the PolysysteM theory in audiovisual translation

accordingtothepolysystemtheoryoutlinedbyeven-Zoharbetween1970and1977“semi-oticsystems[…]co-existdynamicallywithina particularculturalsphere”(diazCintas2004:

22),takinga centralorperipheralpositionwithinthesystem.Translationshavea placewithin

theliterarysystemofa givenculture.While“original”literatureistheresultof“primary”

activitywhichis“presumedtobethatactivitywhichtakestheinitiativeincreatingnewitems

andmodelsfortherepertoire”(even-Zohar1978:7),translatedliteratureistheresultof“sec- ondary”activitywhich“isconceivedofasa derivatory,conservatoryandsimplificatoryactiv-ity”(even-Zohar1978:7).Basedonthisdichotomy“thewholecorpusoftranslatedliterature

[can]beconsideredsecondarysystems”(even-Zohar1978:16).

Theliteraturepolysystemwasfurtherdichotomisedintocanonisedandnon-canonised

systems:

By“canonised”literaturewemeanroughlywhatisusuallyconsidered“major”

literature:thosekindsofliteraryworksacceptedbythe“literarymilieu”and

usuallypreservedbythecommunityaspartofitsculturalheritage.ontheoth-erhand,“non-canonized”literaturemeansthosekindsofliteraryworksmore

oftenthannotrejectedbytheliterarymilieuaslacking“aestheticvalue”and

relativelyquicklyforgotten,e.g.,detectivefiction,sentimentalnovels,westerns,

pornographicliterature,etc.(even-Zohar1978:15).

even-Zoharrealisedthenecessitytoincludetranslatedliteratureinthepolysystemandinhis

1976essayonthesubjecthewrote“Iconceiveoftranslatedliteraturenotonlyasa systeminits

ownright,butasa systemfullyparticipatinginthehistoryofthepolysystem,asanintegralpart

ofit,relatedwithalltheotherco-systems”(even-Zohar1978:22).Translatedliteraturecan

maintainprimarya positionwithintheliterarypolysystem–thefactthatoftenthemostac-knowledgedliteraryauthorsarealsotranslatorsofimportantforeignliteratureandtheprocess

ofselectingwhichliteraryworksaretranslatedareshapingtheliterarypolysystem.even-Zohar

enumeratesthreepossiblesituationswherethetranslatedliteraturecanhavea primaryposition:

(a)whena polysystemhasnotyetbeencrystallised,thatistosay,whena litera-tureis“young,”intheprocessofbeingestablished;(b)whena literatureiseither

“peripheral”or“weak,”orboth;and(c)whenthereareturningpoints,crises,or

literaryvacuumsina literature(even-Zohar1978:24).

Inotherinstances,translatedliteratureholdsa secondaryplacewithinthepolysystemand

“hasnoinfluenceonmajorprocessesandismodelledaccordingtonormsalreadyconvention-allyestablishedbyanalreadydominanttype”(even-Zohar1978:25).

However,itdoesnotmeanthattranslatedliteratureiseitherwhollyprimaryorwhollysec-ondarywithinthepolysystemsince“[o]nesectionoftranslatedliteraturemayassumea primary

position,anothermayremainsecondary”andusuallyitisthe“portionoftranslatedliterature

derivingfrommajorsourceliteraturewhichislikelytoassumea primaryposition”(even-Zohar

1978:25).However,even-Zoharsaysthathisownresearch“indicatesthatthe“normal”posi-tionassumedbytranslatedliteraturetendstobethesecondaryone.”(even-Zohar1978:26)

Buthowcanweapplythepolysystemtheoryforthespecificfieldofaudiovisualtranslation?

JorgediazCintasappliesthetheoryofpolysystemstothefilmpolysystemofSpainwhich“is

madeupofthenationalproductsandthetranslatedones−dubbedorsubtitled”(diazCintas

2004:23),andalsopointsoutanimportantdifferencebetweentheliteraryandthefilm

polysystemsofthecountry:whileintheliterarypolysystemtranslatedliterature’s“normal”

positionisthesecondaryone,itisnotsointhecaseofthefilmpolysystem.asheputsit, [g]iventhefactthatinSpainuSatranslatedfilmsaremorenumerousthanthe

nationalones,attractlargernumberofspectatorsandgeneratemorerevenue,

itseemslegitimatetosaythattheyoccupya primarypositionandtheSpanish

filmsa secondaryposition(diazCintas2004:25).

Itisanimportantstatementespeciallywhentalkingaboutlanguagesoflesserdistributionand

economiesfarsmallerthanthatoftheuS(orinthatcaseSpainitself),wherethenational

filmmakingindustryissmallerbeyondallcomparisonthanthedistributionofforeignfilms

–whichisdefinitelytrueinthecaseofHungary.

anotherimportantremarkofdiaz-Cintasisthefactthata similardichotomyofcanon-isedandnon-canonisedgroupsofaudiovisualproductscanberecognisedwithinthefilm

polysystemandthroughtheresearchconductedonaudiovisualtranslation.Heremarksthat

“filmorcinematographicpolysystemistoolimitedtofilmsandneglectsotherproductsofthe

audiovisualworldthatarealsotranslatedsuchasTVseries,documentaries,cartoons,soap

operas,commercialsorcorporatevideos”(diaz-Cintas2004:25).

3. audienCe-FoCused researChes in audiovisual translation Basedontheabovewecanassumethattranslatedaudiovisualproductsarepresentandhave

somekindofimpactonthenationalcultureofa certaincountry.Butwhatkindofimpact

arewereallytalkingabout?Itissurprisinglyhardtofinda concreteanswertothisquestion.

audiovisualtranslationitselfhasbeenresearchedwidelywithinthescopeofTranslation

Studiesinthelastfewdecades.Itisa currentandpopularsubject,andvariouspublications

dealwithquestionsofnorms,culturaltransfer,translationstrategiesinaudiovisualtrans-lation(tonamebuta few).Inthe Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation StudiesBakerand

Hochelevenstatethat“anyformofaudiovisualtranslation,includingdubbing,ultimately

playsa uniqueroleindevelopingbothnationalidentitiesandnationalstereotypes”(Bakerand

Hochel1998:76).Still,thenumberofpublicationsdealingwiththeimpactofaudiovisual

translationsonthetargetlanguagesystemandonthetargetlanguageaudiencesislimited

bothinnumbersandinscope.

JuditSereg

Thisimbalanceinresearchisstressedingambier’s(2009)paperinwhichheproposes

a differentiationbetweenthreetypesofreception:response,reactionandrepercussion,al-thoughthefirsttwoarerelatedtosubtitles(notdubbing)dealingwithissuesoflegibility

andreadabilityandthethirdisa kindofattitudinalissueandsocioculturaldimensionofthe

reception.Thepossiblelinguisticimpactofthelanguageoftranslatedaudiovisualproductsis

nottakenintoconsideration.However,gambierproposesrelevantmethodsfortheresearch

ofreceptionincludingtheuseofquestionnaires,interviewsandexperimentalmethods–but

again,thesuggestionsaresolelyrelatedtothereceptionofsubtitles.

ChaumeVarelapresentsa “possiblesetofqualitystandards”fordubbing“motivatedby

theimplicitpresenceofanidealviewerorspectatorinthetargetpolysystem”(ChaumeVarela

2007:71).Whilehisapproachtothequalitystandardsandnormsoftranslationfordub-bingisdefinitelyanaudience-orientedone,inhispaperhedealswith“anidealviewer,an

abstraction”(ChaumeVarela2007:73)andonlymentionstheimportanceofconductingtrue

researchonaudiencegroups.Whenlistingtheexpectationsofthis“idealviewer”,Chaume

Varelamostlyenumeratesphenomenarelatedtothe“technical”characteristicsofdubbing

(e.g.respectforarticulationandbodymovement,coherencebetweenwhatisheardandwhat

isseen,technicalconventions)andmentionsonlyoneexpectationstrictlyrelatedtothetarget

language,thatis“writingofcredibleandrealisticdialogues,accordingtotheoralregisters

ofthetargetlanguage”(ChaumeVarela2007:74).Healsodefines“theultimateaimofdub-bing”whichis“tocreatea believablefinalproductthatseemsreal,thattricksusasspectators

intothinkingwearewitnessinga domesticproduction,witheasilyrecognisedcharactersand

realisticvoices”(ChaumeVarela2007:75).Moreinterestingly,hementionsthatthetranslated

dialogue“mustbeacceptableaccordingtothecanonicalstandardsofanaudiovisualtext

translatedintothetargetlanguage”(ChaumeVarela2007:79).Bythishemakesaninterest-ingassumption:whiletheaimofthedialogueoftranslatedfilmsistocreateacceptableand

realisticlanguage,itseemsthatthisacceptableandrealisticlanguageisnotthesameasthe

“real”targetlanguageineverydayoraluse.Itis“aprefabricated,artificial,non-spontaneous

oralregister”(ChaumeVarela2007:82)which“shouldsoundasthoughithasnotinfactbeen

written”(ChaumeVarela2007:79).

authorsdifferonwhatthegoalofdubbingis.Baker(1998)appliesHouse’sterminology

(House1981)todubbingandsaysitcanbeviewedasa “primeinstanceofovert translation […]”.Inotherwords,“adubbedfilmorprogramisalwaysovertlypresentedandperceivedas

a translation”(BakerandHochel1998:76).Howeverotherauthorsarguethatthemostimpor- tantgoalofdubbingistocreateanillusion:theillusionofauthenticlanguage,asifitwasorigi-nallywritteninthetargetlanguage.asdries(1995)putsit,it“shouldbeabsolutelyconvincing

totheaudience.dubbingshouldcreatetheperfectillusionofallowingtheaudiencetoexperi-encetheproductionintheirownlanguagewithoutdiminishinganyofthecharacteristicsof

theoriginallanguage,cultureandnationalbackgroundoftheproduction”(dries1995:9).

accordingtoParini(2009),“[t]hepurposeofthetranslationcanbeinterpretedasanattempt

toproduceinthespectatorswhowatchthefilminthetargetlanguagethesameresponseas

thespectatorswhoviewthefilminthesourcelanguage”(Parini2009:293).Butthroughthe

differencesinapproachonenecessarycharacteristicismentionedinalmosteverypaperdealing

withdubbing:thatisthe need to create the impression of natural language.

Whitman-Linsenremarksthat“artificialityisoneofthemainfaultspilloriedindenounce-mentsofdubbedversions:theaudiencecanhear thatisnotanoriginal.dubbedlanguage

simplydoesnotcorrespondtothewaynormalpeopletalk”(Whitman-Linsen1992:118).

Thisviewleadstothenotionof“dubbese”,thespecificlanguageofdubbingproducts,defined

byIaia(2015):

dubbingissupposedtocreateandspreada peculiar,artificiallanguage,de-fined“dubbese”[…].Thetermdenotesaneasily-recognisableformoflanguage,

whosepeculiarfeatureshavecausedtheaudiencetoperceiveitasan“estranged”

meansofcommunicationthatdoesnotcorrespondtothatusedineveryday,

face-to-faceconversations,butwhichisnonethelessacceptedandrecognisedas

typicalofaudiovisualtexts(Iaia2015:11).

4.  PraCtiCal researChes on the audienCe oF audiovisual

In document HUNGARIAN TRANSLATION (Pldal 133-136)