eks rather than hours, involving a large number of people. For a start, the dialogue list has to be translated. Then the chosen actors have to be given the time to study and rehearse their parts. The recording sessions also tend to take time. From this it would seem evident that as far as meeting stringent deadlines is concerned the usefulness of this screen translation approach is rather limited.on the premises outlined above, my conclusion is that subtitling is normally a better approach to screen translation than is dubbing. This does not follow logically from counting the number of constraining factors of the two approaches, but has to do with the fact that some of the constraining factors are easier to get around or compensate for than others. In my opinion the loss of authenticity in dubbing, since important aspects of a character s personality are revealed through the use of their voice, is the biggest problem of all.are, however, cases where the voice does not form an integral part of a character, it simply belongs to the off-screen commentator. This tends to be the case in documentary programmes, which normally lend themselves more easily to revoicing than subtitling. Here, if the latter method is chosen, it may lead to extensive loss of information.that are cut extremely fast and have rapid speech rates should not necessarily be subtitled. If readability requirements are to be met, the sheer levels of condensation needed result in too great a loss of information. In spite of all its disadvantages, in such cases dubbing may be the lesser of two evils. Moreover, films and programmes aimed at small children have to be dubbed for the simple reason that the target audiences have not yet learned to read.over in AudiovisualOreroaudiovisual translation (AVT) is a thriving field within Translation Studies. This is, however, a recent development. Although research in the audiovisual field dates back to одна тисяча дев'ятсот тридцять дві (Franco and Orero, 2005), it remained in the realm of Film or Media Studies and it was only in the 1980s that it started to be studied from a translation perspective, within the discipline of Translation Studies. This transition from Film Studies to Translation Studies may account for the blurred terminology in use, the research guidelines and the somewhat unbalanced interest shown in the many modes within AVT. While subtitling and dubbing have been attracting interest in both research and teaching at university level, other techniques such as voice-over have been left aside or not clearly understood, as pointed out by Grigaravi? i? te and Gottlieb (1999), Franco (2000), and Gambier (2003) .scholars have analysed this unbalanced situation in the amount of attention paid to the many communication forms within AVT. Gambier and Suomela-Salmi (1994: 243) suggested the following possible explanation: till now, research [in AVT] has mainly been concerned with the subtitling and dubbing of fictive stories/fiction films. In the light of the huge variety of audiovisual communication, this may seem somewhat surprising; in fact, however, it reflects the prevailing orientation in translation theory, which is still highly dominated by literary translation.could argue that most research carried out in AVT has concentrated on dubbing and subtitling because these are the modes used to translate fictive stories and fiction films, objects of study which tend to be favoured by academics. However, it seems to have been forgotten in many studies that in some countries like Poland and the Baltic States voice-over is used as the translation mode for films. The traditional stance in most academic studies has been to associate voice-over with the translation of documentaries covering topics like nature and travel (Luyken et al., 1991). The general trend has been to consider it as a technique suitable for the translation of non-fictional genres, an approach that Franco (2000: 3) regrets: reality must inevitably be a straightforward, non- problematic activity. What such a belief implies is that translated foreign material within non-fictional output (eg interviews in news and documentaries and sometimes commentaries as well) constitutes uninteresting data for the purposes of research. Traditionally claimed as objective, deprived of the artifices of literary language or cinematic invention, factual programmes would and could not represent any real challenge to the translator or stimulus to the researcher; in sum, the translation of real life would constitute a boring field of study., voice-over is normally included when scholars want to provide a taxonomy of the many - and not universally used - audiovisual translation modes. In some cases, voice-over has been classified within the technique of dubbing by authors such as Luyken et al. (1991: 80), Baker and Brano (1998: 75), Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997: 45), and Franco (2001: 290). No doubt, simplification and a lack of ...
