AVT studies: Media Accessibility

Gambier (2003) addressed the concept of accessibility in AVT studies when describing the main features of screen translation, saying that “[t]he key word in screen translation is now accessibility.” (p. 179) Previously in the article, the author introduces the different AVT modes, classifying them as dominant types (mainly subtitling, dubbing, and voice-over, among others) and challenging types (including SDH and AD). The author argues that the concept of accessibility encompasses different features such as acceptability, legibility, readability, synchronicity, relevance, and domestication strategies (Gambier, 2003). Moreover, the author emphasizes the importance of considering viewers when translating audiovisual content and of carrying out reception studies, promoting a user-centered approach to AVT studies.

Díaz-Cintas (2005) defended the idea that AVT modes such as SDH and AD were indeed considered part of TS. The author referred to the translation taxonomy proposed by Jakobson (1959). The three categories defined by Jakobson were intralingual (or rewording), interlingual (or proper translation) and intersemiotic (or transmutation) (Jakobson, 1959). SDH would fall under the category of intralingual, while AD would be considered intersemiotic (Díaz-Cintas, 2005). According to Díaz-Cintas (2005, p. 4),

“[a]ccessibility in our field means making an audiovisual programme available to people that otherwise could not have access to it, always bearing in mind a degree of impairment on the part of the receiver.” However, the author went further in the definition of accessibility arguing that “in essence, to lip-sync, to subtitle or to voice-over a programme shares as much the idea of accessibility as SDH or AD. Only the intended audiences are different.” (Díaz-Cintas, 2005, p. 4) To sum up, he points out that:

Whether the hurdle is a language or a sensorial barrier, the aim of the translation process is exactly the same: to facilitate the access to an otherwise hermetic source

Chapter 1 | Introduction 27

of information and entertainment. In this way, accessibility becomes a common denominator that underpins these practices. (Díaz-Cintas, 2005, p. 4)

The previous subtitling definition suggested in this Ph.D. dissertation (§1.3.1) includes this principle, as the main goal of subtitling entails “supporting users in understanding any type of audiovisual content.” This can be taken as either linguistic or sensorial support.

As worded by Orero and Matamala (2007, p. 269), “[m]edia accessibility is a growing subfield of Audiovisual Translation Studies […].” In the same article, the authors also define accessibility as both linguistic and sensorial, reinforcing previous definitions by Gambier (2003) and Díaz-Cintas (2005). More recently, Greco (2016, p. 23) has defined MA as a “set of theories, practices, services, technologies and instruments providing access to audiovisual content for people that cannot, or cannot properly, access the content in its original form.” This definition is based on the definition by Szarkowska, Krejtz, Krejtz, & Duchowski (2013). Greco also points out that the instruments pertaining to MA such as subtitling or AD “stem from or involve audiovisual translation (AVT), because AVT is the field where MA has been developing as a research discipline for the last decade.” (Greco, 2016, p. 23) The same author delves deeper and provides three different accounts of MA, as can be seen in Figure 2 (Greco, 2019):

Figure 2. Three accounts of media accessibility by Greco (2019).

According to the author, there are three different accounts to explain the relationship between AVT and MA. In the first account, scholars understood MA as a subfield of AVT that mainly included the study of SDH and AD. These modalities were intended for a specific group of persons with sensorial disabilities. In the second account, scholars argued that MA addressed not only sensorial but also linguistic barriers, but still

28 Chapter 1 | Introduction

from a particularist perspective. That is, accessibility is addressed to a specific type of users who need additional services to access audiovisual content. The third account, which is provided by the author himself, is the most recent and presents a universalist approach. The author defines MA as “access to media and non-media objects, services and environments through media solutions, for any person who cannot or would not be able to, either partially or completely, access them in their original form.” (Greco, 2019) According to the author:

The universalist definition does not limit MA to any specific group but rather, focuses on the functional processes involved in the interaction between users’

specificities, the particular contexts within which they act or are placed, and the means to address those specificities in such contexts.

This is an oversimplification of the different MA accounts, as stated by the author, so we encourage the reader to refer to the source for more details (Greco, 2019).

Matamala (2019) argues that we should allude to the terms of audiovisual accessibility and audiovisual translation. It is important to highlight that we are referring to audiovisual accessibility and not media accessibility, because the specific focus of this study is access to audiovisual content in particular, as opposed to any type of media. The author understands that there are different ways of approaching the same subject (in this case, how to access audiovisual content), and we can look at it from the perspective of either translation or accessibility. But the common denominator is that the subject under research is audiovisual content. Independently, there is an ongoing, healthy and necessary debate regarding the position of MA within the different research fields and it is important to keep communication channels open between the different disciplines.

Scholars do not seem to agree on a single definition of MA as it is a relatively new concept that is still under development. The question posed by this dissertation is how to present subtitles in immersive content without disrupting the experience. We believe that this question belongs to the field of AVT studies given that aesthetic is one of the aspects studied in subtitling (Arnáiz-Uzquiza, 2012). Therefore, our focus of study is a matter of translation rather than accessibility, and so we are framing our study in AVT studies rather than MA studies.

Additionally, we believe that the differentiation between subtitling (allegedly for the hearing) and SDH (allegedly for persons with hearing loss) is outdated. We

Chapter 1 | Introduction 29

understand that there are several layers of content in the AVT mode of subtitling, including the translation of the script (either intralinguistc or interlinguistic) and the inclusion or not of extralinguistic features such as character identification, sounds, etc.

These options could be customized with the use of technology depending on viewers’

needs and preferences, as will be suggested in the next subsection 1.3.3. The attributes that are desirable for each translation mode are based on the viewers’ preferences and needs, which can be customizable. Hence the need to apply a user-centered approach in AVT Studies.