Corps de l’article

1. Introduction

Multilingualism, the ability to speak multiple languages, plays an important part in many people’s lives, especially for second and third generation immigrants who speak their parents’ language as well as the language of the country where they are educated. Numerous studies have considered multilingualism in Translation Studies. In the Audiovisual Translation (AVT) context, many have demonstrated a homogenisation of languages in films and other media leading to a state of, or an illusion of, monolingualism, particularly in mainstream American cinema (Dwyer 2005; O’Sullivan 2011), but also in other film traditions (Mamula and Patti 2016). Many Hollywood films thus use English as a main language even if a film is set in another country. Nevertheless, in the past few decades, this type of monolingualism has been challenged by the cinema industry itself and the creation of blockbusters including Inglourious Basterds[1] in which different languages co-exist. This growing trend for engagement with multilingualism in cinema is known as the “linguistic” (Dwyer 2005) or “multilingual turn” (O’Sullivan 2007).

There are many reasons for films being multilingual. The first concerns notions of authenticity. Directors and producers may include different languages to more realistically portray today’s world and celebrate diversity through languages (Sanz Ortega 2015: 20). Consequently, they can also attract global audiences. There is also a financial argument. Some producers, directors and distributors have embraced the multilingual turn by selecting actors and locations from diverse countries; appealing to audiences worldwide and boosting revenue (Kilpatrick 2020; Mingant 2010).

When translating multilingual films, it is worth underlining that the revenue of most Hollywood films comes from audiences outside English-speaking countries (Romero-Fresco 2013). It thus seems sensible to maintain the multilingual appeal of these films in translation. However, various studies have shown that multilingual versions are often flattened in translation, leading to a less authentic representation (Meylaerts and Şerban 2014; Mingant 2010) while others criticise the film industry’s unwillingness to acknowledge linguistic diversity when films are created and distributed (Kilpatrick 2020; Mamula and Patti 2016; O’Sullivan 2007).

This paper thus considers a multilingual product, the American TV series Jane The Virgin,[2] its French Dubbed (DV) and Subtitled Versions (SV) as well as its Spanish DV. In this show, English and Spanish coexist, and the ability to understand and speak Spanish is integral to the characters’ identity and a prime indicator of intimacy in relationships. By analysing how multilingualism is treated in translation, I will show how multilingualism in the Original Version (OV) forges a liminal space and how this space is negotiated in translation.

In his work on rituals and rites of passage, Victor Turner defines a liminal space as “a realm of pure possibility whence novel configurations of ideas and relations may arise” (1967: 97), an in-between space where new meanings can be introduced. The liminal state is characterised by ambiguity and openness, as our sense of identity dissolves, creating disorientation. Liminality is thus a period of transition, during which our normal limits concerning thought, self-understanding and behaviour are relaxed, paving the way for something new. Drawing from Turner, I argue that multilingualism in polyglot products can be considered a liminal space, since it is through linguistic diversity that identities are constructed and negotiated. Within the multilingual space, characters find themselves in-between and in transition as they belong to more than one culture and can switch between different languages, which fully coexist in their daily life. Their speech reflects this, and conversations only make full sense in the particular space that multilingualism allows. The translation of multilingualism is therefore crucial. If AV products are translated into monolingual texts, this constricts possibilities for new meanings, for example the space of the bilingual hyphenated identity and its attendant intimacy, to be introduced in the Target Culture (TC). My analysis focuses on the role linguistic diversity plays in the characters’ identity and relationships, and what happens to multilingualism, as a liminal space, in translation since mediascapes are now increasingly globalised, with streaming platforms dominating the production and distribution of media content as well as their translations (Bond 2021; Hayes 2021; Pedersen 2018), and there is a growing demand for screen diversification in terms of production, reception and distribution (Mamula and Patti 2016). This article anchors itself in the above-mentioned landscape and, more particularly, in a context of growing linguistic diversity within the film and TV industries and the new benefits of streaming TV and on-demand AVT options. Comparing the original version of Jane The Virgin (JTV) to its French and Spanish translations, as well as the subtitled and dubbed versions, allows us to conduct an analysis that is both complex and thorough, ultimately making rigorous conclusions.

2. Jane the Virgin

Jane The Virgin (JTV, 2014-2019) is a satirical American telenovela, a type of soap opera that is primarily produced in Latin America, created by US network CW and currently streaming on Netflix. The series, based on an actual Venezuelan telenovela, was developed by Jennie Snyder Urman and is both an homage and a satirical rendition of the genre. Essentially, JTV is a telenovela in which the characters comment on the fact that their lives are typical of telenovela storylines. The main characters, the three Villanueva women, love watching telenovelas together and the events in their lives are worthy of the most convoluted telenovela scenarios. JTV contains elements of both drama and comedy and is classified as a romantic dramedy. There are five seasons, totalling 100 episodes, or chapters, as they are called. This reflects Jane’s desire to be a romance author and each episode is a chapter in Jane’s eventful life.

JTV is set in Miami, Florida. The main character, the eponymous Jane Gloriana Villanueva, a 23-year-old Latina, lives with her mother Xiomara Villanueva, a second generation Venezuelan and her abuela (grandmother in Spanish) Alba Gloriana Villanueva, who immigrated from Venezuela with her now deceased husband. Jane is thus a Venezuelan-American raised by a very pious grandmother and she vows to remain a virgin until marriage. During a routine gynaecological check-up, Jane is accidentally artificially inseminated. This is a turning point in Jane’s life; she planned on becoming a teacher and writer. Thus, Jane not only has to decide whether to keep the baby but she must also reconsider whether marrying her boyfriend, Michael Cordero, is the right decision. To complicate matters, the baby’s father, Rafael Solano, owns the hotel where Jane works and Jane had a crush on him when she was younger. Throughout the five seasons, we follow Jane as she navigates her personal and professional lives.

One of the show’s main attractions is that Jane, as a third generation immigrant, knows both English and Spanish. More specifically, even if Jane and her mother Xiomara always speak English together, they understand Spanish perfectly. They also speak to Alba in English, but she always responds in Spanish, even though she can speak English. Hence, their conversations are bilingual. English and Spanish thus play important roles in the series: Spanish is the language binding the Villanuevas and their circle is very tight since Jane has been raised solely by her mother and grandmother.

JTV focuses on the lives of the Villanuevas and their relationships with various other characters including Michael (Jane’s fiancé), Rogelio de la Vega (her father) and Rafael (her baby’s father). Michael is American and does not speak Spanish. Consequently, at family gatherings he can only participate in conversations through Jane’s translations. Rogelio, her father, is a telenovela actor of Mexican descent. He speaks both Spanish and English and uses the two languages in different contexts. In telenovelas, he uses Spanish and he also speaks Spanish with Alba. However, he speaks English with Jane and Xiomara. Finally, Rafael is an American of Italian descent. Rafael always speaks English, but he understands Spanish. He therefore does not need translation when invited into the Villanueva circle. There are other important characters, including Petra (Rafael’s wife), but there is no scope in this paper to mention them all. However, one character should not be forgotten: the narrator, whose voice guides us through the show. This third-person omniscient narrator speaks in English with a marked Hispanic accent. His comments, at once witty, humorous, and full of dramatic intent, allow us to understand the story fully.

Spanish and English thus have different functions in JTV and the casting choice reflects the show’s linguistic diversity. All Latino roles have been given to Latinos and Latinas. For instance, the Latina portraying Jane, Gina Rodriguez, is an American actor of Puerto-Rican descent, Alba is played by Ivonne Coll Mendoza, a Puerto Rican actor with a career spanning the US and Puerto Rico, and Rogelio is played by Jaime Camil, a Mexican actor, singer and television personality. The series has been praised not only for having the first full cast of Latinos and Latinas on a mainstream American show but also for its accurate depiction of Latinos and Latinas in the US. For instance, Diana Martinez, a journalist for the American online newspaper The Atlantic, explains that JTV “doesn’t just make its Latino characters visible: It makes their point of view the dominant lens of the show and filters their stories through the socially aware telenovela format.”[3] Furthermore, when writing about JTV’s impact on her, Michelle Leigh, a fan of the show explains that:

The Spanish culture is subtle yet rich. I don’t find it obnoxiously stereotypical like some TV shows can be. I really appreciate it, because I’m part Puerto Rican and I didn’t grow up learning to speak Spanish, but I wish I did. So this show kind of gives me this taste of a part of my culture, and I feel a connection to it.[4]

JTV thus offers us a glimpse into the lives of three Florida Latinas through the telenovela format. It is a multilingual, multi-ethnic and multicultural show which celebrates hyphenated identities, that is Jane, as a Venezuelan-American, belongs to two sociocultural groups and cultures, and Spanish and English co-exist as they would in a bilingual family, making these two languages key to the characters’ identity and their relationships. In particular, Spanish is the language of the insiders, those who belong to the Villanuevas’ close family circle. This paper thus focuses on how multilingualism creates a liminal space in the OV and on the effect translation produces regarding characterisation, diversity and hyphenated identity.

3. Multilingualism: identity and characterisation

Following Wahl (2008), JTV is an example of a polyglot multilingual TV series as there is, at its core, a focus on language differences, communication and translation. Polyglot films depict a somewhat realistic or authentic use of languages; they are “anti-illusionist” and “celebrate linguistic diversity” (Wahl 2008: 305). Language is therefore a central theme in polyglot films: they do not just present different languages alongside each other but engage with these languages and comment on them in some way.

Multilingualism has various functions, including “character configuration […], spatial opposition” (Delabastita and Grutman 2005: 18), “realistic rendering, conflict, and confusion” (De Bonis 2013: 170). Consequently, reasons for using multilingualism can differ significantly between films. For instance, De Bonis (2013) explains that multilingualism is primarily used for suspense in Hitchcock’s films whereas Dore (2019) emphasises its comedic functions. The main purpose of multilingualism in JTV is to authentically depict the language reality of first, second and third generation immigrants. Indeed, even if Jane and her mother, Xiomara, are US-educated, they have learnt Spanish from Alba and possibly at school. As second and third generation immigrants, Jane and Xiomara speak English as their mother tongue, having been “educated in that language and it is the one that they use on a daily basis” (Jiménez 2009: 54). English is thus their language of habitual use, but it, along with Spanish, their second language, coexist seamlessly in the Villanueva household. Moreover, when they are with non-Spanish speaking characters, Jane and Xiomara become “accidental interpreters” (Chiaro 2014: 23), for instance when Michael participates in his first family meeting, discussed below.

The fact that English and Spanish co-exist reflects an authentic use of bilingualism in the families of many US immigrants, where Spanish is the first foreign language spoken. A second, related function of multilingualism or language diversity is to show the intimate bond between the Villanuevas: Spanish is key to their identity and relationships. Alba can speak her mother tongue freely and her daughter and granddaughter understand her without needing translation, and vice versa. Alba speaks very good English, but she hardly uses it. As the examples will demonstrate, knowing and speaking Spanish is thus an important aspect of belonging to their tight-knit clan.

In addition to its various functions, Wahl (2008) identifies five subgenres of polyglot multilingual films: migration, existential, fraternisation, globalisation and colonial. Many AVT studies dissect the way language is used in migration and diasporic polyglot films, including De Higes-Andino, Prats Rodrígues and Martínez-Sierra (2013). Although JTV does not belong to the migration genre, it “deals with issues of citizenship” (Martinez 2015) since Alba came illegally to the US with her husband and decided to stay when she fell pregnant with Xiomara. Alba has spent most of her life fearing deportation and when she “ends up in the hospital in a coma” (Martinez 2015), Xiomara is informed that as Alba is “in the country illegally, she’ll be deported when she wakes up. At this moment, text appears onscreen that reads, “Yes, this really happens. Look it up. #immigrationreform.” (Martinez 2015). The show thus engages with topical political events in the US, such as immigration policies, but also “female empowerment […], the importance of family […], religion, parenthood, and reproductive rights” (Murphy 2016), all of which are addressed in bilingual conversations.

Language is a central aspect of JTV, as the show “ties reality into each conversation” and “the bilingual household […] rings true to many of the viewers’ households” (Murphy 2016). Multilingualism is used to represent the linguistic reality Jane and her family inhabit, but also to show how the Venezuelan and American cultures interact and co-exist. As the linguistic reality of bilingual households is realistically represented or portrayed in JTV, one can say that the way multilingualism is used in this show is an example of “vehicular matching,” a term used by O’Sullivan (2007: 82-83), after Sternberg (1981), to refer to using the actual languages required by the story world.

To showcase the presence of two or more languages in multilingual films, the technique of part-subtitling is used as an integral part of the original and filmmaking process. In JTV, all Spanish dialogues are subtitled. This retains a certain authenticity and avoids presenting an alternate reality where everyone speaks English. The OV thus incorporates subtitles from the production stage, as opposed to being added at a later stage, that is the distribution stage of interlingual translation.

Much work on the translation of linguistic diversity and multilingualism focuses on code switching or code-mixing, a “common feature of multilingual communities” defined as “[s]ituations in which a speaker switches to another language and then returns to the original language within the same dialog” (Pettit 2019: 176). Code-switching also denotes language switching in discussions or discourse: “[i]n code-switching, there is a momentary yet seemingly complete switch, from one language to the next for the duration of a word, a syntagm, or one or more propositions” (Grosjean 1987: 119, my translation). Thus, I will use the term code-switching to discuss all switches from Spanish to English in JTV.

Many scholars address the code-switching phenomenon, including Monti who explains that it “gives vital clues about the immigrant’s characters’ socio-linguistic hybrid identities” (2004: 165) and Dore (2019: 53), who focuses on its use for humour purposes, explaining that in the American mockumentary Modern Family[5] (2009-2020), the way Gloria Pritchett switches from English to Spanish with a marked Columbian accent when she speaks English “creat[es] moments of pure comedy.” In terms of language combination, Dore’s (2019) Source Text (ST) is similar to mine; however, even if JTV can be humorous, the main function of multilingualism is not comedic. It conveys how the characters belong to a certain linguistic and cultural community.

In JTV, meaning therefore “exists at different levels” (Pettit 2019: 156) and code-switching indicates solidarity. Multilingualism in such cases clearly carries a special meaning: one that underlines its function as a liminal space. The liminal or in-between space of solidarity is crucial in JTV as language acts as a “potent symbol of collective identity” (Shochat and Stam 1985: 52). Indeed, the way Spanish is used by the Villanuevas, as well as Rogelio, signals their belonging to a specific community (even if they are Venezuelan and Rogelio’s family is Mexican). Multilingualism provides information about “the context, the region, or milieu, and the relationships between the speakers” (Pettit 2019: 174). Pérez L. de Heredia and De Higes Andino’s recent edited collection (2019a) also highlights multilingualism’s ability to “portray[s] identities celebrating and hosting difference” (2019b: 17). Their book includes an insightful article by Beseghi (2019) who focuses on the dubbed Italian version of JTV. Beseghi considers the impact that certain translation strategies have had on character portrayal, concluding that, even if the “overall approach […] is to maintain the presence of L3 as much as possible,” “multicultural identities and transcultural connotations are [thus] partially obscured” (2019: 168) particularly because of their treatment of foreign accents in translation, as will be discussed below.

Other authors have discussed characterisation within multilingual material including O’Sullivan, who explains that foreign dialogue can be used as “a vehicle for plot and character development” (2007: 84) and Dore who concludes that code-mixing “contributes to creating character and persona” (2019: 58). Similarly, Monti explains that code-switching is a key element of characterisation because languages can be used symbolically to portray the identity of migrant characters (2016: 69). Furthermore, Iberg (2018) discusses how invented languages in Game of Thrones[6] are used for characterisation (for example, Dothraki) and Duran Eppler and Krämer’s audience surveys (2018) confirm that audiences consider multilingualism an integral part of character portrayal. Therefore different languages coexisting in polyglot products can provide important information regarding identity construction, characterisation and how identities are negotiated through linguistic diversity.

Multilingualism in polyglot films can be deemed a liminal space, particularly in audiovisual products like JTV in which identities are constantly negotiated and constructed through linguistic diversity because conversations take place in an in-between space characterised by fluidity and openness. The translation of multilingualism in JTV is thus crucial because, if it were to become a monolingual text, possibilities for new meanings, that is the special nature of the bond between the characters and the way in which they develop and constantly negotiate this bond, would not be introduced in the TCs. Moreover, new concepts of liminality and hyphenated identity would not be presented to the TAs and such a flattened translation would fail to represent the US as a multilingual environment, transforming it into a monolingual one dominated by one homogenising language. Since JTV achieves characterisation primarily through multilingualism and code-switching, my analysis compares various translations to the OV to understand how characters are (re)presented in translation. Ultimately, I reflect on how meaning transitions in translation. Before beginning this analysis, further discussion is needed of key terms, concepts and methods in AVT scholarship, especially in terms of the translation modes, for example subtitling and dubbing, so that the pros and cons of each method can be exposed in the special case of multilingual films.

In the context of translating multilingualism, many scholars explain that subtitling is preferable to dubbing since the latter causes an “erosion of multilingualism” (O’Sullivan 2011: 183) thereby neutralising and homogenising OVs (de Bonis 2013: 186). There are, however, very few reception studies surveying audiences to understand their preferences apart from Duran Eppler and Krämer, who examine deliberate non-subtitling of L3 in Breaking Bad[7] (2008-2013), concluding that an “overwhelming” majority of respondents from dubbing countries prefer subtitling as, for instance, it “makes the series more realistic and/or the characters more authentic if the multilingualism of the original is kept and non-English parts are subtitled instead of dubbed” (2018: 374). This preference is relevant for my purpose as France and Spain are both traditionally dubbing countries themselves and I am trying to ascertain, through case study analysis, which translated version of JTV works better when conveying the multilingual element of the original show. To identify the languages spoken in the OV and translated versions, they use Corrius and Zabalbeascoa’s typology (2011) in which L1 corresponds to the Source Language (SL) (that is the OV’s main language), L2 to the TL, and L3 to other languages (that is a “distinct, independent language or an instance of relevant language variation to highlight the presence of more than one speech community […] represented” [Corrius and Zabalbeascoa 2011: 120]). Duran Eppler and Krämer conclude that keeping multilingualism is widely accepted, “even highlighting it through non-translation/non-subtitling” (2018: 384). However, if “either context or visual information do not clarify what the unsubtitled passage is,” then L3 “should” be translated (Duran Eppler and Krämer 2018: 384). They also highlight that an untranslated L3 might “enhance the series’ realism and/or the authenticity of the L3 characters” (Duran Eppler and Krämer 2018: 375). Nevertheless, the potential effects of L3 non-translation must be considered carefully: if both the English (L1) and Spanish (L3) in JTV were dubbed into Spanish (L2), there would be no difference between the languages spoken, thus Spanish (L3) would become invisible in the Spanish DV.

Even if scholars and some audiences prefer subtitles, studies show they can still neutralise multilingual versions. O’Sullivan, for instance, emphasises that, when multilingual source texts are subtitled, they often become monolingual texts (2011: 8). Perhaps, subtitling’s main advantage is soundtrack retention, making the original voices and code-switching audible. However, if the TA has little or no knowledge of the ST languages, then this apparent advantage is lost as “those less talented may miss these variations” (Díaz Cintas 2011: 221). The assumption that SV viewers can identify code-switching is questioned by Pettit (2019: 153) and Vermeulen, the latter asking whether “viewers really detect code-switching in SVs. Or are they so focused on reading the subtitles that they forget to listen?” (2012: 311). In the case of the French SV of JTV, one could ask French viewers whether they can identify code-switching between Spanish and English. This is outside this paper’s scope, but it would be an interesting step to complement the analysis.

Even if scholars seemingly prefer subtitling over dubbing, dubbing remains the mainstream norm in many countries, including Spain, Italy and France. De Bonis (2013) provides insights into the Italian context and highlights three main situations: (1) neutralisation of all languages by dubbing the whole film into a L2, (2) “quantitative reduction of the multilingual situations,” and (3) preserving “the different lingua-cultural identities present” in the OV using a “combination of dubbing and other techniques” such as “diegetic interpreting.” These findings will be considered to see if there is a similar situation with French and Spanish. If so, my research would contribute more examples of strategies currently used in these contexts.

Many authors highlight a homogenisation of linguistic diversity in translation. Reasons for not conveying multilingualism can be manifold: there might be technical constraints (for example, shot types), linguistic constraints (for example, which languages are used together) and/or ideological manipulations. In the Castilian context, De Higes-Andino (2013) highlights technical constraints and ideological reasons behind the absence of multilingualism in translation. Manipulation is possible because directors do not undertake translation while distributors follow the “normal” translation procedure in specific countries (De Higes-Andino 2013: 224). In Spain, where dubbing remains the mainstream norm, distributors are reluctant to add subtitles to a DV because this is not what audiences expect and it will cost more. However, this goes against scholars’ recommendations, including Sanz-Ortega (2015) and De Bonis (2013) who advocate a multiplicity of methods depending on a film’s needs. Identifying the reasons for multilingualism is thus an important first step when choosing translation strategies.

When an L3 is used in OVs, it can be marked using various strategies including “self-translation,” “words or expressions that can be easily understood,” a “voice-over,” “full or part intra-interlingual subtitles,” and “non-translation with or without indicating the L3 in brackets” (Duran Eppler and Krämer 2018: 368-369). When translating, multilingualism can also be marked in different ways. In DVs, subtitles can be used “together with the original soundtrack” to mark language diversity (Duran Eppler and Krämer 2018: 368-369). In SVs, language diversity can be shown via “intralingual subtitles; interlingual subtitles with marked font types, for example colour or italics; or non-subtitling” (Duran Eppler and Krämer 2018: 368-369).

Marking a L3 through non-translation can occur for different reasons. Firstly, there might be a quantitative argument, for instance if the language hardly appears in the OV, if it is unimportant for “plot development,” if it overly accentuates “the otherness of the characters,” if meaning can be recovered using different semiotic channels, or if one assumes that the TA understands the expression (Duran Eppler and Krämer 2018: 368-369). Non-translation might also be deliberate, for artistic reasons for instance, to create a certain effect, for example suspense (de Bonis 2013) or emotional realism (Mingant 2010). If a scene is from the view point of a character who does not understand the L3, then non-translation might also aim at putting the audience in the character’s shoes, attempting to create empathy (Bleichenbacher 2008: 181). However, non-translation should be considered carefully as it could create unwanted “exoticism” (Mingant 2010: 717).

Different translation strategies can thus be used depending on the reasons behind language diversity. Voellmer and Zabalbeascoa (2014) identify 8 translation strategies in the dubbing context, including interlingual translation with L3 removal, transference with accents to point to a shift, neutralisation in which a L3 is deleted/untranslated, compensation through vocabulary choice and pronunciation, marking the nationality or ethnicity by using specific vocabulary or non-native pronunciation, or adaptation by which a L3 in the DV is the same as the L1 used throughout or a new L3 is introduced. Pettit uses these strategies to analyse how code-switching is used in a corpus of South African films as a “symbolic representation of [the] cultural tension” (2019: 160). She concludes that when code-switching is not translated, informal register and slang can be used as compensatory techniques instead of code-switching to “help maintain the tone of the original” (Pettit 2019: 157) and represent the South African context. However, when a L3 is deliberately unintelligible to the characters, keeping the L3 works as viewers are “placed in a similar situation as in the original” (Pettit 2019: 163) and it can “[l]et the original speak for itself” (2019: 170). “[D]ifferent accents or dubbing actors” (Pettit 2019: 164) can also be used to mark multilingualism. She, however, highlights the importance of choosing dubbing actors whose “vocal tone and pitch” match those of the original actors as it “eases potential problems relating to continuity” (Pettit 2019: 167). I will also examine whether this happens in the French and Spanish DVs of JTV.

Pettit’s study is insightful as it examines both subtitling and dubbing and shows that, generally, similar strategies are adopted despite constraints inherent to the two modes. Overall, she emphasises that translators must “consider the effect of code-switching in the original and make decisions accordingly” (Pettit 2019: 155). Like Pettit, I am interested in the effect multilingualism has in OVs, which translation strategies are used, and if translations allow viewers “to access the multiple layers of meaning […] created by multilingualism” (Pettit 2019: 155).

De Higes-Andino, Prats Rodrígues and Martínez-Sierra (2013) also identify strategies to translate multilingualism. They use a sliding scale from non-marked variations up to marked translations, including using italics, colour-coding, intralinguistic subtitling and no translation. The term “flattening” (De Higes-Andino, Prats Rodrígues and Martínez-Sierra 2013) is used to describe cases of neutralisation. They highlight that decisions are made by various agents (directors, scriptwriters, distributors) and that without translation guidelines economic factors will likely dictate the techniques used. Bartoll (2006) and Şerban (2012) also suggest using italics to capture multilingualism; an interesting but complex suggestion. Bartoll, for instance, overlooks the possible connotations of the use of italics for “secondary” languages (2006: 3) and when power discrepancies exist between certain languages and cultures, in his case English and Hindi. Even if using italics might work to mark language diversity in films, it could bear negative connotations when representing a language as other, for instance, when different languages are spoken within one country and there is tension between them, as is the case between Catalan and Castillan in Kilpatrick’s corpus of Catalan films (2020). Moreover, using italics when characters express themselves “improperly” (Bartoll 2006: 4) is also problematic as it could stigmatise certain speech impediments. Kilpatrick notes that it might even be “dangerous as it seems to equate additional languages, dialects, and even speech impediments, which could have a negative impact on the portrayal of minority languages” (2020: 62).

Bartoll (2006) also argues for using colours, which is already used in subtitling for the deaf and hard-of-hearing (SDH) to identify the voices of different protagonists and language variation (Szarkowska, Żbikowska, et al. 2014). Colour-coding is also used in fansubbing, as are different fonts and even translator’s glosses or notes (Kilpatrick 2020) and different on-screen positioning (De Higes-Andino 2013; Díaz Cintas 2018). Hence, SDH methods including, for instance, “explicit attribution,” which refers to the explicit stipulation in brackets that another language is spoken, for example “[IN SPANISH],” colour-coding and vehicular matching (Szarkowska, Żbikowska, et al. 2014), as well as techniques from fansubbing, such as the use of “headnotes/topnotes and glosses […] and the manipulation of orthotypographic resources” (Díaz Cintas 2018: 142) might be used when translating multilingualism in polyglot films to mark language variation.

Finally, it is worth reflecting further on the difficulties of maintaining language variation when a ST L3 corresponds to a TT L2. Duran Eppler and Krämer explain that “[i]f the ST L3 does not coincide with the language of the TT […] non-subtitling of L3 ST segments retains the other-language status of the L3” (2018: 369). This could be true for JTV in French translation since French is not spoken in the OV. However, an issue arises in Spanish translation, as the ST L3 and TT L2 are one and the same. The other-language status of a ST L3 can only be kept in a TT if the ST L3 is different from the TT L2. If the whole text is dubbed into the L2, the ST L3 “blend[s] into the TT” (Duran Eppler and Krämer 2018: 386).

Hence, viewers of multilingual films who do not speak all the languages present in the film or do not share the same cultures “are confronted with what is foreign to them” and scholars agree that this “must not be lost in translation” (Heiss 2004: 218). Various functions of multilingualism exist and for adequate translation, these roles must first be identified. Scholars have devised taxonomies to identify specific strategies including borrowing, omitting, neutralising, altering the register, italicising subtitles and “using different dialects or accents” (when dubbing) (Pettit 2019: 174) and the use of colours, brackets and on-screen text. Below, scenes from JTV are analysed to show how multilingualism as a liminal space is rendered in translation and whether the strategies and methods used maintain the “generative experience of linguistic confrontation and exchange” (Mamula and Patti 2016: 1) encapsulated in multilingual use.

4. Case Study

JTV is part-subtitled with interlingual subtitles provided when characters speak Spanish and for the telenovelas watched by the Villanuevas. Additionally, there are intralingual subtitles which are integral to the show’s style. JTV employs a third-person narrator and subtitles are sometimes used to summarise important points and provide background information about characters or situations. For instance, at the beginning of Chapter One, the narrator describes what Jane loves (“her family, God and grilled cheese sandwiches”) and the words appear on-screen accompanied by the sound of a typewriter. When new characters appear, succinct written information about them is also provided using a similar format. There are thus both interlingual and “creative” intralingual subtitles in the OV, which are also referred to in the literature as “creative (sub)titling,” “authorial titling,” “free form” or “dynamic” subtitles (see for instance Brown, Crabb, Sandford, Brooks, Armstrong and Jay 2016; Foerster 2010; Katan 2018; McClarty 2014; Pedersen 2022; Pérez-González 2012; Romero-Fresco 2021) as they can take many forms and are not restricted to the bottom of the screen where subtitles are typically placed, for instance in the case of text messages appearing on either side of the screen, as can be seen in JTV and in BBC’s Sherlock[8] (2010-2017).

In terms of translation, Netflix UK offers subtitling in Arabic, English (closed captions), French, Polish and Traditional Chinese as well as dubbing in English, European Spanish, French, Polish and Brazilian Portuguese.

In the French Dubbed Version (FDV), the narrator speaks French with no marked accent. The on-screen words are not rendered into French when these words clearly correspond to what the narrator is saying. Thus, the words “her family, God, grilled cheese sandwiches” mentioned above, are not translated on-screen since they appear when the narrator utters them in French. However when English subtitles are not vocalised by the narrator, these are subtitled in French. Additionally, when the characters text each other, as Jane and Michael do frequently, and the texts appear on-screen, these are subtitled in French.

In terms of voices, although the narrator has no marked accent, Alba speaks French with a strong Spanish accent. This is the main compensatory technique, although a few Spanish words are kept. For instance, in the OV, Alba often uses mija when talking to Jane. This literally translates as my daughter, but is a term of endearment meaning dear or honey and is kept in the FDV. Moreover, even if Jane speaks English, she always calls her grandmother abuela and this term is also retained. These are examples of code-switching as discussed by Pettit (2019) and Dore (2019).

The telenovelas stay in Spanish and are subtitled in French. This means that Rogelio speaks Spanish when acting in telenovelas and French in day-to-day conversations. In the OV, Spanish and English have two different functions for Rogelio, which are kept in the FDV. However, since his French voice is provided by a different voice actor, Rogelio has two voices in the FDV. Moreover, Rogelio has a strong Hispanic accent when he speaks English in the OV, but he has no accent in French. There is thus a continuity issue (Pettit 2019). Since Jaime Camil, the actor playing Rogelio, knows French and works as a voice actor, ideally he would have dubbed himself, ensuring continuity between his Spanish voice and French voice. Actors have dubbed themselves before, for instance, Diane Kruger in the French and German versions of Inglourious Basterds, as discussed by Mingant (2010).

Overall then the main strategy for rendering the multilingualism is that of compensation through accent, but only for Alba. Choices are thus not consistent. Indeed, why give Alba an accent but not other characters? Additionally, code-switching is used for certain words (abuela, mija). Quantitatively speaking, code-switching is thus reduced to a couple of words, as if the characters spoke Spanglish in the OV. The liminal space in which languages meet thus shrinks in translation and its rich meaning is not conveyed.

In the French Subtitled Version (FSV), the intralingual subtitles, narrator’s voice and dialogues are all subtitled into French and the subtitles do not provide information about which language is spoken. However, as with the FDV, some code-switching is used as Alba’s mija and Jane’s abuela are kept in the subtitles. This recalls Duran Eppler and Krämer’s (2018) study which mentioned intralingual translation as one way of marking multilingualism in the translated versions. However, italics, another strategy mentioned by these authors to mark language diversity, are not used to represent the code-switching. Instead, the narrator’s voice is subtitled using italics. The same strategies to mark some code-switching are thus used across the FDV and FSV. Generally, the FSV seems more homogenised than the FDV because everything is subtitled in one language as mentioned above.

There are many examples to choose from in the series’ hundred episodes to investigate further the fate of multilingualism in translation. For instance, Michael’s first family meeting with the Villanuevas (S1, C2), the wedding scene as Michael has learnt to say his vows in Spanish (S2, C22), Xiomara’s telenovela audition as she struggles to speak Spanish (S2 C19) and Alba getting her green card, as she makes a speech in English (S4 C17). As it is impossible to analyse them all here, I selected the first two, which are crucial in Jane’s life and show the importance of code-switching in emotionally charged scenes.

Chapter Two starts with Jane calling her first family meeting with Michael, who is now invited as they are engaged. Jane explains to her family that she will have the baby and give it to Rafael and his wife. Once Jane has explained her feelings in English, Alba asks in Spanish if she can say solo una cosa [just one thing]. She then tells Jane: Debería de [sic] quedarte con el bebé which is subtitled as you should keep the baby. Jane gets angry and the three women start speaking over one another. Michael looks lost and asks Jane what did she say?. Jane translates she says that I should keep the baby. Michael looks upset and surprised. He responds oh, no, no turning towards Alba adding she’s not keeping the baby. Without Jane’s translation, Michael would be unable to participate in the conversation. Given that in the FDV all characters speak French, let us examine this situation’s treatment.

In the FDV, Alba starts in French Je pourrais dire quelque chose, rien qu’une seule chose [Could I say something, just one thing] and continues in Spanish Deberías de [sic] quedarte con el bebé which is subtitled in French Tu devrais garder le bébé [you should keep the baby]. She then returns to French. Michael’s question (What did she say?) is translated literally. Interestingly, even if Alba almost always speaks French in the FDV, she says this sentence in Spanish. We do not, however, hear Alba’s original voice, but that of the French voice talent. There is thus good continuity between the Spanish accented French and the sentence in Spanish. Nevertheless, viewers might wonder why Alba suddenly speaks Spanish as she usually speaks French fluently: this choice is creative and displays some multilingualism, but is inconsistent with usual translation choices.

In the FSV, the subtitles do not indicate which language is used. However, when Jane responds to Alba, she uses abuela twice and this time the words are marked by the use of italics in the subtitles. This is a different strategy from Chapter One, where regular font was used for Spanish words, for example abuela, hence leaving the code-switching unmarked or normalised since the whole of the subtitle is presented in the same font. Since there is no indication that Alba speaks Spanish, and everyone else speaks English, when Michael asks in French What did she say, the audience, unless they know these languages, will not understand why Michael cannot understand Alba. One might assume that the French audience could discern the differences between the two languages and understand that Michael does not speak Spanish as he asks What did she say. However, this choice requires more cognitive work from viewers and can only succeed if they know Spanish and English. Hence, as the multilingualism is not marked in the subtitles, the audience cannot fully grasp the concept of hyphenated identity or appreciate bilingualism as a special liminal space for the Villanuevas. The Villanuevas inhabit this third space instinctively, and when outsiders join them, the outsiders’ translation needs highlight their marginalised position within this space. The main function of multilingualism, that is intimacy, is thus lost in the SV as everybody speaks the same language.

The second scene worth investigating is Jane and Michael’s wedding. In the OV, the wedding is conducted in English. However, to everybody’s surprise, including Jane’s and the audience, Michael switches to Spanish for his vows. This is crucial because Michael does not know Spanish. He thus has learnt his vows in Spanish to show Jane how much he loves her. Although this is a surprise to most, it is not to Alba who we surmise has helped Michael since before speaking he looks at her and she nods. As Michael exchanges this look with Alba, Jane looks confused. Then he takes a breath and starts his vows in Spanish. The emotion on Jane’s face is evident as she gasps when he starts and finishes his vows. In the OV, Michael’s words are subtitled in English. In the FDV, Michael speaks French, but turns to Spanish when he starts his vows. It is the second time Spanish is kept in the FDV (outside the telenovela world), the first time being Alba’s short sentence at his first family meeting. In terms of linguistic diversity, it is a marked choice, but it is problematic as we do not hear the French actor’s voice but the original actor’s. There is a continuity issue as the two voices have different grains, English Michael having a deeper voice. The scene is subtitled into French and thus mirrors the OV’s subtitles so that the audience can understand Michael. Overall, this choice works towards highlighting the linguistic diversity and the intimacy attached to speaking Spanish. However, viewers might be surprised to hear another voice coming from Michael’s mouth, as this experience is uncanny (Bosseaux 2015).

In the FSV, the vows are subtitled in French in regular font with no indication of language switching. Consequently, the look between Alba and Michael as well as Jane’s emotions as Michael speaks Spanish lose some significance; a significance only retained if the audience understands that Michael has learnt Spanish. Unmarked code-switching requires more cognitive work from the audience, and again this choice only works if it is assumed viewers can identify the two languages.

The liminal function of multilingualism has thus no space in the FSV, whereas in the FDV an attempt is made to convey the intimacy created through code-switching. Generally, however, because this choice is inconsistent with other translation choices in the FDV and the voices do not match, viewers might be more surprised than moved by Michael’s language switch.

Hence the FSV flattens linguistic diversity more than the FDV, as the latter includes further compensatory techniques, for example Alba’s Spanish accent. In the FSV, the voices remain audible, but the subtitles do not indicate a language switch apart from abuela and mija, putting more pressure on the viewers’ ability to understand language changes. Linguistic diversity through code-switching is the site of strong emotions, which are not fully translated. Consequently, specific meanings related to hyphenated identity, intimacy, liminality and the role languages play in these context are not conveyed to the French audience.

When considering the Spanish Dubbed Version (SDV[9]), since the ST L3 corresponds to the TT L2, it is more challenging to portray language variation. Indeed, in French translation, Spanish could still be portrayed as the L3, and the two languages could still co-exist together, even if this is not the case as shown above. In a SDV, if it is not marked, the code-switching becomes invisible.

In JTV’s SDV, all actors, apart from Alba, are dubbed by European Spanish actors. This choice might make financial sense since Alba already speaks Spanish. However there are a few issues. Firstly, even if both Rogelio and Alba speak Spanish in the OV, only Alba’s voice is retained. Rogelio has been fully dubbed into European Spanish, including the scenes in which he already speaks Spanish. Doing so might “avoid a conflict between the two voices” (García Ossorio and Bolaños Medina 2018: 94, my translation), as found in the FDV. However, since Camil dubs himself for the Latin American version (García Ossorio and Bolaños Medina 2018: 94), why was this not done for the European market? Additionally, keeping Alba’s voice creates an acoustic issue as Jane and Xiomara’s voices sound dubbed, with more clarity in their articulation. Finally, even if the actor playing the narrator is bilingual and could have dubbed himself, he has been fully dubbed with a European Spanish accent. We are left wondering why Alba’s voice has been kept and not Rogelio’s or the narrator’s? These choices reflect a tendency highlighted by Jiménez (2009: 69) to dub South-American Spanish into European Spanish. Consequently, the OV’s original purpose, which was to reflect hyphenated identity in a multilingual North American society, is erased. The SDV’s strategy for translating voices reflects the choices made in the FDV in which Alba has a marked accent, but not Rogelio or the narrator.

In terms of linguistic diversity, as the whole soundtrack is in Spanish, there is no language switching in different situations. There is thus no contrast between Rogelio as a telenovela actor and Rogelio as Jane’s father, as he speaks Spanish constantly, with no multilingual conversations. Therefore in Chapter One, when Jane tries to explain her situation to Alba, she does not need to mention that she cannot explain in Spanish. As in the FDV, Jane says No sé cómo explicártelo [I don’t know how to explain this to you]. As noted previously, there is a difference in the volume and clarity of the voices as Alba speaks with her original voice and Jane is dubbed: the sound of the dubbed track is louder and crisper. This sound mismatch creates an uncanny effect very similar to hearing original Michael’s voice when he speaks Spanish for his vows in the FDV.

The creative intralingual subtitles are all translated using the exact same strategies as the FDV and on-screen creative subtitles are subtitled into Spanish when words are not vocalised by the narrator. Throughout, there is therefore no code-switching and little indication that, in the original, two languages co-exist. The only reminder of another language is the text messages and creative subtitling which appear on screen. Keeping these texts in English aims towards showing that Jane or Michael speak another language, although English then becomes the language of written communication.

Even if there is usually no code-switching, an unforeseen choice is made during Michael’s first family meeting. Indeed Michael, who has been speaking fluent Spanish so far, says in English What did she say? when Alba tells Jane in Spanish that she should keep the baby.[10] The volume of his voice is lower at this point and Alba, Jane and Xiomara speak louder than he does. One must thus listen carefully to hear him. Speaking again in Spanish after Jane’s translation, he tells Alba that Jane will not be keeping the baby. This example of code-switching is surprising because Michael’s Spanish has so far been fluent and he has never spoken English. This strategy highlights the fact that Michael is not able to understand Alba, but only on this occasion. As his sentence is not subtitled, the audience might wonder what Michael asked, although as Jane repeats what Alba said, viewers might deduce that he was seeking clarifications. Julie Charles-Loison explains that “many convincing adaptation strategies exist particularly when they are used coherently over the whole of the text” (2017: 96, my translation). Here, having Michael speak English is not a coherent choice, particularly in relation to the wedding scene, which is conducted in Spanish with no language switch when Michael says his vows. Michael still looks at Alba and Jane still gasps, but these gestures and sounds do not carry the same emotion as the original in which Jane’s, Michael’s and Alba’s emotions make complete sense thanks to the linguistics, paralinguistic elements, gestures and facial expressions. The fact that Jane is so surprised and moved by Michael learning her language is not conveyed at all in the SDV.

5. Further discussion and conclusion

Hence, JTV’s multilingualism is flattened in translation, although neutralisation does occur to different degrees. Many scholars discuss the neutralisation of multilingualism in AVT, although compensation strategies are also highlighted, such as using expletives and slang (Dore 2016; 2019). Recently, Dore argued that newly released dubbed films are “geared towards a more faithful rendering of multilingualism” (2019: 56). She shows that when dubbing Modern Family into Italian, the English is translated into standard Italian (with a few exceptions when Spanish is used), the non-native English is translated into Italian with a foreign accent, and the Spanish is kept as Spanish. There is thus no flattening. Neutralisation can be avoided because the main function of multilingualism is humorous and Spanish is used for a few words and expressions. Conveying the comedic function of multilingualism, particularly when pronunciation mistakes are made or wrong words are used, seems straightforward. However, the situation is different in JTV since Spanish and English co-exist and maintaining sustained linguistic diversity cannot be done solely using slang or expletives.

Dore explains that “using regional varieties of Italian” can “compensate for the loss of the L3 and its humorous function” (2019: 57). In addition, accents associated with the L3 language might be used to indicate someone’s nationality. In Dore’s analysis of Modern Family, this is one of the strategies that made the transfer successful for “Gloria’s Spanish-American accent and language variation” (2019: 57). In JTV’s FDV, Alba also has a Spanish accent. Although this works at some level, one must be careful when using accents because they can carry stereotypes, as do different language varieties and dialects. In terms of representation, giving Alba an accent is not an ‘equivalent’ solution since Alba does not speak English with a Spanish accent; she speaks Spanish. It is within the space of code-switching that her hyphenated identity has been constructed and is constantly negotiated. In the FDV, Alba’s character is restricted to an accent, and this limits her ability to construct and negotiate her identity. Moreover, the SDV homogenised the type of Spanish used while also failing to acknowledge the presence of the L3, as Rogelio and the narrator are given European Spanish accents. Interestingly, Beseghi (2019) also notes that in the Italian dubbed version of JTV, some foreign accents are “overemphasised” (155), which is the case for Alba, “preserved” (163), for example Rogelio, and others “neutralised” (168), for example the narrator. She explains that “while in the original version, Alba speaks English correctly, but with a Spanish accent, in the dubbed version she speaks Italian more hesitatingly and with a more marked Spanish accent” (2019: 155). The French and Spanish dubbed versions of JTV, and to some extent, its Italian one, can thus be said to display “politics of exclusion and cultural suppression” (Mamula and Patti 2016: 5) of the “other” language. Moreover the strategies can also be seen as attempts to “conceal linguistic heterogeneity […] and push a country’s linguistic evolution toward a firmer monolingualism” (Mamula and Patti 2016: 5); two tendencies which are anchored in the historic implementation of dubbing in France and Spain.

This short analysis has shown that it does not make sense to dub JTV into Spanish. A SV would better convey its multilingualism with specific colours for different languages, for instance. As for French, a mixture of subtitling and dubbing would work better: a version in which English is dubbed into French and the Spanish is subtitled. Indeed, if viewers prefer multilingualism to be kept in TTs and if dubbing enthusiasts acknowledge preferring subtitling in certain scenes (Duran Eppler and Krämer 2018: 375), why not use mixed methods when translating polyglot AV products? Duran Eppler and Krämer’s conclusion that “distributors underestimate what dubbing viewers are willing to accept in the case of multilingual AV texts” (2018: 376) definitely applies here. Moreover, if part-subtitling is present in the OVs of blockbusters or award-winning TV series, it means it is commercially viable and that large audiences are already used to it. Netflix might thus benefit from considering more carefully its dubbing and subtitling choices and work towards less homogenising translations.

Although a full voice analysis is beyond the scope of this article, it is worth emphasising that there are voice mismatches in the FDV and SDV. In the SDV, there is a jarring effect as the original soundtrack is kept when Alba speaks in Latin American Spanish while other characters speak in European Spanish. Furthermore, in the FDV we hear Michael’s original voice at the wedding scene. This partial dub leads to an aural dissonance, as we switch from Michael’s French voice to his English one speaking in Spanish. This dissonance calls attention to “the suspension of linguistic disbelief, upon which dubbing is built,” and in such a scene it is “seriously compromised, revealing dubbing’s artifice” (De Bonis 2013: 181). Perhaps this dissonance could have been minimised if Michael’s French voice had been similar to this original voice? Or if he had spoken the Spanish lines with his French accent. In Rogelio’s case, as the actor speaks French, why not have him dub himself like Waltz in Inglourious Basterds?

The presence of different voices in JTV celebrates the richness of different languages functioning alongside each other and also highlights communication problems, for instance when Michael cannot understand Alba. In 2005, Dwyer lamented that “the complexities of language difference” have been “ignored” even “disavowed” by the film’s industry (2005: 297). Over fifteen years later, the translations of JTV also display various levels of homogenisation and an unwillingness to handle multiple languages in translation. Most specifically, it is regrettable that the SDV hardly acknowledges the presence and co-existence of Spanish and English, even though this linguistic diversity is at the heart of the characters’ relationship, a sign of belonging to the Venezuelan-American community. Those watching the translated versions have no idea that Alba and Jane speak different languages, but understand each other perfectly. Of course the story is the same and there are reminders of the multiple languages being spoken or written, for instance, in the text messages and creative subtitling, but overall French and Spanish viewers are given very little indication of the extent to which multiple languages are spoken, and some erroneous ideas or beliefs, for instance that America or the West are intrinsically monolingual (Israel 2021) are left unchallenged and ultimately reinforced in translation.

JTV in translation thus shows a multilingual text “subject[ed] to various kinds of monolingual pressure” (O’Sullivan 2011: 177) as the L1 and L3 have homogeneously been dubbed into a L2 and the status of Spanish is not maintained. This flattening has an undeniable impact on multilingualism as a liminal space, since Jane’s, Xiomara’s and Alba’s identities have been constructed through their ability to understand, speak and communicate in two languages and their hyphenated identities are constantly negotiated within this linguistic diversity. The multilingual scenes examined showed that in the OV, multilingualism creates a special space, one in which particular meanings are created, for instance intimacy as Jane, Alba and Xiomara have a strong bond, but also distance, as those who do not speak Spanish cannot fully inhabit the Villanueva’s tight circle. As there is homogenisation in translation, possibilities for new meanings to be introduced (Turner 1981: 161) in the French and Spanish cultures are limited, even impossible, especially for Spanish as the ST L3 corresponds to the TT L1.

Using conventional subtitling or dubbing techniques thus does not work as JTV is a creative polyglot show in which identities are built and negotiated through linguistic diversity. Many scholars highlight that multilingual films require creative translation solutions through the combination of different techniques, such as colour coding, italics, translators’ notes or glosses (Kilpatrick 2020) or pop-up informative bubbles (Sanchez 2014: 323). This might not work for all genres, but is worth investigating for products like JTV since the OV already uses creative or dynamic subtitles.

Translation remains an afterthought in the film industry. However, multilingual films are successful and audiences of OVs are adjusting to part-subtitling and various fansubbing techniques. As this article has shown, new strategies are needed for translating multilingualism on screen since today’s mediascape is an increasingly globalised one. The number of subscribers to streaming platforms, such as Netflix, is growing exponentially and scholars are demanding more screen diversification in terms of production, reception and distribution of audiovisual products. The way Netflix works also presents an interesting question since viewers can choose whether to watch dubbed or subtitled versions. There are no studies showing which versions are chosen more often and why, but this opportunity to choose demonstrates that audiences have more say in deciding how they consume media, potentially indicating an interest in more creative translation methods, as these are being used more in mainstream media production, for instance on various BBC channels (see for instance the TV series Sherlock, and documentaries like Human Planet[11] [2011] or shorts like Loop[12] [2016-ongoing]). Mixed creative methods thus ought to be considered to allow for new concepts of hyphenated identity and liminality to endure in translation. Ultimately, more audience studies are needed to fully understand what viewers can cope with and want following Szarkowska, Żbikowska, et al.’s reception study (2014: 289) which highlighted for instance that colour-coding and vehicular matching were “met with a favourable reception from the participants” of their reception studies. We can then prove that audiences are ready for another type of translation, one that allows multilingualism, liminality and hyphenated identity to shine through.