Title
AD decision making process. A look inside the describer’s head
Conference name
Media for All 8
City
Country
Sweden
Modalities
Date
19/06/2019
Abstract
My presentation will report on the results of the ADDit! project (1311/MOB/IV/2015/0) that is carried out to study how culture elments are transferred in AD and looks into the describers’ decision making process.
Translation of culture elements also known as cultural references is a topic widely covered in Translation Studies and audiovisual translation (e.g. Pedersen, 2011). Intercultural references are not a central issue in audio description (AD) research. This topic was taken up by a small number of researchers who proposed classifications of ECR types and/or possible strategies of their description (Szarkowska, 2012; Walczak and Figiel, 2013; Chmiel and Mazur, 2014; Maszerowska and Mangiron, 2014; Szarkowska and Jankowska, 2015; Jankowska and Szarkowska, 2016) (Chmiel and Mazur, 2014; Jankowska and Szarkowska, 2016; Maszerowska and Mangiron, 2014; Matamala and Rami, 2009; Szarkowska, 2012; Szarkowska and Jankowska, 2015; Walczak and Figiel, 2013). However, it should be noted that the classifications of ECR types for AD purposes and strategies of dealing with them in AD proposed up to this date were 4 based on a very limited corpus (many of them were exploratory studies based on just one film) thus they are not comprehensive, and some inconsistencies might be found.
Audio description (AD) can be regarded both as a product and a process (Szarkowska, 2011). While in recent years, research on audio description as a product has evolved considerably we still know very little, if not nothing at all, about the AD creation process. So far research on AD concentrated on its features (e.g. Kruger & Orero, 2010; Matamala, 2014; Remael, Reviers, & Vercauteren, 2014), reception (e.g. Chmiel & Mazur, 2016; Giovanni, 2018; Mazur & Chmiel, 2011; Walczak, 2017b; Walczak & Fryer, 2017), training (e.g. Jankowska, 2017; Marza Ibanez, 2010) as well as on new technological solutions (e.g. Szarkowska & Jankowska, 2012; Walczak, 2011, 2017a).
In my presentation I will present results of a study carried out to understand the decision making process of Polish and Spanish describers with background in Translation Studies and without such a background. Within the study describers were asked to watch clips from Polish and Spanish films. This way each describer scripted AD to a clip from their source culture and a foreign culture they are probably unfamiliar with (Polish clip for Spanish describers and vice versa). While watching their eye-movement was recorded by an eye-tracker. Then the describers where asked to script audio descriptions and were encouraged to comment out loud their decisions (Think Aloud Protocols). At the same time their keyboard movements were logged, and their screens recorded. Preliminary results show that the strategies used by describers differ depending on the source culture of the clip they are working on and also based on their educational background.
Translation of culture elements also known as cultural references is a topic widely covered in Translation Studies and audiovisual translation (e.g. Pedersen, 2011). Intercultural references are not a central issue in audio description (AD) research. This topic was taken up by a small number of researchers who proposed classifications of ECR types and/or possible strategies of their description (Szarkowska, 2012; Walczak and Figiel, 2013; Chmiel and Mazur, 2014; Maszerowska and Mangiron, 2014; Szarkowska and Jankowska, 2015; Jankowska and Szarkowska, 2016) (Chmiel and Mazur, 2014; Jankowska and Szarkowska, 2016; Maszerowska and Mangiron, 2014; Matamala and Rami, 2009; Szarkowska, 2012; Szarkowska and Jankowska, 2015; Walczak and Figiel, 2013). However, it should be noted that the classifications of ECR types for AD purposes and strategies of dealing with them in AD proposed up to this date were 4 based on a very limited corpus (many of them were exploratory studies based on just one film) thus they are not comprehensive, and some inconsistencies might be found.
Audio description (AD) can be regarded both as a product and a process (Szarkowska, 2011). While in recent years, research on audio description as a product has evolved considerably we still know very little, if not nothing at all, about the AD creation process. So far research on AD concentrated on its features (e.g. Kruger & Orero, 2010; Matamala, 2014; Remael, Reviers, & Vercauteren, 2014), reception (e.g. Chmiel & Mazur, 2016; Giovanni, 2018; Mazur & Chmiel, 2011; Walczak, 2017b; Walczak & Fryer, 2017), training (e.g. Jankowska, 2017; Marza Ibanez, 2010) as well as on new technological solutions (e.g. Szarkowska & Jankowska, 2012; Walczak, 2011, 2017a).
In my presentation I will present results of a study carried out to understand the decision making process of Polish and Spanish describers with background in Translation Studies and without such a background. Within the study describers were asked to watch clips from Polish and Spanish films. This way each describer scripted AD to a clip from their source culture and a foreign culture they are probably unfamiliar with (Polish clip for Spanish describers and vice versa). While watching their eye-movement was recorded by an eye-tracker. Then the describers where asked to script audio descriptions and were encouraged to comment out loud their decisions (Think Aloud Protocols). At the same time their keyboard movements were logged, and their screens recorded. Preliminary results show that the strategies used by describers differ depending on the source culture of the clip they are working on and also based on their educational background.