The importance of being relevant? A cognitive-pragmatic framework for conceptualising audiovisual translation

Sabine Braun
University of Surrey

Inspired by the belief that cognitive and pragmatic models of communication and discourse processing offer great potential for the study of Audiovisual Translation (AVT), this paper will review such models and discuss their contribution to conceptualising the three inter-related sub-processes underlying all forms of AVT: the comprehension of the multimodal discourse by the translator; the translation of selected elements of this discourse; and the comprehension of the newly formed multimodal discourse by the target audience. The focus will be on two models, Relevance Theory, which presents the most comprehensive pragmatic model of communication, and Mental Model Theory, which underlies cognitive models of discourse processing. The two approaches will be used to discuss and question common perceptions of AVT as being ‘constrained’ and ‘partial’ translation.

Table of contents

Many forms of audiovisual translation (AVT), especially subtitling, dubbing and voiceover, are primarily concerned with the translation of verbal language, be it from one language into another or from spoken into written language. Only subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing (SDH) and audio description for the blind and partially sighted (AD) systematically require inter-modal transfer. However, given that the film dialogue or narrative, which is the object of translation in subtitling, dubbing and voiceover, is part of a multimodal discourse (i.e., a film or performance), these forms of AVT also require the translator to be aware of the other modes. At the same time, one of the challenges that all forms of AVT share is that the translator has control over only some elements of the multimodal discourse. The visual images are normally a ‘given’ and cannot be altered in the process of translation. Other challenges include the time and space limitations for the translated elements and requirements to achieve intermodal synchronicity (most prominently in dubbing), calling for appropriate strategies of information selection, condensation and/or omission. Although not exclusive to AVT, these challenges have led to AVT being conceptualised as ‘constrained translation’ (Bogucki 2004) and ‘partial translation’ (Benecke 2014). This paper argues that cognitive-pragmatic models of discourse processing enable us to re-evaluate these perceptions. It examines the potential of Mental Model Theory (Johnson-Laird 1983, 2006) and Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995) for this purpose. Although these models have so far mainly been used to explain monomodal verbal discourse and monomodal translation, it will be shown that they can be applied to multimodal discourse as such and to AVT, and that the benefits of their application to AVT are wide-ranging.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Arnold, Derek, and David Whitney
2005 “Adaptation and Perceptual Binding in Sight and Sound.” In Fitting the Mind to the World, ed. by Colin Clifford, and Gillian Rhodes, 339–360. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bell, Victoria, and Philip Johnson-Laird
1998 “A Model Theory of Modal Reasoning.” Cognitive Science 22: 25–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benecke, Bernd
2014 Audiodeskription als partielle Translation — Modell und Methode. Berlin: LitVerlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bogucki, Łukasz
2004 “The Constraint of Relevance in Subtitling.” JosTrans 1: 71–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2007a “Audio Description from a Discourse Perspective: A Socially Relevant Framework for Research and Training.” Linguistica Antverpiensia NS 6: 357–369.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007b “Interpreting in Small-Group Bilingual Videoconferences: Challenges and Adaptation Processes.” Interpreting (9) 1: 21–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011 “Creating Coherence in Audio Description.” Meta (56) 3: 645–662. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule
1983 Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Desilla, Louisa
2012 “Implicatures in Film: Construal and Functions in Bridget Jones Romantic Comedies.” Journal of Pragmatics (44) 1: 30–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diaz Cintas, Jorge, and Aline Remael
2007 Subtitling. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dicerto, Sara
2015 From Multimodal Translation to ‘Multimodal Pragmatics’: Developing a Theoretical Framework for the Study of Multimodal Translation. PhD diss. University of Surrey.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fels, Deborah, John Patrick Udo, Jonas Diamond, and Jeremy Diamond
2006 “Comparison of Alternative Narrative Approaches to Video Description for Animated Comedy.” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness (100) 5: 295–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles
2014 “Relevance Theory as a Model for Multimodal Communication.” In Visual Communication, ed. by David Machin, 51–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fresno, Nazaret
2014 La (re)construcción de los personajes fílmicos en la audiodescripción. PhD diss. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. http://​www​.tdx​.cat​/bitstream​/handle​/10803​/285420​/nfc1de1​.pdf.
Gambier, Yves
2009 “Challenges in Research on Audiovisual Translation.” In Translation Research Projects 2, ed. by Anthony Pym, and Alexander Perekrestenko, 24–33. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August
2000 Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005 “On the Significance of the Cognitive Core of Translation.” The Translator (11) 1: 25–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herman, David
2002 Story Logic. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jamieson, Harry
2007 Visual Communication: More Than Meets the Eye. Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip
1983 Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006 How We Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kohn, Kurt, and Sylvia Kalina
1996 “The Strategic Dimension of Interpreting.” Meta (42) 1: 118–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kovačič, Irena
1993 “Relevance as a Factor in Subtitling Reduction.” In Teaching Translation and Interpretation 2: Insights, Aims, Visions, ed. by Cay Dollerup, and Anne Lindegaard, 245–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther
1998 “Visual and Verbal Modes of Representation in Electronically Mediated Communication.” In Page to Screen, ed. by Illana Snyder, and Michael Joyce, 53–79. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kruger, Jan-Louis
2012 “Making Meaning in AVT: Eyetracking and Viewer Construction of Narrative.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology (20) 1: 67–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lemke, Jay
2006 “Toward Critical Multimedia Literacy: Technology, Research, and Politics.” In International Handbook of Literacy and Technology, vol. 2, ed. by Michael McKenna, 2, 3–14. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez, Juan José Sierra
2010 “Approaching the Audio Description of Humour.” Entreculturas: revista de traducción y comunicación intercultural 2: 87–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matamala, Anna, and Pilar Orero
2007 “Accessible Opera in Catalan: Opera for All.” In Media for All, ed. by Jorge Díaz Cintas, Pilar Orero, and Aline Remael, 201–214. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGonigle, Frances
2013 Audio Description and Semiotics: The Translation of Films for Visually-Impaired Audiences. PhD diss. University of Surrey.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orero, Pilar, and Anna Vilaró
2012 “Eyetracking Analysis of Minor Details in Films for Audio Description.” MonTI 4: 295–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Setton, Robin
1999 Simultaneous Interpretation. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun, and Walter Kintsch
1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vercauteren, Gert, and Aline Remael
2014 “Audio-Describing Spatio-Temporal Settings.” In Audio Description: New Perspectives Illustrated, ed. by Pilar Orero, Anna Matamala, and Anna Maszerowska, 61–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2008 “Inferring from Comics: a Multi-Stage Account.” Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis de Comunicació 3: 223–249.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
 
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue