Degree Project Level: Bachelor’S a Comparative Study of Approaches to Audiovisual Translation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Degree project Level: bachelor’s A comparative study of approaches to audiovisual translation Author: Silvia Aldea Supervisor: Hiroko Inose Examiner: Course/main field of study: Japanese, translation studies Course code: JP2011 Credits: 15 Date of examination: 3/6/2016 At Dalarna University it is possible to publish the student thesis in full text in DiVA. The publishing is open access, which means the work will be freely accessible to read and download on the internet. This will significantly increase the dissemination and visibility of the student thesis. Open access is becoming the standard route for spreading scientific and academic information on the internet. Dalarna University recommends that both researchers as well as students publish their work open access. I give my/we give our consent for full text publishing (freely accessible on the internet, open access): Yes ✓ No ☐ Dalarna University – SE-791 88 Falun – Phone +4623-77 80 00 2 Abstract For those who are not new to the world of Japanese animation, known mainly as anime, the debate of “dub vs. sub” is by no means anything out of the ordinary, but rather a very heated argument amongst fans. The study will focus on the differences in the US English version between the two approaches of translating audio-visual media, namely subtitling (official subtitles and fanmade subtitles) and dubbing, in a qualitative context. More precisely, which of the two approaches can store the most information from the same audiovisual segment, in order to satisfy the needs of the anime audience. In order to draw substantial conclusions, the analysis will be conducted on a corpus of 1 episode from the first season of the popular mid-nineties TV animated series, Sailor Moon. The main objective of this research is to analyze the three versions and compare the findings to what anime fans expect each of them to provide, in terms of how culture specific terms are handled, how accurate the translation is, localization, censorship, and omission. As for the fans’ opinions, the study will include a survey regarding the personal preference of fans when it comes to choosing between the official subtitled version, the fanmade subtitles and the dubbed version. Keywords: audiovisual translation, subtitling, dubbing, translation quality, anime 3 Table of contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 1. 1. Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 6 1. 2. Background ................................................................................................................................. 7 1. 2. 1 Audiovisual translation........................................................................................................ 7 1. 2. 2. Advantages and Constraints of Subtitling ........................................................................ 8 1. 2. 3. Advantages and Constraints of Dubbing ........................................................................ 11 2. Prior Research ....................................................................................................................................... 14 2. 1. Contribution .................................................................................................................................. 16 3. Relevant Theories and Concepts ......................................................................................................... 17 3. 1. Skopos Theory ............................................................................................................................... 17 3. 2. Domestication ................................................................................................................................ 17 3. 3. Foreignization ................................................................................................................................ 18 3. 4. Relevance to the study .................................................................................................................. 18 4. Method ................................................................................................................................................... 18 4. 1. Questionnaire Survey ................................................................................................................... 19 4. 1. 1. Design ..................................................................................................................................... 19 4. 1. 2. Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 19 4. 1. 3. Respondents ........................................................................................................................... 19 4. 1. 4. Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 20 4. 2. Translation Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 20 4. 2. 1. Material .................................................................................................................................. 20 4. 2. 2. Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 23 4. 2. 3. Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 23 4. 2. 4. Method of analysis ................................................................................................................ 23 5. Results .................................................................................................................................................... 25 5. 1. Names ............................................................................................................................................. 26 5. 2. Technical differences .................................................................................................................... 27 5. 3. The Opening .................................................................................................................................. 27 5. 4. Subtitles .......................................................................................................................................... 30 5. 4. 1. Changes in translation .......................................................................................................... 30 4 5. 4. 2. Omission ................................................................................................................................. 34 5. 4. 3. Addition ................................................................................................................................. 36 5. 4. 4. Honorifics ............................................................................................................................... 37 5. 4. 5. Cultural terms and names .................................................................................................... 40 5. 4. 6. Censorship ............................................................................................................................. 41 5. 5. Dub ................................................................................................................................................. 41 5. 5. 1. Changes in translation .......................................................................................................... 44 5. 5. 2. Omission ................................................................................................................................. 46 5. 5. 3. Addition ................................................................................................................................. 47 5. 5. 4. Censorship ............................................................................................................................. 48 5. 6. Other differences ........................................................................................................................... 50 6. Discussion............................................................................................................................................... 51 7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 57 References .................................................................................................................................................. 59 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 62 Appendix 1. Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 62 Appendix 2. Opening Theme ............................................................................................................... 65 Figure 1. IMDB user ratings for Sailor Moon, 1995 (IMDB) ...................................................................