Intertext in movie translation: characteristics and strategies (on the material of «Deadpool» franchise)

The article presents a comprehensive study of translation strategies for intertextual elements in audiovisual discourse, based on the "Deadpool" franchise. Intertextuality is considered as a system-forming mechanism of meaning construction, realized through film allusions, precedent names, meta-comments, and references to popular culture. The relevance of the research stems from the need for intercultural adaptation of culturally marked units in the context of media space globalization, as well as the increased complexity of rendering intertext in audiovisual translation, where the pragmatic potential of references directly depends on the congruence of the cognitive bases of the author and the recipient. The theoretical framework comprises concepts of intertextuality (J. Kristeva, M. Bakhtin), works on linguoculturology (V. V. Krasnykh), the theory of allusion translation (R. Leppihalme), the domestication vs. foreignization opposition (L. Venuti), the system of translation transformations (V. N. Komissarov), and R. Jakobson’s functional model, which enables the assessment of the preservation of informative, expressive, and metalinguistic functions. The research material consists of 6 intertextually marked fragments from the films "Deadpool" (2016), "Deadpool 2" (2018) and their official Russian dubbed versions (CPI Films studio). The analysis reveals the dominant translation strategies: direct preservation of intertext (calquing, foreignization) when the referent is highly recognizable, and adaptive substitution (compensation, domestication) in cases of low cultural transparency of the source. Special attention is paid to combined solutions demonstrating a differentiated approach to various types of intertextual elements within a single utterance. The study confirms that achieving communicative-pragmatic equivalence in intertext translation requires the translator not only to possess linguistic competence but also profound background knowledge and the ability for creative adaptation of cultural codes. The work contributes to the theory of audiovisual translation and can be used in teaching translation and localization of culturally saturated media texts

1. Alekseeva Yu. M. (2014). Translation as an intertextual formation. Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology. 4(28): 2014. 26–34. (In Russian).

2. Barkhudarov L. S. (1975). Language and Translation (Issues of General and Particular Translation Theory). Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1975. 191-232. (In Russian).

3. Fauconnier G. Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 190 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582.

4. Fauconnier G., Turner M. (2003). Polysemy and Conceptual Blending. Polysemy: flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2003. P. 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.79.

5. Gorshkova V. E. (2006). Translation in Cinema. Irkutsk: Irkutsk State Linguistic University, 2006. 277 p. (In Russian).

6. Gottlieb H. (1998). Subtitling. In: Baker M. (Ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 1998. 244–248.

7. Jakobson R. O. (1985). Language in relation to other systems of communication. In: Selected Works. Moscow: Progress. 1985. 45–87. (In Russian).

8. Komissarov V. N. (1990). Theory of Translation. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1990. 253 p. (In Russian).

9. Krasnykh V. V. (2014). Some basic concepts of psycholinguoculturology (developing V. N. Teliya’s ideas). Language, Consciousness, Communication. 50: 167–175. (In Russian).

10. Kristeva J. (2013). Semiotics: Research in Semanalysis. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt. 2013. 285 p. (In Russian).

11. Leppihalme R. (1997). Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1997. 256 p.

12. Lotman Yu. M. (1973). Semiotics of Cinema and Problems of Film Aesthetics. Moscow–Tallinn: Aleksandra. 1973. 140 p. (In Russian).

13. Molchanova G. G. (2021). Intertextuality and myth technologies in postmodern text. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. (1): 9-18. (In Russian).

14. Shabalina V. Ya. (2023). Linguistic Ways of Creating a Communicative and Pragmatic Effect in the Modern Scientific and Methodological Media Discourse. Proceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: Linguistics and Pedagogy. 13(3): 78-91. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21869/2223-151X-2023-13-3-78-91.

15. Slyshkin G. G., Efremova, M. A. (2004). Film Text: experience of linguacultural analysis. Moscow: Vodoley Publishing. 2004. 153 p. (in Russian).

16. Sorokin Yu. A., Tarasov E. F. (1990). Creolized texts and their communicative function. In: Optimization of Speech Influence. Moscow: Nauka, 1990. 180–186. (In Russian).

17. Toury G. (1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, 1980. 159 p.

18. Venuti L. (1998). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London: Routledge. 1998. 224 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203047873.

19. Zaretskaya A. N. (2012). Specific Features of Subtext Realization in Film Discourse. Chelyabinsk: Abris, 2012. 192 p. (in Russian).