The Rendering of Multilingual Occurrences in Netflix’s Italian Dub Streams: Evolving Trends and Norms on Streaming Platforms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript fits completeley within the general framework of the theme issue. The general estructure is good and the style and language are appropiate. Its content is interesting and innovative, the topic is relevant and timely with regards to current trends in audiovisual industry and AVT research. The article is methodologically sound, the research data are interpreted accurately and meaningfully, and the conclusions follow from the data presented. The references to the literature in the field are well documented and updated. I must highlight the large number of examples explained and the way in which the article is structured, which articulates the various strategies while illustrating them with concrete cases from the five selected audiovisual texts. This is innovative and easy to understand.
Some more specific comments in the body of the document:
30: "company’s American in-house": Please use US as it's done in 34.
42-49: This is a very important part of the article's introduction, but it seems to be full of somewhat subjective statements that do not give much confidence in the academic tone required of such papers. I would recommend supporting all these statements with previous studies or articles to back them up.
60-61: "As for accents, Netflix recommends the creative choice “to be determined by pro-60 duction with consistency maintained by Netflix” (Netflix 2022, p. 2)." Where does the author get the page from?
129-131: Isn't it the case with any language with specific varieties? Let's say Spanish, French, German...
159: Methdology. Spellchecker.
332: it is not "sentados" but "centavos". Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.
714-721: Even in the discussion and conclusion part, these statements are again too vague and subjective and I recommend that they be supported by existing data.
860: "Netflix. "Inclusion & Diversity." Netflix Jobs., last modified a, accessed Feb 13, 2022, https://jobs.netflix.com/inclusion." doesn't work.
Author Response
30: "company’s American in-house": Please use US as it's done in 34.
Done, thanks!
42-49: This is a very important part of the article's introduction, but it seems to be full of somewhat subjective statements that do not give much confidence in the academic tone required of such papers. I would recommend supporting all these statements with previous studies or articles to back them up.
Yes, you are right. It is partly drawn from the style guidelines, so we will include that reference, too.
60-61: "As for accents, Netflix recommends the creative choice “to be determined by pro-60 duction with consistency maintained by Netflix” (Netflix 2022, p. 2)." Where does the author get the page from?
You are right, it’s an oversight, there is no page number in the case.
129-131: Isn't it the case with any language with specific varieties? Let's say Spanish, French, German...
True, omitted specific reference to Italian dubbing.
159: Methdology. Spellchecker.
Adjusted, thanks.
332: it is not "sentados" but "centavos". Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.
Thank you for noticing this glitch. Word and table replaced.
714-721: Even in the discussion and conclusion part, these statements are again too vague and subjective and I recommend that they be supported by existing data.
We appreciate the observation. These statements summarise the data analysis and is drawn on the overall objective findings of the data. I am afraid that reintroducing the data specifics based on the case-by-case micro strategies would be repetitive and would break the flow.
860: "Netflix. "Inclusion & Diversity." Netflix Jobs., last modified a, accessed Feb 13, 2022, https://jobs.netflix.com/inclusion." doesn't work.
Thank you for pointing this out, the URL has changed in the meantime. We adjusted accordingly
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper offers, in my opinion, an interesting contribution to the analysis of the translation of multilingualism in Netflix-produced series. I think that the article is suitable for publication in Languages with minor modifications.
The paper is in general well-written; its style is clear and concise. It goes to the point, without any unnecessary ornaments which could distract from the argument or line of thought. In my opinion it is the type of style which corresponds to the academic prose.
A couple of typos, though, have been detected, as indicated below:
- It can be assumed that that neutralisation (p. 14, lines 486-487) --> It can be assumed that neutralisation
- neutralisation is employed in other occasions, (p. 22, line 681) --> neutralisation is employed on other occasions,
Apart from that, there is a terminological issue with regard to the use of the term strategy. The author should, in my opinion, at least show acknoledgement of this terminological issue and justify their choice, considering the ambiguity of the term, used with different meanings by different scholars. There is a book chapter by Zabalbeascoa on this topic that the author might find useful:
Zabalbeascoa, Patrick (2000) "From techniques to types of solutions". Beeby, A. et al. (eds.) Investigating Translation. John Benjamins.
What is explained on page 15 regarding the example in Table 11 is so strange, and so puzzling for viewers of the Italian dubbed version, I suppose, that it should be dealt with in more depth in my opinion. I think that the insertion of certain screenshots of frames in this case and in others would also be helpful to readers.
Author Response
A couple of typos, though, have been detected, as indicated below:
- It can be assumed that that neutralisation (p. 14, lines 486-487) --> It can be assumed that neutralisation Adjusted, thanks.
- neutralisation is employed in other occasions, (p. 22, line 681) --> neutralisation is employed on other occasions,
Adjusted, thanks!
Apart from that, there is a terminological issue with regard to the use of the term strategy. The author should, in my opinion, at least show acknoledgement of this terminological issue and justify their choice, considering the ambiguity of the term, used with different meanings by different scholars. There is a book chapter by Zabalbeascoa on this topic that the author might find useful:
Zabalbeascoa, Patrick (2000) "From techniques to types of solutions". Beeby, A. et al. (eds.) Investigating Translation. John Benjamins.
We added a disclaimer on the use of this term in this paper. Thank you so much for the suggestion and reference.
What is explained on page 15 regarding the example in Table 11 is so strange, and so puzzling for viewers of the Italian dubbed version, I suppose, that it should be dealt with in more depth in my opinion. I think that the insertion of certain screenshots of frames in this case and in others would also be helpful to readers.
Yes, it would be great to provide an illustration, but this is not possibly for copyright issues with images. Permissions would be required over and above blurring and Netlfix does not issue such permissions.
You are right, it is puzzling and to be honest, we think it might be a glitch in the post-production process, but we are not sure how to word this. We included an extra sentence to at least put forward this hypothesis. These forced narratives do not match the Italian subtitling stream, either so they don’t seem to be carried over from that stream by mistake.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an excellent piece of research. I have made specific comments on content as well as language in the paper itself - attached.
One general point is that you should explain / define some of the terms you take for granted along with (even) more clarification within the tables, given the complexity of the task you have given yourself.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the feedback and the details provided within the manuscript. The attention to detail is much appreciated! We addressed every single suggestion.
Terminology was clarified as suggested (e.g., forced narratives).
Other clarifications were added, such as the example of an English dubbed stream for an English original production. We also clarified that we were referring to Italian dubbing actors and not native dubbing actors.
In sum, we addressed every suggestion, with a few exceptions:
- As for the audience eavesdropping when originally, they couldn’t, the audience had forced narratives in English so they could always understand the foreign utterances.
- Specifying that Ancient Hebrew died out before Christ might confuse the readers since the series focuses on a modern-day Messiah.
- In the end, after much thought, we chose not to refer to “subtitles” in the tables since it might confuse the readers. They may think that we are referring to the subtitled stream of the series.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
