ISSN: 1579-9794
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Los sociolectos en los textos audiovisuales.
¿Un nuevo concepto?
JUAN JOSÉ MARTÍNEZ SIERRA
juan.j.martinez@uv.es
Universidad de Valencia
Fecha de recepción: 08/12/2021
Fecha de aceptación: 20/09/2022
Abstract: This article is based on a consideration of the audiovisual text as a
system in which different signifying codes converge, giving it a multimodal
nature. Studies on the nature of the audiovisual text have addressed a
multitude of aspects to date, although there are still concepts to be explained
within the audiovisual paradigm. One such aspect has to do with varieties of
language, specifically with the notion of sociolect. After a review of the
literature, fragments of television sitcoms will be analysed to observe the
possible audiovisual nature of the given sociolect. Specifically, it will be
illustrated how language levels, slang, and scientific-technical language deal
with audiovisual humour. The idea will be fostered that in this type of text,
sociolects go beyond the linguistic scope and connect with the aural and visual
dimensions. Accordingly, phenomena such as humour can be constructed
thanks to elements that surpass a purely linguistic conception of sociolects.
Keywords: Audiovisual translation, Signifying codes, Language variation,
Sociolects
Resumen: Este artículo parte de la consideración del texto audiovisual como
un sistema en el que confluyen diferentes códigos de significación, lo que le
confiere una naturaleza multimodal. Los estudios sobre la naturaleza del texto
audiovisual han abordado hasta la fecha multitud de aspectos, aunque
todavía quedan conceptos por explicar dentro del paradigma audiovisual. Uno
de estos aspectos tiene que ver con las variedades del lenguaje,
concretamente con la noción de sociolecto. Tras una revisión de la
bibliografía, se analizarán diferentes fragmentos de comedias televisivas, con
el objetivo de observar la posible naturaleza audiovisual del sociolecto dado.
Se expondrá la idea de que, en este tipo de textos, los sociolectos superan el
ámbito lingüístico y conectan con dimensiones como la auditiva y la visual.
92 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Palabras clave: Traducción audiovisual, Códigos de significación, Variación
lingüística, Sociolectos
I
NTRODUCTION
As will be seen, it is possible to conceive the audiovisual text as the
result of the convergence of different signifying codes. From this conjunction,
the multimodal nature that each audiovisual text possesses arises. It is not
our intention to delve into the concept of multimodality (for this purpose, see
among others, Jewitt 2009). We aim to approach the concept of sociolect not
to analyse its occurrence in audiovisual texts, but to ask whether, given the
aforementioned convergence of codes that are not strictly linguistic, it is
possible to conceive sociolects far from purely linguistic postulates.
The proposal made here is of a fundamental theoretical/reflexive
nature, with a minor applied element. It is regarded as a basic research
exercise in that it seeks to produce knowledge and theories (see Hernández
Sampieri et al., 2014). Based on works such as the one just cited, the scope
of this research is exploratory, given that although indeed, the study of
sociolect is not new, the idea that it may be possible to perceive the concept
of sociolect in at least a broader way in audiovisual texts—beyond the merely
linguistic—is scarcely explored terrain. The exploratory scope of this study
and its qualitative nature make it advisable not to start from an initial
hypothesis.
As for the structure of this paper, in the first part, we review concepts
related to varieties of language, among which the sociolect stands out. Then
we focus our attention on the audiovisual text. In a second phase, a merging
of both fields is offered to illustrate how purely linguistic approaches may not
be sufficient to account for the phenomenon of sociolect in texts that construct
their information through different channels. To illustrate this suspicion, the
field of humour will be used. Examples from television sitcoms will help us
observe how the sociolect intended to generate humour behaves in an
audiovisual product to support the idea that it seems necessary to go beyond
words. Specifically, three examples will be shown, one for each of the axes of
analysis under consideration: language levels, slang, and scientific-technical
language.
1. T
HE VARIETIES OF LANGUAGE
We will start our journey towards the consideration of the sociolect in
the audiovisual field
1
from the most basic questions as a key to providing
coherence and context to the discussion that begins here. On the one hand,
1
This article follows the path initiated by works such as that of Ramos Pinto (2017).
Juan José Martínez Sierra 93
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
as Navarro Pablo states, by speech, we refer to the capacity of human beings
to express their thoughts and communicate (2003, p. 323). To carry out such
communication, we could add that human beings
2
will not necessarily limit
themselves to the use of linguistic signs, since other types also serve our
capacity to communicate.
In fact, there are different points of view that we can adopt to define
different types of speech: for example, Mejia Jervis (2020) points out up to 17
types of speech. Here, we highlight types arising from the communicative
element involved: oral, written, iconic (symbols), and non-verbal (facial,
kinesic and proxemic) speech. We bring out that the linguistic elements are,
in fact, absent in the iconic and non-verbal types.
On the other hand, and according to what Saussure advanced at the
time he distinguished between langue and parole, there is a language that we
can understand as «the social part of the language, external to the individual,
which him/herself can neither create nor modify; it exists only under a kind of
contract established between the members of the community» (1945, p. 42,
translated by the author
3
). In this field, it is already possible to detect specific
differences between the different speech communities. Not only that, but
within each community is an element of maximum interest to us in the context
of this article, it is also possible to find different language varieties that present
a series of differences that «are determined by the particular characteristics
of the speaker—his/her place of birth, cultural background, age, profession,
etc.» as well as «by the characteristics of the communication context—
relationship with the interlocutor, the objective of the message, the
communication channel, time, etc.» (Centro Virtual Cervantes, 2020, par. 3*).
Within the scope of these varieties of language, we will place our initial
approach. Trigo (2018, online*) refers to the varieties taken up by Coseriu
(1958)
4
and explains that it is possible to divide them according to the
following parameters:
2
It is also possible for animals to possess speech, as Montes Giraldo (1998) recognizes.
3
From now on, this indication will be replaced by an asterisk after the page number.
4
As Obedient Sosa reminds us, these variational parameters were labeled by Flydal (1951), who
would distinguish between diachrony (a variation that has to do with the changes a language goes
through over time), diatopia and diastrathy. Later, Coseriu (1981) would add diaphasia and Mioni
(1983) the diamesic dimension, that is, «the linguistic variation that occurs depending on whether
the code is oral or written» (2017). In any case, in this paper we are interested in the diastratic
type.
94 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
• Depending upon the communicative situation, we can talk
about diaphasic varieties (style varieties or register
5
varieties).
In this case, «each speaker uses some of these varieties and
rejects others according to the moment». In short, the
orientation is towards usage.
• Depending on the user’s linguistic competence, it is possible to
distinguish between
• Geographical dialects or diatopic varieties, which are
«related to the speaker’s place of origin or residence».
• Diastratic varieties or sociolects, which «have to do
with supra-individual circumstances (educational level
or social class of the speaker)».
As can be observed, the object of the present work, sociolects, is
situated within the so-called diastratic varieties. However, before focusing on
them, we will take note of the indications of the Centro Virtual Cervantes
(2020, par. 2*) regarding the fact that:
Since the second half of the 20th century, studies on linguistic
variety have been highlighted in disciplines that [...] include in the
description of external language factors that explain its use. [...] For
its part, the comparative and historical linguistics of the nineteenth
century had already opened a very fruitful path in the study of
historical and geographical varieties.
Variation studies, as compiled by Uclés (2017, pp. 5 -19), are certainly
a prolific field within linguistics and related areas. Thus, it is possible to find
studies that abound, to a greater or lesser extent, in different types of variation,
going beyond the division just shown. For example, and without being
exhaustive, we can find studies of variation in relation to sex (Lakoff, 1975),
ideology (Liao, 2010), languages of specialization (Sánchez Jiménez, 2015),
certain lines of research that explore the role of variety in relation to areas
such as stylistics (Eckert and Rickford, 2001) or language teaching (Martín
Zorraquino, 2000), literary translation (Catford, 1965; Slobodník, 1970;
Newmark, 1988; Marco, 2002; Briguglia, 2009; or Tello, 2011), some general
translation manuals (López and Minett, 1997), some theoretical compendium
on variation and translation (Mayoral, 1999), or the field of audiovisual
translation (Hernández and Tirado, 1997; Inigo and Wastall, 1997; Agost,
1999, [2000]; Zabalbeascoa, 2001; Díaz Cintas, 2003; Alemán, 2005; Díaz
Cintas and Remael, 2007; García Luque, 2007; Baños Piñero, 2009;
5
In linguistics, the term register is commonly used. For further discussion, see works such as
Halliday, in which register is defined as «a variety of language, corresponding to a variety of
situation» (1985/89, p. 29), revised in others such as Lukin et al. (2011).
Juan José Martínez Sierra 95
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Carreras, 2009; Heiss and Sofriti, 2009; Lomeña, 2009; Mantarro, 2010;
Arampatzis, 2011; Caparara and Sisti, 2011; or Carrera Fernández, 2014).
2. D
EFINITION OF SOCIOLECT
Once the concept of language varieties has been defined and the
sociolect has been identified as belonging to one of them, we move on to
define it in more detail and continue our journey towards its consideration
within the audiovisual field. However, it seems necessary first to briefly point
out that we are aware that the barrier separating a sociolect from an idiolect
6
can sometimes be somewhat diffuse, although it is not our intention to
elaborate further on the subject.
Before considering the specialized bibliography, when defining any
concept, it seems to us an interesting exercise to go to the definition found in
dictionaries. In Merriam-Webster’s dictionary (2020, online), the word
sociolect is defined as «a variety of a language that is used by a particular
social group».
In the Centro Virtual Cervantes dictionary of key terms (2020, par. 5*)
we find the following consideration: «The socio-cultural or diastratic varieties
(the linguistic levels) are the different ways of using a language according to
the speaker’s level of instruction and his or her esteem for the language.
These varieties of language are also called sociolects».
As we can infer from definitions like the one above, «language has a
social character, that is, it is shared by a community» which leads us to
consider the fact that «every society is divided into different social classes»
and «each of them constitutes a group of speakers with certain linguistic
characteristics that form what we know as a sociolect or diastratic variety»
(Trigo, 2018, online*). Statements like this abound in what authors like
Halliday already expressed in their time, considering that «[v]ariation in a
language is in a quite direct sense the expression of attributes of the social
system» (1978, p. 2)
7
.
6
The idiolect concept refers to a lingua individúale and was introduced by Nencioni (1946). There
are numerous definitions of idiolect, although, for our purposes, it will be sufficient to point out
that, «from an individual point of view, the variety that defines a particular speaker, in terms of his
or her profession, age, sex, level of studies, social and geographical origin, constitutes his or her
idiolect» (Centro Virtual Cervantes, 2020, online*). For further elaboration on this notion, see, for
instance, García de Toro (1994), Hatim and Mason (1997), Bilgrami (2005) or Sánchez Iglesias
(2005).
7
It could be understood that the concept of social class is disputed and debatable; it could be
asked, for example, if such concept is still valid in the 21st century and if, if so, by social class we
can understand the same thing that was understood in past centuries or if it has evolved in some
96 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Once it has been pointed out that by sociolect we refer to those
«modalities of the language that belong to a certain social stratum», it
should be noted, therefore, that «the most important factor is the level of
culture and education of the speakers», allowing us to point out a series of
factors according to which sociolects can vary: age, habitat, and
occupations/activities (Trigo, 2018, online, emphasis in original*).
In this article, we intend to focus on the sociolect, which (without being
exhaustive) can be broken down into three elements:
8
the levels of language,
slang, and technical or scientific language (Ruaño, 2020, online). It is precisely
these three elements that will become the focus of attention.
3. T
HE AUDIOVISUAL TEXT
As Carrera Fernández (2014, p. 121*) points out, «linguistic variation
affects all language productions, including audiovisual products». From there,
an aspect to highlight to put this discussion in the right place is the peculiar
characteristics of the audiovisual text, the features that differentiate it from
other texts such as written or oral. It is in our opinion fundamental to
understand the kind of texts we are referring to and facing.
Delabastita asks what kind of text a film is and answers that it
constitutes a form of communication with a channel and multiple codes. It is
about understanding channel and how the message reaches its audience; he
points out that it should not be confused with the codes used to produce the
real meaning of the audiovisual product in question (1989, p. 196). He adds
that the signs of the different codes can be combined in many ways to form
the macro sign of the film as a whole. Although Delabastita refers only to films,
it should be understood that this idea becomes valid for any other type of
audiovisual text (or genre, as Agost, 1999 would say).
Similarly, Chaume (2001, pp. 77-78) explains that, when working with
audiovisual texts, we are dealing with texts that transmit information through
at least two channels (the acoustic and the visual). This information, on the
other hand, is coded using different systems or signifying codes, which will be
detailed later. In this same vein, Carrera Fernández (2014, p. 122*) comments
that «the cinematographic message is characterized by being a mixed sign
composed of technological, visual, sound, and syntactic codes».
Thus, we see that the message transmission power of audiovisual texts
is not limited to a single channel and therefore, it seems to make sense that
way. In any case, we do not intend to pursue this discussion here, so we will simply refer the
reader to readings such as that of Martínez Cava (2018).
8
In this paper, we will not elaborate on the possible conceptual differences between them. To this
end, see, for example, the review by Roffé Gómez (1996).
Juan José Martínez Sierra 97
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
considering everything transmitted by both channels will be necessary if our
intention is really to access 100% of what is being sent to us. Carrera
Fernández points out that, in this type of text, «it is not enough to understand
the words to translate them, and it is convenient to know how the audiovisual
codes work» (2014, p. 121*).
We could add that the degree of understanding of which she speaks is
not only necessary for translation but also for being able, as recipients of the
source text, to grasp and assimilate the integrity of the message being sent.
Therefore, as Chaume (2001, p. 87) suggests, it seems necessary not to
forget that in audiovisual texts coexist, among other features, the signifying
codes transmitted through the visual channel and that, therefore, in the
analysis of oral discourse, we must go beyond the words spoken by the actors
and the sequence of events that make up the story to ascertain how other
elements contribute to telling us that story (including sociolects, we add) such
as iconic language, lighting, the mobility and situation of the characters, the
assembly of the different sequences, etc. These elements clearly open the
door to new approaches far from those that only seem applicable to written or
oral texts.
In the case of sociolects, audiovisual texts offer us, at least a priori,
perfect terrain for the study of this variety in the field of fiction
9
. As Uclés points
out, «the texts of films and series (audiovisual texts), along with literary ones,
are perhaps the works of fiction that come closest to imitating the (supposedly)
spontaneous speech of a given time and place (among others, Baños Piñero,
2009; Brumme, 2008; López Serena, 2007)» (2017, p. 1*). Let us not forget,
moreover, that in modes such as dubbing, the linguistic diversity of the original
works must not be overlooked, to which the principle of adequacy of which
Televisió de Catalunya speaks must be applied; that is, adapting the registers
of the characters and narrators. Thus, we are obliged to consider that the way
each character speaks is diverse and determined by the historical and social
context, his or her character, and the emotional situations he or she goes
through… (1997, pp. 11-12).
However, we cannot lose sight of the alleged orality of audiovisual texts
or, in other words, of their prefabricated orality. Authors such as Etxebarria
(1994, p. 192) emphasize the orality of television since it is heard and not
read, contrary to what happens with written texts. On this point, Chaume
(2001, pp. 78-79) indicates that from the perspective of the source text, we
are talking about an oral linguistic code. However, its linguistic characteristics
do not completely match those of a spontaneous oral language, since, in truth,
9
We will not address the issue of nonfiction here, because we understand that that would be
another debate.
98 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
the oral discourse we hear is nothing more than the recitation of a speech
initially written which, despite everything, must appear to be oral.
Along this same line, Díaz Cintas (2001, p. 127) agrees that the alleged
oral nature of the film text is nothing more than an illusion of a fictitious and
artificial character since the dialogues usually originate from a script
previously written. He speaks of a cinematographic mirage and reminds us
that there is a certain distance between the language that naturally occurs in
the street and the language that tries to create the impression of both
naturalness and spontaneity.
In any case, this false orality does not imply that language varieties are
out of audiovisual fiction. Simply put, they are present, although preconceived
and alien to the influence of spontaneity. After all, as Rabadán (1991, p. 103)
indicates, there must be an illusion of real spontaneous language, something
that, we add, can clearly be encouraged by resorting to the different varieties
of language.
4. T
HE SIGNIFYING CODES
As Carmona (1991, p. 65*, emphasis added) expresses,
Defining what a film is can be somewhat more complex and
contradictory than it first appears. On the one hand, film refers to the
object as such; on the other hand, it also refers to the textual
proposal that said object exposes before the eyes of an audience;
finally, film is also the result of appropriation and interpretation. For
this reason, it would perhaps not be idle to try to delimit an operative
field that implies defining the concept of filmic text, so that it is not
reduced to the mere presence of visual and sound elements fixed
on a support.
Words such as «textual proposal» or «filmic text» allow us to approach
the issue from a textual approach such as that of Casetti and Di Chio (1991).
This approach helps to unravel the «multiple signifying codes that operate
simultaneously in the production of meaning [...]», as reflected by Chaume
(2004, p. 8*). He advises not to forget that, as previously indicated, the
complexity of an audiovisual text lies in the fact that a series of signifying
codes interact, transmitted through two channels in a simultaneous and
complementary manner. Therefore, their «meaning is woven and constructed
from the confluence and interaction of [those] signifying codes, not only the
linguistic code» (2004, p. 15*).
Based on considerations such as the above, authors such as Carmona
(1991) propose a classification of filmic components, a proposal taken up by
Chaume in various works and which is shown below (2004, pp. 17-22).
Juan José Martínez Sierra 99
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
According to him, the first four items form the group of sound codes, while the
rest give shape to the group of visual codes:
1. The linguistic code.
2. Paralinguistic codes (primary qualities, differentiators,
alternators…).
3. The musical and special effects code.
4. The sound arrangement code (diegetic/non-diegetic sound, on/off
sound...).
5. The iconographic codes. For Chaume, these are the most relevant
codes transmitted through the visual channel. We can establish a
clear bridge with other disciplines such as semiotics and talk about
icons, indexes, and symbols, with all that this implies, we add, in
terms of interpretation of meaning.
6. Photographic codes (changes in lighting, perspective, use of
colour...).
7. The planning code (types of camera shots).
8. Mobility codes (proxemic, kinesic, and isochronic).
9. The graphic codes (inserts that appear on the screen).
10. Syntactic or editing codes (audiovisual punctuation marks...).
5. H
UMOUR IN AUDIOVISUAL TEXTS AND ITS CONNECTION WITH SIGNIFYING CODES
As is well known, humour is one of the most present elements in,
following the classification of Agost (1999), the dramatic and entertainment
genres, whether in film, television, or any other type of support. Also, humour
offers us an ideal terrain to study phenomena of all kinds, and language
varieties are no exception. Therefore, to illustrate the idea we intend to
develop or, at least, suggest in this work, we will resort to audiovisual comedy
and its translation.
We do not aim to go deeper into a definition of humour or offer a
panoramic view of it; for that purpose, there are already many works to be
consulted, either those belonging to the theories of humour [see, for example,
the volume edited by Raskin (2008)] or those focused on its translation [see,
for example, Martínez Sierra and Zabalbeascoa, 2017)]. For our purposes, it
will suffice to briefly summarize the updated proposal of types of potentially
humorous elements (HE, from now on) that Martínez Sierra offers (2018,
pp. 114-117):
• Referential elements: here we include cultural or intertextual
elements (references and allusions) specific to one culture and
unknown by another.
100 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
• Preferential elements: these do not imply a cultural specificity,
but a preference for some topic about which to joke.
• Linguistic elements: based on linguistic aspects.
• Paralinguistic elements: all kinds of paralinguistic elements
capable of producing humour.
• Visual elements: the images we see on the screen.
• Graphic elements: humour that emerges from an insert (any
written message that appears on screen).
• Acoustic elements: all kinds of sounds, music included.
• Unmarked humorous elements: any element that has no place
in any of the above types, but still has humorous potential.
In Martínez Sierra (2018, p. 121), we reflect on the points of connection
between the classification of signifying codes (code/s, from now on) and the
taxonomy of HE just presented:
Channel
(Chaume 2003)
Type of code
(Chaume 2004)
Type of HE
(Martínez Sierra 2018)
Sound
Linguistic
Paralinguistic
Musical and special
effects
Sound arrangement
↔
Referential
Preferential
Non-marked
Visual
Iconographic
Photographic
Planning
Mobility
Graphic
Syntactic
↔
Referential
Preferential
Non-marked
Sound
Linguistic
↔
Linguistic
Paralinguistic
↔
Paralinguistic
Musical and special
effects
↔
Acoustic
Sound arrangement
↔
Acoustic
Juan José Martínez Sierra 101
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Visual
Iconographic
↔
Visual
Photographic
↔
Visual
Planning
↔
Visual
Mobility
↔
Visual
Graphic
↔
Graphic
Syntactic
↔
Visual
Table 1: The convergence of codes and HE
Table 1 allows us to observe the possible confluences between the
concepts in question while serving as a support to guide the discussion we
intend to have. It shows the intrinsic complexity of audiovisual texts. It should
be noted, on the other hand, that concerning HE (a situation we think can be
transferred to the respective codes with which they connect), the typical
situation (at least in practices such as dubbing or subtitling) is that the
translating agent cannot manipulate (in the good sense) all of them. He or she
will be able to manipulate the unmarked, referential, preferential, linguistic,
and graphic codes (with a translation that can be transferred either through an
off-voice or through a subtitle, for example) and even the paralinguistic ones
(in dubbing, for example, it will not be the translating agent but the actors and
actresses who can account for them). On the contrary, in general terms and
for the moment, the capacity to act on the visuals and acoustic codes is null.
Even so, they must be considered since they are part of the audiovisual text
and, as already explained, are, therefore, part of the message being sent.
6. A
UDIOVISUAL AND SOCIOLECT: SOME QUESTIONS
Let us remember that if we want to access 100% of the message being
sent to us in an audiovisual comedy, we cannot ignore any of the HE and
codes above. As Chaves García (2000, p. 99*) comments, in an audiovisual
text, «it is impossible to separate the images from the sounds, the verbal from
the non-verbal in the genesis of meaning, and that is precisely where the
specificity [of these texts
10
] lies in», which is why «the approach to the
audiovisual text cannot be the same as to a written text» (or to an oral text,
we could add).
At the outset, conceptions of language varieties and definitions of
sociolect such as those listed above might suggest that in a film or television
10
There are numerous studies that from, for example, Reiss (1971), Fodor (1976), Titford (1982)
or Mayoral et al. (1988) have provided a good account of the specificity of the audiovisual text.
102 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
series, for example, it will be possible to detect a sociolect in the way a given
character speaks and, therefore, it will be enough to consider carrying out, for
example, an analysis of that sociolect. However, based on considerations
about audiovisual texts such as those included above, it is worth asking
whether the conception or treatment of the sociolect in audiovisual texts can
be the same as in the case of oral or written texts.
In other words, if audiovisual texts are nourished by up to ten types of
codes and the humour in audiovisual texts is constructed by the presence and
combination of up to eight types of HE, does it make sense in these texts to
limit the consideration of language varieties (of the sociolect, in this case) to
those codes and HE that are only or more directly related to language, such
as the (para)linguistic ones? Or, if we remain at the linguistic level, are we
ignoring a good part of what gives entity (and humour) to a text of this nature,
thereby offering an incomplete picture?
Another consideration: as mentioned, it is possible to conceive any
audiovisual product as a text. If we add that texts and not languages are the
objects of translation (Zabalbeascoa, 1997, p. 329), the result is that just as
we can talk about written, oral, and audiovisual texts, we can establish a
difference among written, oral (interpretation), and audiovisual translation.
Following this same line of reasoning, it is also possible to distinguish among
written, oral, and audiovisual humour
11
.
Therefore, and as has been done with so many other phenomena—
initially limited to other fields (for example, figures born in the bosom of
rhetoric, such as metaphor, are now recognized in other planes, such as the
audiovisual)—can we contemplate the possibility that, just as there is a written
or oral sociolect, there is also an audiovisual
12
one, each constructed through
the resources each type of language provides? In this sense and considering
how, as shown, the intricate body of audiovisual texts and their humour is
interwoven, can we understand that elements beyond the purely linguistic
sphere will nourish an audiovisual sociolect destined, in this case, to comedy?
Strictly speaking, the definition of lects is limited to «linguistic varieties,
with specific phonic, grammatical, lexical, and discursive features, which
derive from the conditioning of certain geographical domains, social profiles,
or certain situations and communicative contexts» (Moreno Fernández, 2012,
94*, emphasis added). However, if this definition is intended to address the
11
Fuentes (2000) already puts us on the track of the specificity of the latter.
12
After all, «audiovisual language, like the verbal language we use when speaking or writing, has
morphological elements, a grammar and stylistic resources» (Marquès Graells, 1995a, online),
as well as a series of dimensions, such as morphological, structural-syntactic-expressive,
semantic and aesthetic (Marquès Graells, 1995b, online).
Juan José Martínez Sierra 103
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
audiovisual field, it is insufficient since it ignores a high percentage of the
codes on which audiovisual texts are based.
On the other hand, let us not lose sight of the fact that communication
can be not only verbal but also non-verbal, understood as communication in
which «no words are used to transmit information from sender to receiver»
and which involves, in fact, all five senses (Lugo, 2020, online*), including,
logically, the two that are key in the reception of audiovisual texts and,
possibly, in the joint creation of sociolects in this type of texts: hearing and
sight.
Finally, to face the reality of sociolects in audiovisual texts and to work
completely and coherently, is it necessary to coin a new term or is it enough
to rethink the one we already have?
7. T
OWARDS SOME ANSWERS
It is time to step on the path towards possible answers to the different
questions generated. These ones are doubts revolving around the possibility
of speaking of an audiovisual sociolect, endowed with its own characteristics
that, as occurs with the audiovisual text/translation/humour, distinguish it or
make it stand out from the sociolects we find in written or oral texts. We will
undertake this reflection, as has been announced, by resorting to humour to
begin to guess how perhaps a sociolect is constructed in an audiovisual text
with a comic intention.
As already indicated, our focus is on the three phenomena we can
identify within the sociolectal umbrella: the levels of language, the slang, and
the scientific-technical language. We will now turn our attention to each of
these features, illustrating them with a fragment of a humorous audiovisual
product, including translation (English > European Spanish dubbing)
scenarios.
7.1 Language levels
Before proceeding with the first example selected, it is important to
specify what we understand by levels of language. According to Trigo (2018,
online*), based on the work of Coseriu (see, for example, his 1981 work), we
are talking about those factors that allow us to distinguish between the
following four social varieties:
1. Cultured level: This level describes educated people with a high
cultural level. It is considered an «example of correctness». As
main characteristics, we can point out the «correction in
pronunciation, grammar, and lexicon», as well as «lexical
correctness, which includes abstract concepts and can cover all
104 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
areas of culture». It should also be noted that it «shares the
characteristics of the literary tradition and reflects its richness».
2. Standard level
13
: At this level, we find «an average level of
formality that meets the normative demands of the language in
a less rigid way than the cultured level». It is considered the
level «of the media and teaching».
3. Popular level: This level describes «everyday life»
characterized by «a subjectivity that materializes in the frequent
use of interjections, irony, and exclamations», a «linguistic
economy, which results in the existence of unfinished
sentences, short phrases, pet words, etc.», «frequent allusions
to the hearer», and «use of sayings, set phrases, and
proverbs».
4. Vulgar level: Finally, we find the level «of the speakers with a
low level of schooling», characterized by «a poor lexicon and
simple grammar», and a constant alteration of the norm, which
translates into the introduction of vulgarisms whether lexical,
phonetic, morphological, or syntactic.
Next, we consider a fragment of the famous television series The
Simpsons (Matt Groening, 1989-present). Specifically, a scene in which a
board is deciding whether Sideshow Bob (Bart’s archenemy), now in prison,
will be granted parole. At this point, Bob and Snake (a recurring character in
the show, known as a low-life criminal), who has just been granted parole in
the same session, exchange a few words of farewell:
Chairman of the board
Next up for parole, Bob Terwilliger, a. k. a. Sideshow
Bob.
Bob
Take care, Snake. May the next time we meet be under
more felicitous circumstances.
Snake Ga?
Bob Take care.
Snake Ba.
Table 2
13
One might ask if perhaps this would be the unmarked level, in sociolectal terms. After all, as
the Centro Virtual Cervantes states, «in the works on linguistic variation the term standard variety
is used to designate what is common and neutral in a language, that is, the ‘general language’
not marked by individual or contextual factors» (2020, online).
Juan José Martínez Sierra 105
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
If we compare Bob’s first intervention and Snake’s two interventions,
the contrast between the cultured and vulgar levels, respectively, is evident.
In fact, Bob includes in his speech a word like «felicitous», described by the
Cambridge Dictionary (2020, online) as of literary use. On the contrary, Snake
is not only unable to understand what Bob says («Ga?»), but he is not even
able to utter intelligible words
14
.
However, there is more: in Bob’s two interventions, it is also possible to
observe an alternation of levels. Once he detects that his interlocutor cannot
understand him, he decides to resort to a possibly more informal formula and,
therefore, to place himself at a more intermediate level («Take care»). This
fact, on the other hand, seems to be in line with the following assessment
made by the Centro Virtual Cervantes (2020, online*):
A speaker with an educated level of language is one who can use
the most appropriate register for each situation of communication; a
speaker with a vulgar level, on the other hand, always uses the
language in the same way—the only one he or she knows—,
regardless of the conditions of communication.
Evidently, the linguistic content of this fragment already evidences the
existence of an active sociolect. Now, if we do not go any further, are we really
looking at the whole picture or just a part of it? Let us not forget the obvious:
besides listening, we are seeing. Moreover, what do we see? In Bob’s case,
he appears on occasion dressed as a prisoner, given the situation at the time.
However, the mental image of this character that possibly a fan of the series
will keep in his or her head would imply casual or even more formal (for
example, a suit) street clothes. On the contrary, Snake appears typically
dressed, as shown in Figure 1.
14
«The use of vulgarisms shows the low degree of linguistic instruction of a speaker: for example,
the use of poorly formed words […] or agrammatic statements reveal a lack of knowledge of the
language system» (Centro Virtual Cervantes, 2020: online*).
106 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Figure 1: Snake
(The Simpsons, Matt Groening).
As we can see, Snake usually wears possibly denim fabrics, a vest with
badly cut sleeves, and a T-shirt in one of whose sleeves he hides a pack of
cigarettes. We can add a bad shave and the tattoo that runs along one of his
arms, as well as a considerable size ring in one of his ears and a toupee that
finishes off his hairstyle. In short, we are facing a stereotyped image that mixes
traits from a biker, a delinquent, and a thug, an image that also sends us a
message (sociolectal?).
In other words, if we were to return to the taxonomies listed in Table 1,
it would initially appear that we would be looking at sociolectal markers given
by the (para)linguistic codes/HE, although it could be understood that, as
previously suggested, perhaps this picture would offer us an incomplete
portrait of the phenomenon. Let us think, for instance, of the visual information
that comes to us or that we have stored in our minds (previous knowledge of
the world
15
which also plays a role in this equation). The image of Snake (see
Figure 1) activates, as has been suggested, an evident stereotype: that of a
person from a poor background with little education and who, therefore, will
not be able to go beyond a certain level of language (an unmarked HE, which
would be transmitted, as we say, through the visual channel). On the other
hand, as we have already explained, under normal circumstances Bob’s usual
attire invites (again, stereotypically) other sets of considerations regarding the
levels of language through which he can move.
15
See, for example, Sperber and Wilson (1986).
Juan José Martínez Sierra 107
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
The same reading is possible if we consider the Spanish dubbed
version of this same fragment:
Presidente del tribunal
Concedida la condicional. Siguiente caso, Bob
Terwilliger, alias Actor Secundario Bob.
Bob
Cuídate, Snake. Espero que nuestro próximo
encuentro tenga lugar en circunstancias más propicias
Snake ¿Eh?
Bob Cuídate.
Snake Ba.
Table 3
Therefore, we have seen that the signals for the expected sociolects of
each character are given, in the first instance, by (para)linguistic aspects.
However, it is possible to abound in the remaining range of codes and HE and
detect other types that also transport information that, at least, reinforces the
information provided by the former. For the time being, we have pointed out
the visual codes and HE, but we could also mention those related to sound.
For example, in the case of the original version of this fragment, the actor who
gives his voice to Bob’s character is Kelsey Grammer, who became popular
for giving life to Fraiser Crane in the successful television series Fraiser (David
Angell, Peter Casey and David Lee, 1993-2004), a wealthy psychiatrist who
stands out, among other things, for being a tremendously cultured and at the
same time pedantic person, characteristics that, coincidentally, also define
Bob’s character.
Therefore, by recognizing that voice (again, previous knowledge is
crucial), a new mental connection is made, which takes us to the realm of a
cultured language level. Interestingly, although exceptionally not in the
episode that concerns us, the usual actor for Bob’s dubbing in Spain is Antonio
Esquivias. He was precisely also in charge of giving voice to Frasier Crane in
the Spanish dubbed version so that in the target receiver that same mental
connection would be given entirely, activating the expectation of a certain
language level and, therefore, of a sociolect.
In short, we are faced with a case in which the (audiovisual?) sociolect
perhaps takes shape not only from the typically expected instruments (the
words and how they are articulated), but others contribute to this sociolect
(particularized on a level of cultured or vulgar language, depending upon the
case), or at least reinforce it, with the result that the possible humorous effect
108 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
of the fragment, arising in large part from the contrast between levels, has
more significant tools to reach achievement.
7.2 Slang
As previously mentioned, slang is the second sociolectal horizon on
which we are focusing. First, it is convenient to define what we can understand
by slang. As the dictionary states, the term may refer to «1: language peculiar
to a particular group: such as a: ARGOT b: JARGON 2: an informal
nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed
words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech» (Merriam
Webster, 2019, online). In the example selected to delve into the audiovisual
aspect, the second meaning may have more weight. The example is a
fragment of the once tremendously popular television series The Prince of
Bel-Air (Andy Borowitz and Susan Borowitz, 1990-1996). In this show, we
were told about the adventures of a teenager from Philadelphia who is fond of
rap and moves in with his uncle, aunt, and cousins to a luxurious mansion in
Bel-Air. To a great extent, the show exploited the contrast between two worlds:
that of the young man (age is a factor) Will raised in a humble neighbourhood,
and that of his host family, refined and surrounded by luxury thanks to the
professional success of Uncle Philip Banks, a renowned lawyer.
In this scene, Will receives a message on his pager from one of his
girlfriends, something that does not seem right to Uncle Phil. Ashley, Will’s
young cousin, also intervenes:
Uncle What is that?
Will That would be Aisha.
Uncle Oh, no.
Will You’re right, Uncle Phil, wrong area code. That would be Stacy.
Uncle Vivian, tell me that’s not a beeper.
Ashley Can I have one, Daddy?
Uncle
When Jesse Jackson gets a job. Will, there’ll be no beepers worn in
this house.
Will Yo, what’s up, Uncle Phil? My mom let me wear it in Philly.
Uncle
That’s because she’s your mother and she loves you. I’m your uncle. I
just try not to hurt you.
Will Come on, Uncle Phil, I need to keep in touch with my tasties.
Juan José Martínez Sierra 109
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Uncle I beg your pardon?
Ashley
His tasties, Daddy. You know, his chubbies, his slimmies, his old
ladies?
Uncle And, who are you? Queen Latifah?
Table 4
Once again, a linguistic approach would allow us to detect the presence
of a sociolect immediately. In the transcription of the moment, we have
highlighted in bold various words or expressions that dictionaries such as the
Urban Dictionary (2020, online) catalogue as informal when not slang. Clearly,
such expressions contrast with Uncle Phil’s formal «I beg your pardon», and
serve as a vehicle for building a specific identity. In fact, when Ashley, who
admires her cousin and wishes to be part of his identity sphere, intervenes,
she does so, using the same formula: the use of terms from the slang used by
the group (young rappers) to whom she wishes to draw close.
The words and expressions highlighted above activate immediately and
by purely linguistic and paralinguistic means (intonation also plays a role) a
certain slang and, consequently, a certain sociolect. However, these slang-
creating instruments do not act alone. On the one hand, there is Will’s image,
specifically his way of dressing, which immediately catalogues him as
someone fond of this type of music (rap) and uses his clothes as a symbol
(see Peirce’s work, collected, for example, in Houser and Kloesel, 1998) of
belonging to a certain urban tribe—clothes that clearly contrast with those
worn by his uncle (see Figure 2).
110 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Figure 2: Will and his Uncle Phil
(The Prince of Bel-Air, Andy Borowitz and Susan Borowitz)
We can add to this background two other visual HE also transferred
through the visual code: the movement of Ashley’s hand when she speaks,
intended to emulate the typical way in which rappers move their hands when
improvising their rhymes, and the handshake between cousins with which her
intervention ends (see Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively). Similarly, there is
an evident acoustic HE (special effects code), the sound Will and Ashley’s
hands produce when they collide.
The moment is finally completed with the question Uncle Phil asks his
daughter at the end of the fragment. Queen Latifah is a multifaceted American
artist known, among other things, for a successful musical career as a rapper,
with all this implies in terms of image and, ultimately, the constitution of a
cultural element. In this case, it gives rise to an unmarked HE (previous
knowledge) transferred through the linguistic code.
Juan José Martínez Sierra 111
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Figure 3: Will and his cousin Ashley
(Ashley simulates the movement of rappers' hands)
(The Prince of Bel-Air, Andy Borowitz and Susan Borowitz)
Figure 4: Will and his cousin Ashley (handshake)
(The Prince of Bel-Air, Andy Borowitz and Susan Borowitz)
As shown below, the (para)linguistic HE (as we said before, susceptible
to manipulation) present in the source version have been maintained in part
in the Spanish dubbed version (highlighted in bold):
Uncle ¿Qué es eso?
Will Debe ser Aisha.
112 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Uncle Oh, no.
Will Es verdad, tío Phil, el prefijo es distinto. Debe ser Stacy.
Uncle Vivian, dime que no es un busca.
Ashley ¿Puedo tener uno, papá?
Uncle
Cuando Jesse Jackson tenga trabajo. Will, no quiero que se lleven
buscas en esta casa.
Will ¿Por qué, tío Phil? Mamá me dejaba llevarlo en Filadelfia.
Uncle Porque es tu madre y te quiere. Yo soy tu tío y me basta con no herirte.
Will Venga. Vamos, tío Phil. Necesito estar en contacto con mis pibas.
Uncle ¿Cómo has dicho?
Ashley Sus pibas, papá. Ya sabes: sus chorbas, sus nenas, sus lobas…
Uncle ¿Y quién eres tú? ¿Queen Latifah?
Table 5
Quantitatively, in this version, fewer words activate slang from a
linguistic point of view. This fact may not be surprising because, for example,
Arampatzis (2011) found in his study on linguistic variation in different
television sitcoms, that in more than half of the cases analysed the target text
is standardized (in terms of variation), which causes the connotations of such
variation to be lost, something that would connect with one of the norms
(tendencies, perhaps) detected by Goris (1993). Carrera Fernández (2014, p.
132*) concludes, after reviewing the work of a series of authors, that all of
them «indicate that it would be desirable to reflect the connotative load of
linguistic variation in the source text, but professional practice tends to
neutralize in the target text the different varieties in dubbing and subtitling».
In any case, positions such as those set out in the previous paragraph
perhaps contemplate only a part of what an audiovisual text is capable of
transmitting, as explained above. Thus, despite this quantitative decrease of
the slang linguistic HE, and in the absence of a reception study, we venture
to say that the result will be the same as in the case of the source version,
given that other HE are still present, such as the paralinguistic element (thanks
to the dubbing actress), the visual and acoustic elements, as well as the
Juan José Martínez Sierra 113
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
unmarked element (Queen Latifah, in general terms, known in the target
context).
Therefore, we presume that the activation of the slang occurs and,
therefore, of a sociolect (crucial in the humour of this scene) in both versions.
The question lies in assessing whether this transmission occurs only by the
(para)linguistic HE and codes or whether, on the contrary, the other HE and
codes (mainly visual and acoustic) also play an active role in the generation
of such a(n) (audiovisual?) sociolect.
7.3 Scientific-technical language
The last of the sociolectal phenomena to which we pay attention is
scientific-technical language. As Gómez de Enterria (1998, p. 30*, emphasis
in the original) points out, «when we speak of scientific-technical language,
we are referring to those linguistic varieties that are strongly marked by the
use of specialized terminologies». If there is a television situation comedy that
has stood out precisely because of the use of such terminology, it is The Big
Bang Theory (Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, 2007-2019), a show used for our
last examples. In the first of the two scenes we will analyse, we see Sheldon
(a theoretical physicist with great intelligence) trying to teach physics to Penny
(someone alien to the world of science). She wants to know more about the
work of her boyfriend, Leonard (a scientist just like Sheldon), without him
knowing. The contrast between Sheldon’s scientific-technical language and
Penny’s non-specialized language (and even the opposition between different
levels of the language), is evident.
Sheldon
Now, remember, Newton realized that Aristotle was wrong, and
force was not necessary to maintain motion. So, let’s plug in our 9.8
meters per second squared as A, and we get force, Earth gravity
equals mass times 9.8 meters per second per second. So, we can
see that MA equals MG, and what do we know from this?
Penny
Uh, we know that... Newton was a really smart cookie. Oh! Is that
where Fig Newtons come from?
Sheldon
No, Fig Newtons are named after a small town in Massachusetts.
Don’t write that down!
Penny Sorry
Sheldon Now, if MA equals MG, what does that imply?
114 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Penny I don’t know.
Table 6
Later, the group of friends meets for dinner, and Penny, encouraged by
Sheldon, decides to show Leonard the progress she has made. Besides
Bernadette’s intervention (something to be expected since she is also a
scientist), Penny shows what we can consider a scientific-technical language
and, therefore, a sociolectal mark.
Bernadette
Raj, you should’ve seen Leonard’s experiment. The interference
pattern was so cool when the electron beam was on.
Leonard
I’m glad you enjoyed it. Most people aren’t that interested in
what I do.
Penny
Actually, that’s not true, Leonard. In fact, recently I’ve been
thinking that given the parameters of your experiment, the
transport of electrons through the aperture the nano-fabricated
metal rings is qualitatively no different than the experiment
already
conducted in the Netherlands. Their observed phase
shift in the diffusing electrons inside the metal ring already
conclusively demonstrated the electric analogue of the
Aharonov-Bohm quantum interference effect. That’s it. That’s all
I know.
Table 7
The possible humour of these scenes lies on the one hand, in the
contrast between Sheldon’s use of this type of language and Penny’s initial
inability (as we said, a complete layperson in the matter; again, previous
knowledge, in this case of the characters, is key) to move in that terrain. On
the other hand, Penny, to the audience’s general amazement, is finally able
to utter a speech like the one she offers in the second scene presented. In
both cases, the (para)linguistic sphere plays a determining role in the
presentation of all the humour, although it is not the only sphere that is active.
For example, and not being exhaustive, in the first of the two scenes,
Sheldon accompanies his explanations with a series of formulas written on a
whiteboard (see Figure 5) that constitute graphic HE transmitted thanks to the
graphic code. These inserts also construct the sociolect of the moment.
Furthermore, on a more purely visual level (visual HE and iconographic codes)
and whiteboard aside, the contrast we referred to above is observed beyond
the words and how they are emitted 1) in the enthusiasm denoted by
Sheldon’s body movements (see Figure 5), and 2) the face of Penny not
understanding anything (see Figure 6). Moreover, on the other hand, there is
Juan José Martínez Sierra 115
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
the face of amazement of Leonard himself, among others (see Figure 7). To
all this background, we can add the canned laughter, an acoustic factor not
mentioned so far that undoubtedly reaffirms the viewer’s reception of the
intended message.
Figure 5: Sheldon explaining physics
(The Big Bang Theory, Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady)
Figure 6: Penny listening to Sheldon
(The Big Bang Theory, Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady)
Figure 7: Leonard surprised to hear Penny
(The Big Bang Theory, Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady)
The dubbed version of these two scenes reiterates, through
(para)linguistic factors, the presence of scientific-technical language by the
116 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
different characters. These factors, together with the others also present and
loaded with a sociolectal intention (such as acoustic or visual ones,
especially), maintain the contrast between the use/non-use of scientific-
technical language and, therefore, the humorous potential of the moment.
C
ONCLUSIONS
Throughout these pages, we have presented sociolect as a
phenomenon, a priori (like any other lect), linguistic. However, we wanted to
reflect on whether considering it as solely linguistic (or paralinguistic) is
sufficient or even viable in texts with as many links as differential facts with
written and oral texts, as is the case for audiovisual texts. In fact, our reflection
has started from and led to a series of unknowns for which we have tried to
find answers through the consideration, analysis, or exploration of fragments
from three audiovisual products. For practical reasons, we also wanted to
focus our reflection on a field full of opportunities for the researcher, such as
humour.
We have tried to dissect the sociolects present in these segments, first
by paying separate attention to the three phenomena typical of this diastratic
variety (levels of language, slang, and scientific-technical language) and,
second, by going beyond the (para)linguistic and attending to what reaches
us as spectators thanks to the different codes that are, precisely, the highways
through which the different HE travel—elements that give body to the jokes
that make up a comedy and have to be taken into account integrally.
Given the scope of this article, we understand that it would be
adventurous on our part to offer a categorical response to the various
unknowns we have referred to. Perhaps our objective was precisely to pave
the way for the generation of questions (which can be transferred to fields far
removed from comedy) in the hope that thanks to the need (in our opinion) for
new interdisciplinary research, they will build bridges that allow us to find more
precise answers likely within the multimodal theory. Is there such a thing as
an audiovisual sociolect?
As we recognized, we do not believe we are in a position to say in this
work that we are offering irrefutable evidence of this phenomenon. However,
we do, at least, suspect that the answer may be affirmative, without the
necessity of coining a new term that would add to the already overloaded, not
to say unnecessarily saturated, terminological reality in which we are
immersed
16
. This article is only, in any case, part of an initial step towards a
new standpoint regarding sociolects in audiovisual texts.
16
We are aware that «the proliferation of labels and terminology is often inconvenient and causes
Juan José Martínez Sierra 117
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
REFERENCES
Agost, R. (1999). Traducción y doblaje: palabras, voces e imágenes.
Barcelona: Ariel.
_____ (2000). Traducción y diversidad de lenguas. En L. Lorenzo y A.M.
Pereira. (Eds), Traducción subordinada (I): El doblaje (inglés-
español/gallego) (pp. 49-67). Castellón de la Plana: Universitat Jaume
I.
Alemán, J. (2005). Propuesta de doblaje de un dialecto regional: Billy Elliot.
Puentes, 6, 69-76.
Arampatzis, C. (2011). La traducción de la variación lingüística en textos
audiovisuales de ficción humorística: dialectos y acentos en la comedia
de situación estadounidense doblada al castellano (PhD tesis).
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Islas Canarias.
Baños Piñero, R. (2009). La oralidad prefabricada en la traducción para el
doblaje: estudio descriptivo-contrastivo del español de dos comedias
de situación. Siete vidas y Friends (PhD tesis). Universidad de
Granada, Granada.
Bilgrami, A. (2005). Idiolect. In T. Honderich. (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Briguglia, C. (2009). La traducción de la variación lingüística en el catalán
literario contemporáneo. Las traducciones de Pasolini, Gadda y
Camilleri (PhD thesis). Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
Brumme, J. (Ed.) (2008). La oralidad fingida: descripción y traducción. Madrid:
Iberoamericana.
Cambridge Dictionary. (2020). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/.
Caprara, G. and Sisti, A. (2011). Variación lingüística y traducción audiovisual
(el doblaje y subtitulado en Gomorra). AdVersuS, 21, 150-169.
Carmona, R. (1991). Cómo se comenta un texto fílmico. Madrid: Cátedra.
Carrera Fernández, J. (2014). Aproximación a la traducción translectal de un
corpus audiovisual de películas hispanoamericanas (PhD tesis).
Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.
complaints among professionals in different fields of knowledge» (Fernández Pérez 1997, p.
157*).
118 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Carreras, M. (2009). Il peso del dialetto nella (s)fortuna di Toto in Spagnolo.
InTRAlinea: Special Issue: The Translation of Dialects in Multimedia.
https://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/1708.
Casetti, F. and Di Chio, F. (1991). Cómo analizar un film. Barcelona: Paidós.
Catford, J. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford
University Press.
Centro Virtual Cervantes. (2020). https://cvc.cervantes.es/.
Chaume, F. (2001). La pretendida oralidad de los textos audiovisuales y sus
implicaciones en traducción. En R. Agost, y F. Chaume. (Eds), La
traducción en los medios audiovisuales (pp. 77-88). Castellón de la
Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
_____ (2003). Doblatge i subtitulació per a la TV. Barcelona: Eumo.
_____ (2004). Cine y traducción. Madrid: Cátedra.
Chaves García, M. J. (2000). La traducción cinematográfica. El doblaje.
Huelva: Universidad de Huelva.
Comissió de normalització lingüística de Televisió de Catalunya (1997).
Criteris lingüístics sobre traducció i doblatge. Barcelona, Spain:
Edicions 62.
Coseriu, E. (1958). Sincronía, diacronía e historia. Madrid: Gredos.
_____ (1981). Lecciones de lingüística general. Madrid: Gredos.
Delabastita, D. (1989). Translation and Mass-Communication: Film and TV
Translation as Evidence of Cultural Dynamics. Babel, 35(4), 193-218.
Díaz Cintas, J. (2001). La traducción audiovisual. El subtitulado. Salamanca:
Almar.
_____ (2003). Teoría y práctica de la subtitulación. Inglés-Español.
Barcelona: Ariel.
Díaz Cintas, J. and Remael, A. (2007). Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling.
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. (Eds) (2001). Style and Sociolinguistic Variation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Etxebarria, I. (1994). Doblaje y subtitulación en Euskal Telebista. En F.
Eguíluz et al. (Eds), Trasvases Culturales: Literatura, Cine, Traducción
(pp. 191-197). Vitoria: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
Juan José Martínez Sierra 119
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Fernández Pérez, M. (1997). Sobre las nociones de sociolecto, sinstratía,
variación sociolingüística, diastratía y cuestiones colindantes. En
Homenaje al profesor A. Roldán Pérez (pp. 157-174). Murcia:
Universidad de Murcia.
Flydal, L. (1951). Remarques sur certains rapports entre le style et l’état de
langue. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap,
XVI, 240-257.
Fodor, I. (1976). Film Dubbing—Phonetic, Semiotic, Esthetic and
Psychological Aspects. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
García de Toro, C. (1994). Idiolecto y traducción. En A. Bueno et al. (Eds),
Actas del I Congreso Internacional de Traducción e Interpretación de
Soria (pp. 91-102). Soria: Diputación Provincial de Soria.
García Luque, F. (2007). El problema de los acentos en el doblaje. En M.C.
Balbuena Torezano, y Á. García Calderón. (Eds), Traducción y
mediación cultural. Reflexiones interdisciplinares (pp. 441-453). Atrio.
Gómez de Enterria, J. (1998). El lenguaje científico-técnico y sus aplicaciones
didácticas. Carabela, 44, 30-39.
Goris, O. (1993). The Question of French Dubbing: Towards a Frame for
Systematic Investigation. Target, 55, 169-190.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
_____ (1985/89). Part A. In M. Halliday, and R. Hasan. Language, Context,
and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective.
Oxford/Deakin: OUP/Deakin University Press.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator.
London/New York: Routledge.
Heiss, C. and Soffritti, M. (2009). Wie viel Dialekt für welches Zielpublikum?
Dialekt in italienischen und deutschen Spielfilmen und den
entsprechenden Synchronversionen. InTRAlinea: Wie viel Dialekt für
welches Zielpublikum? Dialekt in italienischen und deutschen
Spielfilmen und den entsprechenden Synchronversionen.
https://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/1703.
Hernández, M. and Tirado, C. (1997). Doblaje y subtitulación de Pulp Fiction.
Fòrum de recerca, 348-60.
Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C. and Baptista Lucio, M.P.
(2014). Metodología de la investigación (6ª edición). Mexico DF:
McGraw-Hill.
120 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Houser, N. and Kloesel, C. (Eds.) (1992). The Essential Peirce, Volume 1:
Selected Philosophical Writings (1867 - 1893). Indiana: Indiana
University Press.
Inigo, M. and Westall, D. (1997). Los realia lingüísticos y la traducción
cinematográfica. In A. Briz et al. (Eds), Sobre l’oral i l’escrit (pp. 125-
136). Valencia: Universitat de València.
Jewitt, C. (Ed.) (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis.
London: Routledge.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. Language and Society, 2,
45-79.
Liao, S. (2010). Identity, Ideology, and Language Variation: A Sociolinguistic
Study of Mandarin in Central Taiwan (PhD thesis). University of
California, USA.
Lomeña, M. (2009). Variación lingüística y traducción para el doblaje: Mujeres
al borde de un ataque de nervios. Entreculturas, 1, 275-283.
López, J.G. and Minett, J. (1997). Manual de traducción: inglés-castellano:
teoría y práctica. Barcelona: Gedisa.
López Serena, A. (2007). Oralidad y escrituralidad en la recreación literaria
del español coloquial. Madrid: Gredos.
Lugo, Z. (2020). Comunicación verbal y no verbal.
https://www.diferenciador.com/tipos-de-comunicacion/.
Lukin, A., Moore, A., Herke, M., Wegener, R. and Canzhong W. (2011).
Halliday’s model of register revisited and explored. Linguistics and the
Human Sciences, 4, 187-213.
Mantarro, C. (2010). Traducir el cine, traducir el dialecto: estudio lingüístico
de la película Romanzo criminale. Entreculturas, 2, 157-178.
Marco, J. (2002). El fil d’Ariadna: anàlisi estilística i traducció literària. Vic:
Eumo.
Marquès Graells, P. (1995a). Introducción al lenguaje audiovisual.
http://peremarques.pangea.org/avmulti.htm.
_____ (1995b). Lenguaje audiovisual.
https://perio.unlp.edu.ar/tpm/textos/tpm-lenguaje_audiovisual.pdf.
Martín Zorraquino, M.A. (2000). Norma y variación lingüísticas en la
enseñanza de E/LE. In A. Martín Zorraquino, and C. Díez Pelegrín.
Juan José Martínez Sierra 121
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
(Eds), Actas del XI Congreso Internacional ASELE (pp. 6-11).
Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.
Martínez Cava, J. (2018). La actualidad del concepto marxista de «clase
social». https://www.sinpermiso.info/textos/la-actualidad-del-concepto-
marxista-de-clase-social.
Martínez Sierra, J.J. (2018). Humorous elements and signifying codes. Points
of convergence in audiovisual products. In J.D. Sanderson, and C.
Botella-Tejera. (Eds.), Focusing on Audiovisual Translation Research
(pp. 109-132). Valencia, Spain: Universitat de València.
Martínez Sierra, J.J. and Zabalbeascoa, P. (Eds.) (2017). The Translation of
humor (Special Issue). Monti, 9, 1-356.
Mayoral, R. (1999). La traducción de la variación lingüística (PhD tesis).
Universidad de Granada, Granada.
Mayoral, R., Kelly, D. and Gallardo, N. (1988). Concept of Constrained
Translation. Non-linguistic Perspectives of Translation. Meta, 33(3),
356-367.
Mejia Jervis, T. (2020). Los 17 tipos de lenguaje más comunes en el ser
humano. https://www.lifeder.com/tipos-de-lenguaje/.
Mioni, A. (1983). Italiano tendenziale: osservazioni su alcuni aspetti della
standardizzazione. In P. Bebincà et al. (Eds), Scritti linguistici in onore
di Giovan Battista Pellegrini (pp. 495-517). Pisa: Pacini.
Montes Giraldo, J.J. (1998). Confusión de «lengua» y «lenguaje», ¿otro
aspecto del imperialismo mundializante? Thesaurus: Boletín del
instituto Caro y Cuervo, 53(3), 553-560.
Moreno Fernández, F. (2012). Sociolingüística cognitiva: proposiciones,
escolios y debates. Madrid: Iberoamericana.
Navarro Pablo, M. (2003). Adquisición del lenguaje. El principio de la
comunicación. CAUCE, Revista de Filología y su Didáctica, 26, 321-
347.
Nencioni, G. (1946). Idealismo e realismo nella scienza del linguagio.
Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice.
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
Obediente Sosa, E. (2017). Normas y usos lingüísticos. A propósito de los
verbos poner y colocar. Lengua y habla, 21, 202-211.
122 Exploring sociolects in audiovisual texts. A new concept?
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Rabadán, R. (1991). Equivalencia y traducción: problemática de la
equivalencia translémica inglés-español. León: Universidad de León.
Ramos Pinto, S. (2017). Film, dialects and subtitles: an analytical framework
for the study of non-standard varieties in subtitling. The Translator,
24(1), 17-34.
Raskin, V. (2008). The Primer of Humor Research. Berlin/New York: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Reiss, K. (1971). Possibilities and Limitations of Translation Criticism.
Categories and Criteria for a Fair Evaluation of Translations. Munich:
Hueber.
Roffé Gómez, A. (1996). Desarrollo de la conceptualización y designación
jergal hispano-francesa: Enmiendas propuestas. Thélème: Revista
complutense de estudios franceses, 9, 201-210.
Ruaño, B. (2020). Variedades de la lengua a través de canciones.
https://begocris.wordpress.com/2018/10/19/variedades-de-la-lengua-
a-traves-de-canciones-repaso/.
Sánchez Iglesias, J. (2005). El idiolecto y su traducción: tres ejemplos
italianos. Revista de la sociedad de estudios italianistas, 3, 195-184.
Sánchez Jiménez, D. (2015). Variabilidad lingüística en las lenguas de
especialidad. Revista de Investigación Lingüística, 18, 115-128.
Saussure, F. de. (1945[1916]). Curso de lingüística general. Buenos Aires:
Losada.
Slobodník, D. (1970). Remarques sur la traduction des dialectes. In J.
Holmes. (Ed.), The Nature of Translation. Essays on the Theory and
Practice of Literary Translation (pp. 139-143). The Hague: Mouton.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Tello, I. (2011). La traducción del dialecto: análisis descriptivo del dialecto
geográfico y social en un corpus de novelas en lengua inglesa y su
traducción al español (PhD tesis). Universitat Jaume I, Castellón de la
Plana.
Titford, C. (1982). Subtitling-Constrained Translation. Lebende Sprachen,
XXVII(3), 113-116.
Juan José Martínez Sierra 123
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 91 - 123
Trigo, B. (2018). Sociolecto. Definición y ejemplos. Un profesor.
https://www.unprofesor.com/lengua-espanola/sociolecto-definicion-y-
ejemplos-2992.html.
Uclés, G. (2017). El doblaje de las referencias a la variedad diatópica. Estudio
comparativo entre español peninsular y neutro (Master tesis).
Universitat de València, Valencia.
Urban Dictionary. (2020). https://www.urbandictionary.com/.
Zabalbeascoa, P. (2001). La traducción de textos audiovisuales y la
investigación traductológica. En R. Agost, and F. Chaume. (Eds), La
traducción en los medios audiovisuales (pp. 49-56). Castellón de la
Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
_____ (1997). Dubbing and the nonverbal dimension of translation. In F.
Poyatos. (Ed.), Nonverbal Communication and Translation (pp. 327-
342). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
