See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267623185

LEXICAL PROBLEMS IN ARABIC-ENGLISH SUBTITLING

Article · November 2011

CITATIONS READS

9 4,613

1 author:

Mohammad Ahmad Thawabteh

Al-Quds University
45 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Translation Norms as Virtuous Circle View project

Post-graduate Translation Curriculum and Employability: The Case of Palestinian Universities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Ahmad Thawabteh on 04 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 207
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

Mohammad Ahmad Thawabteh∗

Al-Quds University, Faculty of Arts
Israel

LEXICAL PROBLEMS IN
ARABIC-ENGLISH SUBTITLING∗∗

UDC 81’25:791
Original scientific paper

The present paper is designed to shed some light on the lexical problems in
Arabic-English subtitling as illustrated by the translation output of 15 MA
translation Arab students at Al-Quds University for the academic year 2010/2011.
The data comprises an Egyptian movie entitled is-Safara fil-‘Imarah translated as
‘The Embassy is in the Building’. The paper reveals that subtitling students are
faced with several lexical problems that are attributed not only to the fact that
Arabic and English are poles apart in terms of lexis, but they are also akin to the
technical dimension, very much prominent in audiovisual translation, e.g. dubbing,
voiceover, subtitling, etc. The study shows that the technical aspect has an impact
on subtitler’s lexical choice, and deleterious effect on communication. The study
concludes with some pedagogical implications that will hopefully help subtitling
students deal with the problems in question.

Key words: audiovisual translation, subtitling, lexical problems, technical

problems, Arabic, English

1. Introduction
Translation Studies (henceforth TS) is characterised by
interdisciplinarity i.e. it establishes relationships with other fields of
knowledge such as social sciences, sociology, linguistics, semiotics, cultural
studies, among others. This makes it possible for other disciplines to emerge
and even burgeon into an area of study worthy of research in its own right.
Audiovisual Translation (henceforth AVT) is a case in point. AVT has attracted
attention of translation theorists and practitioners in the past decade.
Virtually, AVT has given translational activity a new lease of life. In the words
of Orero (2009: 130), “Nowadays audiovisual translation (AVT) is a thriving

∗
Al-Quds University, Faculty of Arts, English Department, PO Box 20002, Jerusalem; e-mail:
mthawabteh@arts.alquds.edu
∗∗
This article is a revised version of the paper presented at The fourth Conference on The Role of
Translation in the Dialogue of Civilizations organized by Faculty of Arts, Najah National University, October
12-13, 2011.
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 208
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

field within [TS].” A search query in Translation Studies Bibliography3, a

bibliography with more than 20,000 annotated records, returns 255 hits for
subtitling in the Title Field, which is likely to be promising.
Unlike literary translation, AVT receives scant attention in most of Arab
countries, with only 4 hits for Arabic and subtitling in the Title Field in the
same search, though subtitling practices perhaps constitute the bulk of
translations from and into Arabic. Gamal (2008: 2) claims: “subtitling was
deemed the best option to protect the local film industry from competition.
Subtitling also offered a much less labo[u]r-intensive, faster and cheaper
alternative.” Gamal (ibid: 9) adds that “A clear paradox exists which
emphasises the surprising imbalance between the little research on
audiovisual translation and its enormous impact on society.”
The present paper examines a subtitling-related problem that subtitling
students may be faced with, i.e. lexical choice. In literary translation, lexical
items are important in translation activities as Larson (1984: 55; emphasis in
the original) argues:

A word is “a bundle” of meaning components. The translator needs to be

able to anlay[s]e the lexical items (words) of the source text in order to be
able to translate them. This means being able to “unpack” words in order to
show meaning that is represented by the lexical form.

A close look at the quote above shows that the translator needs to be
able to ‘unpack’ words because languages cut linguistic reality differently.
Furthermore, we argue, there are technical constraints usually involved in
subtitling. It is not sufficent to choose a lexical equivalent in the target
culture, but the subtitler should make sure that equivalence goes in harmony
with codes of good subtitling.
The distinction between AVT and other forms of translation (e.g., literary
translation) is that fidelity is determined by constraints within the ambit of
words or languages (Neves 2004: 135). AVT tilts towards ‘communicative
effectiveness’ the target audience is often after. In a sense, AVT tends to be
more challenging and demanding as Karamitroglou (2000: 104) succinctly

3
Retrieved from http://www.benjamins.com/online/tsb/ [visited on October 10th, 2011]
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 209
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

puts it: “the number of possible audiovisual translation problems is endless

and a list that would account for each one of them can never be finite.”
These problems can be of semantic, syntactic, cultural, or lexical nature,
as is the case in literary translation, but what makes a difference is the
technical constraints which are of paramount importance as to lexical choice.
In what follows, we address lexical problems in Arabic-English subtitling
with a particular focus on subtitling standards proposed Karamitroglou
(1998) and Schwarz (2002).

2. Technical-related problems
In subtitling, constraints and technical aspects, e.g., spatial parameter
or layout should be paid due attention. “Television screens are more limited
than film screens and the reduction of the text volume is even greater”
(Schwarz 2002; Constraints and technical aspects). In the words of De Linde
and Kay (1999: 1-2), “the amount of dialogue has to be reduced to meet the
technical conditions of the medium and the reading capacities of non-native
language users.” One way of reducing the text is the number of characters
on the screen. Karamitroglou (1998; Spatial parameter/layout) argues that:
“Each subtitle line should allow around 35 characters in order to be able to
accommodate a satisfactory portion of the (translated) spoken text and
minimise the need for original text reduction and omissions. An increase in
the number of characters, attempting to fit over 40 per subtitle line, reduces
the legibility of the subtitles because the font size is also inevitably reduced.”
It follows that “[a] space in need is a friend indeed” (Thawabteh 2011a:
37) vis-à-vis TV screen. “Every single space is highly needed for other
communicative purposes, that is, when the subtitle is appropriately and
adequately positioned on the screen, the possibility of nonverbal
communication becomes high” (ibid). Likewise, Gambier and Gottlieb (2001:
213-214) state that “multi-channel and multicode: [are] made up not only of
verbal signs but also of non-verbal signs — such as visible and audible
gestures.” Orero (2004: 86) argues that “[a] screen adaptation of a 100, 000
word novel may keep only 20, 000 words for dialogue, leaving semantic load
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 210
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

of the remaining 80, 000 words the non-verbal semiotic channels— or to

deletion.”
It is worth mentioning here that ‘communicative effectiveness’ should be
an ultimate goal insofar as subtitlers are concerned. Channels for
communication in a film include “dialogue, music and picture, and — for a
smaller part — writing (displays and captions)” (Orero 2004: 86; see also
Nedergaard-Larsen 1993: 214). More precisely, four channels are necessary
to achieve as much communication as possible, namely (1) the verbal
auditory channel, e.g., dialogue, background voices, and sometimes lyrics;
(2) the non-verbal auditory channel, e.g., music, natural sound and sound
effects; (3) the verbal visual channel, e.g., superimposed titles and written
signs on the screen; and (4) the non-verbal visual channel, e.g., picture
composition and flow (Baker 1998: 245).
Another way of reducing the text can be found at the level of single
letters. Schwarz (2002; 6.4. Fonts and Figures) states “[i]n general, letters
are proportional, in other words the letters differ in width. For example, “i”,
“l” or “t” are particularly narrow, while “m” and “w” are much wider. Schwarz
(ibid) further argues this “can influence the choice of lexicon, as one
searches for the shortest synonym with as few wide characters as possible.”

3. Methodology
3.1. Significance of the study
AVT has begun to gain momentum and weight in TS. Compared to the
mind-boggling subtitling and dubbing from and into Arabic, AVT has stuttered
along the research line in the Arab World (for studies on dubbing, see
Athamneh and Zitawi 1999; Zitawi 2003 and 2008 and on subtitling, see
Khuddro 2000; Mazid 2006; Gamal 2009; and Thawabteh 2010, 2011a,
2011b and forthcoming). Thus, the present study may be considered
significant as it contributes to the esoteric knowledge already exists and may
be a point of departure for more potential studies on AVT in the Arab World,
that would go on a par with that vast bulk of translation.
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 211
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

3.2. Data used in the study

The main purpose of the study is to investigate the difficulties of
subtitling at lexical level from Arabic into English. To pinpoint and bring the
problem under discussion into focus, we used a sample of translations made
by 15 MA Arab students of Al-Quds University. The data comprise a ten-
minute clip from an Egyptian movie entitled Is-safara fil-‘imarah translated
as ‘The Embassy is in the Building’. The students watched the clip, and were
then asked to provide English subtitles. Six lexical items were chosen to
serve for the purpose of the study. First, a transcription of the original
dialogue was made. Second, subtitling students’ translations were presented
along with the number of characters per subtitle line and per lexical item.
The students had already taken a minimum of ten translation courses, two of
which were Audiovisual Translation courses; thus they have considerable
experience of translation theory and practice. To translate the clip, the
students used Subtitle Workshop (version: 2.51).
The movie is about Sherif, an Egyptian engineer working for a UAE-
based company. He had been engaged in some kinky sexual practices, the
last of which was with the manager’s wife. Sherif was then fired. Affected by
nostalgia for his happy youth in his homeland, Sherif decided to return home
after twenty years of absence. When he went to his flat, he was shocked to
know that the Embassy of Israel was next door. The building was swarming
with embassy security personnel. It was then difficult for Sherif to move in or
out of the building. Due to political upheaval in the Middle East as a result of
Israeli atrocities against Palestinians since 1948, some militiamen retaliated
by storming the Embassy with rockets while he was sleeping with a
prostitute. Sherif’s rise was then overwhelmed by an all-consuming sense of
patriotic duty — that the Embassy of Israel should be immediately closed.

4. Discussion and data analysis

In what follows, we shall give some illustrative examples to see how
(un)successful the Arab subtitling students were. In carefully scrutinising
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 212
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

example (1) below, students opted for a number of items to render ish-
shakh’yyāt il-muhimah (lit. ‘important people’) as follows:
Example 1:
(1a) ‘inta ‘ārif sa’adit il-bayh ish-shakh’yyat il-muhimah is-sākna fil
man’iga
(1b) You know Sir,|4the important people who live here. [CPS5 49/CPLI6
19]
(1c) You know Sir,|the VIPs who live here. [CPS 38/CPLI 4]
(1d) You know Sir,|the influential people who live here. [CPS 53/CPLI 22]
(1e) You know the personages|that live in this area. [CPS 50/CPLI 14]
(1f) You know Your Excellency the cream|of society who live in this area.
[CPS 69/CPLI 20]

In Example 1 above, subtitling students opted for different translations to

render ish-shakh’yyāt il-muhimah in the Source Language (SL) utterance in
1a, i.e. ‘important people’ (1b), ‘the VIPs’ (1c), ‘the influential people’ (1d),
‘the personages’ (1e), and ‘the cream of society’ (1f). In terms of analysis,
shakh’yyāt il-muhimah implies ‘famous’, ‘influential’, and ‘important people’.
As can be noted, 1b and 1c fail to observe the intended meanings in the SL
utterance. The translation in 1d also fails to reflect the shades of meaning of
the SL item, as `influential people’ may have negative connotations and is
not necessarily important. The choice of ‘personages’ merits investigation as
it can be translated as shakh’yyāt il-muhimah, but considering the register of
the SL, we come up with another item, i.e., ‘personages’, which may be
thought of as recalcitrant and superfluous in the TL culture. The last rendition
of 1f seems to be grotesque. Arguably, the choice for ‘VIPs’ in (1c) may be
said to encapsulate the nuances of the SL item. In addition, ‘VIPs’ has
thinner characters than ‘important people’ in 1b, for instance whereby
‘important’ includes the widest character “m”. Again, opting for ‘VIPs’ may be
a plausible choice, since the number of characters in the caption is 38, which

4
The oblique line “|” (‘pipe’) means a new subtitle line
5
Number of characters per subtitle
6
Number of characters per lexical item
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 213
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

is fewest, and the number of characters for the lexical item in question is 4,
which is also fewest.
The second lexical item that poses problems for subtitling students
labash (lit. ‘bad people’). Consider Example 2 below:
Example 2:
(2a) wil-man’iga ‘’laha labash: I’alaba, wil-jām’a wil-mu’ahrāt
(2b) and this area is very crowded. I mean, the|university, the students
and the demonstrations. [CPS 91/CPLI 12]
(2c) The area includes riff-raffs: the|university, the students and the
demonstrations. [CPS 82/CPLI 10]
(2d) The area includes scums: the university,|the students and the
demonstrations. [CPS 77/CPLI 5]
(2e) This place includes|repulsive people, indeed. [CPS 45/CPLI 19]
(2f) The area includes riffraff:|the university, students and marches. [CPS
64/CPLI 8]
(2g) The area includes scums:|the university, students and marches.
[CPS 62/CPLI 5]

In terms of componential analysis, the Arabic labash indicates a group of

people who are not respectable. The Figures 1-4 below show word choice the
students have opted for. We consult Collins Cobuild 2003; emphasis in the
original to make our argument solid.

Figure 1: Collins Cobuild definition of ‘crowded’

Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 214
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

The student’s choice for ‘very crowded’ as Figure 1 above shows, functions in
terms of semantic equivalence. However, this choice poses two technical
problems, which are ill segmentation and the number of characters (see 2b
above, Example 2). Ill segmentation may be a result of the word choice,
because ‘very crowded’ contains 12 characters.

Figure 2: Collins Cobuild definition of ‘riff-raff’

However, Figure 2 below offers more options than Figure 1 above.

Semantically, ‘riff-raff’ is more or less semantically and pragmatically
equivalent to the Arabic item. Technically, it has fewer characters both per
subtitle and per word, and more importantly, Figure 2 offers a spelling
alternative (i.e., ‘riffraff’), thus saving one extra character on the screen.

Figure 3: Collins Cobuild definition of ‘scum’

Although it contains a wide character, i.e., ‘m’, the item ‘scum’ records the
fewest characters, with only five characters. It successfully renders the
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 215
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

Arabic item semantically and pragmatically. Due to fewer characters ‘scums’

contains, there is no problem with segmentation as shown in 2d above.

Figure 4: Collins Cobuild definition of ‘repulsive’

Figure 4 fails to respect the technical aspect in terms of line-breaks, that

verb and object must not be divided (Schwarz 2002); yet it shows the
shades of meanings the SL labash displays.
All lexemes in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 are possible equivalents of labash,
with acute differences in mind. This makes the subtitler's choice even more
challenging. Nevertheless, the subtitler should strike a balance, with a special
focus on the technical constraints. Perhaps, three choices are more salient
than others, namely, 2d, 2f and 2g. In 2e, the subtitling student opts for two
subtitles for the Arabic utterance. The number of characters of the subtitle in
2d is 77, with 5 characters for the underlined lexical item. Technically
speaking, this subtitle falls within the ambit of subtitling conventions, but is
wordy when compared to 2g (62 characters in total and 5 characters for the
item). The translation in 2f is also possible, but it is quite different from that
in 2c, which is wordy and includes a spelling alternative (i.e., ‘riff-raffs’
versus ‘riffraffs’). The translation in 2b and 2e may not be the right choice as
the former is wordy and the latter lacks in SL information.
Example 2 above also shows two lexical choices to render Arabic wil-
mu’ahrāt (lit. ‘demonstrations’), namely ‘demonstrations’ and ‘marches’. As
can be noted, both match semantically, but the technical failure is evident in
the former, rather than the latter. Using Microsoft Publisher 2003, it is
possible to measure the width of lexical
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 216
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

Figure 5: Word measure

items as shown in Figure 5. The discrepancy between the two items is

crystal-clear. For more elaboration, consider Example 3 below:
Example 3:
(3a) mahū il-labash da mish ‘āizna yghlis ‘alayna
(3b) I really don’t like these riffraff|to annoy me. [CPS 45/CPLI 5]
(3c) really I don’t like|these riffraff to disturb me. [CPS 50/CPLI 6]
(3d) I don’t really like|these scums to unsettles me. [CPS 49/CPLI 9]
(3f) I really don’t like these scums|to upsets me. [CPS 46/CPLI 6]
In this dialogue, the captain felt a deep sense of shame and repugnance
towards the people living near the Israeli Embassy, whereby demonstrations
have been common in Egypt since Israeli occupation of Palestine. Sherif had
been engaged in some kind of sexual debauchery in the UAE and now when
he came back home he wanted to continue with this practice. In Example 3
above, the underlined renderings sound natural in English. There is no harm
done if the item with the fewest number of characters is chosen, e.g.,
‘annoy’. The item ‘unsettles’ seems to be technically questionable. Example 4
below may make the point clearer.
Example 4:
(4a) ‘a’il ‘ana ‘abaibī kthīr wi-y’ibū ywidūni
(4b) well, I have a lot of friends|who would like to visit me. [CPS 57/CPLI
7]
(4c) well, I have a lot of girlfriends|who would like to visit me. [CPS
61/CPLI 15]
(4d) well, I have many women with whom|I’m having a sexual
relationship. [CPS 68/CPLI 51]
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 217
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

In this sequence, Sherif tries to convince the officer responsible for the
security of the Israeli Embassy that the security measures are unbearable.
Sherif calms the situation down by using the Arabic euphemism ‘abaibī (li.
‘darling’) instead of ‘sluts’. Pragmatically speaking, it is 4b that respects the
intentions of the SL text. It also abides by the subtitling conventions. The
translation in 4d is wordy and has sexual connotations hidden by the SL
speaker for a purpose. Example 5 below merits close investigation.
Example 5:
(5a) dūl ‘isrā’ilīn/ma hina magar is-safarah il-‘isrā’ilyyih
(5b) - Israelis, don’t you get it?|- It is the residence of the Israeli
embassy. [CPS 42/CPLI 10]
(5c) - Israelis, don’t you get it? -Cause this is the headquarters of the
Israeli embassy. [CPS 53/CPLI 16]
(5d) - Israelis, don’t you get it?|-Cause this is the HQs of the Israeli
embassy. [CPS 47/CPLI 3]
Sherif quarrels in the lift with the Israeli ambassador over the location of the
Embassy of Israel, which is in the building where Sherif lives. He did not
know the person he was talking to in the lift. Sherif berates the ambassador
for the point he made — to accept that he is living next door to the Embassy
of Israel. The italicised item magar (lit. ‘place’) in 5a is translated into
‘residence’, ‘headquarters’ and ‘HQs’. The first does not sound natural,
whereas both the second and the third sound more or less natural. Only does
5d abide by the subtitling conventions, with a total subtitle line of 47
characters and 3 characters for the lexical item in question.
Example 6:
(6a) mumkin tsīb līna bayanatha |
(6b) May I ask you to leave|her personal information. [CPS 49/CPLI 21]
(6c) May I ask you to leave her personal info. [CPS 41/CPLI 14]
In Example 6 above, bayanatha (lit. ‘personal details’) was translated as
‘personal information’ and by using a contracted form ‘personal info’, the last
of which does the trick in terms of technical requirements, with a total of 14
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 218
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

characters. It seems plausible to assume that using abbreviations is an outlet

for potential technical problems.
Example 7:
(7a) baga ‘ana jay min ākhir id-dūnyyah ‘alagi dūl janbi
(7b) Damnit! I came from a distant place|to find Israelis my neighbour.
[CPS 65/CPLI 9]
(7c) Damnit! I came from a distant place|to find Israelis my neighbor.
[CPS 64/CPLI 8]
The Arabic janbi (lit. ʻbesideʼ) has been successfully rendered into ‘neighbour’
in 6b and 6d. However, 6c registers fewer characters than 6b because the
subtitling student prefers to use American English rather than British English,
a strategy that seems to be appropriate for subtitling.

5. Conclusion
The following conclusions can be drawn from the discussion above: (1)
the ultimate goal of subtitling is to preserve meaning emanating from textual
stretches of language in use with such brevity and naturalness. Viewed thus,
subtitling students are between two fires: to capture the SL shades of
meanings and to express them with few words; (2) the translator does not
simply determine the referential and expressive meaning, but s/he must
manipulate the translation in a way that goes in harmony with subtitling
constraints; (3) in the TL, subtitling students opted for a translation that is
more or less acceptable in a general sense, but it does not follow subtitling
conventions at all; (4) subtitling students should reconstruct sentences
because of the limited time and space available for each subtitle. Normally
“translators have enough space (on the printed page) or time (on the screen)
to cut cognitive corners in the translation process-and come up with English
clones or calques in the target language” (Thawabteh 2011a: 30); (5) opting
for standard abbreviations is likely to save space on the screen. The problem
of ill segmentation is expected to emerge; (6) alternative spelling with a
hyphen tends to be a space-consuming as a hyphen is a character; (7) the
use of American English rather than British seems to save extra characters,
Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 219
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

thus giving a chance for more polysemiotic factors to come to the fore and;
(8) componential analysis approach for a SL item is highly recommended for
the sake of narrowing the lexical gap between the SL and TL on the one
hand, and adhering to technical requirements on the other.

References
Athamneh, N. & Zitawi, J. (1999). English-Arabic Translation of Dubbed
Children’s Animated Pictures. Babel, 45(4), 107-126.
Baker, M. (1998). Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies,
Routledge: London.
Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (2002). Harper Collins Publishers: The
University of Birmingham.
De Linde, Z. & Kay, N. (1999). The Semiotics of Subtitling. St. Jerome:
Manchester.
Gambier, Y. & Gottlieb, H. (2001). (Multi)media Translation: Concepts,
Practices and Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gamal, M. (2008). Egypt’s Audiovisual Translation Scene. Arab Media and
Society, 5; 1-15. Retrieved from
http://www.arabmediasociety.com/?article=675.
Gamal, M. (2009). Adding Text to Image: Challenges of Subtitling Non-
Verbal Communication. Journal of Multicultural Research, 1.
Karamitroglou, F. (1998). A Proposed Set of Subtitling Standards for Europe.
Translation Journal, 2(2), Retrieved from
http://accurapid.com/journal/04stndrd.htm.
Karamitroglou, F. (2000). Towards a Methodology for the Investigation of
Norms in Audiovisual Translation: The Choice Between Subtitling and
Revoicing in Greece. Rodopi.
Khuddro, A. (2000). Subtitling in Arabic. Turjuman, 9(1), 31-37.
Larson, M. (1984). Meaning-Base Translation. Lanham: University Press of
America.
Mazid, B. (2006). Arabic Subtitles on English Movies: Some Linguistic,
Ideological and Pedagogic Issues. IJAES, 7; 81-100.
 Thawabteh, M.A.: Lexical Problems in Arabic-English Subtitling 220
Komunikacija i kultura online: Godina II, broj 2, 2011.

Nedergaard-Larsen, B. (1993). Cultural-Bound Problems in Subtitling.

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 2, 207-241.
Neves, J. (2004). Languages Awareness Through Training in Subtitling. In P.
Orero (Ed.), Topics in Audiovisual Translation (pp. 127-141). John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Orero, P. (2004). Topics in Audiovisual Translation. John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Orero, P. (2009). Voice-Over in Audiovisual Translation. In Diaz Cintas, J. &
Gunilla, A. (eds.), Audiovisual Translation: Language Transfer on Screen
(pp.130-140). Macmillan: Palgrave.
Schwarz, B. (2002). Translation in a Confined Space- Film Sub-Titling with
Special Reference to Dennis Potter’s “lipstick on your collar” Part 1.
Translation Journal, 6(4). Retrieved from
http://accurapid.com/journal/22subtitles.htm.
Thawabteh, M. (2010). The Translatability of Interjections: A Case Study of
Arabic-English Subtitling. Meta, 55(3), 499-515.
Thawabteh, M. (2011a). Linguistic, Cultural and Technical Problems in
English-Arabic Subtitling. SKASE Journal of Translation and
Interpretation, 5(10), 24-44.
Thawabteh, M. (2011b). The Translation of Prosody and All that Aggro: A
Case Study of Arabic-English Subtitling. T21N: Translation in Transition,
2; 1-18.
Thawabteh, M. (Forthcoming). The Translatability of Gestures: A Case Study
of Arabic-English Subtitling”, Journal of International Translation 23(2).
Zitawi, J. (2008). Contextualizing Disney Comics within the Arab Culture.
Meta, 53(1), 139-153.
Zitawi, J. (2003). English-Arabic Dubbed children’s cartoons: Strategies of
Translating Idioms. Across Languages and Cultures, 4(2), 237-251.

Paper submitted: November 8, 2011

Paper revised: November 21, 2011
Paper accepted: November 25, 2011

View publication stats