Swearword strength in subtitled and dubbed films: A reception study

Abstract

In this paper we present the results of the first empirical reception study on the comparative strength of swearwords in two audiovisual translation (AVT) modes. We test the assumption/hypothesis that swearwords are perceived as stronger in writing (i.e. subtitles) than in spoken language (i.e. dubbing), which has led to the long-held translation practice of toning down or deleting swearwords more in subtitles than in dubbing. By means of an online survey, participants were asked to a) rate the psychological distance between the connotative meanings of swearwords embedded in ten film clips on a four-point strength scale, and b) comment on their ratings in open-ended text boxes. The results of various types of quantitative analysis show that our participants do not rate swearwords in subtitles higher than in dubbed clips. The qualitative analysis identified contextual factors (genre/director of film, participating characters and their relationship, setting and linguistic context) as well as viewer characteristics (gender, swearing habits and reactions to swearing) as main determinants of swearword strength. The convention of toning down or deleting swearwords more in subtitles than in dubbed audiovisual products thus seems to be based on an invalid assumption and ought to be abandoned altogether.

The Subtitling of Swearing: A Pilot Reception Study

“…In terms of discomfort with reading subtitled swear words in the video, three participants expressed disagreement, while one participant strongly disagreed (see Table 3). These findings align with the conclusions drawn by Briechle and Eppler (2019), suggesting that participants did not perceive swear words as stronger in subtitles. Additionally, these results contribute to deconstructing the assumption that reading a swear word is inherently more impactful than hearing it (Reid 1978;Arango 1991;Luyken et al 1991;Díaz-Cintas 2001;Ávila-Cabrera 2015b).…”

“…The rationale behind this omission or softening of swear words is the belief that written swear words are stronger than spoken ones (Hjort 2009). However, this assumption lacks empirical support, as evidenced by Briechle and Eppler (2019), and is also not confirmed by the results of this pilot reception study.…”

“…Corroborating the results of Hjort's research, Briechle and Eppler (2019) conducted a reception study in Germany on the strength of written and spoken swear words. They examined how participants rated the perceived force of swear words in both dubbed and subtitled versions of the same audiovisual material.…”

“…Díaz-Cintas and Remael (2007, p. 195) explain that "taboo words, swear words and expletive interjections are often toned down in subtitles or even deleted if space is limited". The assumption is that swear words are considered "disposable" in subtitles, and historically, there has been a stigma that reading swear words, taboo words, and offensive words is much more impactful than hearing them (Reid 1978;Arango 1991;Luyken et al 1991;Díaz-Cintas 2001;Díaz-Cintas and Remael 2007;Ávila-Cabrera 2015b;Briechle and Eppler 2019).…”

Dubbing Translation Technique in the Animated Film of Frozen: Party is Over

“…As part of cinema, the film is the most appropriate medium to convey information to audiences in society. For this reason, the language used in the film must be relevant and understood by the audience (Briechle & Eppler, 2019;Khoshsaligheh et al, 2019;Perdikaki, 2017).…”