Yeah, that’s it!: Verbal Reference to Visual Information in Film Texts and Film Translations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an account of the meaning relationship between visual and verbal information in film and the differences between the conventions of making verbal reference to visual information in English films and their German-language versions. The analysis of a diachronic corpus of popular motion pictures and their German-dubbed versions indicates that the film translations ‘handle’ the co-occurring visual information differently than their English source texts. The translations tend to use alternative, non-equivalent, linguistics structures to refer to visual information and insert additional pronominal references and deictic devices, which overtly connect linguistic items to pictorial elements. As a result, the ongoing spoken discourse is explicitly linked with the physical surroundings of the communicative encounter. In contrast, in the English language versions, the relationship between the verbal utterance and the accompanying visual information more often remains lexically implicit. The shifts in translation affect the ideational, interpersonal, and textual meanings expressed in the film texts which, in turn, may result in a variation in the films’ narrative construction and the realization of extralinguistic concepts, such as, for example, gender relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it