Transfer of Evaluative Contexts When Subtitling Film Translation ( in German and Russian Languages )

The article presents the results of studying the patterns of evaluative meanings transfer when translating and subtitling films of various genres from German to Russian. Material for the study serves the original version and the translation of a military drama, a melodrama, a comedy, and a detective. The authors used the descriptive, comparative method, the methods of contextual, definitional analysis, quantitative calculations. The object of study includes the fragments of film dialogues in the source (German) language and the language of translation (Russian). The specificity of subtitling depends on the need of strict regarding the spatial and temporal parameters of the film text. Evaluation is interpreted as a semantic-pragmatic category (the impact involving appropriate semantization which is consistent with elocution through selecting the semantically relevant language). It is determined that the verbal component in the studied film text is highly informative, providing low complementarity of verbal and non-verbal components; the positive and negative evaluations are realized at the same frequency which is associated with a variety of topics and genres of films; the most frequent translational transformations, used in transferring evaluative meanings when subtitling, are synonymous substitutions, modulation technique, literal translation and specification; the most relevant methods of text compression, in this case, are a generalization and simplification. The authors verified the hypothesis of relevance for transferring the evaluative meaning through subtitling such elements of the valuation structure and the parameters of its verbalization as a type of evaluativity, object, basis, nature, degree, level of language expressions of evaluation, which detect differences between the source text and the text of translation. There are also stated the parameters which characterize the transfer of evaluative meanings and are the most resistant/stable to transformation and the most sensitive to


Introduction
The scope of the study, the results of which are presented in this paper, relates to such actual trends of linguistic research as the film discourse, film translation, linguistic theory of evaluation.The film discourse as a complex semiotic formation has recently attracted active research interest of the linguists who refer to such aspects of the phenomenon as a linguocultural specificity, interaction of different semiotic systems, explicitness of meanings, interaction between the addresser and the addressee, the author's style and text categories in the film text, the issues of interdiscursivity [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].The constitutive signs of film discourse can determine the specificity of film translation, coupled with the fact that the text in the translation language (TL) which interprets the source text (ST); it is necessary to consider the interaction between verbal and nonverbal components when constructing the general meaning and the desired impact in the new sociocultural context, preserving the functions of the original one.As a form of literary translation, film translation also requires the harmonious interaction between communicative and aesthetic functions within the film text.The research paradigm of a film translation includes the works on the development of theoretical and methodological principles, development of the terminological system; semiotic, stylistic, lexicalsemantic, linguocultural aspects and problems of translation in films; practical tasks, for example, applied techniques, translation of individual lexical units, frequent errors, tasks of socio-cultural and pragmatic adaptation, criteria of equivalence, explicitness and implicitness in film translation; functions of the individual components of the film text and denotation peculiarity, the specifics of different types of translation, the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance in the field of translation [7], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].
The interest of linguists to valuation due to the importance of valuation as an integral component of the human cognitive activity, its immanence to the physical and mental nature of man, omnipresence and versatility, the complex nature of this phenomenon closely related to modality, expressiveness, emotionality, pragmatic potential, subjective and objective factors.Estimation theory has a long research tradition in linguistics.Since the end of the 20th century the category of evaluativity becomes the object of basic linguistic research due to the active development of axiology as a branch of philosophy, the status of evaluation as an independent linguistic category that includes specific content and a set of multi-level means of expression [15], [16], [17], [18].While many questions are still waiting for their solution, for example, the nature of valuation and the specificity of its operation, interaction between the estimates and the context, the valuation framework and its basic elements, functional and pragmatic features of these estimates.
Our study is aimed at studying the patterns of transfer of evaluative meanings in translation with subtitles.The object of study includes the fragments of film dialogues in the source (German) language (SL) and the language of translation (Russian) (TL) illustrating the transfer of evaluative meanings in subtitling.The subject of research is represented by the relevant characteristics of the evaluative meanings transfer in subtitling film dialogues on the basis of various genres of Germanlanguage films and their translation into the Russian language.According to the hypothesis of the study, the relevant characteristics of the evaluative meanings transfer in film translation can refer to parameters of evaluative verbalization and its structural elements, reflecting the possible differences between the ST and the translation (type of evaluativity, object, basis, nature, degree, level of language expressions of evaluation).

Methodology
The study is performed within the framework of linguocultural and communicative-pragmatic approaches.The communicative-pragmatic approach assumes a communicative and active comprehension of language, a combination of the principles of anthropocentricity and functionality, the focus of the research interest on the use of language when communicating in unity with pragmatic properties of the linguistic means that implement the intentions of the speaker.
The research material is German films of various genres and their Russian version: the films by Christian Petzold "Phoenix" -a war drama; Annot Saul "Wo ist Fred?" ("On the wheels") -a comedy melodrama; Sven Unterwaldt "Siegfried" ("the Rings of the Nibelung") -a Comedy; Matthias Glasner "Fandango" ("A DJ's Day")a drama, mystery.The following methods have been used: a descriptive method (observation, interpretation, generalization), the methods of contextual, definitional analysis; a comparative method in determining the relevant characteristics of the evaluative meanings transfer in film dialogues within different cultures; quantitative calculations.
Here we proceed from the following theoretical provisions in the analysis.The film discourse is a separate type of discourse with specific characteristics of the recipient (distant, multiple, combined by cultural, social and intellectual characteristics of the target audience), the addresser (combinedfilm crew including the Director, camera operator, scriptwriter, costumer, actors, consultants), the interaction of the parties (deferred communication without direct backreaction, reproducibility of the product, multi-vector addressing -the participant of a film dialogue and the audience), the specificity of the interaction of multiple semiotic systems [2], [3], [6], [11].It is a natural, cultural-driven, complex, multi-level, polycode, open semiotics interacting with the environment, executing emotive, aesthetic, phatic and metalinguistic, regulatory functions [1], [19].The mechanism of film discourse combines three basic components: the author, the audience (acts as a new author), the film text.The film text, as a semiotic metasystem, uses a combination of different codes (linguistic and non-linguistic semiotic systems), the minimum unit of the film sense here is the film frames as a set of heterogeneous polycode elements of the frame which includes the film phrase as a verbal component of the minimum film sense [5], [20].The film dialogue corresponds exactly with the linguistic system of the film text, consists of oral (the speech of actors, speech behind the stage, a song, etc.) and written (subtitles, various inscriptions in the frame) components constituted by the signs of natural language [5], [9].The operation of film dialogues has the features of updating a set of text categories.So, the information content of a film dialogue can be full (minimal interaction between non-verbal components and a film dialogue), double (there is a reference to video/audio track), integrative (the active interaction between verbal and non-verbal), complementary (prevalent non-verbal component, the verbal one performs an auxiliary function) [4].The information content of a verbal component is associated with the correlation of sign systems of a film text, its relative static (audio prevails) or dynamic (the visual aid dominates) character [21].Thus, in the analysis, the interpretation starts to base on film dialogues in the context of the film text as a realization of film discourse.Important and difficult tasks of film translation are: a) socio-cultural adaptation of the ST; however, one of the challenges is the possibility to modify only the linguistic component of the film text when translating; the second challenge is the differing characteristics of participants (affiliation of the addressee to a different linguistic culture, differences in background knowledge, etc.) influencing the perception and evaluation of the significance of the fragments of experiencing the source culture for the recipient when you transfer its background knowledge; the third challenge is the need to correlate the position of the author, the representative of the source linguistic culture and the linguoculture of the person that consumes the film translation; b) maximum preservation of the author's stylization of the natural language, stylistic integrity and figurativeness due to the author's intention, that implies special requirements to the selection of language means; C) overcoming semiotic interference; the need to count the time constraints and the immediacy of perception, combined with the requirements to clarity and informativeness, harmonious interaction with other semiotic systems [7], [9].
The existing translation theories (transformational, semantic, denotative, the theory of the equivalence levels) are based on different relationships between the ST and TT [17], [22]].Equivalence of translation is aimed at the maximum feasible overcoming of the differences between the recipients of the ST and of the TT, which may require some disregard of any form of equivalence (e.g., to avoid semantic equivalence in favor of communicative one) [22].We are talking about a variable combination of conditions for equivalence of translation at the communicative-functional and semantic-structural levels.Communicative equivalence of STs and TTs is based on the communicative effect relevance of the given texts [23].Pragmatic adaptation contributes to realizing a pragmatic component in translation which suggests amendments to various kinds of differences between a recipient of the ST and a recipient of the TT (differences in motivational and evaluative, information and cognitive components of different cultures) [24].A translator can use a ready compliance, have several variants of translation and choose one of them to generate his own compliance according to the requirements of the TL and culture settings; therefore, we are talking about equivalents (firstly, terms, proper names, names of organizations, associations, etc.), options (a synonym selected from a range), adequate replacements (created by the translator, based on the context and situation of communication, compliance).The requirement of the TT appropriateness involves a complete transfer of the semantic content of the ST and its functional-stylistic conformity, for this purpose (in the case of absence or contextually relevant failure to use compliance), the translator uses various conversion toolsto convert formal-semantic nature, providing a transfer from language units of the SL to the units of the TL and based on transposition, substitution, addition or omission.According to the level and type of variations in compliance, the used translational transformations can be morphological (replacing the categorical forms), syntactic (discrepancy of the unit syntactic functions), stylistic (changing stylistic colouring), semantic (change in both form and content, choosing other character references for describing the situation), mixed (at the lexical-semantic and syntacticmorphological levels) transformations [23].Within this study, particular interest is attracted to the transformation at the lexical-semantic level (e.g., specification of values; differentiation of values; modulation; generalization of meanings; antonymy translation; compensation of losses, integral transformation).
Each type of film translation develops under the influence of various factors: psychological, technical, linguistic, aesthetic, which transform the requirements for translation and determine its specificity.The studied translation with subtitles implements adaptation of film dialogues to the needs of the transcultural spectator and the terms of the film text, presenting an abridged written translation of the core content of the oral text (a film dialogue), accompanying visuals of the film in its original version which is usually located in the lower part of the frame and allows listening to the natural sound of the foreign speech (voice, intonation, rhythm of the actor's speech), retaining an explicit withdrawal and not creating the illusion of watching the original [25].The perceptual quality of the subtitles is affected by the quality and styles of character writing, the duration of the phrase display, the length and complexity of sentences, the shift modes in the frame.The very definition indicates a specific trait of this type of film translationcompression of the sounding ST due to the need to save space on the television screen and duration of the film text.Currently, television uses single-line or two-line subtitles, and their number, consequently, increases or decreases.The duration of displaying the subtitle on the screen is equal to 4.5-6 s. and the average size of the subtitle includes 28-32 signs according to the recommendations by ESIST -European Association for Studies in Screen Translation (which correlates with the speed of the moving images -24 frames a second).Synchronizing subtitles with the video is carried out frame by frame.The size and density of subtitles depend on the rate of speech; when the high speech rate occurs, subtitling becomes more schematic due to inability to transfer meaningful items from one scene to another as this would disturb the audience's perception (disparity of the image, level and text of subtitles) [25].Subtitling involves two stages: removal of superfluous, irrelevant elements, which is accompanied by visuals, search of succinct and stylistically adequate forms of expression (the use of telegraphic style can be dangerous).The main problem is deciding about the importance/unimportance of the meaningful element in the film dialogue; most of all, the appeals, connectors, repetitions, formulae of politeness, spatial-temporal markers, introductory words and constructions, imaginative means are excluded [26].The possibility of compressing the text is based on the phenomenon of speech redundancy.The main methods of text compression include exception, generalization and simplification.
Evaluation is interpreted as a semantic-pragmatic category (the impact involving appropriate semantization which is consistent with elocution through selecting the semantically relevant language).Evaluation can be based on different types of evaluative components (intellectually logical, emotional, emotionally intelligent types of the evaluative component) that are realized through the multi-level and heterogeneous linguistic means (phonological, derivational, lexical, syntactic).The evaluation structure involves a type of evaluativity, the subject (describing the object according to its settings using relevant linguistic means), subject-matter (characterized by the object), cause (an object and a sign motivating to evaluate) and the type of the evaluation (range of estimates: positive/negative) [27].Each component of the structure is determined by various attributes.All the means of expressing valuation are characterized by elocution; this valuation is subject to the system of values, current needs, attitudes of the addresser, and is characterized by a subjective index [17], [28].Followed by N. D. Arutunowa, we allocate the general evaluative units (units with the semantics of "good" / "bad") and specifically-evaluative units (in addition to having semantic components of "good" / "bad", they also have extra differentiating semantic components specifying the cause of evaluation); specifically-evaluative units are divided into units expressing the sensor; sublimated; rational estimates [29].The category of evaluativity includes the following types of evaluativity due to the correlation with the system of the language: 1) functional evaluation (evaluative seme is included in the meaning and connected with the denotative component); 2) pragmatic evaluation (the evaluation is generated by a specific denotation); 3) connotative evaluation (evaluation is acquired through context) [30].It is important for carrying out our study to take into account the pragmatic orientation of evaluation, the provision on informative and pragmatic components when the transformation of one of them leads to changes of the second one.Evaluative meanings may receive expression at different linguistic levels: a) at the phonetic level, e.g., sound recording, alliteration, assonance, accentual and intonational means, sound repetitions, distortion of usual phonetic shape, semantic-phonetic puns; b) at the level of morphology, e.g., the diminutive / augmentative suffixes, evaluative suffixes, expressive compound words, contamination, fusion, homonymous abbreviations, forms of comparative and superlative degree; C) at the lexical level, e.g., different tropes, the internal form reflecting the qualitative or quantitative expressiveness, evaluative lexemes, interjections, folk etymology; g) at the syntactic level, e.g., repetition, inversion, ellipsis, means of expressing subjective modality, rhetorical questions, common figure of speech; d) at the level of the text, e.g., different patterns of extension, in the first place, convergence, gaming application [16], [17].When realizing the evaluative intentions, the evaluative meanings present in the ST can be transferred as close to the ST as possible or compensated in the TT at different levels (vocabulary, grammar, intonation), for this purpose it is necessary to correctly identify information and evaluative-aesthetic component (the nature and the cause of evaluation, the impact of the image) which will adequately convey all kinds of information (semantic, emotional, evaluative, expressive and aesthetic).
Our study is aimed at studying the patterns of transfer of evaluative meanings in translations of the given texts with subtitles.presence/absence of valuation in the ST and TT; change/preservation of the nature and extent of expressed valuation; change/preservation of the type of evaluativity (functional, pragmatic, connotative), object (subject matter) and cause of evaluation, the linguistic level of expressing evaluative meanings, the used methods of text compression and translational transformation.

Results
Let us give examples of the analysis.The following 2 examples were selected through the method of continuous sampling from the comedy "Siegfried" directed by Sven Unterwaldt Jr. and its translation into Russian "Rings of the Nibelungen" (in this research subcorpus, 41.4% of the fragments of the film dialogues implement positive valuation, 58.6% -negative valuation).А) Example 1: ST (source text): Bist du bescheuert?Es geht um meine Hand.
2) the Object of evaluation: both in the ST (German) and TT (Russian), the object of evaluation is the participant of the situation, the Prince of Burgundy -Gunter.
3) the Nature of evaluation: both the ST (German) and TT (Russian) demonstrate negative evaluation.4) the Type of evaluativity: both the ST (German) and TT (Russian) demonstrate functional evaluativity.5) the Level of a language implementation of evaluationsyntactic (rhetorical question) and lexical.5) the Level of a language implementation of evaluation -lexical.6) the Cause of evaluation: the cause of evaluation both in the ST and TTallocation of an object of evaluation among others according to negative signs (lack of intellectual ability), its discrepancy with the perception of a norm.7) the Means of implementing evaluationa) the familiarcolloquial adjective 'bescheuert' (=stupid) with a meaning "salopp, nicht recht bei Verstand" [31]; "verrückt, nicht ganz bei Verstand"; "ärgerlich, unerfreulich" [32]; b) an indirect question with the function of approval of imposed evaluation.

7) the Means of implementing evaluationthe conversational substandard noun 'идиот'
(=idiot) with a meaning "stupid person; a fool"; "used as a swear word" [33].Both the ST and TT have the estimate embodied in the system of the language and reflected in the interpretation.
Thus, when the transfer of evaluative meaning occurs, the type of evaluativity (functional), the nature, the cause and the object of evaluation are preserved.The degree of expressing evaluation is higher in the ST due to the combination of the lexical and syntactic levels of the evaluation expression.During the translation there is used a transformation -logical development of concepts (identification of a subject attribute is replaced by identification of the subject through this attribute), and compression technique -simplification (indirect question with the function of approval of imposed evaluation is replaced by an appeal with an appropriate evaluation).
2) the Object of evaluationthe activity of the participant of the situation (of Hagen).
2) the Object of evaluation the participant of the situation, Hagen.
3) both the ST (German) and TT (Russian) demonstrate negative evaluation.4) the Type of evaluativityconnotative and functional.
5) The Level of a language implementation of evaluation -lexical and syntactic (exclamative sentence).6) the Cause of evaluation both in the ST and TTallocation of an object of evaluation according to a negative quality (does not meet the usual expectations).

7) the Means of implementing evaluation
the jargonism 'лузер' (=loser) with a meaning: "unlucky fellow, unfortunate, misadventurer" [33]; colloquial adjective 'несчастный' (=unhappy) with a meaning: "pathetic, miserable" (used when expressing disapproval, neglect).The estimated value is enshrined in the language system and reflected in the interpretation.When evaluation being expressed, the nature of evaluation is saved.The type of evaluativity, the object and the level of language implementation of evaluation are changing.The degree of expressing evaluation is almost the same in the ST and TT: the TT uses a combination of jargonism 'лузер' (=loser) and colloquial lexical unit (LU) 'несчастный' (=miserable) (more transparent evaluation); the ST combines three expression levels of evaluation and contextual environment, creating an ironic effect.The translational transformation is the logical development of concepts (transfer of "failure -a loser").C) The following example was selected from a detective drama "Fandango" directed by Matthias Glasner and its translation into the Russian language "A DJ's Day" (in this research sub-corpus 51.2% of the fragments of the film dialogues implement positive valuation, 48.8%negative).
2) both in the ST (German) and TT (Russian), the object of evaluation is the external characteristics of the means of performing the actions (of a car, four wheels).
Both the ST and TT have the estimate embodied in the system of the language and reflected in the interpretation.
When the transfer of evaluative meaning occurs, the type of evaluativity (functional), the nature, the cause and the object of evaluation are preserved.The level of the language expression of valuation is different.The degree of expressing evaluation is higher in the ST due to the use of colloquial, emotional-evaluative prefixoid with the intensifying function.During the translation there is used a transformation -logical development of concepts (huge parts -a huge car).The object evaluation is transferred in the ST though a jargonism with a prefixoid 'Superschlepper' (=supertractor) that has a meaning of valuation but is not expressed in the TT; a jargonism 'тачка' (=wheelbarrow, chariot, four wheels) is used in the TT not to denote the evaluation of an object, but to specify the situation of communication and relationship between communicators.
D) The further considered example was selected from a comedy melodrama "Wo ist Fred?" directed by Annot Saul and its translation into the Russian language "On the wheels" (in this research sub-corpus 57.1% of the fragments of the film dialogues implement positive valuation, 42.1%negative).
ST 2) the Object of evaluationthe participant of the situation, Linus, the son of Mara.
3) the Nature of evaluation -positive.4) the Type of evaluativity -functional.5) the Level of a language implementation of evaluation -syntactic (repetition), morphological (a derivational component -an evaluative prefixoid, the superlative degree).5) the Level of a language implementation of evaluation -syntactic (reduplication), morphological (the superlative degree).6) the Cause of evaluation -the highest degree of the attribute, the superiority of the object over other objects.

7)
the Means of implementing evaluationthe superlative degree of a complex adjective with the root 'wichtig' (=important) and the prefixoid 'aller-' (derived from the German genitive case in the plural form 'alle' -'of all' which means more/better/etc than others) serving as the maximizer of the attribute; expressiveness is attached through repeating the root (the same roots are united into a single verbal whole) in addition to specifying the highest degree of quality denoted by the root 'wichtig'.
Thus, the prefixoid aller-(=all) adds to a complex adjective the value of maximum intensifying the highest degree of the quality expressed by the root 'wichtig' (=important), and doubling the first root of the complex adjective is "having a particular importance" [34].The estimated value is enshrined in the language system and reflected in the interpretation.Thus, when the transfer of evaluative meaning occurs, the type of evaluativity (functional), the nature, the object, the cause, the level and the degree of evaluation are preserved.E) The next example was selected from a war drama "Phoenix" directed by Christian Petzold and its translation into the Russian language "Phoenix" (in this research sub-corpus 52.7% of the fragments of the film dialogues implement positive valuation, 47.3%negative).
2) the Object of evaluationthe situation in general.
3) the Nature of evaluation -negative.4) the Type of evaluativity -functional.5) the Level of a language implementation of evaluation -lexical.6) the Cause of evaluation personal feelings received by the subject of evaluation from the object of evaluation.

6)
the Cause of evaluation -allocation of an object of evaluation (differs from others due to negative characteristics).

7)
the Means of implementing evaluation the evaluativity is expressed through the adverb хуже всего (=worst of all) with a negative meaning: "very bad, failing".[33].The estimated value is enshrined in the language system and reflected in the interpretation.Thus, when the transfer of evaluative meaning occurs, the type of evaluativity (functional), the nature, the object and the cause of evaluation, language level of expressing evaluation are preserved.The degree of expressing evaluation is higher in the ST due to the combination of intensifying adverb 'wirklich' (=actually) and the verb 'anwidern' (=disgust) with pejorative SHS Web of Conferences 50, 01143 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185001143CILDIAH-2018 connotation which describes unpleasant sensations of the subject of evaluation (disgust) that accentuates a subjective perception.For the translation, the transformation 'synonymous substitution' is used.
Analysis of all cases of evaluation transfer through subtitling the film dialogues, represented in different film genres, allowed us to determine the stable, the most and the least resistant to transformation structural elements of evaluation and the parameters of its verbalization.The results are represented in figure 1.The results of analyzing quantitative parameters, used to transfer evaluation through subtitling film dialogues, allowed us to determine the dominant translational transformations (see Fig. 2). 1.The analyzed material of different genres (comedy, comedy melodrama, war drama) is highly dynamic suggesting dominance of the visuals, which is evident in the rapid change of film scenes and, accordingly, in the active exchange of brief remarks between the film characters, in the absence of enlarged monologic utterances.In addition to the above, the verbal component is highly informative, providing a low degree of complementarity of verbal and non-verbal components, a small number of references to video/audio sequence.These characteristics contribute to the lack of need and, as a consequence, the limited use of methods to compress the text when subtitling.
2. The analyzed material implements positive and negative evaluation with the same frequency due to a variety of topics and genres of films.
3. The relevant elements of the evaluation structure and the parameters of its in the transfer of evaluative meaning through translating film dialogues in films of various genres with subtitles from German into Russian include the type of evaluativity, the object, the cause, the nature, the degree, the level of language expression of evaluation, within which we can detect differences between the ST and the TT.
4. The stable element of the evaluation structure, which is not affected by transformations when transferring the estimates in the TT through subtitling, is the nature of evaluation.
5. The most resistant to transformation when transferring the evaluative meanings from the ST to the TT through subtitling are the following elements of evaluation structure: the cause, the object and the type of valuation.
6.The most sensitive to transformation when translating the film dialogues with subtitles from German to Russian are the following characteristics of verbalizing the evaluation: language level and the degree of expressing evaluation.
7. The most frequent translational transformations, used for translating film dialogues in German-language films of various genres with subtitles into the Russian language, include synonymous substitutions, the technique of modulation, literal translation (syntactic conformation) and specification.
8. When subtitling the film dialogues from German films, the following methods of text compression are mostly used: generalization and simplification.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.Exposure of the structural elements of evaluation and the parameters of its verbalization to transformation when translating film dialogues with subtitles.

Fig. 2 .
Fig. 2. The frequency of translational transformations to transfer evaluation through subtitling film dialogues