#97869
03/07/2003 5:15 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
I don't know how many of you saw this snippet: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030306/80/dusp4.html. No doubt the political implications of the broadcast are being much debated elsewhere (and that debate can stay there), but I was wondering what people thought about the linguistic point. When somebody's words are turned into English and broadcast, should the voice used have the accent associated with the place the original speaker comes from (from an actor assuming the accent if necessary), or should a less obtrusive, ordinary broadcast accent be used? Or should it be irrelevant, so long as it's comprehensible to the intended audience? Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
#97870
03/07/2003 11:06 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
In Canada we are always hearing broadcasts of translated stuff, because of the two official languages. Sometimes the voice has a French-Canadian accent, sometimes it doesn't, and I don't think the voice is always the same sex as the person talking. This doesn't really bother me. With this wide variety of options, I guess I don't really take notice of the accent in English.
Actually, I prefer subtitles, because I love hearing the person speak in their own language. If it's a language even vaguely related to one I know, I try to listen for structure or words that are familiar.
|
|
|
#97871
03/07/2003 8:37 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
Bingley, I would prefer what you describe as the ordinary, unobtrusive broadcast voice. What purpose would it serve to inject a local accent into the words especially if, the speaker himself does not employ such an accent when he converses in English?
I also agree heartily with Bean's comment on subtitles. It is so much more pleasurable to listen to the languages themselves and use subtitles for comprehension. I have often thought this very same thought, whilst watching live telecasts of UN debates. Most of the speeches have a grating english voice-over which follows the actual words after a brief time lag and the effect can be jarring at times.
|
|
|
#97872
03/08/2003 12:57 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
Yes, I do prefer subtitles as well. Certainly I have a much better chance of following something in a language I don't understand if it's been subtitled in Indonesian than if it's been dubbed into Indonesian. I find the subtitles distracting, though, if the original is in English because my mind often wanders and starts criticising the subtitles as a translation rather than paying attention to what's actually being said or is happening.
Cartoon films are usually released in two versions here, one with subtitles and one dubbed, presumably for the tiny tots who can't read all that well. Is that true elsewhere?
I remember when Dancing With Wolves came out, I watched it over here and spent ages wondering where on earth they'd found somebody who could speak both Sioux and Indonesian before it occurred to me that the subtitles had been translated from English subtitles that had been deleted.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
#97873
03/08/2003 2:08 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
I have to admit, Bingley, that a second or third hand translation just to achieve the effect of accent during something as crucuail and significant a s the Saddam Hussein interview makes me a little nervous.
|
|
|
#97874
03/08/2003 12:36 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
I don't think it was a second or third hand translation, W'ON. To me that implies translating a translation into a third language, for example if I were to translate into English something that had been translated from Sundanese into Indonesian. From what the article said, I imagine the speech was translated by a committee of 3, each double-checking the others' work, and then they chose the guy with the fake accent to actually read the result out.
Translation by committee is reasonably common. I've had to do it occasionally at work, and have often checked other people's English -> Indonesian translations to see if I think the two texts match.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
#97875
03/09/2003 3:00 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 104
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 104 |
I *used* to agree with you, Bean and maahey, about the pleasure of listening to other languages.....until I spent 2 months taking phone calls from disaster victims in New York after 9/11 (I work for FEMA)
I was taking calls from people living in the five buroughs, who were asking for funds for air purifiers and HEPA vacuums, because their homes were thick with dust and alergens. Many of the callers were immigrant-citizens who spoke very little English; Russian and Mandarin Chinese being the most common native tongue. To handle the calls, we employed a language line with translators.
The first week, I thought.....oh, how fascinating to listen to two people conversing in another language. However, after 10 hour days of listening to those kinds of calls, my ears began to rebel. *Especially* when listening to the Mandarin Chinese language. Have any of you ever heard this language spoken directly into your ear? Let me tell, you, it is not pleasant. It is a rapid fire, high pitched, almost angry sounding language.
The Russian language took a little longer to grate on my nerves. Contrary to the Mandarin, it is very melodious and smooth. However, it is still difficult to listen to two people converse in another language, on a telephone, day in and day out.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,916
Posts230,469
Members9,211
| |
Most Online17,319
Apr 8th, 2026
|
|
|
|
