FILM SCRIPTS AS OBJECTS OF LINGUISTIC RESEARCH AND THEIR TRANSLATION CHALLENGES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66345/stj.v4i5/1.6117Keywords:
film scripts; screenplays; telecinematic discourse; prefabricated orality; corpus linguistics; pragmatics; audiovisual translation; subtitling; dubbing.Abstract
Film scripts (screenplays) are hybrid texts: written documents designed for oral performance and multimodal realization. This article offers an expanded, publication-ready review of film scripts as objects of linguistic research and of the main translation problems that emerge when scripts are adapted across languages and media. First, the article clarifies the screenplay’s status within telecinematic discourse as a form of prefabricated orality—planned discourse engineered to simulate spontaneous conversation. Second, it synthesizes key analytic approaches, including pragmatics, discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, computational stylistics, and multimodal perspectives. Third, it examines translation challenges in both pre-production adaptation and post-production audiovisual translation (AVT), focusing on the interaction of technical constraints (e.g., lip-synchrony, isochrony, subtitle space–time limits) with pragmatic meaning, cultural reference, and characterization. The article concludes with methodological recommendations and a research agenda that integrates multimodal corpora, script–screen alignment, and translation-process evidence.
Downloads
References
1. Baños, R. (2018). Prefabricated orality in audiovisual translation. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics (pp. 313–326). Routledge.
2. Baños, R., & Díaz-Cintas, J. (2018). Language and translation in film: Dubbing and subtitling. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics (pp. 313–326). Routledge.
3. Blend Localization. (2020). Translating screenplays: Best practices & challenges.
4. Bozorova, M. U. (2026). A linguopragmatic study of discursive strategies in film script discourse. International Journal of Literature and Languages.
5. Chaume, F. (2012). Audiovisual translation: Dubbing. Routledge.
6. Chen, J. (2024). Strategies for addressing language and cultural barriers in intercultural film screenplays. Educational Research and Reviews.
7. Dramatik diskursda kognitiv interpretatsiyaning nazariy asoslari // “Ijtimoi y bilimlar va texnik-muhandislik turk dunyosi” xalqaro simpoziumi. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 648-657).
8. Dynel, M. (2011). Stranger than fiction? Methodological notes on linguistic research in film discourse. Brno Studies in English, 47(1), 41–62.
9. Filmustage. (2023). Multilingual film production: The challenges and solutions in script breakdown.
10. Holmberg, A. (2026). Ink to screen: A key feature analysis of linguistic themes in award-nominated screenplays. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities.
11. Khursanov N.I.. ECOLINGUISTICS IN THE ANTHROPOCENTRIC PARADIGM: RESEARCH OBJECT AND PURPOSE. InConferences 2025 Dec 12 (Vol. 1, No. 8, pp. 780-783).
12. Mayoral, R., Kelly, D., & Gallardo, N. (1988). Constrained translation. Meta, 33(3).
13. McIntyre, D. (2012). Gender and media discourse. In R. Piazza et al. (Eds.), Telecinematic discourse studies.
14. Mu, W. (2022). Multimodal discourse analysis of interactive environment of film discourse. PMC.
15. Piazza, R., Bednarek, M., & Rossi, F. (Eds.). (2011). Telecinematic discourse: Approaches to the language of films and television series. John Benjamins.
16. Ramakrishna, A., et al. (2017). Linguistic analysis of differences in portrayal of movie characters. In Proceedings of ACL.
17. Raupova L, Khursanov N. Pedagogical Methods of Using a Didactic Approach in Creating Independent Study Tasks for Students of the Philological Education. MMIT Proceedings. 2024 Jul 26:246-8.
18. Translation Journal. (n.d.). The power of film translation.
19. Werner, M. (2025). Linguistic historicization in movie scriptwriting. Applied Linguistics.
20. Xu, R., & Wijitsopon, R. (2023). Corpus linguistics and cinematic discourse: Lexical bundles in mainstream film scripts. LEARN Journal, 16(1), 545–574.
