A great variety of original audiovisual (AV) texts such as films, television series, teletext, videogames, live performances may include more than one language as an outcome of the director’s initial intension. The producers of the AV texts tend to portray specific cultural aspects with different linguistic variations, which are also related to particular stylistic, pragmatic or discursive functions. In certain cases, translators of such AV texts face serious challenges. One of the thorny problems arises with the adaptation of the multilingual AV texts to the deaf and hard of hearing audience. Different strategies and methods of employing the multilingual AV texts for the needs of the deaf and hard of hearing audience have been adopted in various countries; however, nowadays Lithuania has only taken its first steps in developing a unified system of working out translating and subtitling strategies of the AV texts in general. This article aims at discovering professional translation and subtitling practices along with the norms, criteria and strategies of this specific translation activity in Lithuania and abroad. Firstly, the existing overseas reality of the translation and subtitling of multilingual AV texts is described and afterwards the tendencies within the Lithuanian adaptations of AV texts are discussed.
This paper examines Harold Pinter’s late play Mountain Language as a depiction of political oppression specifically rooted in linguistic oppression. The play presents a “mountain people” who have been forbidden to use their “mountain language” by a coercive state authority. The play contrasts the brutality of the officers and guards with the humanity (represented through two still-life ‘tableau’ scenes) of the victims, the “mountain people.” The paper notes, however, that there is an unsettling linguistic twist to the play, in that the “mountain language” and the “language of the capital” are both English in performance. The paper suggests that this is partly motivated by Pinter’s expressed desire to make the play disturbingly recognizable to western audiences, thus removing the spectator’s or reader’s ability to judge such oppressions as being exotic, irrelevant, or encountered only in distant unstable countries. The paper argues that Pinter’s focus upon linguistic prohibition, linguistic discrimination, and linguistic denigration is rendered unexpectedly universal through the reliance of the text upon English as the medium for both the prohibited language and the language of authority.
O’Hare, L. O., & McGuinness, C. (2009). Measuring critical thinking, intelligence, and academic performance in psychology undergraduates. The Irish Journal of Psychology , 30(3–4), 123–131.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community Colleges , 1992(77), 3–24.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Techniques and Procedures for developing Grounded theory . London: Sage
. &Nasr, A. (2004). Improving reading performance among Egyptian engineering students: Principles and practices. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 425–445.
Rahimi, R. (2008). ESP, an evaluation of available textbooks: “ Medical Terminology” . Islamic Azad University of Tonekabon, Iran.
Raluca, N. (2002). Designing an ESP course: a case study. Retrieved from http://www.biblioteca.ase.ro/resurse/resurse_electronice/revista_articole.php?r .
Rayan, A. (2007). Learner participation in the design of English for Biotechnology. ESP World, 2