g factors.factors of subtitlingit may be argued that subtitling is the only intelligent solution (Reid, 1978), it has also been claimed that this approach is only the lesser of two evils (Marleau, 1982). And there is no doubt that subtitling has its constraints.important aspect of the subtitling process is the filtering of potential loss of information: for the purposes of expressing nuances the written word can not possibly compete with speech. Hence a large number of lexical items tend to be required in order to match what is conveyed by stress, rhythm and intonation. Normally, however, the subtitler does not have room for wordy formulations or complex structures: in order to enhance readability, brevity is the essence. And if the subtitles are to remain on the screen long enough for audiences to read them, contraction is a must, which in turn can result in a regrettable loss of lexical meaning. Often it is not easy to decide what to leave out. Although there are redundant linguistic features in speech, sometimes even slight omissions may bring about significant changes in meaning.is difficult to generalise when it comes to reading speed and rate of standardised presentation. According to Luyken et al. (1991), the reading speed of adult viewers hovers around 150 to 180 words per minute. This is, however, subject to extensive variation and depends on the complexity of the linguistic and factual information that the subtitles contain. If lexical density is high, accessibility to the information tends to be low, which calls for added subtitle exposure time., Readability is said to be affected by film genre. This is how Minchinton (1993: 14-15) comments on love stories: Viewers need not read many of the titles; they know the story, they guess the dialogue, they blink down at the subtitles for information, they photograph them rather than read them. Crime stories, according to Minchinton, may give translators and viewers a harder time: if the action is to be understood the subtitles have to be read.further point made by Minchinton concerns reading speed that may be affected by the viewers attitude to the subject matter of films or programmes. He suggests that if viewers find a story exciting they are able to read the subtitles faster. On the other hand, it may be argued that the more interesting audiences find a film, the less inclined they are to spend the time reading.far as television subtitling is concerned, condensation levels vary between countries. If we compare the Scandinavian countries, stricter rules have traditionally applied in Sweden than in Norway and Denmark. In Sweden the duration of a full double-line subtitle is supposed to be 6-7 seconds, compared to 5 seconds in Denmark. The position of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) is that a full double-line subtitle should remain on the screen for at least 6 seconds.for some research carried out in Sweden a couple of decades ago, the definition of readability is determined more by common sense than on research results. By way of obtaining what I felt was necessary empirical evidence, I decided to test whether the exposure time of Norwegian subtitles could be cut down without significantly reducing readability and comprehension. My samples were drawn from pupils/students at nine Norwegian lower and upper secondary schools. There were 508 respondents of between 13 and 20 years of age, and the response rate turned out to be as high as 95%. The samples would appear to be sufficiently random to constitute a representative cross-section of Norwegians belonging to these age groups (Tveit, 2005) .results showed that the retention of textual information was only marginally reduced when the exposure time of each subtitle was cut by 1 second. Hence readability was not dramatically affected when the duration of a full double-line subtitle decreased from 6 to 5 seconds. When the exposure time was cut by a further second, however, the situation changed significantly, most respondents losing out on a considerable amount of information.devices are often considered omittable. But although they may not have obvious semantic functions, these still play an important role in making relationships and events explicit. A text that does not contain words of this kind may be difficult to access, and omitting cohesive devices in order to boost readability can therefore prove counterproductive. It may, indeed, reduce readability., Gottlieb (1997) has a point when he emphasises the fact that subtitling is additive by nature, that is verbal material is added to the original programme and nothing is removed from it. The usefulness of this addition, however, depends on the viewers comprehension of the original dialogue. It is true that tone of voice, stress and intonation may contribute to conveying information across language barriers, but if source and target languages ??are poles apart in terms of lexis, the value of keeping the origin...
