Audio Description on the Thought-Action Continuum

Abstract

1. INTRODUCTION term audio description refers to the spoken commentary is added to film soundtracks to enable visually impaired people to follow the action on the screen by supplementing the information is already available from character dialogue and other parts of the soundtrack. As this essay explains, there is currently a debate within this field regarding the possibility and desirability of objectivity in audio descriptions. Although this debate may appear to be of limited interest to anyone who is not directly concerned with the production and reception of audio descriptions, we feel it raises large and important issues are of relevance to all those who work in the much wider fields of narrative theory, stylistics and literary theory generally. We have in mind, in particular, our questioning of the apparently obvious distinction between descriptions of characters' actions and descriptions of characters' mental processes in fictional narratives. Specifically, this essay seeks to show how concepts from narratology and techniques from corpus linguistics can be applied to the analysis of audio description. We are concerned with the issue of what should be described in audio description for feature films, and how it should be worded. We introduce narratological concepts can help to better articulate this issue and to better analyze and compare examples of audio description. To complement the application of narratological concepts for a close reading of audio description samples, we show how corpus linguistics techniques can be used to learn about what is being described, and how, in a corpus of ninety-one audio description scripts. Our focus is on how an audio description utterance can, and, as it turns out, often does, describe a character's actions as depicted on-screen while simultaneously giving some information about the character's thoughts. Central to the practice and theory of audio description is the question of what should be included in a description (Vercauteren). Concerning the issue of what to describe, and how to describe it, some recent guidelines for audio description state: The best audio describers objectively recount the visual aspects of an image. Subjective or qualitative judgments or comment get in the way--they constitute an on the part of the describer and are unnecessary and unwanted ... Describers must differentiate between or (which requires an on the part of the observer) and the physical characteristics of or (which are more concrete and allow description users to conjure their own interpretations). (Snyder 17) While striking an exceptionally unequivocal tone, these guidelines reflect a point of view has been prevalent among audio description practitioners. Earlier guidance on standards for audio description provided by ITC is similar in advising not to interpret events or away the plot (ITC). ITC guidance also flags a contentious point about whether or not to give information that is not on the screen, without really explaining how to determine what is apparent. It seems to us such guidelines leave unanswered questions about what information is necessary for an audience to understand and enjoy a film, and what interpretation means in this context Also, and this becomes the main theme of the essay, with regards to what can be seen and hence described, we take issue with the supposedly clear-cut distinction is made between a character's emotion or reasoning (thoughts, which should not be mentioned according to the guidelines) and their apparent physical manifestations (actions, which may be described). This essay seeks to contribute to audio description theory and practice in two ways. First, we introduce more rigorously defined terms from narratology to clarify and simplify the issues alluded to in the previous paragraph. …