The Mind of a Subtitler: Translation Strategies Employed in Subtitling Crime and Comedy

The Mind of a Subtitler:

Translation Strategies Employed in Subtitling Crime and Comedy

Jessica Rietveld – 0115045 Master Thesis – Engels: Vertalen Utrecht University – Faculty of Humanities Supervisors: Cees Koster – Paul Franssen June 2008

The Mind of a Subtitler: Translation Strategies Employed in Subtitling Crime and ComedyJ.W. Rietveld – 0115045

2

Table of contents:

Forword 31. Introduction 42. Subtitling: Why Do We Use It? 53. Written Language Versus Spoken Language 114. The Subtitling Process 145. Problems in Translating Humour

5.1 What Is Humour? 5.2 Types of Humour 5.3 Translating Humour

19192123

6. Problems in Translating the Genre of Crime 267. Using Translation Strategies While Subtitling 288. Analysing 8 Simple Rules and Crossing Jordan

8.1 The Research Procedure 8.2 8 Simple Rules – Ditch Day 8.2.1 The Story 8.2.2 Translation Problems in 8 Simple Rules 8.2.3 Script and Subtitle Overview 8.2.4 Analysis 8 Simple Rules – Ditch Day 8.2.5 Conclusion 8 Simple Rules

8.3 Crossing Jordan – Slam Dunk 8.3.1 The Story 8.3.2 Translation Problems in Crossing Jordan 8.3.3 Script and Subtitle Overview 8.3.4 Analysis Crossing Jordan – Slam Dunk 8.3.5 Conclusion Crossing Jordan

3131313133343856595960616584

9. Conclusion 8810. Works Cited 11. Attachment – DVD containing the two subtitled scenes

9193


3

Forword

“Subtitles? Who needs them? And whenever I do read a subtitle, I notice errors all

over.” This is an expression that I as a subtitler often hear at a birthday party or even in a

telephone conversation with a friend that I have not spoken to in a long time. Sometimes that

can be frustrating, because you get the feeling your work is not appreciated. People think

subtitling is easy and unnecessary, since anyone in the Netherlands has learnt to speak English

in school. Only mistakes are being noticed, and therefore many people have the idea of

subtitlers not having the ability to translate a word properly.

On the Internet forums can be found where translation mistakes on television are being

discussed. When I read such a topic, I see different complaints passing in review which are

not always valid. For example, I once read a complaint about a translator formulating a

question differently, resulting in a no-answer while the actor on screen said “yes”. The

complainant believed that the reason for rephrasing the question was that the translator felt

that the flow of words of the source text was not quite right. However, almost no complainant

participating in these discussions realizes that a subtitler not only has to translate, but that they

have to deal with a fixed space and that they have to take in account a certain number of

characters that can be processed by the viewer per second.

Of course mistakes are made. I am the last person to claim that that is not the case.

Especially numbers and years tend to be misinterpreted. For example, the year 1989 becoming

1998. Usually a reviser is deployed to watch the subtitled television program to filter out

translation errors. However, to reduce the costs, it is often seen that only a spell check is

performed, or that someone reads the subtitles without the accompaniment of the images.


4

1. Introduction

Subtitles, translation errors on television and the redundancy of subtitles are a much-

discussed topic. However, almost no one realizes that the reason why subtitles are perceived

as unnecessary and why people believe that they do not read them, is the complexity of

spotting – determining when and how long a subtitle appears on screen, in order to create a

fluent rhythm that matches the discourse – and applying a clear lay-out without dividing

sentences in inconvenient places to prevent illegibility. As Brondeel says: “Offering

[subtitles] in a consistent format that matches the discourse might make them less

conspicuous [...]” (Brondeel 1994, 28). Therefore, my thesis question will be: How does the

mind of a subtitler work in order to overcome the problems that subtitling involves, and what

are those problems?

In this thesis I will attempt to display the complexity of subtitling in the light of two

subtitle translations that I have made myself. The first will be in the genre of crime, namely

Crossing Jordan, and the second will be a scene from the sitcom 8 Simple Rules. By means of

Andrew Chesterman’s translation strategies I will try to reflect how the mind of a subtitler

works and I hope to show that subtitling is not as easy as one might think.

In the first part of this thesis I will give an introduction to audio visual translations in

general, from which I will proceed with subtitling, the audio visual translation method applied

most often in the Netherlands. Moreover, I will discuss the problems that can be found while

translating a spoken text into a written text – a twofold translation process, consisting of

translation and transliteration – I will list the rules of subtitling and I will describe the

technical part of it, and lastly I will describe the translation problems that occur while

translating crime and comedy.


5

In the second part of this thesis I will discuss my subtitle translations of Crossing

Jordan and 8 Simple Rules, through which I hope to give an idea of how the mind of a

subtitler works in the light of Andrew Chesterman’s translation strategies, and to show what

difficulties have to be faced while subtitling.

2. Subtitling: Why Do We Use It?

Dutch television consists for a great part, approximately one-third, of foreign

television programs, mostly in the English tongue. Moreover, the majority of films in cinemas

are English spoken. In order for a Dutch audience to follow what is happening on screen a

translation needs to be made. However, there are three forms of audiovisual translation that

can be chosen to function as a means of information transfer: dubbing, voice-over translation

and subtitling (Gottlieb 2001, 244). Off-screen translation and intertitles can be distinguished

as a form of audiovisual translation as well (Koolstra et al. 2002, 326). However, I have

classified off-screen translation as a form of dubbing, since the voice of the source language is

replaced by the voice of the target language. Of course intertitles are a different form of

audiovisual translation. However this particular form does not occur often, because these so-

called title cards are often subtitled without the original title card disappearing from the

screen. Therefore, I chose not to look at this form of audiovisual translation as a particular

category.

Dubbing is a form of audiovisual translation in which the original voice of a speaker is

replaced by the voice of a speaker of the target language, which often can be found in Austria,

France, Germany, Italy and Spain (Koolstra et al. 2002, 326). The aim is that the target

language voice stays as close to the timing, phrasing and lip movements of the speaker of the

source language. The process preceding dubbing takes up more time than the process of


6

subtitling as a whole, which makes dubbing a more expensive means of translation. Whitman-

Linsen describes the dubbing process in her book Through the Dubbing Glass, from which I

will give a short overview (Whitman-Linsen 1992, 104-124). Before the actual dubbing

process can start, a translator will work on the script. They will make a rough translation

where mainly the literal meaning of the spoken words is conveyed, so that the dialogue

translator, who will adapt the rough translation into the eventual script, understands the tenor

of the text in order to be able to implement that tenor in their translation. However, a

disadvantage for the first translator is that they rarely have the opportunity to see the film in

advance or during the translation process. As a result, the texts that are being supported by

images, written texts on screen, or a certain tone of speech, can be misinterpreted. Especially

comments with a sarcastic undertone are likely to be translated wrongly, simply because of

the fact that the translator cannot read the tone of speech from a written text. After this

process is finished, the second translator, or the adaptor, will adapt the rough translation to a

dubbing script. That is to say, the idiom is adapted to the target language, accents of speech in

the source language are transferred to the target language, and the target language texts are

adapted to the lip movements of the actors. Only after these two translation processes have

been completed, can the target voices be recorded. In the Netherlands dubbing is a technique

often used in children’s programs. Also in reality television programs it is often used to

replace the original voice-over, for instance in programs like Gordon Ramsay: Hell’s Kitchen

or De Babyfluisteraar. However, when dubbing a voice-over the lip movements of the

original speaker do not have to be taken into consideration, because of the fact that a voice-

over does not appear on screen in person.

Another translation technique is voice-over translation. It has some similarities with

dubbing, however this process is more inexpensive. In the United States this translation

technique is often used in interviews spoken in a foreign language. The volume of the speaker


7

is turned down slightly, whereupon an English voice is placed over the original speaker. The

lip movements of the original speaker are not taken into account, because it is important that

every piece of information reaches the audience. Therefore hardly any adaptations will be

made. In addition, only one speaker has to be hired. One person becomes the voice of

different people, whereas in dubbing all actors have separate dubbing voices. In countries like

Russia or Poland a voice-over translation is even used as a technique for translating quality

films. It can be found that one voice represents the whole cast of a film (Gottlieb 2001, 244).

In a sense, voice-over translations only need two people: a translator of the script and a

speaker of the target language.

The last translation technique is subtitling. This form of audiovisual translation is the

most important in the Netherlands. The first form of subtitling was introduced during the time

that the first films were developed. In 1903 the first so-called ‘intertitles’ appeared on the

screen (Ivarsson 2004, par. 1). The intertitles were inserted between the different scenes in

silent films as a means to reflect the dialogues between the actors. The texts were drawn or

printed on a piece of paper. Thereupon the paper was filmed and edited between the scenes

(Díaz Cintas and Remael 2007, 26). In the year 1909 the word ‘subtitle’ was used for the first

time. However, it remained a rarity to place subtitles at the bottom of a screen on which a

moving image was projected. In the beginning of the 20th century it was a more common

phenomenon for actors to perform the dialogues live behind the screen during the screening of

a film (Ivarsson 2004, par. 1), which was called a ‘double version’ (Gottlieb 1997, 52).

When in 1927 the first sound film The Jazz Singer was screened in theatres in the

United States, the English language was a hurdle that interfered with the export of American

films to foreign countries. Between 1929 and 1933 a solution was found: dubbing and

subtitling (Karamitroglou 2000, 8). However, apart from the earlier mentioned ‘double

version’ Gottlieb describes another form of audiovisual translation that, just like the double


8

version, did not prove to be adequate: auditive subtitling (Gottlieb 1997, 53). Auditive

subtitling implies watching a film in a cinema while listening to an interpretation of the

dialogues through small headphones. This method allowed the viewer to hear the original

dialogue along with a translated version of the dialogue, without disturbing the image by

means of subtitles. However, as said before, this method did not stick. In the Western

countries dubbing and subtitling became the norm.

Subtitling is a form of audiovisual translation that only appears in the smaller language

areas “[...] including several non-European speech communities as well as a number of small

European countries with a high literacy rate, where subtitling is preferred to dubbing” (Baker

244). Examples of European subtitling countries are The Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian

countries and Greece (Koolstra et al. 2002, 326). Portugal is a subtitling country as well.

However, they use dubbing as well in order to reach a considerable illiterate audience (Assis

Rosa 1997, 213). Subtitling is the fastest and the cheapest form of audiovisual translation

(Brondeel 1994, 27; Kilborn 1993, 646). Therefore, it is the most appropriate for the small

audiences small language areas have to offer. Large language areas such as German or

Spanish speaking areas have a larger audience and therefore the costs of dubbing will be

recovered more easily than in smaller language areas (Van de Poel and d’Ydewalle 1997,

259). On the other hand, Germany is an upcoming subtitling country. For example, the

German channel ARTE makes use of subtitling instead of dubbing. At the same time

subtitling is the most unforgiving form of audiovisual translation. The work of a subtitler is

never perfect, and the viewer notices that as well. Many people are not satisfied with the

quality of subtitles, for they claim that subtitlers do not translate what the speaker says or that

the subtitler forgot to translate something. One of the main reasons for this dissatisfaction is

that subtitling is the only form of translation that presents the source text, or rather source

language, alongside the target text. The viewer has the opportunity to compare the two and


9

come to the conclusion that not everything is translated or that they used a seemingly

inaccurate translation. Jan Ivarsson was quoted in an article of Heulwen James. Ivarsson

describes the difference between a translator and a subtitler very strikingly (James 2001, 151):

A person who reads a book in translation or sees a dubbed film must go to the original text to check what they suspect is a faulty translation... The subtitler is in a much more vulnerable position [than the translator] since the original is available for all to see and hear.

Díaz Cintas and Remael provide translators with a solution “[...] to transfer all those terms

from the original that have strong phonetic or morphological similarities in both languages,

and that the viewer may recognize in the original dialogue” (Díaz Cintas and Remael 2007,

56), in order to try and overcome the idea of faulty translations. However, the conception of

the subtitler ‘forgetting’ to translate certain elements, I think, will always exist.

Not only the quality of subtitles is a much-discussed point, viewers claim that they do

not need subtitles and that they do not read them anyway. However, research conducted by

d’Ydewalle, Praet, Verfaillie and Van Rensbergen points out that viewers are ‘forced’ to read

subtitles. Whether or not they know the target language, viewers spend a considerable amount

of time reading the subtitles. They proved that reading subtitles is not a habitual phenomenon

either, for their subjects were not familiar with subtitled television. Even if the source

language and target language are the same, viewers are proven to read the subtitles.

On the other hand, subtitling has a particular merit over all other forms of

(audiovisual) translation: the viewer is able to watch a foreign television program or film

“without destroying valuable aspects of that material’s authenticity” (Kilborn 1993, 646),

whereas with dubbing or with an intertextual translation the viewer or reader must trust the

translators that every bit of information is transferred to the target language properly.

Moreover, subtitling gives the viewer the chance to watch a foreign film and at the same time

hear the foreign actors speak their native language.


10

Another advantage of subtitling over dubbing is that to a small extent it can contribute

to second language acquisition. Van de Poel and d’Ydewalle state that the mastering of new

words occurs when watching subtitled television. However, morphology and syntax are not

likely to be learnt through watching television (Van de Poel and d’Ydewalle 1997, 270-271).

Subtitles that appear on screen are called ‘open caption’. However, a form of subtitling

via teletext exists as well: ‘closed caption’. Closed caption subtitles mostly appear in the same

language as the original spoken text (intralingual subtitling or monolingual subtitling) and are

used mainly by the deaf and hard of hearing. Different colours are used to indicate the

speaker, and sometimes even the names of the speakers are added when the speaker starts

speaking off screen or has turned their back to the camera. Moreover, with intralingual

subtitling the written text includes the transcription of sound-effects, intonation, emotion and

other vocal exclamations such as ‘ouch’ or ‘wow’ as well. Caimi points out that closed

captioned subtitles also have a learning function for deaf children as well as for deaf adults.

“Subtitles are one of the most powerful learning tools for a deaf child, just as a hearing child

would learn from things heard” (Caimi 2006, 89). She also states that adults who are deaf or hard

of hearing can enrich their vocabulary with the aid of monolingual subtitles. However, hearing

children and adults may improve their reading skills and enrich their vocabulary by watching

television using monolingual subtitles.


11

3. Written Language Versus Spoken Language

Subtitling involves transferring a spoken text in the source language into a written text

in the target language. However, Rosa states that not only verbal signs have to be translated,

but non-verbal signs have to be taken into account as well. Her list of what subtitling involves

is as follows (Rosa 1997, 214):

(1) a change of medium: from speech and gestures (both visual and audible) to writing;

(2) a change of channel: from mainly vocal-auditive to visual; (3) a change of the form of signals: mainly from phonetic substance to

graphic substance and, as a result, (4) change of code: from spoken verbal language (and non-verbal language)

to written verbal language.

Of course this causes certain translation problems. Firstly, the change of medium is

responsible for the adaptation or condensation involved: in ten seconds more spoken

information can be transferred to a listener than written information to a reader. In the

following example from the first episode of the fourth season of the television series Lost a

police officer has a conversation with the arrested Hugo Reyes, a survivor of a plane crash

who, together with five others, had been able to return home after having been imprisoned on

an island in the Pacific for months. The police officer pronounces the text below in seven

seconds, while a little over fourteen seconds would be needed to read it given the fact that a

viewer can read approximately eleven characters (including spaces and punctuation marks) in

one second (see more information in chapter three: The Subtitling Process):

What are you doing Reyes? Huh? Are you trying to get tossed in the nuthouse? Because if that's what you want I can make that happen right now, my friend.

The example above proves that omission is inevitable. Approximately 30 percent of the

spoken text is omitted in a subtitle translation (Koolstra et al. 2002, 328). These omissions

give the viewer the idea that the subtitler ‘forgot’ to translate many elements from the source


12

language. However, Koolstra et al. also write that “it must be noted that adaptation can lead to

an increase of information in cases where the information is presented more clearly and

concisely in the subtitle than in the original spoken text” (Koolstra et al. 2002, 328).

Secondly, the change of channel and the change of the form of signals both are

responsible for the problem of space and time. A subtitle may only consist of two lines in

order to give the viewer the opportunity to follow the visual actions accompanying the spoken

text. Subtitles may not focus the attention on themselves and therefore they may not take up

more than two twelfths of the screen (Díaz Cintas and Remael 2007, 82). Therefore, a

subtitler comes across the lack of space while subtitling. However, the factor of the lack of

time may not be overlooked. The transfer from vocal-auditive to visual means that the visual

target must be visible. That is to say that a subtitle must have an acceptable reading time for

the viewer to be able to read it, instead of it flashing on and off the screen. Moreover,

phonetic substance to graphic substance implies that “[t]he translation can be read on screen

for exactly as long as the corresponding utterance can be heard” (Brondeel 1994, 28), which

limits the subtitler to a fixed time in which they can present their translation of a certain line.

Lastly, the change of code generates the most translation problems. Brondeel sees

readability and the fact that written subtitles need to ‘sound’ like the spoken source language

as important problem factors. He claims that especially inexperienced subtitlers tend to form

sentences that are either too complex or are written in telegram style, which causes the

viewers’ reading discomfort (Brondeel 1994, 29). The reason for this illegibility is that the

subtitlers try to force all information into one subtitle, from which telegram style sentences or

complex sentences are created. With ‘a subtitle must sound like the source text’ is meant that

all relevant information should be translated, the meaning must be transferred correctly and

the translation should be as dynamic as the spoken text by, for example, using an equivalent

register. But what is an equivalent register? Rosa distinguishes two types of speech:


13

spontaneous speech and non-spontaneous speech, or, as Díaz Cintas and Remael call it,

spontaneous speech and scripted speech. However, distinguishing these two types does not

automatically imply that they use different registers. What register should be used depends

among other things on the formality of speech: is it formal or is it informal? However, that is

not the only question. In her article “Translating Register, Style and Tone in Dubbing and

Subtitling” Zoë Pettit quotes Savova, who describes her definition of what register is (Pettit

2005, 50):

Broadly defined, 'register' refers to the way people use language in different situations. The term is often used as a full or partial synonym for style, speech variety or variation, field of discourse, and text type [...].

This citation makes clear that register, regardless of the formality or informality of the speech,

depends on “style, speech variety, field of discourse and text type”. That is to say, a teenager

has a different type of style than for example a businessman. In subtitles it is necessary to

maintain that distinction: a teenager uses popular words and has a limited vocabulary,

whereas a businessman is more likely to have broadened his vocabulary and therefore they

use more difficult words and are likely to use figures of speech. Field of discourse certainly is

a decisive factor when it comes to register. In my research as to what translation strategies are

used in the genre of crime it is visible that some technical terms are used in Crossing Jordan’s

register. In the following example a shot wound is described.

Well, there's no tattooing, both of them are oval, red rim abrasions in both of them, no torn skin margins in either one, and both exhibit micro tears at the edges.

The translation should sound as technical as the source text, however, in this case

this description is uttered in approximately six seconds. In the translation it was

impossible to maintain the technical style, because I found it more important to

maintain (part) of the information. The translation is as follows:

Er zijn geen kruitsporen, beide wonden zijn ovaal en zijn rood omrand.


14

There are no traces of gunpowder, both wounds are oval and are red rimmed.

Text type concerns whether a text is, for instance, an informative text or a persuasive text. The

subtitles used in a commercial should have a canvassing tone as a commercial is meant to

persuade people to buy a certain product. The translation of an informative text should have a

clear lay-out in order for the viewer to understand the text instantly.

4. The Subtitling Process

Subtitling is a different matter than translating a written text. In his book Ingmar Bergman

Abroad: The Problems of Subtitling Egil Törnqvist mentions four important differences

between subtitling and translating a written text (Törnqvist 1998, 10):

1- Normally, a reader of a translated novel does not compare the target text with the source text, while in subtitling this automatically happens. Especially when the viewer speaks the source language.

2- Translators of written text have room to make explanatory notes when there are difficult passages. In subtitling this is not possible.

3- Intertextual translation involves translation from a written text to a written text, while subtitling involves translation from a spoken text to a written text.

4- In subtitling extended messages have to be condensed in order to compose a subtitle, while intertextual translations do not have to cope with lack of space.

The second, third and fourth difference Törnqvist mentions have to do with the lack of space

that is an inevitable part of subtitling. To cope with this lack of space and the other problems

of transferring a spoken text to a written text, there are a few rules:

- A subtitle (which consists of two full lines) cannot exceed the length of eight

seconds. If a subtitle appears on screen longer than eight seconds, the viewer might read the

subtitle for a second or a third time. However, there are exceptions to the rule. An example of

this is that when a person who is interviewed has to think about their answer during the giving


15

of the answer, a short answer (for example: “my mother was a sweet woman”) might take

nine seconds to pronounce. The eight-seconds rule (which is applied to a subtitle that consists

of two full sentences, which means that a single full sentence may appear on screen for four

seconds) would imply that the sentence “my mother was a sweet woman” has to be divided in

three. A sentence that is presented to the viewer in so many pieces can have a confusing

effect. The translator could choose to cut the sentence in two instead of in three. The eight-

seconds rule is violated for the benefit of the viewer’s overview.

Luyken, Herbst, Langham-Brown, Reid and Spinhof, Brondeel and Díaz Cintas and

Remael speak of the six-seconds rule, and that this rule is applied with most television

stations (Brondeel 1994, 28). However, in my experience, in the Netherlands it is not the

television stations who determine the rules, but the subtitle companies. The six-seconds rule is

mostly applied with, for example, documentaries where all information is important, whereas

with sitcoms, reality shows and films for example the eight-seconds rule is applied. The

reason for this is that television programs such as sitcoms mostly do not contain crucial

information, and the aim is to make as few subtitles as possible to reduce the client’s costs.

Unfortunately subtitling still is an element of film and television for which a small budget is

available, and therefore it has to be as cheap as possible.

- The minimum time a subtitle can appear on screen is one second and ten frames.

Frames are the number of images that are used in a second of film. In Europe the PAL system

is used, where 25 frames per second appear on screen. In America NTSC is used. This system

uses 29,97(dropped frame) or 30 frames (non-dropped frame) per second. When using this

system the minimum time of a subtitle is one second and twelve frames. The reason why there

is a minimum time for subtitles is that “less time would render the subtitle as a mere flash on

the screen, irritating the viewers’ eye” (Karamitroglou 1997, par. 3). However, this minimum

time can only be applied to subtitles consisting of one word with an average length, or


16

consisting of two or three short words. If this rule is violated, then there is a chance that a

subtitle disappears before the viewer has read it completely.

The minimum time for a subtitle consisting of one single line is three seconds and that

for a subtitle consisting of two full lines is six seconds (Brondeel 1994, 28).

-A subtitle appears on screen three to seven frames before a speaker begins to speak.

- The average number of characters per line is 37, including spaces and punctuation

marks (Díaz Cintas and Remael 2007, 84-85). The average number is based on the width of

the letters. For example, one line can contain more Ls than Ws. In other words, it is possible

that a full line contains fewer than 37 characters, but more than 37 characters is not a rarity

either. Luckily the software can help if the average number of characters is adjusted

accordingly in the software. The software automatically warns when the maximum length of a

line is exceeded.

-A subtitler should create a subtitle consisting of two lines whenever possible to

improve the viewers’ reading comfort. Díaz Cintas and Remael claim that “the greater the

number of words in one subtitle, the less time is spent reading each one of these words” (Díaz

Cintas and Remael 2007, 93) and Brondeel writes that two-line subtitles increase the reading

comfort as opposed to two successive one-line subtitles due to “[a]verage latency (0,35 sec.)

in perception” (Brondeel 1994, 28).

-Subtitlers assume that viewers are able to read approximately ten to eleven characters

(including spaces and punctuation marks) per second. Díaz Cintas and Remael speak of 2.5

words per second (Díaz Cintas and Remael 2007, 97). However, this number of words

depends on which language is the target language: the English language uses many short

words, while Dutch uses longer words. The Finnish language uses even longer words than

Dutch, for many compound words are used in Finnish. More English words can be read in one

second than Dutch words, and therefore the number of characters per second is a clearer unit.


17

The number of characters is a determinative factor for the display length of a subtitle. When

the subtitling software is adjusted to an average reading speed of eleven characters per

second, the software automatically shows whether a subtitle is displayed too shortly or too

long. However, the complexity of a sentence has to be taken into account: viewers have the

tendency to read more slowly when a complex sentence is displayed, than when a simple

sentence is displayed. For example: “my mother said that my neighbour’s girlfriend’s son is

ill” is more complex and more difficult to comprehend than “my mother said the boy is ill”.

Therefore, is it sensible for the subtitle to test whether the display length is agreeable or not.

-When a sentence consists of two subtitles, the first subtitle is closed with three dots,

sequence dots, to inform the viewer that this is not the end of the sentence. Linking dots, three

dots at the beginning of the second subtitle, are used as well to inform the reader that there

was a subtitle preceding the current subtitle (Karamitroglou 1997, par. 4). However, various

Dutch subtitling companies only use sequence dots. Moreover, in Belgium both sequences

dots and linking dots are not used.

-Between two consecutive subtitles an interval of three frames must be taken into

account. Díaz Cintas and Remael provide us with the following reason: “[i[f a subtitle is

immediately followed by another one without leaving any frames between the two, the eye

finds it difficult to realize that new information has been presented” (Díaz Cintas and Remael

2007, 92).

-When the gap between two subtitles is one second or less, it is more sensible to

connect them: adjust the out time of the first so that it the gap between the two will be three

frames. This creates a more calming effect. Brondeel claims this is not the only reason for

connecting subtitles. He writes: “[...] there is the viewers’ suspicion that subtitlers do not

translate everything anyway. It is hoped that [connecting subtitles] may contribute to

redeeming that cognitive dissatisfaction as well” (Brondeel 1994, 28).


18

- A subtitler has to try and summarize all the information that is conveyed in six

seconds and put it into one subtitle. If the translator fails to do this, the subtitles will flash

over the screen too fast, which causes illegibility. The subtitler has the important task to

determine which information is relevant and which is not. However, this may cause

frustration, because the viewer might feel the translation is incomplete.

-For the purpose of creating an orderly subtitle a dash is used in every double title (a

subtitle in which two speakers speak) when the second speaker starts to speak. In other

countries (in Sweden, for example) one dash is used for the first speaker, and one for the

second speaker.

-To prevent confusion, question and answer are placed within one subtitle. However,

this is not always possible.

DON’T: Hoi. Hi. Hoi. Hi.

Wat ben je aan het doen? What are you doing? Niks. Nothing.

DO: Hoi. Hi.

-Hoi. -Hi. Wat ben je aan het doen? What are you doing? -Niks. -Nothing.

- An important rule that is often ignored by so-called amateur subtitlers is logic with

regards to lay-out. Word combinations need to be kept together as much as possible to

maintain a certain overview and to prevent misinterpretation. In the following example it

looks like Mom is crazy, but then it appears that she is only crazy about flowers.

DON’T: M’n moeder zegt dat ze gek is My Mom says she’s crazy op bloemen. about flowers.


19

DO: M’n moeder zegt My Mom says dat ze gek is op bloemen. she’s crazy about flowers. This applies also to instances where one sentence is presented in two subtitles. The sentence

can only be aborted at a natural pause. For example in the Dutch Television program SBS

Shownieuws this rule is clearly not applied in Dutch-Dutch translations. Subtitles like those

below are regularly seen in this program:

DON'T: Ik heb geen zin I don’t want to… om morgen naar… huis te gaan. go home tomorrow. DO: Ik heb geen zin… I don’t want to go home… om morgen tomorrow. naar huis te gaan.

5. Problems in Translating Humour

5.1 What Is Humour?

Humour is not something that can easily be defined. It is a phenomenon that causes a

laugh. However, not everyone has the same sense of humour. What one person considers to

be humorous, another might not find amusing at all.

And what is to be called a sense of humour? Is it triggered by the action – the

humorous utterance or the humorous action – or by the reaction? Is the intention of a person

to say or do something humorous to make someone laugh – the creator’s action – called

humour? Or is it the receiver’s reaction?


20

It is also possible to say or do something without the intention of making someone

laugh. Is here only the receiver’s reaction called humour? Or is it possible to define the

unintended action or utterance of the unaware creator as humour?

Many researchers have tried to find a solution to these questions, but there still is a

large dissension in this field. Vandaele suggests not to be afraid to accept the minimal

definition of humour (Vandaele 2002, 155). By this minimal definition he means only the

effect of an action or an utterance. So when someone laughs, it indicates that this person has a

sense of humour. And by a laugh – by the reaction that is given to a certain action or utterance

– a comical situation becomes clear in, for example, sitcoms on television. To indicate that

something is funny, canned laughter (Díaz Cintas and Remael 2007, 216) may be added to a

scene, so the audience at home understands that the scene is meant to be funny, even though

the viewer might not think that it is. By this ‘artificial’ reaction, humour is created. However,

would everyone understand this humour? By this I mean: would the Dutch audience

understand the humour in American sitcoms? Of course we can recognise it, because of the

canned laughter, but are we able to understand it? Not every Dutchman speaks English, so a

little help from a subtitler will be needed. But will these subtitlers be able to translate every

joke, pun or every other sort of humorous utterance in the target language at the same moment

the reaction of the American audience (or the canned laughter) comes in? And will we

understand it? If we do not understand it, we cannot call it humour. So the subtitler has the

difficult task to try and make the Dutch subtitles as humorous as the original utterances.


21

5.2 Types of Humour

The humour used in sitcoms involves verbal and visual humour. However, obviously

only verbal humour needs to be translated. In his book Aspects of Verbal Humour in English

Alexander describes sixteen modes of verbal humour that he has noticed in different writings

on the subject of humour (Alexander 1997, 10). I have adjusted this list to the forms of verbal

humour that occur in sitcoms. I have also added ‘comparison’, because I found that this also

contributes to the humour in sitcoms.

1. Joke: Raskin states that a joke is similar to an anecdote, however, he says, a joke

involves a comic situation, whereas an anecdote can illustrate a moral point as well. An

anecdote does not necessarily have to be funny, whereas a joke is always meant to have a

laugh as an effect. Whether the joke in fact causes this laugh, is up to the receiver and their

sense of humour.

2. Running gag: Pulliam defines a running gag as an allusion that is used “recurrently

in a play, film, television skit, etc., for a cumulative comic effect” (Pulliam 1991, 166). One

remark or action is called back on as a continuous source of humour.

3. Crack: a crack, or a wisecrack, is a clever remark made to amuse, however it is

often an unkind remark (Collins Cobuild).

4. Epigram: an epigram is a short poem or a short or witty saying that is often

paradoxical (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

5. Pun: a pun, or paronomasia, is a form of wordplay that includes ambiguity. By

means of words or phrases with two meanings or words with the same sounds, but different

meaning, confusion is created (Collins Cobuild). Lippman and Dunn write: “Puns capitalize

on attributes of words leading to an idea that is asynchronous with what would be anticipated”

(Lippman and Dunn 2000, 186).


22

6. Spoonerism: a spoonerism is a form of wordplay in which the initial letters or

syllables of two or more succeeding words are switched. For example: ‘a tip of the slung’

instead of ‘a slip of the tongue’. This form of wordplay is named after William Archibald

Spooner, because he always had the tendency to make these pronunciation mistakes

(Encyclopaedia Britannica).

7. Irony: the intention of an expression is concealed by the literal meaning of a word

or phrase (Encyclopeadia Britannica).

8. Satire: with satire wit and humour are used to critique “to the end that human

institutions or humanity may be improved” (Harris 1990, par. 2). Ridicule, derision,

burlesque, irony, or other methods are used in an exaggerating fashion to critique, for

instance, shortcomings of society (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

9. Caricature: when you think of a caricature, the caricature drawings immediately

come to mind. However, a caricature can also apply to a sort of impersonation. It is applied to

people to enlarge their stereo-typical behaviour or manners in a ridiculous fashion, to create a

comical effect.

10. Parody: Intertextuality plays a large role in this form of humour. A well-known

book, film, song or even a person (although this might be the same as impersonation) is

ridiculed by imitating the style in an exaggerated fashion (Collins Cobuild).

11. Impersonation: pretending to be a certain person by copying mimicry or re-

enacting in order to make people laugh (Collins Cobuild).

12. Sarcasm: sarcasm implies the mocking of a person with the intention to hurt (The

American Heritage Dictionary). It is expressed through vocal intonations. For instance

through overemphasising particular words in a statement. There is a contrast between what

the speaker says and what he means, and therefore it is a form of irony. For example, when

someone says: “Nice hat,” it could be that they mean that the hat looks ridiculous.


23

13. Sardonic: a form of mocking, cynical, sneering form of humour that is

characterized by bitter or scornful derision (Dictionary.com).

14. Comparison: a person or a thing is compared to someone or something else

through similes, metaphors or personification. A comparison is indicated by the word ‘as’ or

‘like’. A metaphor is “a word or expression that in literal usage denotes one kind of thing is

applied to a distinctly different kind of thing, without asserting a comparison” (Abrams 1999,

97). And a personification is an inanimate object that is spoken of as if it were a person.

5.3 Translating Humour

Understanding humour and producing humour are two distinct procedures.

Understanding humour does not necessarily imply the appreciation of humour. However, it is

necessary for the translator to recognise the humour in order to try and create a humorous

translation. But then a problem arises. Not every translator is able to reproduce humour in

their own language. Vandaele writes that the production and reproduction of humour is talent-

related and that it cannot be learned (Vandaele 2002, 150), because it is not teachable as for

example writing academic papers or journalistic articles.

According to Raphaelson-West the problems in translating humour can be found on a

linguistic level and on a cultural/universal level (Raphaelson-West 1989, 130).

Linguistic jokes are difficult to translate, because they are often only possible to make

in the source language. Puns are a great example of this. In the film Dangerous Waters a girl

says to her friend: “It’s Spring Break. It’s a great opportunity to, you know, lose it.” The girl

refers to ‘losing your virginity’, but her friend assumes that she means ‘lose yourself’.

When a pun is translated into a target language, it often must be changed completely,

or it has to be left out. In the example above, it is not necessary to leave the pun out, but it


24

cannot remain the same either. An acceptable translation would be: ‘Doe eens gek. Dit is het

juiste moment om het te doen.’ The word ‘het’ here has a double meaning: ‘be crazy for once’

and ‘have sex’.

Another example of a pun is from the television programme Scare Tactics. This is a

television programme in which people play pranks on their friends. In this particular prank, a

boy finds a chopped off arm in a box. The reaction of the host of the programme is: “You’re

lucky he wasn’t armed.” Obviously, the arm is an important element in this pun, but if it is

translated in Dutch by ‘Je hebt geluk dat hij niet gewapend was’, this element does not come

forward. Therefore, it makes more sense to change the pun in order to keep the ‘arm’. For

instance ‘wat een arme jongen’ or ‘gelukkig probeerde hij je niet te omarmen’.

Difficulties on a cultural level are also problems that are frequently seen in

translations. For example, when someone makes a joke referring to Spring Break, a Dutchman

might not understand it. ‘Spring Break’ cannot be translated to the plain Dutch

‘voorjaarsvakantie’, because it is not the same. ‘Voorjaarsvakantie’ is a holiday in springtime

that involves primary schools, secondary schools and sometimes universities as well. ‘Spring

Break’ is something that involves only university or college students who go to a nice sunny

place – mostly to the beach – to party. When it is translated with ‘voorjaarsvakantie’ – which

is the only option besides not translating it – it must be explained what it means, otherwise

Dutch readers or viewers might not understand what is meant and what, for example, the big

problem is why a girl’s parents do not think it is a good idea that their daughter wants to go

away for Spring Break.

To translate humour translation strategies need to be applied, depending on what type

of humour is presented. Delia Chiaro describes three translation strategies to translate

humour: (1) substituting verbal humour in the source language with a form of verbal humour

in the target language, (2) replacing the verbal humour in the source language with an


25

idiomatic expression in the target language, (3) replacing the verbal humour in the source

language with a compensatory expression of verbal humour somewhere else in the text of the

target language (Chiaro 2006, 200)

The first strategy is a difficult strategy, since source language and target language are

unlikely to contain words with the same meaning, sounds or ambiguity. Therefore, often only

part of the verbal humour or a similar form of verbal humour is used in the target language.

The subtitler can choose to preserve the meaning or part of the meaning in the subtitle

translation, or to preserve the form of the verbal humour in terms of sounds whenever that

causes the humorous effect.

The second strategy, replacing the verbal humour in the source language with a

humorous idiomatic expression in the target language, is applied fairly often when ambiguity

is the trigger of humour. In the following example from Little Mosque on the Prairie where a

Muslim man is trying to help the Anglican congregation to save the Anglican church in the

town of Mercy by following a crash course in the Anglican faith, the ambiguous word ‘pew’

is replaced by a joke using the ambiguous word ‘kruis’ (‘crotch/cross’).

My seat smells. Is that why they call it a pew? Van wiens kruis komt die lucht? (Whose crotch smells?)

The last strategy is replacing the verbal humour in the source language by verbal

humour in the target language elsewhere in the text. This strategy, however, triggers a laugh

at the ‘wrong’ moment. In sitcoms often canned laughter is used to indicate whenever an

utterance is funny. When a humorous comment is made in the spoken text, a subtitle must

also have a comical effect. If the translation displays the verbal humour earlier or later, the

canned laughter betrays the fact that the translation is a bit off. However, with dubbing, as


26

Chiaro states, this is less of a problem, because source and target language cannot be

compared.

The three strategies mentioned above are different than Chesterman’s which I will use

in analysing the chosen scenes. However, a combination of different strategies Chesterman

mentions (see page 29 and 30) leads to the same effect that Chiaro’s techniques to translate

humour have. Domestication is often a solution to make jokes understandable for the target

audience. Omission can be applied when certain humorous utterances are untranslatable, but

rhetorical scheme change is a fantastic solution when the humour is built on alliteration for

example. A combination of omission and addition can lead to the same effect as the third

strategy mentioned above, for in this fashion a humorous utterance can be moved.

6. Problems in Translating the Genre of Crime

Television programs that are built around investigating murder cases have grown in

popularity a great deal and that popularity has reached the Netherlands as well. For example

television programs like Crime Scene Investigation, Numbers, Crossing Jordan, Law and

Order or Bones dominate the Dutch television evening almost every night. Translating the

genre of crime might not seem as difficult at first. However, apart from the restrictions of

subtitling, it may show certain problems. Unfortunately, I have not found any literature

concerning subtitling and crime. On the other hand, I did find an article on the translation of

legal terms in general, which is something that can be found in crime series very often.

Ludmila Stern raises the problem of the difference between the legal system and legal terms

in different countries. “Whereas in English-speaking countries legal concepts, courtroom

procedures and rhetoric have been moulded by a certain history and experience, this legal

culture will not necessarily be shared by speakers of the target languages” (Stern 2004, 63),

and therefore translation problems will exist.


27

Apart from the legal terms, forensic terms are used as well. The problem in translating

these is that a suitable translation is difficult to find, for often a dictionary does not provide us

with an appropriate translation, and existing websites concerning crime laboratories and their

activities do not contain a list of terms.

Moreover, scientific terms are used as well along with these forensic terms. Different

chemicals or medicines often play a crucial part in the causes of death of the victims.

Fortunately, chemical substances are not difficult to translate, for translations are provided by

dictionaries. However, medicines or drugs are a different story. Medicines or drugs existing in

the United States often have different names in the Netherlands or do not exist in the

Netherlands. It is also possible that a certain type of drug is know by three different names in

the United States, while the Netherlands only uses one particular name. When those three

names are used throughout the program only one translation can be applied for three different

terms, which can cause confusion with the viewer, because they might think that the subtitler

made a mistake.

Despite the fact that there was no literature available on subtitling the genre of crime, I

found another article on the translation of legal terms. The problems that arise while

translating legal terms are comparable with the strategies arising from forensic and scientific

terms, and therefore the translation strategies described by Harvey can be applied with all

technical terms that occur within the genre of crime. Harvey describes four strategies: (1)

functional equivalence, (2) formal equivalence, (3) transcription, and (4) using a descriptive

translation (Harvey 2002, 2-6). However, the last strategy unfortunately will not be applied in

subtitling as the lack of space limits the translator in their explanatory possibilities.

On the other hand, the first three strategies Harvey mentions are used in subtitling very

often. The first strategy, functional equivalence, implies that a translation is used that, on a

certain level, overlaps with the source language. For example: the Dutch word


28

‘kantongerecht’ does not exist in the United States or in Great Britain, therefore a court with

an overlapping function must be found. Van Dale Groot Woordenboek Nederlands-Engels

provides the following possible translations, indicating that the terms in the source and the

target language are not completely the same: magistrate or Justice of the Peace. This strategy

is comparable with Chesterman’s domestication strategy (see page 30).

Formal equivalence implies a word-for-word translation of the source language

(Chesterman’s literal translation) and transcription is the borrowing of the concerning term in

the source language (Chesterman’s calque).

In my opinion functional equivalence is used most in subtitling, together with a fifth

strategy that is not be likely to be used in textual translations: by-passing. By-passing is

getting round a translating problem by replacing the concerning term by a more vague term:

Ballistics will investigate this evidence.

Mijn collega zal dit bewijs onderzoeken. (My colleague will investigate this evidence.)

7. Using Translation Strategies While Subtitling

It is impossible to translate a text from a source language into a target language

without using translation strategies: Andrew Chesterman claims the most simple translation

strategy is ‘change something’. Of course this is a rather simple view on translation strategies

applied, because there needs to be a reason to change something. Riita Jääskeläinen describes

two types of translation strategies: strategies that relate to what happens to texts and strategies

that relate to what happens in the translation process (Jääskeläinen 2005, 1-2). I will not

address the strategies relating to what happens in the process for these are inferential


29

strategies preceding all the other strategies in the translation process (Chesterman 1997, 243).

The strategies that relate to what happens to the text – Chesterman refers to them as

production strategies – are more appropriate when discussing subtitle translations, for the end

result of the translation is what viewers see on television, and therefore I would like to show

how the subtitling of a television program comes about. As said before, in subtitling many

adaptations must be made due to the restrictions of space and reading time, and due to the fact

that spoken text has to be transferred to written text. In order to achieve creating an

appropriate lay-out many production strategies have to be applied to make the text

presentable, comprehensible and legible to the viewer. Therefore I will use Chesterman’s list

of production strategies in my analysis of how the mind of a subtitler works in the light of 8

Simple Rules and Crossing Jordan. However, it is a slightly adapted list, since certain

categories (such as the pragmatic strategy transediting) are not being applied within subtitles.

Chesterman describes three categories within the production strategies: syntactic strategies,

semantic strategies and pragmatic strategies:

Syntactic strategies LITERAL TRANSLATION – staying as close to the source language as possible CALQUE – borrowing certain elements from the source language TRANSPOSITION – changing word classes: e.g. a noun changes into a verb UNIT CHANGE – a shift of the units morpheme, word, phrase, clause, sentence or paragraph: e.g. a phrase changes into a single word STRUCTURAL CHANGE – structural change of a phrase: shifts in singular/plural or first person/ second person/third person; structural change of a clause: shifts in word order; structural change of a sentence: shifts involving main clauses and subordinate clauses COHESION CHANGE – shifts in references within a text RHETORICAL SCHEME CHANGE – changing rhetorical schemes such as parallelism, repetition, alliteration and metre


30

Semantic strategies USING A SYNONYM – using a deviating equivalent USING AN ANTONYM – using an opposite in combination with a negation USING A HYPONYM – using a more specific translation of a word USING A HYPERONYM – using a broader translation of a word CONDENSING – using a shortened version EXPANDING – adding elements to a text MODULATION – changing the emphasis, e.g. by adding a word like ‘very’ or by omitting it RHETORICAL TROPE CHANGE – similar to RHETORICAL SCHEME CHANGE (therefore I chose only to use RHETORICAL SCHEME CHANGE in my analyses) Pragmatic changes ADDITION – adding information OMISSION – leaving information out EXPLICITATION – making information in the source text explicit IMPLICITATION – making information in the source text implicit PARAPHRASE – saying the same in other words DOMESTICATION – transferring a certain element to an equivalent in the target language FOREIGNIZATION – maintaining a foreign element


31

8. Analysing 8 Simple Rules and Crossing Jordan

8.1 The Research Procedure

I will start my research with the analysis of a scene of the sitcom 8 Simple Rules of the

episode Ditch Day, whereupon I will present my analysis of Crossing Jordan with the episode

Slam Dunk. The structure of both analyses will be the same. Firstly, I will present a short

recap of the settings of respectively the sitcom and the crime series and I will give a

description of the characters, after which I will place the chosen scene in the series as a whole.

Secondly I will indicate which translation problems characteristic of the genre of humour or

the genre of crime occur in the particular scene. Thirdly, I will present a transcription of the

spoken text and an overview of the subtitles. Fourthly, I will try to show through an extensive

analysis how the mind of a subtitler works. I will try and explain the choices I made while

translating and I will show why other translations are less preferred or why they are

impossible. Lastly I will provide a short conclusion of the findings per genre.

8.2 8 Simple Rules – Ditch Day

8.2.1 The Story

The sitcom 8 Simple Rules, or 8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter, was

first aired in the United States on 17 September 2002 on the American station ABC. In the

Netherlands the series was broadcast by NET5 in 2005, and in the years following it was

rerunned by the same television station. In April 2008 Comedy Central started broadcasting

the series in the Netherlands again.


32

The basis of the series is a family of five: Mom, Dad, two daughters and a son. The

eldest daughter, Bridget, is a blonde, popular girl, but she is not too bright. The second

daughter, Kerry, is a smart red haired girl, who seems to be a bit moody and slightly

depressed. Her sister, Bridget, sees her as a nerd. The youngest child is son Rory. He enjoys

teasing his sisters and he is the one always making funny remarks. Paul, their father, is a

sports writer who often embarrasses his children. Their mother, Cate, is a nurse, who later on

in the series starts working as a school nurse at her children’s school. Most of the time she is

the only one who has a clear view on things and she seems the most sane person in the

household. In the third and last season Paul is not in the picture anymore, for he had died in

season two. To create the possibility for new story lines, two new characters were added to

the series: Grandpa Jim and CJ. Jim is Cate’s father and lives in the family’s basement. He is

the funny older man who secretly smokes his cigarettes. CJ is Cate’s funny, but childish

nephew who becomes a teacher at the school Kerry, Bridget and Rory attend.

The story of the episode Ditch Day from which the chosen scene originates is as

follows: It is ditch day at school. Kerry is not planning to participate, so she goes to school

and wants to follow normal classes. However, the teachers seem to have other plans: they are

having a party in the teachers’ lounge. At the same time Bridget is planning a prank:

kidnapping the mascot goat of a rival school. However, she gets in detention and ends up in

CJ’s detention room. CJ is in charge of detention, because Cate had a bone to pick with him:

CJ discovered that Cate and the principal of the school are having a relationship, told Bridget

about it while he promised he would not and Bridget told her mother about CJ breaking his

promise. Kerry and Rory plan to kidnap the goat in Bridget’s place, because Kerry realizes

she is a goody-two-shoes and she does not want to be that anymore. They steal the goat and

hide it at home in the upstairs bathroom. Then, at the end of ditch day, the chosen scene

begins. This episode ends with Cate confessing she has a relationship with the principal. She


33

tells her children she loves them and they forgive her for not telling them and accept her

relationship.

8.2.2 Translation Problems in 8 Simple Rules Fast dialogues are a specific feature of this sitcom. Characters rarely let each other

finish their sentences, the dialogues are high in tempo and sometimes the characters speak all

at once. These fast dialogues are likely to cause problems while subtitling, because not all

information can be incorporated in the translation. The high tempo of this sitcom is the main

reason why I chose this series to analyse, because it is a perfect example of why omission is

so tremendously important in the field of subtitling, not only in the genre of comedy.

Fortunately for me as a translator the humour in 8 Simple Rules mostly concerns funny

situations and does not consist of many word jokes as opposed to Friends or It’s All Relative.

Moreover, the scene I chose does not contain any word jokes, and therefore these will not

form a translation problem.

On the other hand, the tone of voice of the characters needs to be kept intact in the

translation. When Rory is making wisecracks, the sarcasm needs to be kept in the translation.

When Kerry acts surprised, the translation needs to reflect that she is surprised.

In my analysis I will give an idea of how a subtitler tries to cope with these problems

and how they find solutions, so that the viewer who does not speak English can still enjoy

watching.


34

8.2.3 Script and Subtitle Overview

Script 8 Simple Rules – Ditch Day

RORY: I was just playing tug of war.

KERRY:

That was mom’s favorite green sweater.

RORY: I didn’t know the goat was going to eat it.

BRIDGET:

You’re completely cruel and unfair.

CJ: I gave you half my cupcake.

BRIDGET:

You sucked the cream out. That’s not giving it to me.

CJ: Ingrate.

BRIDGET:

Cream sucker.

RORY: Grandpa, you were upstairs?

KERRY:

Why were you upstairs?

RORY: You never go upstairs.

GRANDPA:

Mom wanted me to take some things to the cleaners. Has anybody seen her green sweater?

KERRY:

No. Haven’t seen it.

RORY: I didn’t even know she had a green sweater.


35

GRANDPA: No problem. I’m sure it’ll turn up.

Oh, one more thing: Why is there a goat in the bathroom?

BRIDGET: You brought it here?

CJ:

Ah, you got Rory to do your dirty work.

KERRY: Oh, so you just assume that I had nothing to do with it?

GRANDPA:

You stole a goat?

KERRY: No, sir.

RORY:

Oh my God, that’s Mom. Grandpa, you’re not going to say anything, are you?

GRANDPA:

Well, it’s been kind of a slow news day. I think I’ll just let this one play out.

CATE: Hey. I just had the best ditch day.

I won 30 dollar at poker and I had a couple of margaritas for lunch.

GRANDPA: It sounds like everybody had a little adventure today.

CATE:

You know, that second one might have been a mistake, though, because when I got dropped off by Mr Kolodny, I could have sworn I saw a goat out of the upstairs window.

BRIDGET: Seriously?

RORY:

Ooo, strong drinks.

CATE: What’s that smell?

RORY:

Kerry, I told you to take a shower today.


36

Subtitle Overview 8 Simple Rules – Ditch Day1 0001 00:00:00:14 00:00:02:10 We waren aan 't touwtrekken. 1:21

________ ^ ^

0002 00:00:02:13 00:00:06:12 Dat was mam's groene trui. 3:24 -Wist ik dat hij 'm zou opeten?

__________________ ^ ^

0003 00:00:06:15 00:00:10:10 Je bent gemeen. 3:20 -Je kreeg de helft van m'n cakeje.

___________________ ^ ^

0004 00:00:10:13 00:00:13:08 Jij likte eerst de room eruit. 2:20 _____________ ^ ^

0005 00:00:13:11 00:00:15:18 Ondankbaar mens. 2:07 -Roomlikker.

___________ ^ ^

0006 00:00:17:04 00:00:19:06 Was je boven? 2:02 -Waarom?

__________ ^ ^

0007 00:00:19:09 00:00:22:09 Daar kom je nooit. 3:00 -Ik ga naar de stomerij.

______________ ^ ^

0008 00:00:22:12 00:00:26:13 Heb je je moeders groene trui gezien? 4:01 -Niet gezien.

___________________ ^ ^

0009 00:00:26:16 00:00:30:04 Heeft ze een groene trui dan? 3:13 -We vinden 'm wel weer.

________________ ^ ^

0010 00:00:30:07 00:00:34:03 Waarom staat er een geit 3:21 in de badkamer?

_________________ ^ ^

1The first column contains the subtitle numbers. The second column shows the time code on which the subtitle appears on screen, and the third column when the subtitle disappears from the screen. The fourth column contains the actual subtitle, and the last column shows how long the subtitle is displayed (seconds:frames; in Europe the Pal system is used, which means that 25 images (frames) per second appear on screen). The horizontal lines underneath the subtitles correspond with the time from the last column: the time that a subtitle appears on screen. “^ ^” indicate the ideal reading time: ideal, sufficient,

too long, just right, too short. With the aid of Spot subtitling software I generated these outcomes. The software settings I used are: the average reading speed per second is eleven characters; the average line length is 37 characters, depending on the width of the letter; a the minimum display length of a subtitle is one second and ten frames; the maximum display length is eight seconds; there are three frames between two joined subtitles.


37

0011 00:00:35:20 00:00:39:06 Is hij hier? 3:11 -Moet hij je vuile werk opknappen?

________________ ^ ^

0012 00:00:39:09 00:00:44:06 En ik heb er niets mee te maken? 4:22 -Heb je een geit gestolen?

_______________________ ^ ^

0013 00:00:45:02 00:00:47:22 Daar is mam. 2:20 Je vertelt het toch niet?

_____________ ^ ^

0014 00:00:48:00 00:00:53:00 Het was vandaag een saaie dag. 5:00 Ik wil wel zien hoe dit afloopt.

________________________ ^ ^

0015 00:00:54:23 00:01:00:12 Wat 'n geweldige dag. Ik heb 30 dollar 5:14 gewonnen en margarita's gedronken.

__________________________ ^ ^

0016 00:01:00:15 00:01:02:13 Een dag vol avonturen. 1:23 _________ ^ ^

0017 00:01:02:16 00:01:05:02 Ik heb er misschien te veel op... 2:11 ___________ ^ ^

0018 00:01:05:05 00:01:12:10 want toen ik werd afgezet, 7:05 zag ik boven een geit voor het raam.

_________________________________ ^ ^

0019 00:01:14:20 00:01:17:19 Echt waar? 2:24 -Sterkedrank.

______________ ^ ^

0020 00:01:18:19 00:01:22:17 Wat ruik ik? 3:23 -Ik zei toch dat je moest douchen?

__________________ ^ ^


38

8.2.4 Analysis 8 Simple Rules

0001 I was just playing tug of war.

We waren aan 't touwtrekken. Translation strategies used: STRUCTURAL CHANGE MODULATION OMISSION TRANSPOSITION • The first strategy that I used is STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CONSTITUENT: the first person

singular changes into the first person plural, simply because of the fact that it is impossible to play

tug of war alone. “We” refers to Rory and the goat.

• The word “just” is OMITTED in the translation because there is too little reading time. At the

same time, this is a MODULATION as well, because it is not stated in the translation that

playing tug of war is nothing to be worried about.

• Moreover I OMITTED the word “playing”, because the expression “we waren touwtrekken

aan het spelen” does not exist in Dutch.

• Lastly there is a TRANSPOSITION: a noun (“tug of war”) changes into a verb

(“touwtrekken”).

0002 That was mom’s favorite green sweater.

-I didn’t know the goat was going to eat it. Dat was mam's groene trui. -Wist ik dat hij 'm zou opeten?

Translation strategies used: OMISSION MODULATION USING AN ANTONYM IMPLICITATION ADDITION STRUCTURAL CHANGE • Firstly, an OMISSION took place. The word “favorite” has disappeared, otherwise the reading

time would not be sufficient. This is also MODULATION.


39

• In the source language “I didn’t know” is used, while in the target language the negation has

disappeared. An ANTONYM is used: the opposite of “I didn’t know” is “I knew”. By doing

so, the sentence turned into a rhetorical question. As seen in the subtitle overview, there is

little time to read this subtitle, and therefore I chose to remove “not”.

• Moreover, I used the strategy IMPLICIATION so that “the goat” could be translated with “hij”.

Again, the reason was to compromise to the reading time.

• An ADDITION can be seen in the Dutch word “dat”. This strategy is used to create a better

flow of the sentence.

• STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE can be found in the last part of the second sentence:

“the goat was going to eat it”. In English the word order is subject, verb, verb, verb, direct

object. In Dutch the word order is subject, direct object, verb, verb.

0003 You’re completely cruel and unfair.

-I gave you half my cupcake. Je bent gemeen. -Ik gaf je de helft van m'n cakeje.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION MODULATION DOMESTICATION UNIT CHANGE • OMISSION is the most obvious strategy that I used in this subtitle, due to the fact that there is

not enough reading time to translate all the elements from the source language. The words

“completely” and “and unfair” have been omitted. This is also MODULATION because now

Bridget is toned down more.

• “De helft van” is a Dutch expression. “Ik gaf je half m’n cakeje” is not a sentence a

Dutchman would say. Therefore, DOMESTICATION is used. Moreover, this could also be

categorized as UNIT CHANGE, for a single word (“half”) changes into a phrase (“de helft

van”).


40

0004 You sucked the cream out. That’s not giving it to me. Jij likte eerst de room eruit. Translation strategies used: ADDITION MODULATION USING A SYNONYM OMISSION • I the word “eerst” ADDED in the translation, to make clear that the cream was sucked out

before he CJ gave the cupcake to Bridget. This is also a form of MODULATION.

In addition, the word “out” is translated with “eruit”. “Er” is ADDED, because the sentence

“je likte de room uit” is not completely finished. You need to know from where he licked

the cream.

• Instead of sucking the cream out, in the Dutch translation the cream is licked out. Here a

kind of SYNONYM is used, because both terms have the same essence. “Sucking cream out”

is a somewhat difficult to comprehend, while licking cream from something can be

visualized more easily.

• Lastly, the second sentence cannot be found in the translation: I OMITTED it completely. In

the subtitle overview it looks as though there is enough reading time. However, when the

sentence would be translated, the reading time would be as follows:

Jij likte eerst de room eruit. Dat noem ik geen geven. ____________ ^ ^

0005 Ingrate.

-Cream sucker. Ondankbaar mens. -Roomlikker.

Translation strategies used: EXPLICITATION DOMESTICATION USING A SYNONYM


41

• The word “ingrate” is made more EXPLICIT. “Ondankbare” is not a suitable translation,

because this would not be used in Dutch in this place. Therefore, “ondankbaar mens” is a

better translation. This also could be seen as a form of DOMESTICATION, because the

translation is adjusted to a Dutch expression.

• Again “cream sucker” becomes “cream licker”. So here again a SYNONYM is used.

0006 Grandpa, you were upstairs?

-Why were you upstairs? Was je boven? -Waarom?

Translation strategies used: OMISSION STRUCTURAL CHANGE

• The translation strategy omission is used twice in this subtitle: “Grandpa” is OMITTED and

“were you upstairs” was OMITTED. The reason for using this strategy twice is to make sure

the subtitle can be read by the viewer. If everything was translated, the reading time would

be as follows:

Opa, was je boven? -Waarom was je boven? ________ ^ ^

• Because of the fact that a the word order of a question starts with a verb followed by a

subject, I used the strategy STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE to create a proper question.

0007 You never go upstairs.

Mom wanted me to take some things to the cleaners. Daar kom je nooit. -Ik ga naar de stomerij.

Translation strategies used: IMPLICITATION PARAPHRASE OMISSION ADDITION


42

• In the first sentence I used the strategy IMPLICITATION. It is not explicitly written in the

translation that Grandpa went upstairs. In the translation it is only referred to as “daar”. If

the translation “je komt nooit boven” was used, the reading time would have been

inadequate:

Je komt nooit boven. -Ik ga naar de stomerij. _______________

^ ^ Or:

Je gaat nooit naar boven. -Ik ga naar de stomerij. _______________

^ ^ • Moreover,I used PARAPHRASE in order to condense the sentence more. A more literal

translation would have been “je gaat nooit naar boven”, however this translation would not

meet the reading time.

• Quite a large piece of the second sentence has been OMITTED: “Mom wanted me to take

some things...” The reason to use this strategy is, again, the short reading time. Moreover, a

lack of space plays a part in this decision:

Daar kom je nooit. -Je moeder wilde dat ik wat dingen naar de stomerij bracht. _______________ ^ ^

• However, I used ADDITION as well. Because the subject of the source text (“your mother”)

has been omitted, it was necessary to insert a new subject. Since Grandpa is the one who is

going to the drycleaners and he is the speaker, the subject chosen was “I”, accompanied by

the verb “go”: “ik ga naar de stomerij”.


43

0008 Has anybody seen her green sweater? -No. Haven’t seen it. Heb je je moeders groene trui gezien? -Niet gezien.

Translation strategies used: EXPLICITATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE OMISSION • The first strategy used in this subtitle is EXPLICITATION. In the first sentence I translated

“her” by “je moeders” because of the fact that the omission of “Mom wanted me to take

some things to the cleaners” has made it unclear that they are talking about their mother.

• STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A PHRASE can be seen where “anybody” is translated by “je”. The

lack of space made this strategy indispensible. Moreover, there would be too little reading

time when this strategy was not used:

Heeft iemand jullie moeders groene trui gezien? -Niet gezien. __________________ ^ ^

• Moreover, I used STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE to change the word order for a better

word flow in Dutch. In English “has anybody seen her green sweater” has the word order:

verb, subject, verb, direct object. In Dutch the word order is: verb, subject, direct object,

verb.

• The translation strategy omission occurs three times in this subtitle.

Firstly, the word “no” has been OMITTED in the second sentence to compromise the reading

speed.

Thirdly, the verb “have” and the direct object “it” have been omitted. “Niet gezien” is the

shortest translation for “haven’t seen it”. Moreover, “heb ‘m niet gezien” is not a full Dutch

sentence, for the subject is missing. A correct translation would have been “ik heb ‘m niet

gezien”, but if this translation was chosen the reading speed would be inadequate:


44

Heb je je moeders groene trui gezien? -Ik heb 'm niet gezien. _________________ ^ ^

0009 I didn’t even know she had a green sweater.

-No problem. I’m sure it’ll turn up. Heeft ze een groene trui dan? -We vinden 'm wel weer.

Translation strategies used: STRUCTURAL CHANGE ADDITION MODULATION DOMESTICATION OMISSION PARAPHRASE • The first translation strategy that I applied in this subtitle is STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A

CLAUSE. The first sentence becomes a question in the target languages, and therefore the

word order must be changed. The reason for using this strategy is that this question allows

other words to be omitted to save space and reading time.

• The word “dan” has been ADDED in the translation to create a feeling of colloquial speech.

The translation “heeft ze een groene trui?” seems to be incomplete. In Dutch it is common to

add the word “dan” to exaggerate a certain simulated ignorance, therefore it is also a form of

DOMESTICATION and MODULATION.

• Moreover, I OMITTED “I didn’t even know” due to the lack of space and too little reading

time.

• Also STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A PHRASE is used: the source language and the target

language have a different subject in the first sentence. In the target language the subject is

“I” and in the target language the subject is “she”. This shift is a consequence of the

omission of “I didn’t even know”.


45

• STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A PHRASE can be found in the first sentence where the target

language contains a present tense and the source language contains a past tense. The reason

for the use of this strategy is that the mother supposedly still owns the green sweater.

• In the second sentence I used the strategy OMISSION as well: “no problem” is omitted

completely to save space and to compromise the reading speed:

Heeft ze een groene trui dan? -Geen probleem. We vinden 'm wel weer. ________________ ^ ^

• Moreover, I used the translation strategy PARAPHRASE to translate “it’ll turn up”. The Dutch

equivalent for “it’ll turn up” is “hij komt wel weer boven water”, however, this translation

does not meet the required reading speed.

0010 Oh, one more thing: Why is there a goat in the bathroom?

Waarom staat er een geit in de badkamer?

Translation strategies used: OMISSION DOMESTICATION • “Oh, one more thing” is OMITTED. However, this need not be, for the reading time is

sufficient and there is enough space:

O, nog één ding: Waarom staat er een geit in de badkamer? ________________ ^ ^

Still this strategy was used, because it could be left out without any information being

withheld.

• Also DOMESTICATION is used: “is there…” is translated with “staat er…”. It is possible to

use “is er een geit in de badkamer”, however “staat er” is more commonly used.


46

0011 You brought it here? -Ah, you got Rory to do your dirty work. Is hij hier? -Moet hij je vuile werk opknappen?

Translation strategies used: PARAPHRASE OMISSION IMPLICITATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE DOMESTICATION • The first strategy I used is PARAPHRASE.”You brought it here” became the shorter version

“is hij hier”, because there is very little reading time.

• Secondly, I OMITTED the exclamation “ah”, because exclamations need not be translated.

• Furthermore, I used IMPLICIATION. “Rory” is made implicit by translating it with “he”.

Through this there is a little more reading time for the more important information.

• STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE is used to turn the second sentence into a question, and

therefore the word order has changed. The reason I chose to use a question is that CJ poses

his reaction as a question.

• Lastly, I used DOMESTICATION. “Do your dirty work” is translated by a Dutch colloquialism

“je vuile werk opknappen”.

0012 Oh, so you just assume that I had nothing to do with it? -You stole a goat? -No, sir. En ik heb er niets mee te maken? -Heb je een geit gestolen?

Translation strategies used: OMISSION ADDITION MODULATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE • The first translation strategy I used is OMISSION. The exclamation “oh” is omitted, because

exclamations need not be translated.


47

• Moreover, I OMITTED “so you just assume that”, because of the lack of space and too little

reading time:

Dus je neemt gewoon aan dat ik er niks mee te maken heb? -Heb je een geit gestolen? ____________________ ^ ^

• The last OMISSION that I used in this subtitle can be found in the third sentence: “no, sir” is

left out. This subtitle contains three speakers, however there is only place for two. Since all

Dutch native speakers know that “no” means “nee”, it was a logical choice to leave this

element out. Moreover, the time to say “no, sir” takes up less than one second. Therefore, a

separate subtitle for this sentence was not possible.

• At the beginning of the first sentence the translation strategy ADDITION is used. The word

‘en’ is added to reflect Kerry’s astonishment. In a way it replace the constituent ‘oh, so you

just assume…’ This is also a form of MODULATION.

• STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A PHRASE is the third strategy used. I translated “I had nothing to

do with it” by “ik heb er niks mee te maken”: a past tense changes into a present tense. The

whole deal about the goat is still preceding, therefore I chose a present tense.

• Lastly there is a STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A SENTENCE, as the Dutch translation of the

second sentence contains more verbs. The reason for that is that the Dutch translation does

not use the present simple: “stal jij een geit” is not a common expression in Dutch.


48

0013 Oh my God, that’s Mom. Grandpa, you’re not going to say anything, are you? Daar is mam. Je vertelt het toch niet?

Translation strategies used: OMISSION TRANSPOSITION ADDITION USING A SYNONYM

• Firstly I OMITTED “oh, my God”. His exclamation need not be translated, for it simply takes

up precious reading time.

• “That’s Mom” is translated with “daar is mam”: “that” is replaced by “there”. The translation

strategy used here is TRANSPOSITION: a demonstrative pronoun becomes an adjunct. “Dat is

mam” could also be used in Dutch, but I felt that “daar is mam” sounds more Dutch.

• I also OMITTED “Grandpa” to compromise the reading time.

• The question tag “are you” has been OMITTED as well for the same reason.

• In the last sentence I used a few strategies. Firstly there is ADDITION: the word “het” was

added, because a direct object was needed that referred to the incident.

• Secondly there is USING A SYNONYM: I translated “you’re not going to say anything” by “je

vertelt het toch niet”. “Don’t tell” is a synonym of “not say anything”. There is no particular

reason why I chose “tell” instead of “say” in the translation.

• Lastly I ADDED “toch” to kind of reflect the question tag that was omitted earlier. This

addition maintains Kerry’s begging tone.


49

0014 Well, it’s been kind of a slow news day. I think I’ll just let this one play out. Het was vandaag een saaie dag. Ik wil wel zien hoe dit afloopt.

Translation strategies used: PARAPHRASE OMISSION DOMESTICATION

• I used PARAHRASE in the first sentence: “well, it’s been kind of a slow news day” is translated

with “het was vandaag een saaie dag”. The expression “slow news day” does not exist in

Dutch, and therefore it had to be paraphrased.

• Secondly the “I think” in the second sentence has been OMITTED, because it does not fit the

rest of the Dutch translation of the second sentence.

• Lastly DOMESTICATION is used. The English expression “I’ll let this one play out” is

translated with the Dutch equivalent “ik wil zien hoe dit afloopt”.

0015 Hey. I just had the best ditch day.

I won 30 dollar at poker and I had a couple of margaritas for lunch. Wat 'n geweldige dag. Ik heb 30 dollar gewonnen en margarita's gedronken.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION PARAPHRASE DOMESTICATION MODULATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE USING A SYNONYM

• The first translation strategy I used is OMISSION. The exclamation “hey” need not be

translated.

• I translated “I had the best ditch day” by “wat ‘n geweldige dag”. Here the strategy

PARAPHRASE is used. “Wat ‘n geweldige dag” has – more or less – the same meaning as “I

just had the best day”. A more literal translation would be “ik heb een geweldige dag gehad”,

however this translation would not meet the required reading time. Moreover, the maximum

number of characters is exceeded:


50

Ik heb 'n geweldige dag gehad. Ik heb 30 dollar gewonnen en margarita's gedronken. _________________________ ^ ^

• I also used DOMESTICATION. “Ditch day” does not exist in Dutch. It could have been

translated with “spijbeldag”, however there is a lack of space and there is too little reading

time. As it is already known that there has been a ditch day, it was not necessary to mention

this again. And therefore it is also a form of OMISSION.

• Moreover the word “just” is OMITTED due to the paraphrasing that is applied. This is also a

form of MODULATION.

• STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CONSTITUENT can be found in “ik heb gewonnen”. The source

language uses a past simple, when the target language uses a past perfect. The reason for this

that in Dutch this tense is used more often.

• Then I OMITTED the element “poker”, simply because there is no space and time.

• Moreover, I OMITTED “a couple of” for the same reason. It is also a form of MODULATION,

because the emphasis on the number of margarita’s has disappeared.

• The last case of OMISSION is the omission of “for lunch”, again because there is no space and

no time.

• The last strategies I used are USING A SYNONYM and STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A

CONSTITUENT. “ I had margarita’s” is translated with “ik heb margarita’s gedronken”. “ To

drink a margarita” is a synonym of “to have a margarita”. It is possible to say in Dutch “ik

heb margarita’s gehad”, however, “ik heb margarita’s gedronken” is more common, therefore

it is also a form of DOMESTICATION. Structural change of a constituent can be found in “ ik

heb gedronken”. A past simple is translated by a past perfect, because it is more common in

Dutch to use this tense.


51

0016 It sounds like everybody had a little adventure today. Een dag vol avonturen.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION PARAPHRASE UNIT CHANGE MODULATION

• OMISSION is the first translation strategy I used: “it sounds like everybody had…” is omitted

to compromise the reading time.

• Then I used the strategy PARAPHRASE. “A little adventure today” is translated with “een dag

vol avonturen”. Moreover, I used UNIT CHANGE, because a sentence is turned into a phrase

without any verbs. Both these strategies were applied to compromise the reading time.

• Lastly MODULATION was used. “A little adventure”, becomes “vol avonturen”. This is

exactly the opposite. However, everybody had a little adventure, and therefore there were

several adventures during the day. In that case, the translation is fairly accurate.

0017 You know, that second one might have been a mistake, though… Ik heb er misschien te veel op...

Translation strategies used: OMISSION PARAPHRASE

• “You know” was OMITTED from this subtitle, due to the little reading time there is. Moreover,

it is an exclamation that does not contain any important information.

• “Though” was OMITTED as well also because of the short reading time. This does not contain

important information either.

• I PARAPHRASED “that second one might have been a mistake”, because there was a lack of

space:

Die tweede was misschien niet zo verstandig... ___________ ^ ^


52

0018 because when I got dropped off by Mr Kolodny,

I could have sworn I saw a goat out of the upstairs window. want toen ik werd afgezet, zag ik boven een geit voor het raam.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION TRANSPOSITION DOMESTICATION

• The first translation strategy visible here is OMISSION. However, in this case the reason for

choosing this strategy was not a short reading time; there is plenty of time. On the other hand,

when “Mr Kolodny” was added to the translation, the maximum number of characters would

be exceeded:

want toen ik werd afgezet door Mr Kolodny zag ik boven een geit voor het raam. _________________________________ ^ ^

Even by applying little tricks as writing the Dutch Words “een “ and “het” as “’n” and “’t” the

text would not fit:

want toen ik werd afgezet door Mr Kolodny zag ik boven 'n geit voor 't raam. _________________________________ ^ ^

• For the exact same reason I OMITTED “I could have sworn”. It would have been a possibility

to split this subtitle into two subtitles:

want toen ik werd afgezet door Mr Kolodny…

zou ik zweren dat ik boven een geit voor het raam zag.


53

However, it is not customary to split one sentence into three subtitles when a subtitle contains

information that is not crucial, because this is not beneficiary for the readability of a subtitle

translation. Therefore, the choice to omit “I could have sworn” was made.

• The third strategy I used is TRANSPOSITION. The source text mentions “the upstairs window”

where “upstairs” says something about the window. However, in Dutch “boven” stand on his

own.

• Lastly I used DOMESTICATION. Cate says “I saw a goat out of the window”. “Out of” is

translated with “voor”. In Dutch it is impossible to say “ik zag een geit uit het raam” while the

person saying it is standing downstairs looking at the goat, unless it is really hanging out of

the window.

0019 Seriously?

-Ooo, strong drinks. Echt waar? -Sterkedrank.

Translation strategies used: DOMESTICATION UNIT CHANGE OMISSION

• In the first sentence I applied DOMESTICATION. “Echt waar” is a common translation for the

word “serious”. However, it could have been translated by “serieus” as well, since youths in

the Netherlands often use this.

• UNIT CHANGE is applied as well in this first sentence: one word is translated by two words.

• Moreover, OMISSION is used. The exclamation “ooo” need not be translated.

• Lastly, I applied UNIT CHANGE a second time: an adjective and a noun are translated by a

noun.


54

0020 What’s that smell? Kerry, I told you to take a shower today. Wat ruik ik? -Ik zei toch dat je moest douchen?

Translation strategies used: DOMESTICATION TRANSPOSITION ADDITION OMISSION MODULATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE STRUCTURAL CHANGE

• I used DOMESTICATION in the first sentence. A common Dutch translation for “what’s that

smell” is “wat ruik ik”. The translation “wat is die geur” appears somewhat odd in Dutch, and

therefore I did not apply it.

• In the first sentence I applied TRANSPOSITION as well: A noun (“smell”) has been replaced by

a verb (“ruik”). In addition, the first person singular (“ik”) is ADDED in the translation to

accompany the verb. The use of these two translation strategies is the result of the

domestication that has been applied earlier.

• Apart from addition, I used OMISSION as well. In the second sentence “Kerry” was omitted.

The reason to use this strategy was not that there was a shortage of reading time, but there was

a shortage of space:

Wat ruik ik? -Kerry, ik zei toch dat je moest douchen? __________________ ^ ^

• I also OMITTED the word “today”, again due to the lack of space:

Wat ruik ik? -Ik zei toch dat je vandaag moest douchen? __________________ ^ ^


55

• Moreover, I used MODULATION in the form of ADDING the word “toch”, which turned the

sentence into a question. By doing this the so-called obviousness that Rory expresses about

Kerry’s need to take a shower is emphasized. This is a form of DOMESTICATION as well,

because in Dutch the word ‘toch’ is often used in sentences like this one. The translation “ik

zei dat je moest douchen” deletes Rory’s sarcasm that is present in the source text.

• Another form of DOMESTICATION can be found in the translation of ‘take a shower’. In Dutch

to most common translation would be “moet douchen”.

• However, in this sentence STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A PHRASE is present as well: “take a

shower” is present tense, “moest douchen” is past tense. The reason for choosing this strategy

is not clear. “Ik zei toch dat je moet douchen” is also possible.

• A SYNOMYM is used as well. “I told” is translated with “ik zei”. The reason has to do with

domestication. In Dutch “ik vertelde je toch dat je moest douchen” is not a correct expression,

because when you command someone to do something in Dutch, “vertellen” is not

authoritative enough.


56

8.2.5 Conclusion 8 Simple Rules

As said before: fast, fast and fast are the key ingredients for this sitcom. Especially the

teenagers in this series have a fast way of speaking and have the tendency to speak at the

same time or to speak directly after each other. In subtitling a fast way of speaking is very

difficult to cope with, for there is often very little reading time which makes it impossible to

provide the viewer with all the spoken information. However, through using translation

strategies like omission and paraphrase many reading time difficulties can be solved. In the

subtitle overview six subtitles do not meet the ideal reading time. However only one is too

short. On the next page an overview of the used translation strategies can be found.

OMISSION is the strategy that has been used most: thirty-five times. As said many

times before, omission is often the only option to make a subtitle readable and

comprehensible for the viewer. However, a strategy which only makes subtitles longer,

namely ADDITION, is applied ten times. This strategy is only applied to create a better flow of

words.

STRUCTURAL CHANGE is applied twelve times, mostly to adapt the construction of a

sentence to the Dutch language. Therefore it was only used to improve the readability of a

subtitle.

DOMESTICATION has also been applied thirteen times, in order for the Dutch audience

to understand certain sayings. Literal translation would have create confusion.

MODULATION has been applied eight times, in combination with omission or addition,

to improve the flow of words or to create more emphasis on certain elements in written

language that is audible in spoken language.

PARAPHRASE occurs seven times. This strategy is used to condense the sentences more

in order to create an ideal reading time and to meet the number of characters that is allowed to

be used in a sentence.


57

A SYNONYM was used five times, however not in the form of using a shorter word.

The synonyms used were all used to adapt the text to the Dutch language or to make the

written text clearer to the viewer.

TRANSPOSITION occurred four times, to adapt the source language to the target

language.

UNIT CHANGE occurred four times and IMPLICITATION three times. These two

strategies have been applied either to adapt the source language to the target language, or to

condense the original text.

EXPLICITATION, the opposite of implicitation, occurred twice. The reason for using

this strategy was to explain to the viewer who the “her” in subtitle eight was, or to adapt a

certain expression to the Dutch language in subtitle two.

Lastly an ANTONYM was used to condense the subtitle text.


58


59

8.3 Crossing Jordan – Slam Dunk

8.3.1 The Story

Crossing Jordan is a crime series that first aired in the United States on 24 September

2007 on the NBC channel. In the Netherlands the series was first broadcasted by NET5. In

2005 television station Talpa (later named Tien) started broadcasting it. In May 2008 NET5

has started scheduling the series again under a different name: Medical Examiners.

Medical examiner Jordan Cavanaugh is the main character. Apart from being a

medical examiner, she also helps detective Woody Hoyt with solving murders. Doctor Garret

Macy is the Chief Medical Examiner, and therefore Jordan’s Boss. Mahesh Vijay is a forensic

entomologist who works in the Medical Examiner’s Office together with Nigel Townsend, a

British criminologist. Then there is Lily Lebowski, a counselor who works at the office.

The plot of this particular episode is as follows. A police officer named Logan was

murdered several years ago. Jordan is called for jury duty in the trial of the alleged cop killer.

The jury wishes to see the autopsy report, which reveals the medical evidence of the shooting

is questionable. This questionable evidence interferes with the DA’s attempts to convict the

suspect. The scene I will be analyzing is about Jordan’s colleagues wanting to retrieve correct

autopsy information from the doctor who was responsible for agent Logan’s autopsy. Jordan’s

colleagues want to help her, because she cannot interfere with what is happening in the

morgue for she is on jury duty and she is not allowed to speak about the case with outsiders.

However, her colleagues are not allowed to help her, but risk their jobs doing so. The ending

of this episode is surprising, for the real cop killer is an unexpected someone.


60

8.3.2 Translation Problems in Crossing Jordan

The most difficult part of subtitling the genre of crime is the use of technical terms. As

described in section 6 certain legal terms and medical terms in the source language might not

exist in the target language. Moreover, the subtitler might not be familiar with the manner of

describing, in this case, wounds. In this particular scene – which I chose to show how fast and

fluent the medical examiners know how to articulate their findings regarding a certain wound

or situation, which is not possible to reflect in subtitles – Garret Macy describes a wound as

follows: ‘[T]here's no tattooing, both of them are oval, red rim abrasions in both of them, no

torn skin margins in either one, and both exhibit micro tears at the edges.’ I did not know how

a medical examiner in the Netherlands would describe such a wound. Therefore I had to come

up with a translation – that unfortunately had to be incomplete – in a form of which I thought

a medical examiner could use such a phrase.

A similarity between this scene and the scene from 8 Simple Rules, which I analyzed

earlier, is that both scenes contain fast dialogues. Especially Garret Macy has a fast way of

speaking. The fact that he is a little agitated, as well as doctor McCain, contributes to the

fastness of the conversation. However, in contrast with the dialogues of 8 Simple Rules, these

dialogues contain crucial information that might be important for the rest of the episode. In

other words: sitcoms often use ‘useless’ information that can be omitted easily, while series in

the genre of crime contain important information. Therefore the subtitler must make crucial

choices as to what to omit and what not. It often happens that a choice has to be reviewed

after the subtitler has finished their translation, because they have omitted a recurring element.


61

8.3.3 Script and Subtitle Overview

Script Crossing Jordan – Slam Dunk

McCAIN: It's all in my autopsy report.

GARRET:

Your report contains some ambiguities, dr. McCain. And that's the nice way of putting it.

McCAIN:

It's not enough that you fired me when you took over. Now you bring me back to insult me.

NIGEL:

Hey, ready when you are, chaps.

GARRET: I can't tell which is the entrance wound.

McCAIN:

The one in his chest.

GARRET: Well, there's no tattooing, both of them are oval, red rim abrasions in both of them, no torn skin margins in either one, and both exhibit micro tears at the edges. You're gonna have to

explain to me how you knew which was which.

McCAIN: The shoeprints at the crime scene showed that the shooter was standing in front the victim.

GARRET:

Explain it to me forensically.

McCAIN: You know how hard it can be to tell entrance from exit with a small caliber shooting.

GARRET:

You testified twice that you knew.

McCAIN: Back when dr. Blackledge ran this place we worked with the cops and the DA's office.

GARRET:

Sure. We used to call him dr. Choo Choo, because he railroaded some of the defendants with predetermined outcomes. Was this one of those cases?


62

McCAIN: You're a self righteous jerk, Macy. It was nothing that I did that got the conviction overturned.

It was the prosecutor who lost the sound card. GARRET:

What prosecutor?

McCAIN: The one who tried the case. Renee Walcott.

You got a problem? Talk to her.

NIGEL: What's going on, dr. Macy?

GARRET:

I'm not sure. I wanna see the body.

NIGEL:

What's it gonna tell you after all this time?

GARRET: I'll have more than this piece of crap.


63

Subtitle Overview Crossing Jordan – Slam Dunk2 0001 00:10:23:10 00:10:26:14 Dat staat in m'n autopsierapport. 3:04

________________ ^ ^

0002 00:10:26:17 00:10:31:12 Er staan 'n aantal dubbelzinnigheden 4:20 in, dr. McCain.

_______________________ ^ ^

0003 00:10:31:15 00:10:36:01 Was m'n ontslag niet genoeg? 4:11 Nu kom je me ook nog eens beledigen.

_____________________ ^ ^

0004 00:10:36:04 00:10:37:22 Kom maar kijken. 1:18 ________ ^^

0005 00:10:38:00 00:10:41:19 Waar drong de kogel 't lichaam binnen? 3:19 -In z'n borst.

__________________ ^ ^

0006 00:10:41:22 00:10:47:24 Er zijn geen kruitsporen, beide wonden 6:02 zijn ovaal en zijn rood omrand.

_____________________________ ^ ^

0007 00:10:48:02 00:10:52:01 Hoe wist u bij welke wond de kogel 3:24 het lichaam binnendrong?

___________________ ^ ^

0008 00:10:52:04 00:10:55:18 Volgens de voetafdrukken 3:14 stond de schutter voor hem.

_________________ ^ ^

0009 00:10:55:21 00:10:58:10 En nu een forensische uitleg. 2:14 ____________ ^ ^

0010 00:10:59:10 00:11:03:02 U weet hoe moeilijk het soms is 3:17 de twee wonden te onderscheiden.

__________________ ^ ^

2The first column contains the subtitle numbers. The second column shows the time code on which the subtitle appears on screen, and the third column when the subtitle disappears from the screen. The fourth column contains the actual subtitle, and the last column shows how long the subtitle is displayed (seconds:frames; in Europe the Pal system is used, which means that 25 images (frames) per second appear on screen). The horizontal lines underneath the subtitles correspond with the time from the last column: the time that a subtitle appears on screen. “^ ^” indicate the ideal reading time: ideal, sufficient,

too long, just right, too short. With the aid of Spot subtitling software I generated these outcomes. The software settings I used are: the average reading speed per second is eleven characters; the average line length is 37 characters, depending on the width of the letter; a the minimum display length of a subtitle is one second and ten frames; the maximum display length is eight seconds; there are three frames between two joined subtitles.


64

0011 00:11:03:05 00:11:07:02 U heeft twee keer getuigd 3:22 dat u het zeker wist.

__________________ ^ ^

0012 00:11:08:07 00:11:12:18 Toen dr. Blackledge de baas was, 4:11 werkten we samen met de politie.

__________________ ^ ^

0013 00:11:12:21 00:11:17:13 Vooraf vastgestelde resultaten 4:17 waren hem niet vreemd.

______________________ ^ ^

0014 00:11:17:16 00:11:21:14 Was dat hier ook het geval? 3:23 -Je bent een klootzak.

___________________ ^ ^

0015 00:11:21:17 00:11:26:15 Het was de openbare aanklager die 4:23 de geluidskaart kwijtraakte. Niet ik.

_______________________ ^ ^

0016 00:11:26:18 00:11:30:11 Welke aanklager? 3:18 -Renee Walcott.

_________________ ^ ^

0017 00:11:31:17 00:11:34:21 Je moet bij haar zijn. 3:04 ______________ ^^

0018 00:11:38:01 00:11:41:02 Wat is er aan de hand? 3:01 -Weet ik niet precies.

______________ ^ ^

0019 00:11:41:05 00:11:45:14 Ik wil het lichaam zien. 4:09 -Levert dat nog nieuwe informatie op?

_____________________ ^ ^

0020 00:11:46:19 00:11:49:07 Het is beter dan wat hierin staat. 2:13 ____________ ^ ^


65

8.3.4 Analysis Crossing Jordan - Slam Dunk

0001 It's all in my autopsy report.

Dat staat in m'n autopsierapport. Translation strategies used: OMISSION MODULATION • This sentence is a good example of how the Dutch language requires more characters than

the English language to say the same. Because of the fact that people need more time to read

than to listen, it is often impossible to reflect all spoken information in a subtitle. In this case

I OMITTED the word “all” in the translation to compensate the reading time. In the subtitle

overview it is obvious that there would have been a small margin that would have allowed

me to add more information. However, when I would have added the word “allemaal”, the

subtitle would look as follows:

Dat staat allemaal in m'n autopsierapport. ________________

^ ^

It is clear to see that the required reading time is just sufficient. If all source information

would have been relevant, I would have accepted this reading time. However, in this case

the word “allemaal” is not crucial information. Therefore, by deleting it, more reading time

could be generated.

• By omitting the word “all” a MODULATION has occurred: in this way there is less emphasis

on whatever is to be found in the autopsy report. In subtitle translations it can often be found

that words that are used to emphasize something are omitted to improve the reading time.

These words mostly do not contain important information.


66

0002 Your report contains some ambiguities, dr. McCain. And that's the nice way of putting it. Er staan 'n aantal dubbelzinnigheden in, dr. McCain.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION IMPLICITATION USING A SYNONYM UNIT CHANGE • The sentence “and that’s the nice way of putting it” is completely OMITTED. When I would

have translated the sentence completely (for instance by “en dan zeg ik het nog aardig”), it

was necessary to split the subtitle into two subtitles. However, the consequence is an

extremely short reading time:

Er staan 'n aantal dubbelzinnigheden in, dr. McCain. ______________ ^ ^

En dan zeg ik het nog aardig. _______ ^ ^

If I had chosen this solution, the subtitles would flash over the screen. Especially the second

subtitle would disappear before anybody could read it, for it only appears on screen for one

second and sixteen frames. The minimum time of a subtitle to be on screen is one second

and ten frames, and this minimum is predominantly used with subtitles containing one or

two words. It is virtually impossible to read a full single-line subtitle in this time.

I left out this particular part, because it is merely an addition to the first sentence. Therefore

it is impossible to delete elements from the first sentence, for it contains all relevant

information. Moreover, the doctor’s name could not be omitted, because this was the first

time his name was mentioned. This way the viewer is acquainted with the doctor

immediately, and this gives me the opportunity to leave out doctor McCain’s name the

following times his name will be mentioned when necessary.


67

• To provide the viewer more reading time I chose to make “your report” more IMPLICIT by

translating it by “er”. Moreover, it was already known that the report concerned was an

autopsy report. At the same time this is a UNIT CHANGE, because the clause (“your report”)

changes into a single word (“er”).

• In this translation I used a SYNONYM as well: “contains” is translated by “er staan...in”. The

translation “het bevat een aantal dubbelzinnigheden” would have been possible as well, but

here a less clinical translation is chosen to fit a conversation between two (ex) colleagues.

Moreover, Garret adds “and that’s the nice way of putting it”, which does not sound very

businesslike in English.

0003 It's not enough that you fired me when you took over.

Now you bring me back to insult me. Was m'n ontslag niet genoeg? Nu kom je me ook nog eens beledigen.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION IMPLICITATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE TRANSPOSITION ADDITION MODULATION • In the subtitle overview it is visible that this subtitle only just meets the minimum reading

time. Therefore I OMITTED the adjunct of time “when you took over”. However, the Dutch

audience is put at a disadvantage, for the Dutch viewer does not gain the information that

Garret Macy was the one who fired doctor McCain at the time Macy was in charge.

• At the same time this is a STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE: “it's not enough that you

fired me when you took over” contains a main clause and a subordinate clause, while “was

m’n ontslag niet genoeg?” contains only a main clause.

• The translation does not indicate that Garret was the one who fired doctor McCain either.

Here the reading time was again the reason to make the text more IMPLICIT:


68

Was m'n ontslag niet genoeg? Nu kom je me ook nog eens beledigen. _____________________ ^ ^

Was het niet genoeg dat je me ontsloeg? Nu kom je me ook nog eens beledigen. _____________________

^ ^ • By removing “je” from the sentence, a TRANPOSITION had to take place: a verb has been

replaced by a noun (“to fire” became “het ontslag”).

• The translation of the first sentence shows a STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CONSTITUENT as

well: “is m’n ontslag niet genoeg?” would imply that the doctor has been fired only recently.

However, this has happened several years ago. Therefore, the choice was made to use the

past tense.

• The ADDITION of “ook nog eens” shows a MODULATION. With this addition the emphasis is

put on the insult, and is doctor McCain’s surprised reaction to the fact that doctor Macy

criticizes his autopsy report (which the viewer can hear in his voice) reflected in the text

more clearly.

0004 Hey, ready when you are, chaps.

Kom maar kijken. Translation strategies used: OMISSION DOMESTICATION • The first notable change in the translation is the OMISSION of the word “hey”. Words of this

type (“hello” and “bye” are examples of this type of words as well) are often omitted in

subtitle translations. The viewer watches and listens at the same time, and already

recognizes the word “hey” when they hear it. Therefore it is unnecessary to write it down.

Moreover, omission saves reading time and space.


69

• I OMITTED the word “chaps” as well. Nigel, the one this line belongs to, is British and

therefore his language use is British (in this case by means of using the word “chaps”).

However, in Dutch it is impossible to show through his language use that he is British, and

therefore “chaps” has no specific function. Moreover, when it would have been translated

with “jongens”, it would not add anything to the translation, because it is already clear

whom he speaks to. Lastly, a short reading time has been a reason not to chose to translate

“chaps”.

• I translated “ready when you are” with “kom maar kijken”. Here the translation strategy

DOMESTICATION is used. “Ready when you are” cannot be translated literally into Dutch. In

this case Nigel calls Garret and doctor McCain to come and see what he has found out.

Therefore “kom maar eens kijken” is a logical translation.

0005 I can't tell which is the entrance wound.

-The one in his chest. Waar drong de kogel 't lichaam binnen? -In z'n borst.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION STRUCTURAL CHANGE PARAPHRASE • OMISSION is applied twice in this subtitle. In the first sentence I omitted “I can’t tell”,

because the sentence is transferred into a question. To adapt the answer to the question “the

one” is omitted in the second sentence. Both these omissions contribute to the improvement

of the reading time.

• THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE of the first sentence has changed, due to the fact that in the

translation a question is used instead of a main clause and a subordinate clause. The reason

for this choice is the lack of space and a short reading time:


70

Ik kan niet zien waar de kogel het lichaam binnendrong. -De wond in z'n borst. _______________ ^ ^

A subtitle consisting of three lines is not allowed, and the reading time is inadequate as well.

Moreover doctor McCain’s reaction has to be changed slightly in order to fit doctor Macy’s

comment. In the example above, comment one and comment two do not concur.

To compromise the lack of space “entrance wound” could be translated with

“ingangswond”, despite of the fact that this word does not exist in Dutch. However, the

extremely short reading time will not be solved:

Ik kan niet zien wat de ingangswond is. -De wond in z'n borst. _________________ ^ ^

• I changed THE STRUCTURE OF A CONSTITUENT as well. The source text is in the present

tense, while the target text uses a past tense. The reason for this choice is that “waar dringt

de kogel het lichaam binnen” is not an option, for the event has already taken place.

• The words “entrance wound” have been PARAPHRASED, because of the fact that the word

“ingangswond” is not my preferred translation. “Ingangswond” sounds unnatural to me in

Dutch and I am not sure that this term really is used in the Dutch police world. A description

is used to make sure that only existing words are used in this subtitle.


71

0006 Well, there's no tattooing, both of them are oval, red rim abrasions in both of them, no torn skin margins in either one, and both exhibit micro tears at the edges. Er zijn geen kruitsporen, beide wonden zijn ovaal en zijn rood omrand.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION STRUCTURAL CHANGE IMPLICITATION ADDITION EXPLICITATION • Omission is a translation strategy that cannot be missed in this translation. Firstly I OMITTED

the word “well”. The reason for this is that it does not add anything to the translation and it

only takes up space that could better be used for other information that is relevant to the

viewer. “No torn skin margins in either one, and both exhibit micro tears at the edges” is

OMITTED because it simply does not fit regarding reading time and space. It would also have

been an option to omit “there’s no tattooing, both of them are oval, red rim abrasions in both

of them”. It is the translator’s choice what elements to omit, and usually the elements that

are most easy to translate are kept.

• STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE can be found in the fact that the source language uses a

singular form in “there’s no tattooing”, while the translation uses a plural form: “er zijn geen

kruitsporen”.

• In this subtitle I used implicitation as well as explicitation. In the translation of the sentence

“both of them are oval, red rim abrasions in both of them” the translation strategy

IMPLICITATION is used: to save space I chose to state only once that this statement is about

both wounds. If this element would be mentioned twice, a subtitle consisting of three lines

would have been formed:

Er zijn geen kruitsporen, beide wonden zijn ovaal en ze zijn beiden rood omrand. _____________________________ ^ ^


72

Here we see an ADDITION as well, because the word “wond” is added. The reason to add this

element is because it was omitted, or rather paraphrased, in the previous subtitle. The word

“both” has to refer to another word and to make clear which word that was, “wond” was

added. At the same time, this can be categorized as EXPLICITATION, because the translation

is made more explicit.

0007 You're gonna have to explain to me

how you knew which was which. Hoe wist je bij welke wond de kogel het lichaam binnendrong?

Translation strategies used: EXPLICITATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE OMISSION • The translation is more EXPLICIT than the source text: I translated “which was which” with

“bij welke wond de kogel het lichaam binnendrong”. The reason for this choice was that a

translation like “hoe wist je welke welke was” is too vague. Firstly it does not sound Dutch

and secondly the repetition of the word “ welke” can have a confusing effect on the reader.

Given the fact that the Dutch sentence is not pronounced, the repetition of the word “ welke”

can be interpreted as a typing error. However, given the fact that subtitles flash over the

screen quickly, the viewer has no time to think about any possible mistakes. The translator

has to choose a sentence that is as clear as possible.

With hindsight is “hoe kon je de twee wonden onderscheiden?” an acceptable translation as

well. Given the reading time, it would even be a better choice than the translation used in the

subtitle:

Hoe wist je bij welke wond de kogel het lichaam binnendrong? ___________________

^ ^


73

Hoe kon je de twee wonden onderscheiden? ___________________

^ ^

• STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE can be found in the fact that an indirect question has

changed into a direct question. By posing a direct question space could be saved, because

now the opportunity to OMIT “you’re gonna have to explain to me” was created.

0008 The shoeprints at the crime scene

showed that the shooter was standing in front the victim. Volgens de voetafdrukken stond de schutter voor hem.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION IMPLICITATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE TRANSPOSITION • I OMITTED the element “at the crime scene” due to the lack of space and an extremely short

reading time. The reason to omit this element is that it is self-evident that it is about the

footprints at the crime scene.

• In the translation “the victim” is made IMPLICIT, because the Dutch word “slachtoffer” is a

long word. Due to a short reading time and a lack of space it was not possible to implement

this word in the subtitle correctly.

• The STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE has changed. In the English source text the sentence starts

with “the shooter was standing in front of the victim”: first the object, then the verb. In

Dutch the verb is placed in front of the subject.

• I applied TRANSPOSITION as well. In English “ the shoeprints” are accompanied by a verb:

“show”. In Dutch this verb is replaced by the word “volgens”. If the verb would have been

maintained in the translation, the reading time would be too short:


74

De voetafdrukken lieten zien dat de schutter voor hem stond. ________________ ^ ^

0009 Explain it to me forensically. En nu een forensische uitleg. Translation strategies used: ADDITION MODULATION TRANSPOSITION OMISSION • In English it sounds that Garret Macy forces doctor McCain to explain it. It is as if he says:

“I want you to…”. To reflect this forcing speech in Dutch, I chose to ADD “en nu”. At the

same time this is also a form of MODULATION.

• As a result a TRANSPOSITION took place: the verb “ explain” has changed into a noun and

the adverb “ forensically” changed into an adjective.

• OMISSION is the result of the modulation as well: I omitted the direct object “ it” and the

indirect object “ (to +) me”.

Another possibility to translate this sentence while maintaining its forcing tone is the

following: “Leg het nu forensisch aan me uit.” With regards to the reading time there would

not be any difference between this translation and the used translation, however the second

construction sounds a little unnatural. All elements are present, but it does not seem like a

real Dutch reaction. A subtitler should ask themselves what the speaker means and how they

would react themselves to a certain situation.


75

0010 You know how hard it can be to tell entrance from exit with a small caliber shooting. Je weet hoe moeilijk het soms is

de twee wonden te onderscheiden. Translation strategies used: USING A SYNONYM LITERAL TRANSLATION UNIT CHANGE TRANSPOSITION IMPLICITATION OMISSION • In this translation I used a SYNONYM. “Can be” is translated with “soms is”. The reason not

to translate “can be” with “kan zijn” is not the lack of reading time or space, although this

subtitle appears a little short on screen (see the subtitle overview). Moreover, both

translations are correct. There is no clear reason why this particular translation is chosen.

• I also applied LITERAL TRANSLATION here: “you know how hard it...” is translated with “je

weet hoe moeilijk het…”. There was no reason to choose a different translation here.

• UNIT CHANGE is applied here as well. The two verbs “can” and “be” are translated with an

adjunct of time and a verb. At the same time this is also a TRANSPOSITION. As mentioned

before, there is no clear reason for this choice.

• Again “exit wound” and “entrance wound” are not literally translated. The reason for this

choice is the same as in subtitle number five. Moreover, there is too little space and reading

time to place the words “ingangswond” and “uitgangswond” in the subtitle. A solution for

this is IMPLICITATION.

• The last strategy used in this subtitle is OMISSION. I omitted “with a small caliber shooting”

completely due to a short reading time and a lack of space.


76

0011 You testified twice that you knew. Je hebt twee keer getuigd dat je het zeker wist. Translation strategies used: ADDITION MODULATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE TRANSPOSITION • The translation says “dat je het zeker wist” (“that you knew it for sure”) instead of “dat je

het wist” (“that you knew”). This MODULATION is ADDED to reflect the frustrated tone of

voice of Garret Macy. Moreover, someone has to know something for sure if they testify the

same twice.

• In the source text “that you knew it” is not being said. However, I ADDED the word “het” in

the translation, because a direct object was needed for a natural flow of words in Dutch.

• A STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE is visible as well: I translated a single word with two

words. “Twice” is translated with “twee keer”, because of the simple fact that in Dutch there

is no comparable expression consisting of one word. And therefore this can also be seen as

DOMESTICATION.

• The translation strategy TRANSPOSITION is applied as well. “You testified twice” consists of

a subject, a verb and an adverb. The translation consists of a subject, a verb, a numeral, a

noun and another verb. The translation “je getuigde twee keer” could have been used as

well. Both translations are acceptable, depending on the choice of the translator and the

reading time and space.


77

0012 Back when dr. Blackledge ran this place we worked with the cops and the DA's office. Toen dr. Blackledge de baas was,

werkten we samen met de politie. Translation strategies used: UNIT CHANGE DOMESTICATION USING A SYNONYM IMPLICITATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE OMISSION • The English combination of words “back when” is translated in Dutch with one single word.

The reason for this is that “terug toen” is not an existing expression in Dutch. This

translation uses the translation strategies DOMESTICATION, OMISSION – the word “back” is

omitted – and UNIT CHANGE – two words are translated with one word.

• I used a SYNONYM in the translation of “dr. Blackledge ran this place”. “Dr. Blackledge was

de baas” has the same meaning, but at the same time information is OMITTED: the specific

adjunct “this place” is not being mentioned because it is assumed that it is clear to the

viewer which place was led by dr. Blackledge. This is a form of IMPLICITATION as well.

Moreover, by this implicitation reading time and space are compromised.

• “We worked” is translated with “werkten we”. Here a STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE

is visible. This translation strategy was used to adapt the word order to the Dutch language.

• In this translation more text has been OMITTED (“and the DA’s office”) to compromise a

correct reading time and to prevent a lack of space.


78

0013 Sure. We used to call him dr. Choo Choo, because he railroaded some of the defendants with predetermined outcomes. Vooraf vastgestelde resultaten

waren hem niet vreemd. Translation strategies used: OMISSION PARAPHRASE • The source text had to be condensed a great deal because Garret Macy pronounces his lines

in a little less than five seconds. If the complete English source text were placed in a subtitle,

a reading time of almost nine seconds would be needed to read the subtitle in a normal pace.

The elements “sure” and “we used to call him dr. Choo Choo” are OMITTED here because of

the lack of reading time and the lack of space has contributed to this choice as well.

Moreover, the joke seemed untranslatable. The lack of space and time gave me the

opportunity to avoid this difficult joke.

• I PARAPHRASED the element “because he railroaded some of the defendants with

predetermined outcomes” due to a too short reading time.

0014 Was this one of those cases?

-You're a self righteous jerk, Macy. Was dat hier ook het geval?

-Je bent een klootzak. Translation strategies used: STRUCTURAL CHANGE MODULATION ADDITION OMISSION LITERAL TRANSLATION • In this translation a STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE is visible: “one of those cases” –

consisting of a numeral, a preposition, a demonstrative pronoun and a noun – is translated

with “het geval” – consisting of an article and a noun. The translation “was dit een van die

zaken” sounds a bit forced. Moreover this translation is not a good reaction to the previous

subtitle:


79

Vooraf vastgestelde resultaten waren hem niet vreemd. -Was dit een van die zaken?

If the word “zaak” or “zaken” would have been placed in the first sentence, the reference

from the first sentence would have been correct. However, this is not the case and therefore

another translation must be found.

• I ADDED the word “ook”, through which the emphasis is changed as well: MODULATION. It

is mentioned before that dr. Blackledge has forged reports more often, and therefore the

question is whether this was here the case as well (“ook”).

• I also ADDED the word “hier” to refer to this specific report.

• The elements “self righteous” and “Macy” are OMITTED, while the remainder of the

sentence is LITERALLY TRANSLATED. The reason for this choice is that there is a lack of

space and reading time. If the entire sentence would have been translated literally, then a

subtitle consisting of three lines would be formed and the reading time would be too short:

Was dat hier ook het geval? -Je bent een zelfingenomen klootzak, Macy. ___________________ ^ ^

By only omitting “Macy” the problem of a subtitle consisting of three lines can be solved.

However, the reading time remains unacceptable:

Was dat hier ook het geval? -Je bent een zelfingenomen klootzak. ___________________ ^ ^


80

0015 It was nothing that I did that got the conviction overturned. It was the prosecutor who lost the sound card. Het was de openbare aanklager die de geluidskaart kwijtraakte. Niet ik.

Translation strategies used: OMISSION PARAPHRASE UNIT CHANGE LITERAL TRANSLATION STRUCTURAL CHANGE • OMISSION is the first notable translation strategy used in this subtitle. At first it seems as if

the first sentence is omitted completely, however a small part of the information is

maintained. The condensed, PARAPHRASED version of this sentence can be found in the

subtitle as the second sentence. The reason for applying this drastic measure was lack of

space and a short reading time, which does not meet the required reading time at this point

either. At the same time this also is a UNIT CHANGE, because the first sentence of the source

language became the second sentence in the target language.

• “It was the prosecutor” is a LITERAL TRANSLATION: “het was de openbare aanklager”.

• The second part of the sentence contains a STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE to convert

the sentence to the word order of the Dutch language: the word order of “who lost the sound

card” is subject, verb, direct object; the word order of “die de geluidskaart kwijtraakte” is

subject, direct object, verb.

0016 What prosecutor?

-The one who tried the case. Renee Walcott. Welke aanklager? -Renee Walcott.

Translation strategies used: LITERAL TRANSLATION OMISSION • A LITERAL TRANSLATION can be found in the first sentence: “what prosecutor?” is

translated with “welke aanklager?” If there would be a shortage of reading time, a


81

translation consisting of one single word could have been chosen as well: “welke”.

However, there is no lack of reading time or space, and therefore all information could be

reflected in the subtitle.

• I OMITTED “the one who tried the case” completely because of the lack of space. When there

are two speakers in a subtitle, each speaker gets their own line. Per line about 37 characters

can be used (including spaces and punctuations marks), depending on the width of the letters

that are being used. The name – including the dash, space and full stop – consists of 15

characters, which it virtually makes it impossible to reflect the rest of the information in the

subtitle.

0017 You got a problem? Talk to her.

Je moet bij haar zijn. Translation strategies used: OMISSION DOMESTICATION PARAPHRASE • I OMITTED “you got a problem?” completely. The reason for this is not specifically the lack

of space or too little reading time. The omission of this element is due to the fact that it does

not add any new information. It is already clear that Garret Macy has a problem. It also has

something to do with DOMESTICATION. That is to say, “you got a problem” is a typical

English expression. “Heb je een probleem” cannot be used in Dutch in this context. It

sounds a little forced, and therefore omission seemed the most sensible.

• PARAPHRASE can be found in the translation of the sentence “talk to her”. “Praat met haar”

is a meaningless translation, because “talk to her” has to be seen in combination with “you

got a probleem”. “Praat met haar” does not cover the full meaning, because it could also

mean “go talk to her about some fun stuff”. The translation “je moet bij haar zijn” was

chosen because it implies that she knows more about the case than dr. McCain. The


82

translation “vraag het maar aan haar” could also have been chosen, however it would be too

explicit in this case. The implicit element of the original text is maintained in the translation,

because it fits dr. McCain’s irritated attitude.

0018 What's going on, dr. Macy?

-I'm not sure. Wat is er aan de hand?

-Weet ik niet precies. Translation strategies used: OMISSION DOMESTICATION • I OMITTED “dr. Macy” due to too little reading time. Moreover, it is clear that Nigel talks to

Garret Macy, and the viewer heard Nigel say “dr. Macy”.

• The Dutch equivalent of “what’s going on” is “wat is er aan de hand”. This is a form of

DOMESTICATION.

• A much used translation of “I’m not sure” is “dat weet ik niet precies”. This is a form of

DOMESTICATION as well. In the translation I left out the word “dat” of “dat weet ik niet

precies”. This is a form of colloquial speech that is often to be found in subtitles. In this case

“dat” is omitted due to a short reading time.

0019 I wanna see the body.

-What's it gonna tell you after all this time? Ik wil het lichaam zien. -Levert dat nog nieuwe informatie op?

Translation strategies used: STRUCTURAL CHANGE PARAPHRASE ADDITION OMISSION • STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF A CLAUSE can be found in the first sentence: the word order in

English is subject, verb, verb, direct object; the word order in Dutch is subject, verb, direct

object, verb.


83

• I PARAPHRASED the second sentence due to the lack of space and a tight reading time.

• Moreover “after all this time” is OMITTED. At the same time, the word “nog” is ADDED in

Dutch to reflect Nigel’s doubt about digging up the body.

0020 I'll have more than this piece of crap.

Het is beter dan wat hierin staat. Translation strategies used: PARAPHRASE MODULATION • I PARAPHRASED this sentence. By “I’ll have more than” Garret Macy means that the

outcome of the examination of the body will provide more information than the report

contains. In other words, the information will be better: “het zal beter zijn”. In Dutch this

sounds less forced than the translation “ik zal meer hebben dan…”.

• “Piece of crap” is a little toned down (MODULATION) in Dutch. The reason to use this

strategy is that foul language comes across more strongly when written. Therefore, I chose

to use the translation “het is beter dan deze rotzooi”. In the original as well as in the

translation, it is obvious that Garret Macy disagrees with the report. That can also be

concluded from the tone of his voice.


84

8.3.5 Conclusion Crossing Jordan

What makes the subtitling of a television series in the crime genre – like Crossing

Jordan - so difficult is the fact that the dialogues are fast, in most cases there is more than one

speaker and medical and forensic terms are used very often.

The fact that the dialogues are fast can be found in the subtitle overview. Half of the

twenty subtitles displayed do not satisfy the ideal reading time, despite the various translation

strategies applied. However, there are only three subtitles which are dramatically short. The

fact that there are various speakers in this scene contributes to the fact that not all subtitles

meet the ideal reading time. Normally there is extension time available. That is to say, when

the speaker has finished their last line, a subtitle can stay on screen for a second longer

whenever that time is needed to satisfy the ideal reading time. However, in this case that

possibility was not available very often, because the second speaker almost immediately

reacted to the remark or question of the previous speaker.

On page 85 an overview of the used translation strategies per subtitle can be found.

An important strategy that is used the most is OMISSION. The argument for using this strategy

has passed in review many times: omission is applied as a result of a lack of space and/or a

too short reading time.

Strategies that have an additive function, like ADDITION – which has been applied eight

times – , EXPLICITATION – which has been applied two times – and in some cases

MODULATION – which has been applied six times – are applied as well. These additions only

have to do with little nuance differences. Words like “nu”, “zeker”, “nog” or “ook” have been

added. Explanatory text elements have not been added, because of the simple fact that there is

no space available for such things. However, the two times explicitation is applied, the text


85

did expand. Especially in subtitle number seven a lot of space is used by the explicitation. On

the other hand, there was enough reading time to apply this translation strategy.

STRUCTURAL CHANGE is a strategy that is applied many times, namely twelve times.

Structural change of a clause is the form of structural change that has been applied the most.

This translation strategy is not characteristic of subtitle translation, given the fact that it is an

inevitable strategy: the English language has a different word order than the Dutch language.

Structural change of a constituent is only applied twice.

USING A SYNONYM is a strategy that has not been used very often. However, it is a

strategy which could be applied many times, because in subtitling it is about finding a

translation that is as short as possible, and therefore it is common to find short synonyms for

longer words or word combinations.

LITERAL TRANSLATION en UNIT CHANGE both are applied four times in this scene of

Crossing Jordan. It is striking that the strategy literal translation is applied fairly often,

because it usually is the case in subtitle translations that for every line there has to be found a

shorter translation, and therefore many elements have to be changed. On the other hand, the

literal translations applied in this scene are only partially literal. That is to say that only a part

of a sentence is literally translated, or that only a few elements are picked out. For example:

“you’re a selfrighteous jerk, Macy” is translated with “je bent een klootzak”. In the translation

the word order is the same: subject, verb, article, term of abuse.

In three of the four cases in which unit change is applied, a word combination is

changed from several words to one or two words. This is a perfect strategy for saving space in

a subtitle.

The Mind of a Subtitler: Using Translation Strategies in Crime and Comedy

86

Word categories have been changed only five times (TRANSPOSITION). Mostly the

application of this strategy is a result of the use of another strategy. For example in subtitle

number three the omission of the word “je” forced the verb to turn into a noun.

IMPLICITATION has been applied six times. This strategy is also used to make a subtitle

translation as short as possible, in order for the viewer to read the subtitle easily and to

prevent the forming of subtitles consisting of three lines.

PARAPHRASE and DOMESTICATION both appear six times in this scene. In subtitling it

is impossible not to apply paraphrase. Condensing is the key word. Lines have to be

paraphrased in order to appear on screen in the correct length in a subtitle. Domestication is

also inevitable, however this strategy is not only key in subtitle translations. Every translation

type benefits from this strategy to make a Dutch text really Dutch without pieces of the

English language slipping through.


87


88

9. Conclusion

To conclude, while subtitling a subtitler must make crucial decisions as to what

information should be transferred and what not. To do so, they have certain translation

strategies which they use to come to a suitable translation that is in accordance with the

restrictions of subtitling. With subtitling a few extra difficulties come to light that do not exist

with textual translation: A fixed number of characters per line, a reading time that has to be

taken into account, the translation must appear on screen during the exact same time the

source language is spoken, and spoken language has to be transferred to written language. As

mentioned before it is the subtitler's job to determine what is important for the viewer and

what not. But what else is going on in the subtitler's mind? Questions that come up in my

mind while subtitling are: How would I say this in Dutch, and how can I say this in a shorter

way without losing the style of speech of the source language? Is it possible to fit this into one

subtitle, or do I have to make two? Will it fit into one subtitle if I omit a tiny element? Is the

reading time still sufficient? If not, how can I make it sufficient? Do question and answer fit

in one subtitle? How can I make question and answer fit, or do I have to come up with a

different layout? In order to find solutions for these questions, different strategies must be

tried out. In the following diagrams an overview in terms of percentage of the used strategies

can be found.


89

8 Simple Rules:

Crossing Jordan:

Total:


90

In all the diagrams above, the percentages of used translation strategies are fairly close

together. Without a doubt omission is the strategy used most. Strikingly, addition comes in a

third place, while this is not a strategy used to condense a written text. However, addition is

mostly applied to reflect the tone of voice of the speaker in a subtitle.

The strategies that differ the most in percentage are omission, domestication and literal

translation. Literal translation does not occur at all in 8 Simple Rules. However, the fact that 5

percent in the chosen scene of Crossing Jordan is literally translated is an exception, because

literal translation does not occur very often in subtitling for the reason that mostly literal

translations are linguistically impossible or they do not fit regarding reading time and space.

Domestication occurred more in the sitcom than in Crossing Jordan, for in a sitcom

more popular American language must be transferred to Dutch than in a series in the genre of

crime.

Through these analyses I hope to have given a clear view as to what subtitling implies

and what strategies a subtitler uses to come to an acceptable end result that is presentable on

television. And I hope to have show that subtitling differs from textual translations by the

extra restrictions subtitling involves.


91

10. Works Cited Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. New York:

Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1999. Alexander, Richard J. Aspects of Verbal Humour in English. Tübingen:

Gunter Narr Verlag, 1997. Brondeel, Herman. “Teaching Subtitling Routines.” Meta, vol. 39, nr 1, 1994. 26-33. Caimi, Annamaria. “Audiovisual Translation and Language Learning: The Promotion of

Intralingual Subtitles.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, vol. 6, 2006. 85-98. Chesterman, Andrew. Translation theory course (Cak119).

<http://www.helsinki.fi/~chesterm/TransTheory.html#strategies>. 3 February, 2006. Chesterman, Andrew. “Vertaalstrategieën: Een Classificatie.” 1997.

Vert. Ans van Kersbergen. Denken over Vertalen. Vantilt, 1997. 243-262. Chiaro, Delia. “Verbally Expressed Humour on Screen: Reflections on Translation and

Reception.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, vol. 6, 2006. 198-208. Díaz Cintas, Jorge and Aline Remael. Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling.

Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2007. “Ditch Day”. 8 Simple Rules. NET5, 2005. Subtitling: inVision Ondertiteling BV, 2005. “epigram”. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 22 April 2008.

< http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9363783> Gottlieb, Henrik. “Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.” Mona Baker, ed

London and New York: Routledge, 2001. 244 Gottlieb, Henrik. Subtitles, Translation & Idioms. Copenhagen: The Faculty of Humanities,

University of Copenhagen, 1997. Harris, Robert. “The Purpose and Method of Satire.” 20 August, 1990. Virtual Salt.

<http://www.virtualsalt.com/satire.htm>. 14 January 2006. Harvey, Malcolm. “A Beginner’s Course in Legal Translation: the Case of Culture-bound

Terms.” 2002. < http://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/harvey.pdf> 27 April 2008. “impersonation”. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners.

Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers, 2001. “irony”. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 22 April 2008.

< http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368205> Ivarsson, Jan. “Subtitling and Translation.” 17 November 2004.

<http://www.transedit.se/history.htm> 17 March 2006. Jääskeläinen, Riita. “Translation Studies: What Are They?” 2005. <http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/

forskning/forskningsprosjekter/expertise/workshops/oslo2005/Jaaskelainen> 27 April 2008.

James, Heulwen. “Quality Control of Subtitles: Review or Preview?” 1997. (Multi) Media Translation. Yves Gambier and Henrik Gottlieb eds. 2001, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

“kantongerecht”. Van Dale Groot Woordenboek Nederlands-Engels versie 2.0. October 2002. Karamitroglou, Fotios. Towards a Methodology for the Investigation of Norms in Audiovisual

Translation. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi, 2000. Karamitroglou, Fotios. “A Proposed Set of Subtitling Standards in Europe.” 1997.

<http://accurapid.com/journal/04stndrd.htm> 13 April 2008. Kilborn, Richard. “Speak My Language: Current Attitudes to Television Subtitling and

Dubbing.” Media Culture and Society, vol 15, 1993. 641-660. Koolstra, Cees M., A. L. Peeters and H. Spinhof. “The Pros and Cons of Dubbing

and Subtitling.” European Journal of Communication. vol. 17, 2002. 325-354 Lippman, Louis G. and Mara L. Dunn. “Contextual Connections Within Puns: Effects on


92

Perceived Humor and Memory.” Journal of General Psychology, vol 127, nr. 2, 2000. 185-197.

Luyken, Georg-Michael, Thomas Herbst, Jo Langham-Brown, Helen Reid and Herman Spinhof. Overcoming Language Barriers in Television. Manchester: The European Institute for the Media, 1991.

“parody”. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers, 2001.

Pettit, Zoë. “Translating Register, Style and Tone in Dubbing and Subtitling.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, vol. 4, 2005. 49-65.

Poel, Marijke van der, and Géry d’Ydewalle. “Incidental Foreign Language Acquisition by Children Watching Subtitled Television Programs.” 1997. (Multi) Media Translation. Yves Gambier and Henrik Gottlieb, eds. 2001, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Pulliam, Gregory J. “Stock Lines, Boat-Acts, and Dickjokes: A Brief Annotated Glossary of Standup Comedy Jargon.” American Speech, vol. 66 nr. 2. The American Dialect Society. Duke University Press, 1991. 164-170.

“pun”. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers, 2001.

Raphaelson-West, Debra S. “On the Feasability and Strategies of Translating Humor.” Meta vol. 34, nr. 1, 1989.

Raskin, Victor. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985.

Rosa, Alexandra Assis. “Features of Oral and Written Communication in Subtitling.” 1997. (Multi) Media Translation. Yves Gambier and Henrik Gottlieb eds. 2001, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

“sarcasm.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 22 April 2008. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm>.

“sardonic.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 22 April 2008. < http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sardonic>.

“satire”. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 22 April 2008. < http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377809>

“Slam Dunk”. Crossing Jordan. Tien, 2006. Subtitling: inVision Ondertiteling BV, 2006. “spoonerism”. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 22 April 2008.

<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9069217/spoonerism> Stern, Ludmila. “Interpreting Legal Language at the International Criminal Tribunal for the

Former Yugoslavia: overcoming the lack of lexical equivalents.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, vol. 2, 2004. 63-75.

Törnqvist, Egil. Ingmar Bergman Abroad: The Problems of Subtitling. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers AUP, 1998.

Vandaele, Jeroen. “Introduction; (Re-)onstructing Humour: Meanings and Means.” The Translator, vol 8, nr. 2, 2002. 149-172.

Whitman-Linsen, Candace. Through the Dubbing Glass – The Synchronisation of American Motion Pictures Into German, French and Spanish. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1992.

“wisecrack”. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers, 2001.

d’Ydewalle, Géry, Caroline Praet, Karl Verfaillie and Johan van Rensbergen. “Watching Subtitled Television: Automatic Reading Behavior.” Communication Research, vol. 18, 1991. 650-666.


93

11. Attachment – DVD containing the two subtitled scenes

The Mind of a Subtitler: Translation Strategies Employed in Subtitling Crime and Comedy

Documents

Transcript of The Mind of a Subtitler: Translation Strategies Employed in Subtitling Crime and Comedy