Bringing a German voice to English-speaking readers: Spiegel International

Translation is a regular phenomenon for news production, even if this is not always explicitly indicated. It is quite common that journalists themselves perform translations in their text production processes. Online media have added new possibilties to these processes. This paper looks at the transfer between print and online media texts from the point of view of translation. On the basis of case studies of English translations made available online by Spiegel International, the text production practice and its reflection in the linguistic structure of the translations is illustrated. The declared aim of putting English translations on the Spiegel website is to bring its 'unique voice' to English-speaking readers. This paper argues that this 'unique voice' will not be seen by the readers in the actual linguistic make-up of the texts, but that it is as a result of the text selection process that English-speaking readers can get access to a different point of view.

The relationship between fusion, suppression, and diplopia in amblyopia

Purpose: Traditionally, it has been thought that no binocular combination occurs in amblyopia. However, there is a growing body of evidence that there are intact binocular mechanisms in amblyopia rendered inactive under normal viewing conditions due to imbalanced monocular inputs. Georgeson and Wallis (2014) recently introduced a novel method to investigate fusion, suppression and diplopia in normal population. We have modified this method to assess binocular interactions in amblyopia. Methods: Ten amblyopic and ten control subjects viewed briefly-presented (200 ms) pairs of dichoptically separated horizontal Gaussian blurred edges. Subjects reported one central edge, one offset edge, or a double edge as the vertical disparity was manipulated. The experiment was conducted at a range of spatial scales (blur widths of 4, 8, 16, and 32 arc min) and contrasts. Our model, based Georgeson and Wallis (2014), converted subjects’ responses into probabilities of fusion, suppression, and diplopia. Results: When the normal participants were presented equal contrast to each eye the probability of fusion gradually decreased with increasing disparity, as the probability of diplopia gradually increased. In only a small proportion of the trials, normal participants experienced suppression. The pattern was consistent across all edge blurs. Interestingly, the majority of amblyopes had a comparable pattern of fusion, i.e. decreasing probability with increasing disparity. However, with increasing disparity the amblyopes tended to suppress the amblyopic eye, experiencing diplopia only in a small proportion of trials particularly at large blurs. Increasing the interocular contrast offset favouring the amblyopic eye normalized the pattern of data in a way similar to normal participants. There were some interesting exceptions: strong suppressors for which our contrast range was inadequate and one case in which diplopia dominated. Conclusions: This task is suitable for assessing binocular interactions in amblyopic participants and providing a way to quantify the relationship between fusion, suppression and diplopia. In agreement with previous studies, our data indicate the presence of binocular mechanisms in amblyopia. A contrast offset favouring the amblyopic eye normalizes the measured binocular interactions in the amblyopic visual system.