understanding of the media and its process have made voice-over to be seen in the same light as dubbing, which is certainly a different mode, subject to different translation and production processes. As a result, it comes as no surprise that reference works on AVT have not c onsidered voice-over as a discrete entry (Luyken et al., 1991; Dries, 1995; Baker and Brano, 1998; Shuttleworth and Cowie, 1997; S ? nchez-Escalonilla, 2003). unresolved terminology employed in the wider discipline of AVT (Orero, +2004: vii) also applies to the field of voice-over. Many definitions of the term have described voice-over in a misleading or inaccurate form. Thus, it has been referred to as a category of revoicing, lip synchronisation dubbing, narration and free commentary (Luykenet al., 1991: 71; Baker and Brano, 1998: 75; O Connell, +2003: 66); as a type of dubbing, either non-synchronized dubbing (Dries, 1995: 9), or its opposite doublage synchrone (Kaufmann, 1995: 438). It has also been described as dubbing-with-voice-over (Baranitc h, 1995: 309), as a type of interpreting (P? Nni ?, 1995: 303; Gambier, 1996: 8) and finally as half-dubbing ( Hendrickx, 1984). process of voice-over has also been described as the easiest and most faithful of the audiovisual translation modes (Luyken et al., 1991: 80; D? az Cintas, 1997: 112). This definition, however, has not helped towards further understanding of the technique and bears little resemblance to the real process of translation. A possible reason for this reputed easiness and faithfuln ess of voice-over is its alleged disregard for synchronisation between source and target texts, pointed out originally by Luyken et al. (1991: 80) and later by Lambert and Delabastita (1996: 41), Franco (1998: 236), and Grigaravi? i? te and Gottlieb (1999) .date, attempts to define voice-over seem to have focused on its reception. That is, voice-over is viewed as the final product we hear when watching a programme where a voice in a different language than that of the original programme is heard on top of the original soundtrack. This new voice is normally recorded some seconds into the beginning of the original utterance - and sometimes finishes before the actual person on screen - allowing the viewer to hear part of the original, although this practice is not universal.technical dimensions mentioned by numerous translation scholars when defining voice-over may have a common starting point that can be traced back to Luyken et al. (1991: 80) who in their seminal book Overcoming Language Barriers in Television described voice-over not as a complex and highly specialised translation technique but as: faithful translation of original speech. Approximately synchronous delivery. It is normally used only in the context of a monologue such as an interview response or series of responses from a single interviewee. The original sound is either reduced entirely or to a low level of audibility. A common practice is to allow the original sound to be heard for several seconds at the onset of the speech and to have it subsequently reduced so that the translated speech takes over. This contributes to the sense of authenticity in the translation and prevents a degree of mistrust from developing. Alternatively, if the translation is recorded as part of the original production, it may follow the original speech exactly.studying the transfer of commercial videos, Mailhac (1998: 222) points to the possible source of inconsistency that surrounds the term voice-over: should be pointed out that the term voice-over is used with the meaning it normally has in English where it refers to the voice of an unseen commentator heard during a film, a television programme or a video. Therefore, it does not correspond to what is called un voice over in French, since thi s refers to situations in which a voice giving a translation is heard simultaneously on top of the original voice (see P? Nni ?, 1995). The French equivalent of voice-over would be commentaire. I have heard the term over -voicing to describe the superimposition of a second voice in the context of an interview in a commercial video; half dubbing also seems possible to refer to this type of superimposition when applied to a feature film dialogue.Franco (2000: 32) concludes by stating that: confusion seems to have arisen from the fact that terms adopted by Audiovisual Translation Studies, such as voice-over and others common to factual translation (eg commentary), have all been arbitrarily borrowed from its predecessor Film Studies, whose concepts do not imply any translating activity.new academic and research approach to voice-over and to AVT in general should take into consideration Film and Media Studies without forgetting traditional research methodology from the field of Translation Studies. It should focus on the translation process as much as on the reception of the audiovisual product, and should also deter-mine the terminolo...
