| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 489.68 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Desde 2007, tem sido realizada investigação sistemática na área da Tradução
Audiovisual no Iscap/IPP. Nessa altura, encetámos um projeto ligado à Audiodescrição
(AD) com o objetivo de sistematizar as normas e melhorar o processo de AD, bem como
refletir sobre os métodos de ensino/ aprendizagem.
Este estudo, apresentado no congresso MEDIA FOR ALL, em Antuérpia, em 2009,
pretende contribuir para este projeto através do enfoque na ideia vulgarizada de que a
linguagem da AD deve ser objetiva e, portanto, de natureza referencial, como indicam vários
documentos normativos. Em muitos casos, o audiodescritor é até aconselhado a evitar a
expressão de emoções ou pontos de vista pessoais. Até que ponto é seguido este conselho?
Devemos também nós seguir este conselho enquanto formadores? Será possível identificar
funções da linguagem comuns à AD e, se sim, estarão plasmadas nessas normas?
De forma a responder a estas questões, analisamos e comparamos as directrizes de
diferentes organismos (BBC, Audio Description International, American Council of the
Blind, ITC e Audio Description Coalition) no que diz respeito ao ‘como’ e ao ‘o quê’ do
processo de Audiodescrição.
De seguida, comparamos o resultado deste estudo com extratos de filmes escolhidos
aleatoriamente (Blindness, Revolutionary Road, The Happening, Body of Lies, The
Eye e Hancock). Após a análise dos segmentos fílmicos e dos audiodescritos, em termos de
retórica visual e das funções de linguagem de Jakobson, concluímos que os filmes
audiodescritos amplificam o conceito de tradução intersemiótica.
Since 2007, there has been a systematic research conducted in the field of Audiovisual Translation (AVT) at ISCAP/ Porto Polytechnic Institute. At the time we embarked on a research endeavor focusing on audio description (AD), with the intent of systematizing AD guidelines, improving the AD process and reflecting on teaching/learning methods. This study presented at the Media For All conference, Antwerp, in 2009, aims to contribute to this project by focusing on issues linked to the generalized view that AD language should be ‘objective’ and therefore referential in nature, as stated in several guidelines. Indeed, the audio describer is even warned against expressing emotions or personal points of view. How seriously is this advice taken? Is this in fact what we should be teaching and doing? Are there identifiable common language functions in AD and are these clearly portrayed in the existing guidelines? In order to answer these questions, we assess the BBC Guidelines on the provision of television access services; the Audio Description International’s AD Guidelines Draft; the American Council of the Blind’s Audio Description Standards; the now extinct ITC Guidance on Standards for Audio Description; the Audio Description Coalition Guidelines for Audio Description, listing and contrasting their recommendations as to the ‘how’ and the ‘what’ of AD. Next, we compare these findings with randomly selected audio described feature films pertaining to the genres of drama, action, and suspense, namely Blindness, Revolutionary Road, The Happening, Body of Lies, The Eye, and Hancock. After analyzing both AD segments and movie clips in terms of visual rhetoric and Jakobson’s language functions, we propose that described movies stretch the concept of intersemiotic translation.
Since 2007, there has been a systematic research conducted in the field of Audiovisual Translation (AVT) at ISCAP/ Porto Polytechnic Institute. At the time we embarked on a research endeavor focusing on audio description (AD), with the intent of systematizing AD guidelines, improving the AD process and reflecting on teaching/learning methods. This study presented at the Media For All conference, Antwerp, in 2009, aims to contribute to this project by focusing on issues linked to the generalized view that AD language should be ‘objective’ and therefore referential in nature, as stated in several guidelines. Indeed, the audio describer is even warned against expressing emotions or personal points of view. How seriously is this advice taken? Is this in fact what we should be teaching and doing? Are there identifiable common language functions in AD and are these clearly portrayed in the existing guidelines? In order to answer these questions, we assess the BBC Guidelines on the provision of television access services; the Audio Description International’s AD Guidelines Draft; the American Council of the Blind’s Audio Description Standards; the now extinct ITC Guidance on Standards for Audio Description; the Audio Description Coalition Guidelines for Audio Description, listing and contrasting their recommendations as to the ‘how’ and the ‘what’ of AD. Next, we compare these findings with randomly selected audio described feature films pertaining to the genres of drama, action, and suspense, namely Blindness, Revolutionary Road, The Happening, Body of Lies, The Eye, and Hancock. After analyzing both AD segments and movie clips in terms of visual rhetoric and Jakobson’s language functions, we propose that described movies stretch the concept of intersemiotic translation.
Description
Keywords
Audiodescription Intersemiotic Language functions Audiovisual translation Audiodescrição Tradução intersemiótica Tradução audiovisual Funções da linguagem
Citation
Publisher
Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração do Porto, Edição própria