Translating Audio Description Scripts

I.  Part One

The first part is divided into two main subchapters, in which we present both theoretical and practical attitude to audio description. The chapter devoted to an investigation of the theoretical aspects of audio description presents an attempt to name it, define it and place it in the frame of Translation Studies. It also presents the history of the beginnings of audio description, as well as its tradition and the state of its development. The chapter which is focused on practical aspects investigates the strategies and the process of audio description creation.

1. Audio description in theory

The following chapter, which investigates theoretical aspects of audio description, is divided into three subchapters. The first of them is devoted to the issues of the nomenclature and definition of audio description, which, although it is considered to be a young field, has many descriptions and definitions. The subchapter includes an analysis of the names which are used to define the phenomenon which is most commonly called “audio description”, its definitions formulated by active audio describers, its target group, legislative organs and scientists, who treat audio description as a subject of investigation of such fields as disability studies, sociology and linguistics.

Although it may seem surprising, audio description is also a field investigated by Translation Studies (TS) researchers. The second subchapter analyses audio description from the perspective of TS and is focused on such issues as the place of audio description in translation studies, particularly in the field of audiovisual translation, as well as Jakobson’s categories of intersemiotic, interlingual and intralingual translation. Such a detailed investigation of the approach of TS seems to be necessary, not only due to the character and aim of this book, but also because the perception of audio description in the frames of translation studies has measurable practical consequences.

The third subchapter describes briefly the history and the current state of development of audio description. It is focused on the situation in Poland and in the United Kingdom, because the knowledge of this scope seems to be necessary to understand the sense and the aim of this research and the reason why the British scripts are those to be translated into Polish and used in Poland. ← 15 | 16 →

1.1 An attempt to define audio description

“The art of speaking with pictures” (Orero 2007), “a picture painted with words”, “audio description”, “video description” (Cronin, Evans & Pfanstiehl 1997), “description service”, “art”, “a type of poetry” (Snyder 2007:100), “audio narration”. These are only some of the definitions of audio description, and although it is a relatively young field, it has a great number of descriptions and definitions. What is more, the definitions of audio description are subject to multiple modifications, since its scope of influence increases, which is the effect of the dynamic development of audiovisual media and modern technologies. Therefore we deal with the definitions of audio description formulated by its visually impaired recipients, state and international institutions that legitimise its implementation, active audio describers and scientists, who define audio description from the perspective of such fields as disability studies, sociology, linguistics and, which may seem surprising, translation studies.

1.1.1 Audio description or maybe…

Except for the phrases full of emphasis, like “the art of speaking with pictures” or “painting with words”, there are also some more technical terms. Currently, the most frequently used term is “audio description”, but in English literature one can find other terms, which are used simultaneously, like “video description”, “audio vision”, “descriptive narration”, or “audio narration” (Hernàndez & Mendiluce 2009: 162). Not all of these terms are used in Poland, where the most frequently used names are “audio description”, “audio narration”, “narrative description” or “audio commentary”. The multiplicity of terms used to name this relatively new field proves its dynamic and constant development. Below you can find a brief presentation of the questions connected with its proper nomenclature.

The terms frequently used in Poland are “audio description” and “audio narration”. Italian researcher Saviera Arma (2012: 15–20) postulates that the terms “narration” and “description” are too different to use them interchangeably. Firstly, narration is almost exclusively concentrated on a description of action, while audio description describes also protagonists, elements of scenery, sounds, colours etc. Secondly, audio description’s aim is not to tell a story, but to describe visual elements which are necessary to understand the plot. Meanwhile, narration not only tells a story, but also has a particular point of view. Thirdly, when narrating, the first or third person is used mostly, as well as various tenses. Audio description uses mostly the third person singular and a present tense. Concerning all of the arguments mentioned above, an “audio narration” should be rather a combination of an original sound track (i.e. dialogues, sound effects and ← 16 | 17 → music) with a narration with sound. The final effect of such a combination would be similar to an audio book or a radio theatre of imagination known from the Polish Radio. A similar situation is related to a frequently used term of “narrative description”. Accordingly, Saviera Arma has rightly stated that the characteristic features of narration do not suit the current standards and aims of audio description that postulate absolute objectivity and impersonality. Therefore it seems that terms including the word “narration” are not recommended to be used in order to describe the technique that makes the visual and audiovisual works available to visually impaired people.