Audio description (AD) is a form of inter-semiotic and multidimensional translation in which visual cues for meaning-making are replaced by verbal-oral ones but the original soundtrack of the source text is preserved. AD poses a new translational challenge: knowledge of communication in different semiotic modes and of the transferability between these is needed to create legitimate strategies of meaning transfer.
My research interest lies in analysing the change of mode from visual to verbal in AD and in describing its implications for the filmic narrative discourse. In an explorative analysis that was conducted on three films and their ADs in four languages, an interesting pattern was discovered: scenes that would visually develop slowly, little by little, were verbally transferred in a shorter time, even if there was enough ‘silent space’ to make the descriptions longer. Silent space means here the time of complete or partial silence (some background noises can be heard) during which AD is transmitted. Since silent space can occur relatively rarely in films, it constitutes a precious object for AD. The description so became a kind of ‘fusion’ of the event, a fusion description.
The following question arises: why not use all of the available silent space for description? One answer may be the conventionalised description technique of preserving the soundtrack, including silence, as much as possible. (Silence, noises and music are regarded as important parts of the filmic atmosphere.) Another possible answer is that the verbal mode supposes a different kind of discourse than the visual mode even if the story remains the same. It is the latter assumption I will elaborate on here with the aim of describing differences between visual and verbal-oral modes in filmic discourse.
In narratives, discourse is the form in which a story is expressed; it is the structure of narrative transmission and its manifestation (Chatman 1978: 26). In cinema, narration is structured in time and space and manifested by filmic techniques of visual and auditory meaning-making (Bordwell 1985). In AD, the visual part of the discourse is replaced by verbal-oral mode. Does the change in mode also imply a change in discourse, and if so, how?
In my presentation, I will concentrate on analysing mainly filmic temporal order and rhythm and their verbal transfer in AD using examples of fusion description. Based on the analysis and some theoretical insights (e.g. Kress & van Leeuwen 2006; Chatman 1978), differences between visual and verbal modes will be described. The presentation will then conclude by evaluating the significance of those differences for the overall story transmission. Fusion description may change the original rhythm and order of events, but this might not always affect the story as a whole.
References
Bordwell, David (1985): Narration in the fiction film. London: Methuen.
Chatman, Seymour (1978): Story and discourse. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen (2006) [1996]: Reading images. London/NY: Routledge.