Using concepts from critical theory and critical psychology, this article investigates various methods involved in the film subtitling process. Concentrating on a particularly complex Iranian film, the article attempts to demonstrate the limitations of both structuralist and post-structuralist methods of translation. The ideological ramifications of nationalism in relation to film translation are critiqued from the perspective of discourse analysis. Finally, some subtitling concepts are proposed as a preliminary step towards a new approach to visual investigation.
BenjaminW. (1978). The task of the translator. In Illuminations (pp. 70–82). New York: Schocken Books
4.
BlechmanM. (Ed.) (1999). Revolutionary romanticism.San Francisco: City Lights Books
5.
BourdieuP. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
6.
ColomboM. (2004). Theoretical perspectives in media-communication research: From linear to discursive models.Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], May, 5(2), Art. 26. Retrieved January, 8, 2006, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2–04/2–04colombo-e.htm
7.
de CilliaR.ReisigalM.WodakR. (1999). The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10, 149–173
8.
de ManP. (1986). Conclusions: Walter Benjamin's ‘The task of the translator’. In GodzichW. (Ed.), The Resistance to Theory, (pp. 73–105). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
9.
DabashiH. (2001). Close up Iranian cinema: Past, present and future.London: Verso
10.
DerridaJ. (1985a). Des tours de Babel. (Trans). Joseph F. Graham. In GrahamJ. F. (Ed.), Difference in translation (pp. 209–248). Ithaca: Cornell University
11.
DerridaJ. (1985b). The ear of the other: Otobiography, transference, translation. (Trans). KamufPeggy. New York: Schocken
12.
DerridaJ. (2001). What is a ‘relevant’ translation? [1998] Trans. Lawrence Venuti. Critical Inquiry, 27(2), 174–200
13.
DurmazH. (1999). Film: A surface for writing social life. In ParkerI.The Bolton Discourse Network, Critical textwork: An introduction to varieties of discourse and analysis, (pp. 103–113). Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press
14.
FozooniB. (2004). Kiarostami debunked!. New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film, 2(2), 71–89
15.
FreudS. (1929–1930). Civilization and its discontent. In StracheyJ. (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 21 (pp. 64–145). London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis
16.
GrossA. (2005). Some major dates and events in the history of translation.Translation Journal. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from http://accurapid.com/journal/31history.htm
17.
HajmohammadiA. (2004). The viewer as the focus of subtitling: Towards a viewer-oriented approach.Translation Journal. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from http://www.accurapid.com/journal/30subtitling.htm
18.
HalbwachsM. (1980). The collective memory.New York and London: Harper and Row
LefevereA. (1990). Translation: Its genealogy in the West. In BassnettS.LefevereA. (Eds.), Translation, history and culture (pp. 14–28). New York: Cassell
26.
McGuireJ. (1992). Forked tongues, marginal bodies: Writing as translation in Khatibi. Research in African Literature, 25(1), Spring, 107–116
27.
NaficyH. (2001). An accented cinema: Exilic and diasporic filmmaking.Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press
28.
NornesA. M. (1999a). For an abusive subtitling.Film Quarterly, 52(3), Spring, 17–33
29.
NornesA. M. (1999b). Pru Rta/ Paul Rotha and the politics of translation. Cinema Journal, 38(3), Spring, 91–107
Parker, I., & The Bolton Discourse Network (1999). Critical textwork: An introduction to varieties of discourse and analysis.Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press
32.
PenceJ. (1996). Language, history, and the university: De Man on translation. College Literature, 23(2), 83–99
33.
PetterssonB. (1999). The postcolonial turn in literary translation studies: Theoretical frameworks reviewed. Canadian Aesthetics Journal, 4, Summer. Retrieved January 24, 2005, from http://www.uqtr.uquebec.ca/AE/vol_4/petter.htm
34.
PymA. (1995). Doubts about deconstruction as a general theory of translation. TradTerm (Sαo Paulo)2, 11–18
35.
RatnerC. (1991). Vygotsky's socio-cultural psychology and its contemporary applications.New York and London: Plenum Press
36.
RoseG. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials.London: Sage
RubinI.I. (1982). Essays on Marx's theory of value.Montréal: Black Rose Books
39.
RyanM. (1982). Marxism and deconstruction: A critical articulation.Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press
40.
SadrH. R. (2002). Against the wind: Politics of Iranian cinema.Tehran: Zarrin Publishing
41.
ShepherdS. (1989). Shakespeare's private drawer: Shakespeare and homosexuality. In HoldernessG. (Ed.), The Shakespeare myth (pp. 96–109). Manchester: Manchester University Press
42.
SimonS. (1996). Gender in translation.London: Routledge
43.
SeleskovitchD. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences.Washington, D. C: Pen and Booth
44.
StamR. (1989). Subversive pleasures: Bakhtin, cultural criticism, and film.Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press
45.
TapperR. (Ed.) (2002). The new Iranian cinema: Politics, representation and identity.London and New York: I. B. Taurus
46.
TempleB.YoungA. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research, 4(2), 161–178
47.
ThompsonG. (1980). Marxism and poetry.London: Lawrence & Wishart
48.
VaneigemR. (1983). The revolution of everyday life.London: Left Bank Books and Rebel Press
VenutiL. (Ed.) (1995). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation.London: Routledge
51.
VieiraE. (1994). A postmodern translational aesthetics in Brazil. In Snell-HornbyM. (Eds.), Translation Studies: An interdiscipline (pp. 65–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
