Subtitling the f-word into Arabic in Hollywood films: a corpus-based study

The paper examines how taboo language—specifically the f-word—is rendered in Arabic subtitles of Hollywood films, situating the issue within broader cross-cultural differences in tolerance and use of profanity. Taboo words are widespread across languages and function to express strong emotions (anger, frustration, amazement, joy), yet their acceptability and offensiveness vary by culture. Given Arab cultures’ more conservative norms, taboo terms in English-language films are expected to be omitted or toned down in Arabic subtitles. Prior work shows increases in taboo usage in American media and suggests heavy censorship in Arabic contexts (e.g., Sahari 2017 on Pulp Fiction). The study focuses on the f-word—the most frequent taboo item in the compiled corpus—because of its multifunctionality and high frequency (about 35% of taboos in the corpus). It adopts McEnery and Xiao’s functional taxonomy for the f-word due to its corpus-based design and direct relevance. The purpose is to identify dominant subtitling strategies, the most frequent Arabic equivalents, and whether the word’s function affects strategy choice, contributing to descriptive translation studies by mapping target-culture norms and constraints in Arabic AV translation.

The study is grounded in Descriptive Translation Studies (Toury 1995/2012), emphasizing the target-culture position of translations and a methodology involving situating texts in the target system, comparing ST–TT coupled pairs, and drawing implications for translator decision-making. Prior research across European and Asian contexts (e.g., Soler Pardo 2011; Pujol 2006; Lie 2013; Midjord 2013; Nguyen 2015; Han and Wang 2014; Yuan 2016; Jin 2018; Sutrisno and Ibnus 2021) commonly reports omission, softening, and cultural substitution of taboos. In Arabic contexts, studies (e.g., Alkadi 2010; Al-Adwan 2009; Khalaf and Rashid 2016; Al-Yasin and Rabab’ah 2019; Abu-Rayyash et al. 2023; Al-Ajarmeh and Al-Adwan 2022; Alharthi 2023; Olimat et al. 2023; Sarwat and Adel 2022; Thawabteh et al. 2022) note strategies such as omission, euphemisation, and swear-to-non-swear shifts, but often analyze small datasets, include fan subtitles, and seldom examine the f-word’s functions systematically. Regarding strategy typologies, Pedersen’s (2011) and Díaz-Cintas and Remael’s (2007) models are discussed; Pedersen’s taxonomy is preferred and adapted because many cultural-reference strategies are ill-suited to taboo items, and generalisation vs. specification map differently to source/target orientation. The study modifies Pedersen to four strategies relevant to taboos: cultural substitution, omission, reformulation, and specification. Literature also highlights euphemism as a face-saving strategy (Allan & Burridge 1991) and notes that target norms often shift taboo semantic fields (e.g., sex to religion/scatology).

Sample: A corpus of 90 Hollywood feature films (nine genres per IMDb: action, comedy, crime, horror, thriller, romance, drama, fantasy, adventure) released 2000–2018, with English and Arabic subtitles, totaling ~165 hours. Corpus size: ~860,516 English words + ~612,905 Arabic words (total ~1,473,421). The f-word and variants constitute about 35% of taboo tokens. Data collection and processing: English subtitles were sourced from DVDs, Amazon Prime, iTunes Store, and Netflix. Due to limited availability of Arabic subtitles on DVDs, many Arabic subtitles were retrieved from fansubbing platforms (e.g., Subscene, Movizland, Dardarkom, Cima4u). Subtitles were extracted using SmartRipper and SubRip. OCR errors in Arabic were manually corrected. English subtitles were segmented into sentences; Arabic subtitles were aligned to English counterparts. Aligned data were exported to Excel and analyzed in Sketch Engine (supports Arabic RTL and UTF-8/16, with lemmatization). Identification and coding: The f-word occurrences in the English source text were queried via concordance in Sketch Engine and functionally categorized per McEnery (2006), using 7 functions observed in this corpus (e.g., emphatic intensifier, idiomatic set phrase, general expletive, cursing expletive, personal insult, literal usage, pronominal form). Each instance was paired with the Arabic subtitle to identify the subtitling strategy (cultural substitution, omission, reformulation, specification). Two colleagues independently reviewed initial categorizations to ensure validity and resolve discrepancies (Toury’s coupled-pair method operationalized). Analysis: Quantitative cross-tabulations linked functions to strategies (raw and normalized frequencies). Qualitative analysis interpreted patterns, salient cases, and contextual audiovisual cues influencing choices (e.g., prosody, visuals).

- Strategy prevalence across all functions (N=3059): Omission 48.7% (1491), Cultural substitution 40.63% (1243), Reformulation 10.59% (324), Specification 0.03% (1). No instances of direct/literal translation were found. - By function (frequency of f-word uses): Emphatic intensifier 1335 (43.64%); Idiomatic set phrase 814 (26.61%); General expletive 380 (12.42%); Cursing expletive 278 (9.08%); Personal insult (identified entity) 122 (3.98%); Literal usage denoting taboo referent 115 (3.75%); Pronominal form 15 (0.49%). - Function–strategy associations (highlights): • Omission dominates emphatic intensifiers (62.91% of all omissions were on this function; 938 cases) and idiomatic set phrases (427 cases; 28.63%). It is rare for literal usage (5; 0.33%) and pronominal forms (6; 0.40%). • Cultural substitution is frequent for emphatic intensifier (359; 24.87%), general expletive (296; 23.81%), cursing expletive (249; 20.03%), with fewer for idioms (147; 11.82%), personal insults (96; 7.72%), literal usage (89; 7.16%), pronominal forms (7; 0.56%). • Reformulation is concentrated on idiomatic set phrases (240; 74.07% of reformulations), then emphatic intensifier (38; 11.72%) and literal usage (20; 6.17%); minimal for other functions. Specification appeared once, specifying a literal threat as rape (سأغتصبك ثم أقتلك). - RQ2 (prevailing Arabic correspondents): Omission 1491 (48.74%); تبا ‘may evil befall’ 437 (14.28%); اللعين ‘damned’ 359 (11.73%); non‑taboo (unclassifiable) 308 (10.06%); سحقا ‘perish’ 150 (4.90%); يضاجع ‘lying’ 57 (1.86%); بحق السماء ‘for heaven’s sake’ 45 (1.47%); يعاشر ‘live with’ 35 (1.14%); سافل ‘vile’ 32 (1.04%); بحق الجحيم ‘for hell’s sake’ 28 (0.91%); إلى الجحيم ‘to hell’ 12 (0.39%); بحق الله ‘for Allah’s sake’ 12 (0.39%); اغرب عن وجهي ‘go away from my face’ 10 (0.32%); حقير ‘low’ 9 (0.29%); الجنس ‘sex’ 7 (0.22%); غبي ‘stupid’ 7 (0.22%); أحمق ‘fool’ 6 (0.19%); القذارة ‘filth’ 5 (0.16%); وغد ‘scoundrel’ 5 (0.16%). - Notable patterns: Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) constraints push translators away from sex-related taboos toward religious or euphemistic substitutes; omission is common especially for emphatic and idiomatic functions. Literal sexual references are typically rendered via euphemistic cultural substitutions (e.g., يعاشر, يضاجع), preserving referential meaning while reducing offensiveness. No literal/loan translations of the f-word appear in the corpus.

The findings address the research questions by showing: (RQ1) Omission is the dominant strategy overall, followed closely by cultural substitution, with reformulation used mainly for idiomatic expressions and specification virtually absent. (RQ2) The most frequent Arabic renderings are omission and religious/euphemistic expressions (e.g., تبا, اللعين, سحقا), reflecting target-culture norms and the formal MSA register of subtitles. (RQ3) Function strongly shapes strategy: emphatic and idiomatic uses tend to be omitted or reformulated due to a lack of natural MSA equivalents for sex-based intensification, while general and cursing expletives readily accept religious-based substitutions. Literal sexual usage is handled with euphemistic cultural substitutions that keep propositional content while mitigating profanity. These patterns align with DTS predictions: target-system norms (formal written MSA, cultural sensitivities, and the higher offensiveness of taboos in writing) constrain choices, encouraging euphemisation, tone-down, or omission. The audiovisual medium’s polysemiotic cues (visuals, intonation) allow translators to omit or soften the f-word while preserving communicative effect via on-screen context. The consistent avoidance of direct/literal translation underscores the absence of acceptable MSA equivalents and the influence of censorship norms and viewer expectations in Arabic contexts.

Using a large English–Arabic AV corpus (90 films), the study maps how the f-word’s functions determine subtitling strategies in Arabic. Omission and cultural substitution dominate, with reformulation primarily used for idioms and specification virtually unused. The f-word’s most frequent functions (emphatic intensifier, idiomatic set phrase) correlate with higher omission; general and cursing expletives are typically rendered by religious/euphemistic substitutions; literal sexual references are translated euphemistically (e.g., يعاشر, يضاجع). The consistent absence of literal translation and the prevalence of archaic/formal religious terms reflect the constraints of MSA as the subtitling register and the greater perceived offensiveness of written taboos. These results contribute to DTS by articulating target-culture norms governing taboo translation in Arabic AVT and by evidencing function-sensitive strategy selection. Future research could extend to dialectal Arabic subtitles/dubs, other taboo domains (scatology, religion), streaming-platform policies over time, and reception studies assessing viewer perceptions of toned-down vs. omitted taboos.

- Subtitle sourcing included a substantial portion from fansubbing platforms due to limited availability of official Arabic subtitles on DVDs; although manually corrected, variation in quality and adherence to professional norms may persist. - OCR-related errors required manual revisions, introducing potential human correction bias. - The study focuses on MSA subtitles of 90 Hollywood films (2000–2018); findings may not generalize to dubbed content, colloquial/dialectal subtitles, other time periods, or non-Hollywood productions. - Functional categorization and strategy tagging, while validated by colleagues, remain partly interpretive.