2.1. A General Definition of Subtitling
Subtitles are so common these days that providing a lengthy explanation seems unnecessary. But for the sake of clarity and to avoid any misunderstandings from individual nuances in definition, I will state what is meant by subtitling in its most basic form, before the concept is explored and expanded. Díaz Cintas and Remael define subtitling as follows:
“Subtitling may be defined as a translation practice that consists of presenting a written text… that endeavours to recount the original dialogue of the speakers, as well as the discursive elements that appear in the image (letters, inserts, graffiti, inscriptions, placards, and the like), and the information that is contained on the soundtrack (songs, voices off).” (2007, p. 8)
Their definition is very clear and satisfyingly all-encompassing. It can be divided roughly into two parts. The first establishes subtitling’s main feature that distinguishes it from other forms of audiovisual translation — while dubbing and voiceover are part of what is heard in a film, subtitling is part of what is seen. It is an additional semiotic element that, instead of replacing part of the source text, becomes yet another piece of the translated film (Díaz Cintas & Remael, 2007). The second part specifies the main function of subtitles and the parts of a film to which they are related, including the need to translate more than just speech. Delabastita (1989) points out that verbal communication in a film (more simply, words) can be spoken or written. If subtitles are responsible for ensuring that a target audience can understand the verbal communication of a film, the subtitler must take into account all the key discursive elements that would otherwise be inaccessible to them. We “should [be] wary of confusing the translation of a film’s dialogues with the translation of ‘all the verbal signs’ contained in the film” (Delabastita, 1989, p. 198). Then again, subtitles are not limited to verbal signs (as the examples of discursive elements given by Díaz Cintas and Remael imply). In subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing (SDH), tone of voice, sound effects and musical score may also be subtitled, as the viewers do not have (full) access to the acoustic semiotic channel of the film (Bogucki, 2015). The fact that these examples are not mentioned in Díaz Cintas’ and Remael’s definition is one drawback.
However, for the purposes of this paper, which shall focus on interlingual subtitles for hearing audiences, this definition is satisfactory and will thus be the basis of the following discussion.
What is disheartening is that many of the most important writers on subtitles are also very critical of them. From Marleau’s “mal nécessaire” [necessary evil] (1982) to Díaz Cintas and Remael’s “blemish on the film screen” (2007). Even Ivarsson and Carroll,
two gurus of the subtitling profession and the very creators of the Code of Good Subtitling Practice, are rather disparaging:
“The disturbing subtitles crowd out the picture and ruin the composition… And then they divert the viewer’s attention from the picture. The subtitles often flit in and out without being synchronised with the takes, in utter disregard of the film’s rhythm and intention… It is not easy to define the advantages of subtitling.” (Ivarsson & Carroll, 1998, p. 34)
It seems quite bleak that the leading experts in the field seem to have the same complaints that general viewers tend to have. But, as we shall see later, it is some of these specific criticisms that aesthetic subtitles address in an attempt to remedy, or at least mitigate, their perceived negative effects by embracing their very presence.
2.2. Subtitling Standards
Subtitles have been governed by standards for decades, with the most influential of these probably being Ivarsson and Carroll’s Code of Good Subtitling Practice (itself developed from their book Subtitling, 1998). The Code has been cited and taken up many times by subsequent key manuals on subtitling, including that of Díaz Cintas and Remael (2007), whose guidelines have the benefit of being more recent and more detailed. These norms cover everything from the way the subtitles look, to how long they should be on screen, via punctuation conventions and translation techniques that help the subtitler deal with the constraints imposed on subtitles by the nature of their medium. The existence of subtitling norms seems to be borne out of two main concerns: that subtitles should be invisible and that they should be usable.
As we have seen, one of the main criticisms of subtitles, is that they are distracting and interrupt the visual part of the film. As such, there is a concerted effort to make them as plain and unobtrusive as possible, to the point of invisibility, and this is reflected in subtitling norms. For example, subtitles are “limited to two lines, which occupy no more than two twelfths of the screen” and positioned at the bottom of the screen where less important action takes place (Díaz Cintas & Remael, 2007, p. 82). It is assumed that this is where they will be of least nuisance to the film and the viewer. The attempt at invisibility could also be part of a larger concern for subtitling theorists — that subtitles
always need to consider and work to the needs and expectations of the audience. Díaz Cintas and Remael point out that audiences want to watch a film, not read it (2007), and so subtitles must become invisible to avoid infringing on the audience’s enjoyment. However, as we shall see later, the idea that subtitles are and should be anything but visible is a fallacy and results in the so-called invisibility paradox (Foerster, 2010). But we will return to this argument later when discussing the advantages of aesthetic subtitling.
Usability includes aspects such as legibility and reading speed. It refers to the extent to which subtitles are actually practical for the audience, how feasible it is for them to read and understand the subtitles, based on their needs and abilities. An audience needs to be able to read the subtitles, otherwise what is the point of their being there?
So, there are standards for legibility to ensure that the audience can quickly and easily recognise words while they are on-screen, and there are standards for reading speed to ensure that the audience can take in the whole subtitle in the time allotted it to appear on screen. The standard is a sans serif font, as it is said to be easier to read (Ivarsson & Carroll, 1998), in white as it generally has a higher contrast, but with a black outline or drop shadow to compensate for visibility should the subtitle appear on a light background (Díaz Cintas & Remael, 2007). Figures for ideal reading speeds, however, vary. Reading speeds, typically measured in words per minute (wpm), are based on the time it takes the average viewer to read a subtitle of a particular length.
According to Díaz Cintas and Remael, this can range from 145 wpm to 180 wpm depending on factors such as medium (e.g. television, cinema or DVD) and viewing conditions (2007).
The general advantage of having standards such as the ones above is that it does set and demand a certain level of quality. Professional practitioners have something concrete to aim for and measure their work against to ensure that it is acceptable and fit for purpose. It also enables them to distinguish their work from that of amateurs.
However, there are two main criticisms that could be levelled at these standards. The first is that Ivarsson and Carroll’s code, that continues to influence even more recent guidelines, is now 20 years old. Indeed, Díaz Cintas and Remael’s work, with its detail
and thoroughness, is over ten years old itself (2007). Although that does not sound like a significant amount of time, subtitling technology and practice (to say nothing of filmmaking) has come on leaps and bounds. But no-one has thought to review these various guidelines in the context of today’s technology. Today’s environment looks almost unrecognisable to that of the late nineties and can only become more so as we move into the future (Bogucki, 2015). Some of the original suggestions for good subtitling practice are no longer relevant. To give just one example, Ivarsson and Carroll’s mainly justify their recommendations on typeface through arguments about image definition. Definition can depend on factors such as the width of the original film stock to the screen resolution of cathode-ray tube (CRT) television, and the quality of the image cannot be guaranteed across all formats. The subtitles had to be in a font that was highly-defined and legible across the board (Ivarsson & Carroll, 1998). But in today’s digital world, replete with high-definition LCD and LED screens that seem to be constantly increasing in size, fluctuations in image definition is probably of lesser importance to the subtitler.
The second criticism is the lack of empirical evidence backing up many of Ivarsson and Carroll’s norms, and by extension subsequent handbooks based on them. It does not feel entirely appropriate to cite “general agreement” (Ivarsson and Carroll, 1998, p. 42) and “conventional wisdom” (p. 47) as sole, unshakable grounds for establishing a standard that puts so much emphasis on catering to a third party (in this case, the audience). Convention, agreement and common sense are, somewhat ironically, quite subjective. Díaz Cintas and Remael even admit that subtitling convention can vary from country-to-country (2007). How can one be sure of what the true needs and abilities of third party are without asking? Ivarsson and Carroll cites some theorists from the field of typography, but those citations are sparse, and when tests are mentioned, none are directly referenced.1 There is, of course, a place for logic in theorising, especially in a relatively new area of study. But since Ivarsson and Carroll, there have been several studies that explicitly look at audience reception of subtitles
1 For example, Ivarsson and Carroll state that “[many] tests have shown that it is easiest to read text that stands out against a fixed dark background” (1998, p.46), but the lack of author, date or name for these tests makes this claim far less credible.
from cognitive and subjective points of view (D’Ydewalle, Praet, Verfaillie, & Van Rensbergen, 1991; Fox, 2013; Künzli & Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011; Szarkowska &
Gerber-Morón, 2018, to name only a few) and some of these have even contradicted some of the rules found in current subtitling practice guides. This new empirical evidence should be included in subtitle guidelines. We no longer have to rely on guesswork; we have a deeper understanding of how people read subtitles and what they think of them. We can use it to improve subtitles and better tailor them to the abilities of the audience.