international film and audio‐visual translation
TRANSCRIPT
InternationalFilmandAudio‐VisualTranslation:
InterculturalExperienceasModeratorinAudienceRecallandEnjoyment
By
KaraRader
SchoolofCommunication
OhioStateUniversity
KimberlyA.Neuendorf
&
PaulD.Skalski
SchoolofCommunication
ClevelandStateUniversity
Cleveland,OH44115
PaperpresentedtotheInterculturalCommunicationDivisionoftheInternational
CommunicationAssociationatthe2015annualconference,SanJuan,PuertoRico
SincerethanksgotoProfessorTamaEngelkingoftheDepartmentofModernLanguagesat
ClevelandStateUniversityforhercriticalassistancewithmeasuresofspeakingand
listeninglanguageproficiency.
2
InternationalFilmandAudio‐VisualTranslation:
InterculturalExperienceasModeratorinAudienceRecallandEnjoyment
Abstract
Thisstudyexaminescognitiveandaffectiveoutcomesofexposuretointernationalfilm
contentthathasbeensubtitledvs.dubbed.Pastresearchlookingattheprosandconsof
subtitlinganddubbinghasinvestigatedissuesofvalidlanguagetranslation,thechallenges
ofculturalreferencetransference,andthebenefitsofsubtitlingforforeignlanguage
learning.Basedonpreviousresearch(e.g.,Wissmath,Weibel,&Groner,2009),thisstudy
queriedwhetherrecallandenjoymentoutcomesdifferbetweensubtitledanddubbed
versionsofthesamemovingimagecontent.Resultsshownosuperiorityofoneversion
overtheotherinsimpleoutcomes;however,severalsignificantinteractionsdemonstrate
themoderatingimpactofinterculturalexperienceconstructs.Specifically,thosespectators
withfamilyforeignlanguageexperiencehavehighervisualanddialoguerecalloutcomes
withsubtitling,andthosewithgreateroverallinterculturalexposurereportgreater
enjoymentwithsubtitling.
3
InternationalFilmandAudio‐VisualTranslation:
InterculturalExperienceasModeratorinAudienceRecallandEnjoyment
IntroductionandLiteratureReview
Withagrowingrepertoireofcontemporaryfilmandvideodeliverysystems,
includingtheInternetandstreamingservicessuchasNetflix,theeasewithwhichfilmsand
televisionshowscanbeviewedacrossnational,cultural,andlinguisticbordershas
increaseddramatically.Further,anemerging“globalcinema”hasbeenrecognizedasthe
intersectionof“large,displacedandglobalizedpopulationsofbothspectatorsand[film]
producers,”acinemathatisincreasinglymultilingualandmulticultural(Naficy,2010,p.
11).Methodsoflanguageandculturaltranslationarebecomingmoreimportanttoa
broaderrangeofpeoples.Whatwasonceprimarilytheconcernofaudiencesandmoving
imagedistributorsinEuropeandotherlocaleswithdiverselanguagebases(andwith,by
theway,clearlydrawnnationalpreferencesforsubtitlingvs.dubbing(Kilborn,1993))is
movinginexorablyintothegeneralAmericanaudience’sfieldofview.
Audio‐visualTranslation
Audio‐visualtranslation(AVT),thetranslationofthespokenwordinfilmandvideo
presentations,isacomplicatedprocess(Ramière,2010).Thetwomostcommonformsof
AVTaresubtitlinganddubbing.ResearchintoAVT,inparticularintosubtitlingand
dubbing,coversarangeofapproaches,manyofthemquitepracticalinnature.Muchofthe
AVTresearchfocusesonnegativeaspectsofandproblemsfacedwithtranslationin
general.Someoftheproblemsthatariseareduetotechnicalaspectsofcreatingsubtitles
andexecutingalternativelanguagedubbing.
4
Subtitlingnotonlyisatranslationbetweenlanguages,butalsobetweenmodesof
communication‐‐fromthespokenwordtothewrittenword.Subtitlingalsopresents
difficultiesintimeandspaceconstraintsthatlimithowmuchcanbesaid.Subtitlingoften
excludesphrasesorentiresentencesandthemostexacttranslationisfrequentlyignored
foramoreconcisetranslation.Thereareparallelproblemsindubbing.Amainissuewith
dubbingissynchronization,wherethetranslationismatchedtothemovements,bothlip
andgestures,oftheoriginalvisualwork.Phrasesarerewordedtomatchthemovements
better,butperhapsnottobettermatchthemeaningoftheoriginal(Chuang,2006;Diaz‐
Cintas,1999;Koolstra,Peeters,&Spinhof,2002;Nornes,1999;Ramière,2010;Stubbings,
2008).
Therearenumerouscriticaltranslationissuesrelevanttobothsubtitlingand
dubbing.Wordchoicecanbetricky,especiallyifthereisnoequivalentinthetarget
language,resultingintheoriginalwordbeingleftintactandcausingaudienceconfusion
(Schroter,2003).Often,withcomedies,especiallycomediesthatrelyonpunsorplayson
words,thepunchlineisnearlyimpossibletounderstandbytheforeignaudience,andthe
filmlosesitsoriginalappeal(Antonini,2005;Vanderschelden,2002).Othergenrespresent
similardifficulties,suchassciencefictionandmusicalsormusicbiographies.Translatorsof
theoriginaltelevisionshowStarTrekfacedmanydifficultiestranslatingnovelwords
createdfortheshow.Theyevenhaddifficultiesportrayingvariousaspectsofthe
characters,causingthemonoccasiontoseemracist,chauvinistic,orjustplainrude(Caron,
2003).Translatingthefilm8Milepresentedproblemsthatwerehandledinaunique
fashion.Fortherapsequencespresentedinthefilm,WarnerBros.hadfamousrappersin
5
thetargetlanguagerewritethelyricssotheoriginalmessagewasunderstood(Taivalkoski‐
Shilov,2008).
Otherlessobviousissueshavealsobeenstudied.Mostofthetime,off‐screen
dialogueisnottranslated.DastjerdiandJazini(2011)arguethatbynottranslatingthis
material,thetargetaudiencedoesnotenjoythefilmasmuchastheywouldifthisdialogue
weretranslated.The“realness”ofthetranslateddialogueiscalledintoquestion,inboth
dubbingandsubtitling.Howell(2006)investigatesthedifferencesbetweenseveral
subtitledversionsofvariousJapaneseanimefilms.ThedifferencesbetweentheEnglish
subtitlesavailabletotheJapanesemarketandtotheAmericanmarketvarydrasticallyin
dialogue.TheversionsavailabletotheJapanesemarketusesubtitlesthatarewrittenin
properEnglishthatfailtoconveyanythingotherthandialogue.TheEnglishversions,done
bywell‐knowntranslators,usemorecolloquialphrasings,whichhelpconveycharacter
relationshipsandbackgrounds.González‐IglesiasandToda(2011)arguethatdubbing
betterillustratesbackgroundinformationaboutcharactersthatcanonlybederivedfrom
theiraccents.BothMatamala(2010)andPavesi(2009)havecomparedbroadcast
translationsofvariousfilmstotheoriginalscriptorthetranslatedscript.Pavesigoesastep
furtherandcomparesthemtonatural,spokenlanguage.Pavesiconcludesthatneitherthe
originalnorthetranslationperfectlyimitatesspokenlanguage,butbothcomeclose.
Matamalaexaminesthevariouschangesandlossesincurredduringthedubbingprocess.
Zilberdik(2004)arguesthatsomebadtranslationsshouldnotbeattributedtotranslation
itself,buttotheactofrelaytranslation,thetranslatingofatranslationinsteadofthe
original.
6
Translatingculturalreferencesisproblematic,andoftenmishandled.Translators
mayreplacetheoriginalreferencewithonethatissimilarinthetargetlanguage,butthe
similarreferencedoesnotalwaysportraytheoriginalreferencecorrectly.Pedersen(2007)
arguesthatinsomecasesandgenres(suchascomedy),elicitingasimilarreactionor
feelingiswhatismostimportant,soreplacingthereferenceisacceptable.But,ashepoints
out,sometimesthetargetaudienceunderstandstheoriginalreference,makingits
replacementunnecessary.Zojer(2011)continuesthispointandstatesthatthisuniversal
understandingisaresultofglobalizationandillustratesthegrowinginterculturalityofthe
world.
Multilingualismandcode‐switchingbetweenlanguagesinfilmisalsoanissue
(Bleichenbacher,2008).InAmericanfilms,agrowingamountofdialogueisinbothEnglish
andSpanish.Thisleadstoquestionsofhowtodealwiththedualityofthedialogue.Almost
always,Spanishissubtitled,unlessanothercharacterisactingastranslator(Carra,2009).
Thisphenomenonalsoarisesin“Bollywood”(i.e.,commercialHindi)filmsfromIndia.
EnglishisfrequentlymixedinwithHindi(orotherIndianlanguages)whenspoken(e.g.,
creatingwhathascolloquiallybeencalled“Hinglish”).ThisillustratestheWesternizationof
theIndianculture,andmostoftentheEnglishwordsaresubtitledalongwitheverything
else(Si,2011).
Whenchoosingwhethertoutilizesubtitlesortodub,attentionalsoispaidtothe
factthatnoteveryonecanread,whetheritisanilliterateadultorachildwhohasnotyet
learned,andtotheattentionlevelofthetargetaudience.Often,TVshowssuchassoap
operasaredubbedsothattheaudiencecancarryoutotheractivitieswithoutbeingtiedto
theTV(Nir,1984).
7
Thereisasubsetofresearchthatlooksatthelearningeffectsofsubtitledfilms.
Watchingsubtitledcontentisauniquewayforforeignlanguagelearnerstoabsorbnative
speakerswithouthavingtotraveltoanothercountry.Bybeingshownsubtitledcontentin
class,studentsdevelopbetterlisteningcomprehensionandoralcommunicativeabilities
(Borras&Lafayette,1994).Otherresearchconcludesthatshowingforeignfilmsthatare
subtitledtolanguagestudentshelpswithunderstanding,butnotvocabularyrecognition
(Etemadi,2012).HayatiandMohmedi(2010)lookedattheeffectsthatdifferenttypesof
subtitleshaveonlanguagelearners.Subtitlesinthelanguagebeinglearnedwereshownto
bemosteffective,whilesubtitlesintheviewer’snativelanguagewereshowntobemore
effectivethannosubtitles.Yekta(2010)contradictedtheunderlyingbeliefthatsubtitles
“overload”thestudent,providingevidencethattheyhelpwithcomprehension.
Eyetrackingtechnologyhasbeenusedinseveralstudiestoexaminevarious
concerns.Peregoetal.(2010)lookedatlinesegmentationintwo‐linedsubtitlesandfound
thatthelinebreakdoesnotaffectunderstanding.Theyconcludedthattherewasno
significanttrade‐offbetweenthesubtitlesandthevisualinformation,thoughithasbeen
foundthataudiencesdospendmoretimereadingsubtitlesthanlookingatnon‐verbal
informationinascene(Caffery,2008).d’Ydewalleetal.(1991)showedthatreading
subtitlesisanautomaticbehaviorthatdoesnotrequireadditionalattention.Inanother
study,d’YdewalleandDeBruycker(2007)lookedatthedifferencebetweenadultandchild
viewersofsubtitledcontent.Theyfoundthatbothchildrenandadultsspentmoretimeon
twolinedsubtitles,whileonlychildrentookanextendedamountoftimetoswitchtheir
attentionfromthesubtitlestothepicture.
8
Wissmathetal.(2009)studiedthedifferencesineffectsofdubbingandsubtitlingon
spatialpresence,transportation,flow,andenjoyment.Theyfoundthatbothmethodscan
leadtoimmersionintothestory,andthattherewasnodifferencebetweenthetwoin
termsofenjoyment.Itshouldbepointedoutthattheresearchersfeltthatthefactthatthe
subjectsallstudiedinSwitzerland,whichhasfourofficiallanguages,andwhereaudiences
areaccustomedtobothsubtitlinganddubbing,limitedthegeneralizabilityoftheresults.
ResearchQuestions.ExtendingtheworkofWissmathetal.(2009)totheAmerican
context,andtakingintoaccountthepastresearchinvestigatingAVTwithintherealmof
languageacquisitionandofculturallearningandexperience(e.g.,Etemadi,2012;Yekta,
2010),thefollowingresearchquestionsareposed.
RQ1a:Whatdifferences,ifany,willbefoundinrecallforthoseviewingasubtitled
filmicpresentationvs.adubbedfilmicpresentation?
RQ1b:Whatdifferences,ifany,willbefoundinenjoymentforthoseviewinga
subtitledfilmicpresentationvs.adubbedfilmicpresentation?
InterculturalExperiences
Exposuretointerpersonalandmediatedcommunicationfromothercultureshas
beenfoundtoberelatedtosuchfactorsasgreaterknowledgeofcurrentevents(Jeffreset
al.,2014)andlowerlevelsofethnocentricattitudes(Rayetal.,2010).Thismotivatesour
interestinthequestionofwhetherinterculturalexperiencesmightmoderatetheprocess
bywhichindividualsrespondtoafilmfromanotherculture.Threetypesofintercultural
experiencesareexamined:Multilingualism,foreignfilmviewing,andgeneralexposureto
interculturalfactors.
9
Multilingualism.Withinacontextofincreasingmultilingualismoffilmcontentand
production(e.g.,Naficy,2010),andconsideringtherolethatother‐languagefilmviewing
hasplayedinsecond‐languageorthird‐languagelearning(e.g.,Lindgren&Muñoz,2013),it
isbasictoconsidertheroleofspectators’proficiencyinlanguages.
“ForeignFilm”Viewing.First,letusacknowledgethecontestedmeaningofthe
term“foreignfilm.”Nagib(2006)haspointedouttheoversimplicationandreductionismof
abinarydistinctionbetweenfilmsoriginatingin“Hollywood”andthosefrom“other”
spaces.Earlier,ShohatandStam(1994)hadproposedtodismissthedivisionbetween“us”
andthe“other”toforgeaconceptof“worldcinema”basedin“polycentric
multiculturalism.”
Nevertheless,researchhasfoundthatexposuretofilmsoriginatinginaculture
otherthanone’sownisrelatedtoincidentalsecond‐languagelearning(Kuppens,2010;
Lefever,2010,ascitedinLindgren&Muñoz,2013;Lindgren&Muñoz,2013)andis
predictiveofknowledgeandappreciationofdifferentcultures,aswellasknowledgeof
currentevents(Jeffresetal.,2014).Kern(2000)hasassertedthatwatchingforeignfilms
notonlybroadensspectators’viewsofotherculturaldiscoursesandpractices,butalso
stimulatesthem,withouttheirawareness,toabsorbideologicalvalueswithinthefilms’
content.
InterculturalExposure.Therangeofone’sexposuretointerculturalforcesand
activitieshasbeenstudiedasadimensionofcosmopoliteness,thedegreetowhichone
identifiesasacitizenoftheworld,ratherthanasacitizenofaparticularcityorgeographic
region(Jeffresetal.,2014).Cosmopolitenesshasbeeninvokedasaconstructreflecting
people’sbroaderoutlookonlife(e.g.,Abrahamson,1965),withattentionpaidtothe
10
experientialcomponentsthatcontributetothisoveralloutlook,includingthedemography
ofone’sextendedfamily,degreeofcross‐culturalstudy,andtheamountofforeigntravel
onehasengagedin(Jeffresetal.,2004).
ResearchQuestions.Ourinterestininterculturalexperiencesasmoderating
spectators’responsestosubtitledvs.dubbedfilmiccontentisreflectedintworesearch
questions:
RQ2a:Whatinterculturalexperiencefactorswillmoderatetheimpactofsubtitling
vs.dubbingafilmpresentationonrecall?Specifically,itisaskedwhetherthefollowing
factorswillserveasimportantmoderators:
‐Foreignlanguagelisteningproficiency‐Foreignlanguagespeakingproficiency‐Familyforeignlanguageuse‐Foreignfilmexposure‐Interculturalexposure
RQ2b:Whatinterculturalexperiencefactorswillmoderatetheimpactof
subtitlingvs.dubbingafilmpresentationonenjoyment?Specifically,itisaskedwhether
thefollowingfactorswillserveasimportantmoderators:
‐Foreignlanguagelisteningproficiency‐Foreignlanguagespeakingproficiency‐Familyforeignlanguageuse‐Foreignfilmexposure‐Interculturalexposure
Methods
ExperimentalDesign
Aposttest‐onlyexperimentaldesignwithrandomassignmentwasutilized,withthe
manipulationconsistingofsubtitledvs.dubbedversionsofthesamemovingimage
content.Participants(n=168)werestudentsatamedium‐sizedAmericanurbanuniversity.
11
Eachwasshownthefirst35minutesofthenarrativefilmLifeisBeautiful(Braschi,1997),
oneofthefewfilmswherebothsubtitledanddubbedversionsareavailableontheDVD,
andthetranslationsforwhichhavebeensupervisedbythefilm’sdirector(i.e.,Roberto
Benigni).Thefilmwasalsochosenbecauseofitssomewhatepisodicnature,i.e.,
participantscouldbeshownonlyonesegmentofthefilmandtheycouldstillexperiencea
narrativearcthatincludedabeginning,middle,andend.Thefirstportionofthefilmwas
selectedratherthanthefinalportion,inordertoavoidthemorecontroversialsubject
matterofthefilm,i.e.,theHolocaust,whichisnotfocusedoninthefirstportionofthefilm.
Thisfirstsectionofthefilmisalsomorecomedicinnature,thusprovidingthepotentialfor
moredifferencesinresponsestothedubbedandsubtitledtranslations.
ThestudywasconductedentirelyonlinethroughSurveyMonkey.Theprotocoland
measureswereapprovedbytheClevelandStateUniversity’sInstitutionalReviewBoard.
Measures
Participantswerefirstpresentedwithaseriesofbackgroundquestionscovering
demographicsandaseriesofmeasuresaimedatassessingparticipants’interculturaland
foreignlanguageexperiences,andthenwereshownthefilmsegment.Onecondition
viewedthesubtitledversion(n=76);theotherviewedthedubbedversion(n=92).Afterthe
film,participantswerepresentedwithapost‐testquestionnairetappingtheirrecalland
enjoymentofthefilmsegment.
Thepre‐viewinginstrumentincludeddemographics:Gender,racial/ethnicidentity
(open‐ended,whichwasthencoded),ageinyears,andacademicmajor(open‐ended).The
pre‐viewingbackgroundquestionsalsomeasuredfiveaspectsofinterculturalexperience:
Foreignlanguagelisteningproficiency,foreignlanguagespeakingproficiency,useofa
12
foreignlanguagebyfamilymember(s),exposuretoforeignfilms,andgeneraloverall
interculturalexposure.
Thesectiononforeignlanguage(i.e.,alanguageotherthanEnglish)proficiencywas
dividedintolisteningandspeakingproficiencyscales.Eachscaleinvolvedfivequestions
thatwerederivedfromthelevelsusedbytheAmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeign
Languages
(http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_F
INAL.pdf)underthesupervisionofaprofessorofModernLanguageswithexperience
applyingtheseproficiencycriteria.TheCronbach’salphareliabilitycoefficientsforthetwo
proficiencyscaleswere.950forlisteningand.953forspeaking.
Theuseofaforeignlanguagebyparticipants’familymemberswastappedviaa
singleself‐reportmeasure:“Doesanyoneinyourimmediateorextendedfamilyspeaka
languageotherthanEnglish?”
Toexaminetheexposureeachparticipanthadtoforeignfilmsprevioustothis
study,participantswerepresentedwithalistofthe16highestgrossingnon‐English
language,non‐U.S.filmsofalltime(www.boxofficemojo.com).Fully61participants
(36.3%)hadnotseenanyofthelistedforeignfilmspriortothisstudy,whilethemosta
participantsawpreviouslywas11ofthe16listed.Themodalnumberoftopforeignfilms
seenwasonefilm.
Interculturalexposurewastappedvia10items,whichwereallyes/noitemsthat
weresummedtoproduceascaleofoverallexposuretointerculturalelements,witha
potentialrangeof0to10.Thisrosterofitemswasadaptedfrompreviousresearchon
interculturalexposureandcosmopolitenessbyJeffresandcolleagues(2004,2008,2014).
13
Onepointwasgivenforanaffirmativeresponsetoeachofthefollowing:Theparticipant
wasbornoutsidetheU.S.,atleastoneparentwasbornoutsidetheU.S.,atleastone
grandparentwasbornoutsidetheU.S.,someoneintheparticipant’sextendedfamilywas
marriedtoanindividualfromanothercountry,someoneintheparticipant’sextended
familywascurrentlylivinginanothercountry,theparticipanthadlivedinanothercountry,
theparticipanthadstudiedaforeignlanguage,theparticipanthadstudiedabroad,the
participant’sfamilyhadhostedaforeignexchangestudent,andtheparticipanthad
experiencedsometraveltoanothercountry.Themeanandstandarddeviationforthis
scalewere3.26and2.39,respectively.TheCronbach’salphareliabilitycoefficientforthis
scalewas.800.
InordertoconductMANOVA/ANOVAanalyses,mediansplitswereconductedon
themeasuresoflisteningproficiency,speakingproficiency,foreignfilmexposure,and
overallinterculturalexposure.
Dependentmeasures.Recallwasmeasuredinthreedifferentmodes:Visual,
dialogue,andnarrative.Foreachmode,twoopenendedquestionsandtwomultiplechoice
questionswereconstructed.ThedecisiontoincludevisualrecallwasbasedonCaffery
(2008),whofoundthatwhiletherewasnotradeoffbetweenthesubtitlesandvisual
information,audiencesdidspendmoretimereadingsubtitlesthanlookingattheimage.In
thepresentstudy,thequestionsinthevisualrecallsectioncouldonlybeansweredwith
informationfoundintheimageandwerenotexplicitlydiscussedverbally(e.g.,thelove
interestripsherdressinthecardoor,butthecardoorisnotmentionedverballybythe
characters).DialoguerecallwasincludedbasedondetailsprovidedbyAntonini(2005),
particularlyregardingafocusonpunsandplaysonwords.Atseveralpointsinthepresent
14
study’sfilm,themaincharacterpresentsriddlestoothercharacters.Paralleltovisual
recall,theanswerstodialoguerecallquestionscouldonlybefoundindialogue(e.g.,the
answertoariddlethemaincharacterpresentstoafriend).Theintentionofincluding
narrativerecallwastoserveasatestofmoregeneric,non‐mode‐dependentrecall,
meaningthattheanswerstothequestionsinthissectioncouldbederivedalternatively
fromvariouscontextualcues,visualinformation,orspokendialogue.Anexampleofa
narrativerecallquestionusedis“Wheredoesthefilmtakeplace?”Allitemswerecodedfor
correctresponses.Eachofthethreerecallmodes,therefore,wasrepresentedbyafour‐
itemadditiveinventorythatcouldrangefromzerotofourcorrectpoints.
Asinventory‐typemeasures,thethreerecallscalesarenotwhollyappropriatefor
internalconsistencyreliabilitytestingviaCronbach’salpha(Measurement,2001;Streiner,
2003),butneverthelesstheresultantcoefficientsmetgeneralcriteria:Forvisualrecall,the
four‐iteminventoryobtainedaCronbach’salphaof.519andameaninteritemcorrelation
(MIC)of.213(meetingthecriterionof.20to.40recommendedbyBriggs&Cheek,1986).
Fordialoguerecall,thefour‐iteminventoryobtainedanalphaof.667andanMICof.334.
Andfornarrativerecall,thefour‐iteminventoryobtainedanalphaof.625andanMICof
.294.Themeansandstandarddeviationsforthethreerecallinventorieswereasfollows:
Visualrecall,M=2.87,sd=1.03;dialoguerecall,M=2.71,sd=1.31;narrativerecall,M=
3.22,sd=.97.
Thescaleusedtomeasureenjoymentwasadaptedfromthegeneralmedia
enjoymentscalepresentedinKrcmarandRenfro(2005).Oftheoriginal18items,15were
deemedrelevantandwereused.Sampleitemsinclude“Iwouldhavepaidtowatchit(in
theater/rental),”“IfeltgoodwhenIwatchedit,”and“Iwillseekoutadditionalinformation
15
aboutthevideo.”Allweremeasuredonaseven‐pointresponsescale,rangingfrom
“StronglyDisagree”(1)to“StronglyAgree”(7).The15‐itemenjoymentscaleobtaineda
Cronbach’salphareliabilitycoefficientof.963.Themeanwas55.54andthestandard
deviationwas24.84.
DescriptionoftheSample
All168participantswereenrolledincommunicationclassesatamedium‐sized
urbanuniversity.Theacademicmajorsoftheparticipantswereasfollows:Film/Digital
Media,n=26;Othercommunicationmajors,n=72;othermajors(e.g.,business,engineering,
socialwork),n=67;missing,n=3.Theparticipantsrangedinagefrom18to61,witha
medianageof21.Sixty‐fiveparticipants(38.7%)weremale,while103(61.3%)were
female.Withregardtorace/ethnicity,81participants(48.2%)wereself‐designated
white/Caucasian,53(31.5%)wereblack/African‐American,10(6%)wereArab,10(6%)
wereHispanicorLatino,5(3%)wereAsian,and8(4.8%)weresomeotherraceor
ethnicity.
Twenty‐five(14.9%)oftheparticipantswereborninacountryotherthantheU.S.,
43(25.6%)hadatleastonparentbornoutsideoftheU.S.,and63(37.5%)hadatleastone
grandparentbornoutsideoftheU.S.Thirty‐oneparticipants(18.5%)hadlivedoutsideof
theU.S.and63(37.5%)hadafamilymemberwholivedabroad.Fifty‐nineparticipants
(35.1%)hadafamilymemberwhowasmarriedtosomeonebornoutsideoftheU.S.One
hundredandthreeparticipants(61.3%)statedthatsomeoneintheirimmediateor
extendedfamilyspokealanguageotherthanEnglish,and153(91.1%)statedthatthey
themselveshadstudiedaforeignlanguageatsomepoint(moststartingatthehighschool
level(n=84)orsomepointbeforehighschool(n=66),whiletheremainingparticipants
16
startedincollege(n=3)).Duringtheiracademicstudies,15(8.9%)hadstudiedabroadand
10(6%)hadfamiliesthathostedaforeignexchangestudent.Atsomepointintheirlives,
85(50.6%)hadtraveledoutsidetheU.S.
Results
Inordertotestfortheeffectsofcondition(RQ1aandRQ1b)andthepossible
moderationbythefiveproposedinterculturalexperienceconstructs(RQ2aandRQ2b),
maineffectsandinteractiontermswithinanANOVAmodelwereexamined(Baron&
Kenny,1986)forthefivecandidatemoderatingfactors—foreignlanguagelistening
proficiency,foreignlanguagespeakingproficiency,familyforeignlanguageuse,foreignfilm
exposure,andgeneralinterculturalexposure—foreachofthetwodependentvariables
(recallandenjoyment).Duetointercorrelationsamongthethreerecallinventories
(visual/dialoguerecallr=.61;visual/narrativerecallr=.51,dialogue/narrativerecallr=
.66;allp<.001),MANOVAwasemployedasaninitialstrategybeforeproceedingto
ANOVAsfortherecallindicators.
TheMANOVAresultswereasfollows:Forthetwo‐factorMANOVAtestingthe
impactofconditionandforeignlanguagelisteningproficiency(low,high),neithermain
effectsnortheinteractiontermweresignificant.Likewise,forthetwo‐factorMANOVA
testingtheimpactofconditionandforeignlanguagespeakingproficiency(low,high),there
werenosignificantpredictors.Forthetwo‐factorMANOVAtestingtheimpactofcondition
andfamilyforeignlanguage(no,yes),thetwomaineffectswerenon‐significant,whilethe
interactiontermwasnear‐significant(Pillai’strace=.045,Wilks’lambda=.955,Hotelling’s
trace=.047,Roy’slargestroot=.047,p=.094).Forthetwo‐factorMANOVAtestingthe
17
impactofconditionandforeignfilmexposure(low,high),theconditionmaineffectandthe
interactiontermwerenon‐significant,whilethemaineffectforforeignfilmexposurewas
near‐significant(Pillai’strace=.052,Wilks’lambda=.948,Hotelling’strace=.055,Roy’s
largestroot=.055,p=.061).Inthecaseofthetwo‐factorMANOVAtestingtheimpactof
conditionandinterculturalexposure(low,high),neitherthemaineffectsnorthe
interactiontermweresignificant.
Tables1through3presenttheANOVAswithsignificantornear‐significantfactors
deemedappropriateforinterpretationviatheMANOVAs.Table1displaysasignificant
interactionbetweenconditionandfamilyforeignlanguageuse(no,yes)inthepredictionof
visualrecall(notethatwhilefamilyforeignlanguageuseshowedasignificantmaineffect,
thisfactorhadnotreachedsignificanceintheMANOVA,andsowillbedisregarded).Figure
1graphsthisinteraction,showingthatsubtitling(vs.dubbing)producedgreatervisual
recallforthosewithafamilymemberwhospeaksanotherlanguage,andlesservisualrecall
forthosewithnofamilymemberwhospeaksanotherlanguage.
Table2includesanear‐significantinteractionbetweenconditionandfamilyforeign
languageuseinthepredictionofdialoguerecall(notethatalthoughfamilyforeign
languageuseshowedasignificantmaineffecthere,thisfactordidnotshowsignificancein
theMANOVA,andsowillbedisregarded).Figure2showsthisnear‐significantinteraction
visually,suchthat,aswithvisualrecall,subtitling(vs.dubbing)producedgreaterdialogue
recallforthosewithafamilymemberwhospeaksanotherlanguage,andlesserdialogue
recallforthosewithoutsuchafamilymember.
Table3showsasignificantmaineffectofforeignfilmexposure(low,high)onvisual
recall,suchthatthosewithgreaterforeignfilmexposurescoredhigheronvisualrecall.
18
Whilethismaineffectwasnotafocusofthestudy’sresearchquestions,thisfindingmaybe
ofinterestforfurtherinvestigation.
Forthetestingoftheimpactofconditionandthefivecandidatemoderatingfactors
onenjoyment,fiveANOVAswereconducted.Significantpredictionswereevidentforone
oftheANOVAs,aspresentedinTable4.Thistableshowsbothasignificantmaineffectfor
interculturalexposure(low,high)andasignificantinteractionbetweenconditionand
interculturalexposureinthepredictionofenjoyment.Greaterinterculturalexposureis
associatedwithahigherlevelofenjoymentofthefilmicpresentation.Thesignificant
interactionisgraphedinFigure3,showingthatforthosewithhighinterculturalexposure,
subtitlingreceivedhigherenjoymentevaluationthandiddubbing,andforthosewithlow
interculturalexposure,itwasexactlytheopposite—dubbingreceivedhigherenjoyment
ratingsthandidsubtitling.
Insum,RQ1(aandb),whichaskedwhethersubtitlinganddubbingwouldresultin
differentlevelsofrecallofvarioustypes,orindifferentlevelsofenjoyment,wasanswered
inthenegativeforallMANOVAandANOVAtests.AswithWissmuthetal.(2009),this
studyfailedtodiscoveranysignificantsimpledifferencesinresponsestosubtitlingand
dubbing.
However,severalsignificantandnear‐significantinteractionswerefoundbetween
condition(subtitled/dubbed)andcandidatemoderators,indicatingthatapparentcognitive
andaffectiveoutcomesofsubtitlingvs.dubbingareconditionaluponparticulartypesof
interculturalexperience.
19
Discussion
ThenullfindingsrelatedtoRQ1weresomewhatsurprising,givenearlier
scholarshipindicatingthelearningpotentialforsubtitledcontent(relevanttocognitive
processingandrecall)andpreferencesforsubtitlingvs.dubbingthatvariedsystematically
bycountry(relevanttoenjoyment;Kilborn,1993).Clearly,thecognitiveandaffective
responsestosubtitlinganddubbingareratherfluidamongmembersofthepopulation
understudyhere(i.e.,astudentsample).NeithertypeofAVTemergedassuperiortothe
otherforgeneralpurposesofrecallorenjoyment.
Rather,thisstudypointstotheimportanceofmoderatinginterculturalconstructsin
thepredictionofcognitiveandaffectiveoutcomes.Forthepredictionofrecall,thecritical
factorseemstobewhetheramemberofone’sfamilyspeaksaforeign(i.e.,non‐English)
language.Itisunexpectedthatone’sownforeignlanguageproficiencyisnotthecritical
factor,butratherone’sfamilyenvironment.Perhapssomehabitualexposuretoothers
speakinganotherlanguageprimesonetoeasilyacceptlisteningtoanothertongue.It
shouldberememberedthatinthisstudy,thesubtitledconditionpresentedaudible
dialogueinItalian,alanguagespokenbyonlysixparticipantsinthestudy.Thisleadsusto
believethathearinganotherlanguagespokenmayproduceatransferrableskillthatallows
theparticipanttoreadsubtitleswhilenotbecomingdistractedbythe[Italian]spoken
word.Wissmathetal.(2009)commentedonthelanguagediversityoftheirstudy’sSwiss
location,butdidnotventurefurtherinspeculatingastoitsimpact;nootherstudieshave
lookedatlanguageenvironmentasrelatedtosubtitlinganddubbing.
Theothersignificantmoderator,thatofgeneralinterculturalexposure,showsan
impactontheoutcomeofenjoyment,suchthatthosewithhighinterculturalexposure
20
demonstrategreaterenjoymentforthesubtitledform,whilethosewithlowintercultural
exposureexpressgreaterenjoymentforthedubbedform.Wemayspeculateonthe
mechanismthathasproducedthisoutcome,applyingtheconstructofcosmopoliteness.
Thosewithalowerlevelofcosmopolitenessmayfindthesubtitledversionofafilmto
representavividseparationfromtheirhomecultureandlanguage,whiletheymayseethe
dubbedversionofafilmasasoothingandreinforcingrepresentationthatbringsthe
“foreign”filmintotheirownAmerican,English‐languagecomfortzone.Thosewitha
higherlevelofcosmopolitenessmaybetteraccept,appreciate,andevenpreferthe
interculturaldiversityrepresentedbythesubtitledversionofafilm.
Thisstudyhasaddedtotherepertoireofrecallindicatorswiththeconstructof
“narrativerecall,”somethingthathasbeenignoredinpreviousstudies.Whilethescale
measuringthisconstructdidnotrevealsignificantoutcomesinthisstudy,westillcontend
thatitpresentsalogicalcounterparttothemoretraditionalconstructsofvisualrecalland
dialoguerecall.Indeed,narrativerecallseemsimpervioustoAVTtypeandtointercultural
experientialmoderators,whilebothvisualrecallanddialoguerecallareaffectedby,at
minimum,familyforeignlanguageuse.Theindependenceofnarrativerecallraisesnew
possibilitieswithregardtotherobustnessofthistypeofrecallinAVTsituations.
Inthisstudy,pastexposuretoforeignfilmswaspositivelyrelatedtovisualrecall,
regardlessofwhethertheparticipantviewedthesubtitledorthedubbedversionofthe
film(seeTable3).Thiscouldindicateatypeoflearningcurvefortheextractionofvisual
informationfromamovingimagepresentationwithintheforeignfilmcontext.Experience
withforeign‐languagefilmsmightaffordonetheopportunitytopartitionattentiontoward
visualcues,moreeasilyseparatingthemfromverbal(spokenorwritten)cues.
21
Pastresearchhasprivilegedsubtitling;fewinvestigationshaveseriouslyconsidered
theviabilityofdubbedcontent.Thisstudyfounddubbingisnot“worse”overallinthe
productionofcognitiveandaffectiveoutcomes,althoughitis“worse”forcertaintypesof
individuals‐‐peoplewithfamilyforeignlanguageuse,andwithhighintercultural
experience,tendtohavesomeinferioroutcomeswithregardtorecallandenjoymentofa
movingimagenarrativethatisdubbed.However,theoveralllackofdeleteriousoutcomes
fromdubbedcontentdeservesfurtherattention.
Generally,then,thisstudyconfirmedtherobustnessofthefilmicnarrative.
WhetherAVTisexecutedviasubtitlingordubbingdoesnotproduceacross‐the‐board
differencesinrecallorinenjoyment.However,themoderatingimpactofcertain
interculturalexperiencefactorsneedstobeconsidered,thusraisingthepossibilityofthe
differentialutilityofsubtitlinganddubbingfordifferentpopulationsegments,anotionthat
bothscholarsandpractitionersoughttoexplore.
22
References
Abrahamson,M.(1965).Cosmopolitanism,dependence‐identificationandgeographical
mobility.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,10,98‐106.
Antonini,R.(2005).TheperceptionofsubtitledhumorinItaly.Humor:International
JournalofHumorResearch,18(2),209‐225.doi:10.1515/humr.2005.18.2.209
Baron,R.M.,&Kenny,D.A.(1986).Themoderator‐mediatorvariabledistinctioninsocial
psychologicalresearch:Conceptual,strategic,andstatisticalconsiderations.Journal
ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,5(6),1173–1182.
Bleichenbacher,L.(2008). Multilingualisminthemovies:Hollywoodcharactersandtheir
languagechoices.Tübingen:Francke.
Borras,I.,&Lafayette,R.C.(1994).Effectsofmultimediacourseworksubtitlingonthe
speakingperformanceofcollegestudentsofFrench.TheModernLanguageJournal,
78(1),61.
Braschi,L.(Producer),&Benigni,R.(Director).(1997).Lifeisbeautiful(Motionpicture).
Italy:CecchiGoriGroupTigerCinematografica(asCecchiGoriGroup)&Melampo
Cinematografica.
Briggs,S.R.,&Cheek,J.M.(1986).Theroleoffactoranalysisintheevaluationof
personalityscales.JournalofPersonality,54,106‐148.
Caffery,C.(2008).ViewerperceptionofvisualnonverbalcuesinsubtitledTVanime.
EuropeanJournalofEnglishStudies,12(2),163‐178.
doi:10.1080/13825570802151439
23
Caron,C.(2003).TranslatingTrek:RewritinganAmericaniconinaFrancophonecontext.
JournalofAmericanCulture,26(3),329‐355.doi:10.1111/1542‐734X.00095
Carra,N.J.(2009).ThepresenceofSpanishinAmericanmoviesandtelevisionshows.
Dubbingandsubtitlingstrategies.VigoInternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics,6,
51‐71.
Chuang,Y.(2006).Studyingsubtitletranslationfromamulti‐modalapproach.Babel,52(4),
372‐383.
Dastjerdi,H.V.,&Jazini,A.(2011).Killingtwobirdswithonestone:Translationofthe
unseenandoff‐cameraspeechandsoundsinEnglishmoviessubtitledintoPersian.
JournalofInternationalSocialResearch,4(19),60‐77.
Diaz‐Cintas,J.(1999).Dubbingorsubtitling:Theeternaldilemma.Perspectives:Studiesin
Translatology,7(1),31‐40.
d’Ydewalle,G.,&DeBruycker,W.(2007).Eyemovementsofchildrenandadultswhile
readingtelevisionsubtitles.EuropeanPsychologist,12(3),196‐205.
d’Ydewalle, G., Praet, C., Verfaillie, K., & VanRensbergen, J. (1991). Watching subtitled
television:Automaticreadingbehavior.CommunicationResearch,18(5),650‐666.
Etemadi,A.(2012).EffectsofbimodalsubtitlingofEnglishmoviesoncontent
comprehensionandvocabularyrecognition.InternationalJournalofEnglish
Linguistics,2(1),239‐248.
González‐Iglesias,J.D.,&Toda,F.(2011).Dubbingorsubtitlinginterculturalism:Choices
andconstraints.JournalofInterculturalCommunication,(27),2.
24
Hayati,A.M.,&Mohmedi,F.(2010).Theeffectoffilmswithandwithoutsubtitleson
listeningcomprehensionofEFLintermediatestudents.InternationalJournalof
InstructionalMedia,37(3),301‐313.
Howell,P.(2006).Charactervoiceinanimesubtitles.Perspectives:StudiesinTranslatology,
14(4),292‐305.
Jeffres,L.W.,Atkin,D.,Bracken,C.C.,&Neuendorf,K.(2004).Cosmopolitenessinthe
Internetage.JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,10(1),Article2.
Jeffres,L.W.,Bracken,C.C.,Neuendorf,K.,Kopfman,J.,&Atkin,D.J.(2014).
Cosmopoliteness,cultivationandmediause.JournalofCommunicationandMedia
Research,6(1),1‐24.
Jeffres,L.,Neuendorf,K.,Bracken,C.,&Atkin,D.(2008).Theinfluenceofcommunication
andcosmopolitenessonqualityoflifeperceptions.TheOpenCommunication
Journal,2,17‐22.
Kern,R.(2000).Literacyandlanguageteaching.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Krcmar,M.,&Renfro,S.(2005,May).Developingascaletoassessmediaenjoyment.Paper
presentedtotheMassCommunicationDivisionoftheInternationalCommunication
Association,NewYork,NY.
Kilborn,R.(1993).“Speakmylanguage”:Currentattitudestotelevisionsubtitlingand
dubbing.Media,CultureandSociety,15,641‐660.
Koolstra,C.M.,Peeters,A.L.,&Spinhof,H.(2002).Theprosandconsofdubbingand
subtitling.EuropeanJournalofCommunication,17(3),325‐354.
Kuppens,A.H.(2010).Incidentalforeignlanguageacquisitionfrommediaexposure.
Learning,MediaandTechnology,35(1),65‐85.
25
Lindgren,E.,&Muñoz,C.(2013).Theinfluenceofexposure,parents,andlinguisticdistance
onyoungEuropeanlearners’foreignlanguagecomprehension.InternationalJournal
ofMultilingualism,10,105‐129.
Matamala,A.(2010).Translationsfordubbingasdynamictexts:Strategiesinfilm
synchronisation.Babel,56(2),101‐118.doi:10.1075/babel.56.2.01mat
Measurement.(2001).JournalofConsumerPsychology,10(1&2),55‐69.
Naficy,H.(2010).Multiplicityandmultiplexingintoday'scinemas:Diasporiccinema,art
cinema,andmainstreamcinema.JournalofMediaPractice,11,11‐20.doi:
10.1386/jmpr.11.1.11/1.
Nagib,L.(2006).Towardsapositivedefinitionofworldcinema.InS.Dennison&S.H.Lim
(Eds.),Remappingworldcinema(pp.30‐37).LondonandNewYork:Wallflower
Press.
Nir,R.(1984).LinguisticandsociolinguisticproblemsinthetranslationofimportedTV
filmsinIsrael.InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,48,81‐97.
Nornes,A.M.(1999).Foranabusivesubtitling.FilmQuarterly,52(3),17‐34.
Pavesi,M.(2009).Pronounsinfilmdubbingandthedynamicsofaudiovisual
communication.VigoInternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics,6,89‐107.
Pedersen,J.(2007).Culturalinterchangeability:Theeffectsofsubstitutingcultural
referencesinsubtitling.Perspectives:StudiesinTranslatology,15(1),30‐48.
Perego,E.,DelMissier,F.,Porta,M.,&Mosconi,M.(2010).Thecognitiveeffectivenessof
subtitleprocessing.MediaPsychology,13(3),243‐272.
doi:10.1080/15213269.2010.502873
26
Ramière,N.(2010).Areyou“lostintranslation”(whenwatchingaforeignfilm)?Towards
analternativeapproachtojudgingaudiovisualtranslation.AustralianJournalof
FrenchStudies,47(1),100‐115.doi:10.3828/AJFS.47.1.100
Ray,G.,Ying,L.,Neuendorf,K.,&Lieberman,E.(2010,June).Ethnocentrismandsecond
languageusage:Findingpiecestoapuzzle.Paperpresentedtothe12thInternational
ConferenceonLanguageandSocialPsychology,Brisbane,Australia.
Schröter,T.(2003).Quantityandqualityinscreentranslation.Perspectives:Studiesin
Translatology,11(2),105‐124.
Shohat,E.,&Stam,R.(1994).UnthinkingEurocentrism:Multiculturalismandthemedia.
LondonandNewYork:Routledge.
Si,A.(2011).AdiachronicinvestigationofHindi–Englishcode‐switching,usingBollywood
filmscripts.InternationalJournalofBilingualism,15(4),388‐407.
doi:10.1177/1367006910379300
Streiner,D.L.(2003).Beinginconsistentaboutconsistency:Whencoefficientalphadoes
anddoesn’tmatter.JournalofPersonalityAssessment,80(3),217‐222.
Stubbings,J.(2008).Readingbetweenthelines.Metro,157,124‐127.
Taivalkoski‐Shilov,K.(2008).Subtitling8Mileinthreelanguages:Translationproblems
andtranslatorlicence.Target:InternationalJournalonTranslationStudies,20(2),
249‐274.
Vanderschelden,I.(2002).Subtitlingwit:Thecaseofridicule.StudiesinFrenchCinema,
2(2),109.
27
Wissmath,B.,Weibel,D.,&Groner,R.(2009).Dubbingorsubtitling?Effectsonspatial
presence,transportation,flow,andenjoyment.JournalofMediaPsychology,21(3),
114‐125.doi:10.1027/1864‐1105.21.3.114
Yekta,R.R.(2010).Digitalmediawithindigitalmodes:Thestudyoftheeffectsof
multimodalinputofsubtitlesvideoonthelearner’sabilitytomanagesplitattention
andenhancecomprehension.InternationalJournalofLanguageStudies,4(2),79‐90.
Zilberdik,N.J.(2004).Relaytranslationinsubtitling.Perspectives:StudiesinTranslatology,
12(1),31‐55.
Zojer,H.(2011).Culturalreferencesinsubtitles:Ameasuringdeviceforinterculturality?
Babel,57(4),394‐413.
28
Table1Two‐FactorANOVAPredictingVisualRecallfromConditionandFamilyForeignLanguageUse
MeanSumofSquares df
MeanSquare F Sig.
Condition 0.171 1 0.171 0.171 0.6790‐Dubbed 2.792 1‐Subtitled 2.862 FamilyForeignLanguageUse 0.3986 1 3.986 3.994 0.0480‐No 2.657 1‐Yes 2.997 ConditionXFamilyForeignLanguageUseInteraction 6.175 1 6.175 6.187 0.014Error 143.718 144 0.998 CorrectedTotal 154.561 147
Table2Two‐FactorANOVAPredictingDialogueRecallfromConditionandFamilyForeignLanguageUse
MeanSumofSquares df
MeanSquare F Sig.
Condition 0.058 1 0.058 0.038 0.8460‐Dubbed 2.725 1‐Subtitled 2.766 FamilyForeignLanguageUse 6.783 1 6.783 4.463 0.0360‐No 2.523 1‐Yes 2.968 ConditionXFamilyForeignLanguageUseInteraction 5.342 1 5.342 3.515 0.063Error 218.863 144 1.52 CorrectedTotal 231.095 147
29
Table3Two‐FactorANOVAPredictingVisualRecallfromConditionandForeignFilmExposure
MeanSumofSquares df
MeanSquare F Sig.
Condition 0.909 1 0.909 0.898 0.3480‐Dubbed 2.834 1‐Subtitled 2.993 ForeignFilmExposure 7.445 1 7.445 7.357 0.0070‐Low 2.685 1‐High 3.142 ConditionXForeignFilmExposureInteraction 0.11 1 0.11 0.109 0.742Error 145.722 144 1.012 CorrectedTotal 154.561 147
Table4Two‐FactorANOVAPredictingEnjoymentfromConditionandInterculturalExposure
MeanSumofSquares df
MeanSquare F Sig.
Condition 44.7 1 44.7 0.074 0.7850‐Dubbed 55.264 1‐Subtitled 56.373 InterculturalExposure 181.789 1 6.414 6.36 0.0130‐Low 54.7 1‐High 56.937
ConditionXInterculturalExposureInteraction 7266.26 1 7266.264 12.101 0.001Error 85269.2 142 600.488 CorrectedTotal 92621.1 145
30
Figure1
SignificantInteractionfromTwo‐FactorANOVAPredictingVisualRecallfromConditionandFamilyForeignLanguageUse
.00 1.00
Dubbed=0 Subtitled=1
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
Vis
ual
Rec
all E
stim
ated
Mar
gin
al M
ean
s
Does anyone in
your immediate or
extended family
speak a language
other than English?
No
Yes
31
Figure2
Near‐SignificantInteractionfromTwo‐FactorANOVAPredictingDialogueRecallfromConditionandFamilyForeignLanguageUse
.00 1.00
Dubbed=0 Subtitled=1
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
Dia
log
ue
Rec
all E
stim
ated
Mar
gin
al M
ean
s
Does anyone in
your immediate or
extended family
speak a language
other than English?
No
Yes
32
Figure3
SignificantInteractionfromTwo‐FactorANOVAPredictingEnjoymentfromConditionandInterculturalExposure
.00 1.00
Dubbed=0 Subtitled=1
50.00
52.50
55.00
57.50
60.00
62.50
65.00
En
joym
ent
Est
imat
ed M
arg
inal
Mea
ns
Intercultural
Exposure
Low Exposure
High Exposure