(9) CfP: Mapping out the Audiovisual Translation Industry

(Nantes, 06.04.2018, Einreichung bis 15.12.2017)

CinEcoSA Conference

CRINI (University of Nantes)/ CLARE-ARTES (University Bordeaux Montaigne)

6 April 2018 Université de Nantes, France

Traduttore, traditore: researchers specialised in linguistics and translation have long focused on the difficulty inherent to translating from one language to another: original meaning protection, rhythm of sentences, intercultural understanding and aesthetics of the final text, in the field of literature and, later, of film studies. The conference

organised by CinEcoSA will address audiovisual translation from a different angle. Its aim will be to study the audiovisual translation sector as an industry and explore the economic, political, social and cultural issues at stake.

How does this sector operate? What types of companies and professions are parts of this industry? When and how did it start and how has it evolved since its creation? How does the AVT sector fare in the digital era?

These important political, economic, social and cultural dimensions of audiovisual translation have been largely unexplored by academia as well public authorities and civil society. The conference aims at identifying significant avenues for future research. It will thus end with a workshop designed to set up a formal collaborative international and interdisciplinary project.

The organisers welcome papers on the AVT industry from different disciplinary perspectives. Proposals may deal with all sectors of the audiovisual industry (cinema, television, internet, video games, etc.) and cover any geographical area. Topics may include, but are not restricted to:

• Political and economic logics behind the choices made in the AVT sector (dubbing, subtitling, voiceover, split screens; choice of target languages)

• Sociological approaches of the professions within the audiovisual translation section (translators, dubbing actors, dubbing directors, producers, etc.)

• The structure of the AVT sector (industrial history, B2B dynamics, power balance, trade unions and trade associations)

• Translating practices during pre-production or shooting (script translation, but also contracts or dialogues, interpreting on location)

• Legislation (copyrights, collective agreements, censorship, accessibility, imposed languages) Amateur practices (illegal dubbing, fandubbing, fansubbing)

• Redubbing and gag dubbing

• Closed captioning for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and audio description for the blind and visually impaired

Please send your proposals (title, 300-word abstract and brief biography) to nolwenn.mingant@univ-nantes.fr, cecilia.tirtaine@univ-paris3.fr and joel.augros@u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr by 15 December 2017. Working languages of the conference: English and French.

CinEcoSA is organising this research cycle in collaboration with CRINI (Université de Nantes) and CLARE-ARTES ‘Université Bordeaux-Montaigne). For more information about CinEcoSA (Cinéma, Economie & Sociétés Anglophones), visit our website: http://www.cinecosa.com.

Contact details:Nolwenn Mingant (Université de Nantes): nolwenn.mingant@univ-nantes.fr

Cecilia Tirtaine (Université de Nantes): cecilia.tirtaine@univ-nantes.fr

Joël Augros (Université Bordeaux-Montaigne): joel.augros@u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr

The Office for Academic & Pre-Professional Advising (OAPA) is currently recruiting new Orientation Advisors for Winter 2018.

Discovering Scientific Influence using Cross-Domain Dynamic Topic Modeling

We describe an approach using dynamic topic modeling to model influence and predict future trends in a scientific discipline. Our study focuses on climate change and uses assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the papers they cite. Since 1990, an IPCC report has been published every five years that includes four separate volumes, each of which has many chapters. Each report cites tens of thousands of research papers, which comprise a correlated dataset of temporally grounded documents. We use a custom dynamic topic modeling algorithm to generate topics for both datasets and apply crossdomain analytics to identify the correlations between the IPCC chapters and their cited documents. The approach reveals both the influence of the cited research on the reports and how previous research citations have evolved over time. For the IPCC use case, the report topic model used 410 documents and a vocabulary of 5911 terms while the citations topic model was based on 200K research papers and a vocabulary more than 25K terms. We show that our approach can predict the importance of its extracted topics on future IPCC assessments through the use of cross domain correlations, Jensen-Shannon divergences and cluster analytics.

Discovering Scientific Influence using Cross-Domain Dynamic Topic Modeling

We describe an approach using dynamic topic modeling to model influence and predict future trends in a scientific discipline. Our study focuses on climate change and uses assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the papers they cite. Since 1990, an IPCC report has been published every five years that includes four separate volumes, each of which has many chapters. Each report cites tens of thousands of research papers, which comprise a correlated dataset of temporally grounded documents. We use a custom dynamic topic modeling algorithm to generate topics for both datasets and apply crossdomain analytics to identify the correlations between the IPCC chapters and their cited documents. The approach reveals both the influence of the cited research on the reports and how previous research citations have evolved over time. For the IPCC use case, the report topic model used 410 documents and a vocabulary of 5911 terms while the citations topic model was based on 200K research papers and a vocabulary more than 25K terms. We show that our approach can predict the importance of its extracted topics on future IPCC assessments through the use of cross domain correlations, Jensen-Shannon divergences and cluster analytics.

Last week on Wednesday, November 8th, the Women’s Center held our final roundtable discussion of our fall series. The theme: Women in Writing. Panelists, moderator, and participants generated a fascinating discussion on the valuation of women as writers, artists, and creators in greater society. Although much of the criticism that was voiced made for a bleak outlook, our panelists passed on enlightening advice for all artists struggling to make a life with their work.

The roundtable began with the moderator (in this case, myself!) presenting some statistics to ground the conversation. Student staff members had done research to discover the representation of women as both content makers and content matter. Some highlights in these statistics include that women have made gains in more bylines from 2011 to 2014, but they still don’t make up even half of the men’s bylines; half of the National Book Award recipients from 2000 to 2014 have been by men and about men; and similarly, more than half of the Pulitzer Prize recipients from 2000 to 2015 have been by men and about men. In adding an intersectional lens to this data, we also find that women’s publications (when they actually happen) are dominated by white women–women of color, as you may have guessed, make up only a small fraction of the women published in both Poetry and The New Yorker. Check out VIDA for even more numbers on this topic.

Panelists (from left to right): Johanna Alonso, Missy Smith, and Tanya Olson

These numbers stressed the need for this conversation, and our panelists delivered many times over. Tanya Olson (poet and faculty in the English Department), Missy Smith AKA QueenEarth (singer/songwriter and coordinator in the Women’s Center), and Johanna Alonso (writer and UMBC student) started strong in their introductions teasing out themes that we would continue unraveling throughout the panel discussion. Some of the major points from the discussion included:

• There is a double standard in today’s literary canon. Women are constantly reading about men and books by men, but men reading books about women/by women is not emphasized in the same way. Johanna brought up, for example, that despite the Hunger Games series popularity, many men in her life refused to read the books because the main character was female (and written by a woman).
• The wealthy heterosexual white male gatekeeper has the power to set mainstream agendas. Many of the panelists agreed that the mainstream art society was a typically masculine space defined by male gatekeepers. When we have those gatekeepers in the form of editors, publishers, producers, etc. they control the agenda, which more often than not does not place value with marginalized creators and their content.
• Despite the harsh landscape, progress is being made. Both Tanya and Missy spoke to the idea that there is plenty in the world that motivates them to continue what they do, and that comes in the form of the other folks like them–people of color, LGBTQ folks, etc.–who are being published, performing, and making careers for themselves. This visibility, to both Tanya and Missy, is crucial not only for them, but for all of the other writers and artists who aspire to grow in their fields. Missy specifically noted that she writes music and performs to empower others to do the same.
• You must value you yourself. In order to do this work, you must value yourself. You must continue to believe in your work and the process of honing your craft. This is the driving factor for all of our panelists. Sparked by a question in the crowd about the devaluation of spoken word poetry versus musicians as art, Missy brought up that you have to stick up for yourself. If, for example, you are the only poet in a lineup of musicians, you need to ask to get the same payout as the musicians, because your art is worth that much.
• The reality is that you are not alone. Although it can feel lonely and exhausting to be one of the only “different” people (women of color, LGBTQ people, immigrants, etc.) in your field, you are not alone. Tanya made this point and noted, as well, that even though it may feel isolating, there is a path for everyone–you just have to find it. For her, this meant finding the person who was one step ahead of her, and looking to them as a model and/or a mentor. Johanna noted that her ambivalence transitioned to enthusiasm in a writing class when she found that she was not the only person writing stories about queer people. Just so, when we find the people who make space for us, we need to take it and make more space for all those who follow.

This rich conversation made clear that although there are many barriers that make women writers and artists journeys more difficult, these also create the richness and depth in their stories. The struggle, in some ways, necessitates the story/song/play/etc. in our world, and that success in writing is the sustained progress we make as we take up space and demand equity in the valuation of our art.

In final words of advice, Johanna encouraged us to venture into the nether regions of the Twitter-verse for obscure literary magazines and to read from those sources. Finding art in the most un-obvious places is a way to constantly learn more. Tanya again noted that mentorship can be key, and to find the person who you want to be–and start there. Finally, Missy took us home: “Failure is stopping. We have to keep moving and focusing on the long-game. It’s okay to be different–in fact it’s better

Further reading:

• Women Write About Family, Men Write About War
• The Most Intersectional VIDA Count Yet Paints A Troubling Picture
• Do Women Get to Write with Authority?
• We Need Diverse Books: Why Diversity Matters for Everyone
• UMBC’s The Retriever review of Women in Writing event