che

non mi sento ancora pronto. Voglio

dire, io l’amo da impazzire ma

vedere Ross e Rachel uscire da

quella cappella è stato come

svegliarmi e capire che stiamo

correndo troppo.

This type of textual intervention is called for for the sake of clarity

and comprehensibility, even though the pressure of Italian

communicative style may play a part in translators’ decision-making

by also favouring explicitness.

7. Conclusions

The present study shows the complexity involved in translating vague

language in audiovisuals. It has been found that omission is the

preferred strategy when it comes to translating general extenders in

dubbing, but the data also reveal that they are subject to dramatic

reduction because of the concurrent adoption of other translation

strategies which also result in their deletion. In the majority of cases

general extenders are omitted because of the limits imposed by the

medium, which very often require a reduction of the source text. Yet

other reasons can be found to explain translators’ behaviour.

The examples examined in the previous section reveal that the

Italian dialogues are more explicit in the description of states of affair

and events and leave less room for inferencing in comparison to the

English originals; on the contrary, they are less interpersonally

oriented and leave less room for the indexing of shared knowledge.

This occurs because translators tend to prioritise the explicitation of

information content over the marking of interpersonal relations

through vagueness. This may in turn be imputed to a need for

immediate intelligibility, which is one of the requirements of on-

screen communication, since viewers do not have the option to go

back to make sense of an opaque text segment. It should be also noted

that explicitation is strictly connected with cultural filtering (or

naturalisation), whereby source text items are translated in such a way

as to conform to target language communicative norms. In the case of

vague language, translators’ cultural filtering may lead to reducing the

level of vagueness by means of explicitation. In order to estimate the

respective impact of the above mentioned factors (i.e. technical

constraints, televisual communication requirements and target

language norms) with regard to vague language, further research

should be concerned with translated fictional dialogue in written texts

as well as with domestic television series in Italian.

References

Aijmer, Karin 1985. What Happens at the End of Our Utterances? –

The Use of Utterance Final Tags Introduced by “and” and “or”.

In Togeby, Ole (ed.) Papers from the Eighth Scandinavian

Conference of Linguistics. Copenhagen: Institut for Philologie,

366-389.

Aijmer, Karin 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a

Corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Aijmer, Karin 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Baker, Mona 1998. Norms. In Baker, Mona (ed.) Routledge

Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 163-

165.

Baumgarten, Nicole 2005. The Secret Agent: Film Dubbing and the

Influence of the English Language on German Communicative

Preferences. Towards a Model for the Analysis of Language

Use in Visual Media. PhD Thesis. University of Hamburg.

Bednarek, Monika 2010. The Language of Fictional Television:

Drama and Identity. London / New York: Continuum.

Bednarek, Monika 2011. The Language of Fictional Television: A

Case Study of the ‘Dramedy’ Gilmore Girls. English Text

Construction. 4/1, 54-83.

Biber, Douglas / Johansson, Stig / Leech, Geoffrey / Conrad, Susan /

Finegan, Edward 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and

Written English. London: Longman.

Channell, Joanna (ed.) 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Chaume, Frederic 2004. Discourse Markers in Audiovisual

Translating. Meta : journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators’

Journal. 49/4, 843-855.

Cheshire, Jenny 2007. Discourse Variation, Grammaticalization, and

Stuff like That. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 11/2, 155-193.

Chiaro, Delia 2002. The British Will Use Question Tags, Won’t

They? The case of Four Weddings and a Funeral. In Taylor,

Christopher (ed.) Tradurre il Cinema. Atti del Convegno del 29-

30 Novembre 1996. Trieste: Università degli Studi di Trieste,

27-39.

Cucchi, Costanza 2010. Vague Expressions in the European

Parliament: A Marker of Cultural Identity? In Garzone,

Giuliana / Archibald, James (eds) Discourse, Identities and

Roles in Specialized Communication. Bern: Peter Lang, 85-107.

Cutting, Joan 2007. Exploring Vague Language Further. In Cutting,

Joan (ed.) Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave,

223-243.

Dines, Elizabeth 1980. Variation in Discourse and Stuff like That.

Language in Society. 9/1, 13-33.

Dubois, Silvie 1992. Extension Particles etc. Language Variation and

Change. 4/2, 179-204.

Evinson, Jane / McCarthy, Michael / O’Keeffe, Anne 2007. ‘Looking

out for love and all the rest of it’: Vague Category Markers as

Shared Social Space. In Cutting, Joan (ed.) Vague Language

Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 138–157.

Goris, Olivier 1993. The Question of French Dubbing: Towards a

Frame for Systematic Investigation. Target 5/2, 169-190.

Hofstede, Geert 2003. Cultures and Organizations. Software of the

Mind, Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for

Survival. London: Profile Books.

House, Juliane 1997. Translation Quality Assessment. A Model

Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

House, Juliane 2006. Text and Context in Translation. Journal of

Pragmatics. 38/3, 338-358.

Katan, David 2004. Translating Cultures. An Introduction for

Translators, Interpreters and Mediators [2nd

edition].

Manchester: StJerome,.

Mittmann, Brigitta 2006. With a Little Help from Friends (And

Others): Lexico-Pragmatic Characteristics of Original and

Dubbed Film Dialogue. In Houswitschka, Christoph / Knappe,

Gabriele / Müller, Anja (eds) Anglistentag 2005, Bamberg –

Proceedings. Trier: WVT, 573-585.

Overstreet, Maryann 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff like That.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Overstreet, Maryann 2005. And Stuff und so: Investigating Pragmatic

Expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics.

37/11, 1845-1864.

Overstreet, Maryann / Yule, George 1997. On Being Inexplicit and

Stuff in Contemporary American English. Journal of English

Linguistics. 25/3, 250–258.

Pedersen, Jan 2011. Subtitling Norms for Television.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Quaglio, Paulo 2009. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs.

Natural Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Pavesi, Maria 2008. Spoken Language in Film Dubbing: Target

Language Norms, Interference and Translational Routines. In

Chiaro, Delia / Heiss, Christine / Bucaria, Chiara (eds) Between

Text and Image. Updating Research in Screen Translation.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 79-99.

Perego, Elisa 2003. Evidence of Explicitation in Subtitling: Towards a

Categorisation. Across Languages and Cultures. 4/1, 63-88.

Terraschke, Agnes / Holmes, Janet 2007. ‘Und tralala’: Vagueness

and General Extenders in German and New Zealand English. In

Cutting, Joan (ed.) Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke:

Palgrave, 198–220.

Toury, Gideon 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv:

Porter Institute of Poetics and Semiotics.

Toury, Gideon 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Ulrych, Margherita 2000. Locating Universal Features of Translation

Behaviour through Multimedia Translation Studies. In

Bollettieri Bosinelli, Rosa Maria / Heiss, Christine / Soffritti,

Marcello / Bernardini, Silvia (eds) La traduzione multimediale:

Quale traduzione per quale testo? Bologna: CLUEB, 407-429.

Valdeón, Roberto 2008. Inserts in Modern Script-Writing and Their

Translation into Spanish. In Chiaro, Delia / Heiss, Christine /

Bucaria, Chiara (eds) Between Text and Image. Updating

Research in Screen Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

Benjamins.

Voghera, Miriam 2012. Chitarre, violino, banjo e cose del genere. In

Thornton, Anna M. / Voghera, Miriam (eds) Per Tullio De

Mauro. Studi offerti dalle allieve in occasione del suo 80°

compleanno. Roma: Aracne, 341-364.

Winter, Joanne / Norrby, Catrin 2002. Affiliation in Adolescents’ Use

of Discourse Extenders. In Allen, Cynthia (ed.) Proceedings of

the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society.

Retrieved 8 December 2013 from

<http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2001/winter_norrby.pdf

>.

Zanotti, Serenella Forthcoming. “It feels like bits of me are crumbling

or something”. General Extenders in Original and Dubbed

Television Dialogue. In Formentelli, Maicol / Ghia, Elisa /

Pavesi, Maria (eds) The Languages of Dubbing. Bern: Peter

Lang.