Some Considerations Regarding the ST and TT

4.3 Some Considerations Regarding the ST and TT

In the following subsections I will provide some observations and general comments on the two parallel corpora. In particular, I will highlight the differences in the number of spoken words and some related issues. In addition, I will discuss the use of canned laughter by the production crew for the original text and by the dubbing team for the translated version.

4.3.1 The Two Parallel Corpora Most Friends series contain 24 episodes each, apart from series 3 and 6 which have 25 episodes and series 10 that only has 18, for a total of 236 episodes. The average length of each episode is 22 minutes, which becomes approximately 26 when including the opening theme and the closing credits. A few exceptions can be found in series 9 and

10 in which some episodes run for 29 minutes or more 1 . Both Appendix V, “Complete Transcription of Data” (available on the CD I submit along with this thesis) and

Appendix I, “List of Data” (at the end of this thesis) give the precise number of words spoken in each episode along with other information. For ease of comparison, I have gathered the information regarding the number of spoken words in each episode in

both datasets in Table 4.1 below. In addition, I have included the total and the average number of words in each corpus.

Episode

Number of words

Table 4.1: Number of spoken words in the ST and the TT

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends ; cf. Ch.1, footnote 2.

The table above clearly shows that the number of words in the TT is (slightly) higher that in the ST, as is usually the case in translation (Kenny 1998b: 52). This is partly due to the fact that in the dubbed version of the first series of Friends some turns are add ed to the original text (see highlighted turns in Appendix V, “Complete Transcription of Data”). These turns are usually uttered by characters that are off- screen; at other times the characters are framed in a long (or medium) shot so that the addition goes (mostly) unnoticed. In my opinion, the added turns (normally containing phatic talk) are mostly used to fill the gaps created by the omission of long recordings of canned laughter in the TT (see Section 4.3.2 below). My preliminary contrastive analysis has also revealed another difference between the two datasets. Some characters’ turns in the ST are uttered by different characters in the TT (see highlighted turns in Appendix V , “Complete Transcription of Data”). The only reason that I can find is that so metimes the characters’ turns overlap. This usually happens when they are giving a brief comment on a more important turn. Probably the dubbing team attempted to retain the overlapping effect by using extra turns without paying a great deal of attention to who uttered them. In this way the text seems to replicate a typical real life situation, thus making the scene portrayed in the fictional world more realistic. As in the case of added turns, the long shot makes most of these discrepancies barely perceptible.

More interesting is the insertion of characters’ laughs in the TT. Indeed, sometimes it is possible to hear characters laughing in the TT when they are not in the ST. These

additions not only seem to work as gap fillers (as with added turns) but also seem to

be employed to elicit a laughter response from the TT’s audience, thus avoiding the frequent use of canned laughter as is the case in the ST (cf. Section 4.3.2 below).

All in all, these differences between the two datasets highlight the level of textual manipulation that dubbing allows in AVT. Subtitling could certainly not apply such modifications because the ST can still be heard. However, the detractors of dubbing could comment that these differences are only the tip of the iceberg. From this perspective, dubbing means manipulation and consequently a distortion of the original.

I personally tend to favour the former position because I believe that the dubbing team’s main priority and ultimate objective is to convey the potential humour of the original. Nonetheless, it is obvious that a clearer insight into the AVT process can lead to its further development and possibly improvement.

4.3.2 Canned Laughter North American sitcoms make a large use of recorded audience reactions, be they laughter, a pplause, whistles or sympathetic “oohs”. These can be recorded live, or a taped version can be inserted in the post-production phase (Fouts and Burggraf 2002: 928). Recorded live canned laughter usually includes the audience’s whistles, clapping etc., alon g with pure laughter. In contrast, only one person’s laugh can normally be heard in tape recorded canned laughter.

Canned laughter is particularly employed to encourage a positive and amused response in the audience who watch the programme on TV. The use of canned laughter as a tool for eliciting laughter has attracted a fair amount of interest in academic research, especially in the field of Psychology. Interestingly, some empirical studies have demonstrated that external stimuli such as canned laughter result in the audience ’s amused reaction and increased perception of the funniness of the text (e.g. Smyth and Fuller 1972; Martin and Gray 1996). In contrast, others have shown that Canned laughter is particularly employed to encourage a positive and amused response in the audience who watch the programme on TV. The use of canned laughter as a tool for eliciting laughter has attracted a fair amount of interest in academic research, especially in the field of Psychology. Interestingly, some empirical studies have demonstrated that external stimuli such as canned laughter result in the audience ’s amused reaction and increased perception of the funniness of the text (e.g. Smyth and Fuller 1972; Martin and Gray 1996). In contrast, others have shown that

More recently, scholars in Psychology have focused on canned laughter from a sociological point of view. For example, Fouts and Burggraf (2002) have demonstrated how canned laughter is used to reinforce derogatory comments on female characters ’ body weight in Friends and another TV comedy series called Mad About You (1992-1999, Paul Reiser and Danny Jacobson). This is likely to influence young female spectators’ perceptions of femininity because they foster the stereotyped idea that beauty is directly linked with thinness and vice versa. On a lighter note, Platow et al. (2005) demonstrate that people are influenced by canned laughter if it can be associated with in-group members (i.e. students that hear other students laughing). These findings are undoubtedly interesting but they can only partly (if at all)

be applied to the study of canned laughter in TV comedy. The audience who watch the programme in front of the TV are most probably unaware of the type of audience present during its recording. More importantly, Platow et al. confirm that canned laughter creates awareness in the audience of the potential humour of the text (ibid.548). This supports my methodological approach to analyse those instances of potential humour that are accompanied by canned laughter (cf. Section 4.4.2 below).

The use of canned laughter in Friends is a sort of hybrid because it deploys both live audience reactions and taped recordings of canned laughter. Friends was (usually) performed live in front of an audience and recorded to be later broadcast on TV. Most of the canned laughter (80%) is the result of the live audience’s reaction while the rest was added in post-production (Walte 2007: 54). This procedure can be explained by the fact that sometimes live audience response can cover some of the characters’ turns. At other times, audience response may not have been as lively as expected by the The use of canned laughter in Friends is a sort of hybrid because it deploys both live audience reactions and taped recordings of canned laughter. Friends was (usually) performed live in front of an audience and recorded to be later broadcast on TV. Most of the canned laughter (80%) is the result of the live audience’s reaction while the rest was added in post-production (Walte 2007: 54). This procedure can be explained by the fact that sometimes live audience response can cover some of the characters’ turns. At other times, audience response may not have been as lively as expected by the

The contrastive analysis of the use of canned laughter in the ST and the TT reveals

a striking difference between them, as Table 4.2 below shows. The first column on the left provides the number of each episode in the series while the second and the third columns provide the number of instances of canned laughter in the ST and TT respectively:

Episode

Recordings of Canned Laughter

Table 4.2: Recordings of canned laughter in the ST and the TT

As can be seen, for every episode the dubbing team dramatically reduced the number of recordings of canned laughter that are present in the original text. On average, the ST has almost 136 recordings of canned laughter per episode while the TT has approximately 36. This means that less than a quarter of the original number of instances was retained in the TT. Only on one single occasion (in Episode 8) did the dubbing team add one instance of canned laughter in the TT where there is none in the ST. This happened because a potentially humorous instance was inserted where there is none in the ST, most likely for compensatory purposes (Harvey 1995). Clearly, dubbing allows a great deal of freedom about deciding whether or not to retain this device. Interestingly, these findings seem to oppose Zabalbeascoa’s (1996: 256) claim that canned laughter is seldom omitted in AVT.

More generally, various suggestions can be made to explain the difference in the use of canned laughter in the U.S.A. and Italy. For example, North American producers were the first to apply this device in their TV comedy shows at the beginning of the 1950s (Provine 1996: 42; Walte 2007: 54). Hence, the North American audience is nowadays used to hearing it and they probably consider canned laughter as part of the whole product. In contrast, Italian dubbing studios have often chosen to omit it completely or in part. Moreover, Italian productions rarely include canned laughter. Therefore, the Italian audience may find it hard to accept its presence in the text.

Besides, it is possible that there are cultural differences in the North American and Italian’s attitude to humour, which are reflected in the use or omission of canned laughter. Provine (ibid.43) remarks that North American producers continued to use canned laughter because it proved to elicit a positive audience response. It could be

said that canned laughter underlines the potential humour of a turn, like the cymbal said that canned laughter underlines the potential humour of a turn, like the cymbal

Finally, I would like to point out that during the data analysis I signal the presence of canned laughter in both the ST and the TT. In order to do this, I graphically represent an instance of canned laughter by means of smiley faces, i.e. ☺. These are further categorised according to their length and marked by an increasing number of smiley faces (☺ means that the recording of canned laughter is ≤ 1.0 second long; ☺☺ means that it lasts between 1.0 and 2.0 seconds; ☺☺☺ means that it lasts ≥ 2.0 seconds). Interestingly, the taped instances of canned laughter are usually short and quiet and only one person can be heard laughing. In contrast, the live audience’s reaction can vary from a general laugh to long instances of laughter accompanied by whistles, “oohs”, etc.

I will now move on to explain my analytical methodology.