The Pros and Cons of Dubbing and Subtitling

Abstract

Dubbing and subtitling are the most prevalent methods used to make foreign-language television programmes available to a domestic market. Each adaptation method has its advantages and disadvantages. This article provides an inventory of the pros and cons of both methods on the basis of three questions: Through which method can information best be transferred? What are the aesthetic advantages and disadvantages of each method? Which skills do viewers acquire `incidentally' by using one of the two adaptation methods? The answers given to these questions are based as much as possible on the results of empirical research on dubbing and subtitling. The conclusion is that there is no empirical evidence for some frequently claimed advantages and disadvantages. With regard to other pros and cons, it depends on the viewer, the type of television programme and the way in which a programme is subtitled or dubbed as to whether the argument should be taken seriously.

iDub - El potencial del doblaje intralingual en el aprendizaje de idiomas extranjeros: cómo evaluar la tarea

“…In their seminal research synthesis, Koolstra et al (2002) conclude that, in the light of the experimental data gathered via longitudinal studies in several European countries, it would be adventurous to state that either of the modalities under study -subtitling and dubbing -could be favoured or disfavoured according to their potential benefits or drawbacks. This would help explain why, in spite of local shifts and minor changes in the European audiovisual panorama, subtitling, dubbing and voice-over continue to coexist, to shape a global (Bartrina and Espasa 2005, Chaume 2013, Siegel et al 2013.…”

Is subtitling equally effective everywhere? A first cross-national study on the reception of interlingually subtitled messages

“…Accordingly, Europe was split into typically dubbing and typically subtitling countries (Kilborn 1993;Koolstra, Peeters and Spinhof 2002;Luyken, Herbst, Langham-Brown, Reid et Spinhof 1991), a division that oversimplified a composite scenario. The structural, linguistic, translational and receptive differences of these two methods (Chaume 2012;Díaz Cintas 2001;Gottlieb 1994) soon sparked off a lively debate on which one was better (Díaz Cintas 1999).…”

“…The structural, linguistic, translational and receptive differences of these two methods (Chaume 2012;Díaz Cintas 2001;Gottlieb 1994) soon sparked off a lively debate on which one was better (Díaz Cintas 1999). For a long time, this debate was encouraged by a series of speculative claims on the merits and the drawbacks of dubbing vs. subtitling based on intuition and rules of thumb, but seldom supported by systematic empirical studies (for a review see Koolstra et al 2002;Perego, Del Missier and Bottiroli 2015;Marleau 1982).…”

Discourse Analysis and the Subtitles of Documentaries: The Case of The Children Of Russia

“…In the case of the English-Swedish pair it is about 1/3, while Gottlieb indicates that there could be between 20-50% reductions in some language pairs (Gottlieb 1994quoted in Schröter 2003. This is so because, usually, the length of time a subtitle is shown on the screen follows a six-second rule and the number of words including spaces does not usually exceed 64 words in a maximum of two lines (Díaz 2001, Koolstra et al 2002 Discourse Analysis and the Subtitles of Documentaries... Marisa Cordella Kruger 2001). In spite of the limitation to the number of words visible on the screen at any given time, Koolstra et al estimate that experienced subtitlers are able to offer subtitles that "are of equal value to the original information and condensation will not lead to loss of information" (Koolstra et al 2002: 328).…”