international film and audio‐visual translation

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