Considered the following aspects :
2. To analyze current tendencies in Russian audiovisual translation and subtitling in the Russian context;
3. The notion and functions of Discourse Markers (Well, you know and I mean) in English
4. To build the corpora and see how the Discourse markers ‘well’, ‘you know ‘ and ‘I mean’ operate in subtitles ( their specifics and functions) (in the Big Bang theory ( season 1-3));
The Use of the Discourse Markers ‘Well’, ‘You know’ and ‘I mean’ in subtitles and their Russian Translation (in the American TV show ‘The Big Bang Theory’).
2. The state and development of audiovisual translation in the Russian context.
2.1. The history of Russian film translation.
2.2. Film subtitling in Russia.
3. The notion and functions of Discourse Markers in English
3.1. Basic characteristics and the use of “Well”
3.2. The use of “You know” and “I mean”
4. Translation strategies of “You know”, “Well” and “I mean” into Russian
in the TV series Big Bang Theory.
In this research paper, I attempt to demonstrate the use of Discourse Markers (henceforth DMs) “Well”, “You know” and “I mean” in subtitles and their Russian equivalents. I will also give an insight into the history of Russian film translation and subtitling. With the process of globalization and the increasing numbers of foreign film production in Russia, audiovisual translation has become one of the priority studies. This topic is of current interest because the audiovisual translation is a modern subject, it appeared only in the Twentieth century. Nowadays foreign, mainly Western, film- and video products take the biggest part of the Russian film market. American films and TV series are becoming more popular, so there is a need of delivering a quality translation to Russian viewers. This is an urgent problem, as the number of people who speak a foreign language is not very high, but there are more and more film products that need to be translated. The most popular type of the AVT in Russia and in Eastern Europe is dubbing whereas in Europe, especially in countries with several official languages, it is subtitling. Subtitling is becoming more used in Russia, especially among English learners, that is why I will focus on this type of the AVT. The study of discourse markers has been attracting a growing number of linguists. Although there is no systematic analysis of the discourse markers especially in the context of subtitling. Discourse markers play a big role in conveying the meaning of the utterance. Even if the DMs are thought to be ‘meaningless’ as without them the utterance has the same basic meaning, these linguistic devices can be used to constrain the utterance’s interpretation. The DMs provide contextual coordinates which aid in the production and interpretation of coherent conversation at both local and global levels of organization (Schiffrin 1988). Linguists have been concentrating on the systematic, semantic and pragmatic functions of the different DMs based on different materials. Brinton (1996) points out the two usages of the DM “well” from the perspective of conversational analysis, those of qualifier and frame. Ostman studies the DM you know as pragmatic particle. Schiffrin (1987) claims that every DM except oh and well has a core meaning and argues that a DM has an indexical function that can provide the contextual coordinates for the certain utterance. Fraser (1993) concludes from the results of his research that DMs have a core meaning which is not conceptual but procedural; their more specific interpretations are “negotiated by the context, both of which are linguistic and conceptual.” According to Blakemore, DMs should be analyzed that how they function as constraints to the context from the perspective of linguistics, implying that utterances with same proposition can have different contextual meaning through the use of different DMs.
The choice of DMs well, I mean and you know for this work is influenced by a variety of reasons. First of all, these DMs and their contextual and extra-contextual features have not been studied properly in the context of subtitling. Secondly, these DMs are widely used in a spoken language, that is why I will attempt to analyze them in the context of the TV series ‘The Big Bang Theory’. ‘The Big Bang Theory’ is an American situational comedy on the CBS Network, which depicts the lives of two gifted scientists and their friends. It reflects the real lives of American people and contemporary oral English, as in the TV show the dialogues are as close to real spontaneous language as possible.
The main purpose of this work is to analyze the DMs “Well”, “You know” and “I mean” in subtitles and to give examples of translation into Russian. Accordingly, the purpose states the objectives that need to be taken into consideration:
1. To analyze current tendencies in Russian audiovisual translation;
2. To look at subtitling in the Russian context;
3. To see how the Discourse markers well, you know and I mean operate in subtitles and their specifics;
4. To build the corpora;
5. To look at the ways these DMs are presented in Russian subtitles;
6. Classification of translation strategies of the DMs.
Bibliography that can be used
 A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds.). 1998. Pragmatics and Beyond (No. 57): Discourse Markers [C). John Benjamins.
 Blackmore, Danie. 1992. Understanding Utterances. [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
 Blackmore, Danie. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic Markers. [J]. Journal ofPragmatics. (6): 167-190.
 Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are Discourse Markers? [J). Journal ofPragmatics. (31): 931-952.
 Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. [M].Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
 Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. [M] London: Longman. 47-52.  He, A.W. & Lindsey, B. 1998. You Know as an Information Status Enhancing Devices: Arguments from
Grammar and Interaction. [J]. Functions ofLanguage. (5): 133-155.
 http://www.dioenglish.com/wiki/index.php?edition-view-7457- I .
[1 I ] Lenk, Uta. 1998. Discourse Markers and Global Coherence in Conversation. [J]. Journal o f Pragmatics, (30): 245-257.
(12) Levionson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. [MJ. Cambridge University Press. 34-55.  Redeker, G. 1991. Review Article: Linguistic Markers of Discourse Structure. [J]. Linguistics. (29):
 Rouchota, V. 1998. Procedural Meaning and Parenthetical Discourse Markers. In Jucker, A.H. & Ziv. Y. (eds). Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Banjamins. 97-126.
[ 15] Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Schiffrin. Deborah. 2001. Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In Schiffrin, D. & D. Tannen (ed.). The Handbook ofDiscourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 54-68.
(17] Schourup, L. Discourse Markers: Tutorial overview. Lingua 1999, (107): 227-238.  Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (1 edition) [M].
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edition) [M].
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [20) Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 2004. Relevance Theory. [MJ. In L. Hom and G. Ward (eds.). Handbook of
Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.  Van Dijk, TeunA. 1979. Pragmatic Connectives. [J]. Journal ofPragmatics. (31): 447-456.  Verchueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. [M). London: Edward Arnold Limited.