Difference Between Verbal Redundancy In Audiovisual Translation

1032 Words3 Pages

Redundancy in audiovisual translation
As stated in previous paragraphs techniques of AVT such as subtitling or voice-over cannot be separated from some omissions and condensations of a source text. These extra elements which can be easily, without serious manipulation, omitted are called redundancy.
According to Tomaszkiewicz (2006: 127) the notion of redundancy may be easily defined as
“the excess of the information in communicate formulated in a given code” (Tomaszkiewicz
2006:127). Redundancy, on the one hand, influences the length of communication; on the other hand however, facilitates the reception of this communication. Tomaszkiewicz also claims that the presence of this phenomenon is necessary in a successful communication because its …show more content…

2.3.1. Verbal redundancy in relation to the cognitive knowledge of the recipient According to Tomaszkiewicz (2006:128) it is widely visible, when looking at the plethora of different instances of movie translations in the form of subtitles, that the translators often omit or reduce some parts of text assuming that the audience possesses certain knowledge about everyday conversation. The imitation of everyday conversation in the movie dialogues is based on verbal chunks called adjacency pair. These pairs include greeting - greeting, proposition – acceptation, question – answer. Since the reaction to any of these language acts can be highly predictable a given adjacency pair may be regarded as redundant and omitted by translator (Tomaszkiewicz 2006:128).
2.3.2. Redundancy in relation to other verbal elements
As Tomaszkiewicz (2006: 134-140) says audiovisual translation is an imitation of real life conversation and it must not be telegraphic. The audience should have impression of the real dialogue. Nevertheless, there is a limited place for subtitles and they ought to be somehow reduced. Following elements are the ones which are shortened or omitted in translated
dialogues: …show more content…

There are three comical situations formulated by Kałaga (1997: 12) which fall into the category of untranslatability:
- When comicality is placed in the language and stems from the construction of language. - When comicality has beyond-language characteristic and stems from the world model or image, and language is only a notion of it.
- When comicality stems from the world model which is embedded in the language and results from the language (Tomaszkiewicz 2006: 183).
Hejwowski (2004: 106) supplements the first category with the language phenomena like polysemy or homonymy, which can be very problematic if the target language lacks appropriate equivalents. The solution for translators struggling with such and other lingual rooted patterns is, according to Tomaszkiewicz (2006: 185), compensation. Compensation is a technique of translation involving the equalization of information loss, occurred in one place of a text in order to sustain the whole of the given text (Tomaszkiewicz 2004: 54). In other words, when the untranslatability occurs in one part of the text, i.e. pun existing only in

Open Document