Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume 1 (2010)
© 2010–2012 John Benjamins Publishing Company. Not to be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher.

---

In the context of today’s multimedia society, audiovisual translation (AVT) is gaining great visibility and relevance as a means of fostering communication and dialogue in an increasingly multicultural and multilingual environment. AVT is the umbrella term used to refer to the translation of programmes in which the verbal dimension is only one of the many shaping the communication process. The concurrence of different semiotic layers through the visual (images, written text, gestures) and audio (music, noise, dialogue) channels makes the translator’s task particularly challenging in this field. Of the several modes available to translate audiovisual programmes (Gambier 2003), subtitling is arguably the most commonly used because it is cheap and fast. Other professional practices are interpreting, voiceover and dubbing.

By way of definition, subtitling consists in rendering in writing the translation into a TL of the original dialogue exchanges uttered by the different speakers, as well as of all other verbal information that is transmitted visually (letters, banners, inserts) or aurally (lyrics, voices off). Subtitling can be seen as a supplement to the original programme, which, unlike in dubbing, remains intact in the target culture for all to watch and to hear. All subtitled programmes are therefore made up of three main components: the original spoken/written word, the original image and the added subtitles. Subtitlers are expected to come up with solutions that create the right interaction among these components and they must take into consideration the fact that viewers have to read the written text at a given speed whilst also watching the images at the same time. The constraining nature of the audiovisual environment has always been brought to the fore when discussing this type of translation, leading scholars in the past to label it as an example of ‘constrained translation’ (Titford 1982) or even ‘a necessary evil’ (Marleau 1982).

1. The technical dimension

Generally speaking, subtitles do not contain more than two lines, are displayed horizontally – usually at the bottom of the screen though in some countries like Japan they can also be vertical – and appear in synchrony with the image and dialogue. The synchronisation process is known as spotting, cueing, timing or originating and it may be carried out by the translators themselves or by technicians who know the subtitling program.

The time a subtitle stays on screen depends both on the speed at which the original exchange is delivered and on the viewers’ assumed reading speed. Tradition had it that the best practice should be based on the so-called ‘6 second rule’ (Díaz Cintas & Remael 2007: 96–99), whereby two full lines of around 35 characters each can be comfortably read in six seconds. For shorter periods of time, proportional values are automatically calculated by the subtitling software, bearing in mind that no subtitle should stay on screen for less than one second so as to guarantee that the eye of the viewer can register its presence.

Although these parameters still enjoy some currency in the industry, particularly on television, the viewers’ increased exposure to reading text on screen and enormous technical advances in recent decades have brought considerable changes. The sacred rule of having a maximum of two lines in a subtitle so as to minimise their impact on the photography is being broken daily by the emergence of three, four and even five-liners, notably in the subtitling being done on the internet. The traditional positioning of subtitles at the bottom of the screen is also being challenged as they are beginning to be displayed on different parts of the screen.

Likewise, restricting the number of characters per line to 35, 39 or even 43 is not an important factor anymore. Most professional subtitling programs work now with pixels, allowing for proportional lettering, which means that subtitlers can write as much text as possible, depending on the font size being used and the actual space available on screen.

Perhaps surprisingly, viewers’ reading patterns and abilities have not been thoroughly investigated in subtitling, and there is apparently a general consensus in the profession that the 6-second rule dictates a rather low reading speed. With the advent of DVD and mobile technology, the mushrooming of screens around us, and the proliferation of audiovisual programmes, it seems fair to accept that today’s viewers are ‘better/faster’ audiovisual readers than those of previous generations. Besides the lengthening of lines, shorter exposure times and faster reading speeds are all a consequence of this belief. It is not uncommon to keep two-liners for a maximum of 5 seconds, and to apply reading speeds that hover around the 180 words per minute (wpm) or 15 to 17 characters per second (cps), as opposed to the traditional 140 wpm or 12 cps. As can be expected, all these technical changes have had a knock-on effect on the way the actual translation is carried out.

2. The linguistic dimension

Whilst respecting the technical specifications discussed above, subtitles must provide a semantically adequate account of the SL dialogue. The fact that viewers do not normally have the possibility of back-tracking to retrieve information has a great impact in the way subtitles are presented on screen. Ideally, if they are to be easily understood in the short time available, each subtitle ought to be semantically self-contained and come across as a coherent, logical and syntactical unit. To boost readability, both spotting and line-breaking ought to be carried out in such a way that words intimately connected by logic, semantics or grammar should be written on the same line or subtitle whenever possible.

Unless speakers deliver their utterances really slowly, reduction is arguably the main strategy in use by subtitlers. Reductions can be partial, where condensation of the original is paramount, and total, when part of the message is deleted. In both cases, decisions have to adhere to the principle of relevance and make sure that no information of vital diegetic value is deleted. Any solutions should take the iconic information into account and avoid translating what is explicitly conveyed through the image. Although subtitles cannot translate absolutely everything that is said, they must strive to capture the essence of what is said. As aptly put by Gottlieb (1998/2001: 247): “In subtitling, the speech act is always in focus; intentions and effects are more important than isolated lexical elements”.

The transition from oral to written poses certain challenges and raises the question of whether non-standard speech, like accents and very colloquial traits, can be effectively rendered in writing. More often than not, this type of linguistic variation is neutralised in the subtitles. Swearwords and other taboo expressions are also particularly sensitive to this media migration as there is the tacit belief that they are more offensive when starkly reproduced in text than when verbalised, which in turn tends to lead to the indiscriminate deletion of most effing and blinding in the TL subtitles.

Because of the concurrent presence of the original soundtrack and the subtitles, and especially when translating from a well-known language like English or from one linguistically close to the TL, subtitling finds itself in a particularly vulnerable situation, open to the scrutiny of anyone with the slightest knowledge of the SL. One strategy used to deal with this is for subtitles to follow, as far as possible, the syntactic structure of the source text so as to reinforce the synchronisation and to preserve the same chronology of events as in the original utterances.

A worrying practice in the industry is the recourse to English as a pivot language to translate from some languages (Czech or Japanese) into others (French or German) following an English translation rather than the original soundtrack. Errors or misunderstandings in the English translation will most likely be replicated in the other languages, and nuances and interpretations will also be filtered through English.

The imperative of having to synchronise dialogue and subtitles, the need to stay within a maximum of two lines per subtitle, and the widespread belief that the best subtitles are the ones that are not noticed, have been frequently invoked to explain why subtitlers cannot make use of metatextual devices, such as footnotes or glosses, to justify their solutions. However, this assumption seems to be being challenged by new practices, where glosses inside the subtitles and explanatory notes on top of the screen are freely used (Díaz Cintas 2005).

3. Types of subtitling

From a technical perspective subtitles can be open, when they are delivered together with the image and cannot be turned off, as in the cinema, or closed, when they are optional and can be added to the programme at the viewer’s will, as on most DVDs. The process of merging the subtitles with the images has evolved considerably over the years (Ivarsson & Carroll 1998: 12–19) and today’s main methods are laser, whereby the subtitles are burnt onto the celluloid, and electronic, whereby the subtitles are projected onto the film.

Subtitles can appear on screen as a block and off again, known as pop-on subtitles, scroll horizontally, or roll-up. According to the time available for preparation, subtitles can be pre-prepared ahead of the programme’s release, or (semi/real)live if they are produced at the same time as the programme is being broadcast.

From a linguistic point of view we can distinguish between intralingual subtitles, also known as captions in American English, where the language of the subtitles and the programme coincide and interlingual subtitles, where the spoken/written message of the original programme is translated into a TL. Bilingual subtitles are part of the latter category and are produced in geographical areas where two or more languages are spoken, as in Finland (Finnish and Swedish) or Jordan (Arabic and Hebrew).

The best known type of intralingual subtitles is aimed at audiences with hearing impairment and is widely known as subtitling for the deaf and the hard-of-hearing (SDH). They are a step forward in guaranteeing greater democratic access to audiovisual programming and, in many countries, their output is regulated by legislation. Although they share many features with standard subtitling, they also make use of some unique attributes (de Linde & Kay 1999; Neves 2005). On television, they normally change colour depending on the person who is talking or the emphasis given to certain words within the same subtitle, whilst on DVD they resort to labels to identify speakers. It is not unusualy to come across subtitles of up to three or even four lines, and accommodate more than one sepaker in the same line. Crucially, not only do they reproduce the speaker’s dialogue, but they also incorporate paralinguistic information that deaf people cannot access from the soundtrack, such as the revving of an engine, steps on a staircase, indications concerning music, laughter, or whispering. Their positioning is also important and they can be left or right justified so that speakers can be easily identified or to indicate where a given sound is coming from.

Thanks to greater social awareness, SDH is one of the forms of audiovisual communication which has undergone spectacular growth in recent years on all media. In addition to a higher turnover, with some TV stations subtitling 100% of their output, SDH has also crossed linguistic barriers and interlingual subtitling for hearing impaired audiences is now a reality on some DVDs.

4. New trends

Subtitling is so dependent on technology that any technical advances have the potential to encroach both on the subtitling process from the practitioner’s perspective as well as on the perception that viewers have of subtitling as a product. In this sense, digitisation and the availability of free subtitling software on the net have made possible the rise and consolidation of translation practices like fansubbing, which in turn are having an incidental effect on how formal conventions are applied. Subtitles have been traditionally rather humdrum in terms of positioning, font type and layout. This new way of approaching subtitles as part of a budding participatory culture is pushing the boundaries of creativity and shaking the foundations of traditional subtitling. Only time will tell whether these conventions put forward by the so-called ‘collective intelligence’ (Lévy 1997) are just a mere fleeting fashion or whether they are the prototype for future subtitling. The impetus provided by 3D technology may well open the door to more interactivity and cr3aTVty in subtitling.

Recent developments in voice and speech recognition have made possible the appearance and booming of respeaking as a professional practice to subtitle programmes that are broadcast (semi/real)live, such as the news or sports. The wider breadth and scope of genres being distributed audiovisually – corporate videos, scientific and technical documentaries with a high level of lexical repetition – makes the incipient use of translation memory systems and automated translation in subtitling a very promising development.

In terms of research, the didactic potential of subtitling to learn and consolidate a foreign language has been a particularly active line of enquiry in recent times (Díaz Cintas 2008). In an attempt to bolster their quantitative findings and gain an insight into the cognitive efforts presupposed by reading subtitles, some researchers are resorting to the application of new methodologies and tools, like corpus studies and eye-tracking.

Since the late 1990s subtitling has been a most inspiring field in which to conduct research and more recently also for netizens to communicate in cyberspace. Far from waning, this interest is still aflame and as strong as two decades ago, if not stronger.

References

Díaz Cintas, Jorge. 2005. “Back to the future in subtitling.” In MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast and Sandra Nauert (eds). www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/2005_DiazCintas_Jorge.pdf [Accessed 10 May 2010].  TSB

Díaz Cintas, Jorge (ed.). 2008. The Didactics of Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  BoP  TSB

Díaz Cintas, Jorge & Remael, Aline. 2007. Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling. Manchester: St Jerome.  TSB

Gambier, Yves. 2003. “Introduction: Screen transadaptation: Perception and reception.” The Translator 9 (2): 171–189.

Gottlieb, Henrik. [1998] 2001. “Subtitling.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Mona Baker (ed.), 244–248. London & New York: Routledge.

Ivarsson, Jan & Carroll, Mary. 1998. Subtitling. Simrishamn: TransEdit.  TSB

Lévy, Pierre. 1997. Collective Intelligence. Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Transl. by Robert Bononno. Jackson: Perseus Books.

de Linde, Zoe & Kay, Neil. 1999. The Semiotics of Subtitling. Manchester: St Jerome.  TSB

Marleau, Lucien. 1982. “Les sous-titres… un mal nécessaire”. Meta 27 (3): 271–285.

Neves, Josélia. 2005. Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing. London: Roehampton University. Ph.D. Thesis. http://roehampton.openrepository.com/roehampton/handle/10142/12580 [Accessed 10 May 2010].  TSB

Titford, Christopher. 1982. “Sub-titling: constrained translation”. Lebende Sprachen 27 (3): 113–116.

Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume 1 (2010)
© 2010–2012 John Benjamins Publishing Company. Not to be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher.

---

Audiovisual Translation (AVT), although a relative newcomer within the field of Translation Studies (TS), has moved from the field’s periphery to its centre over the past two decades. The earliest form of AVT may have been translation of intertitles in silent films, but far greater needs for translation arose with the advent of ‘talking movies’ in the 1920s and the necessity of providing films with translations (so as to secure exports, especially for the US film industry). Various forms of translation were tried, even multiple language versions of one film, with subtitling and dubbing soon becoming the preferred modes. Selection between the two was determined by economic, ideological and pragmatic factors in the respective target countries. Initial research publications on AVT date from the mid-fifties and sixties, but a true research and publication boom did not occur until the early 1990s.

1. What translation modes does audiovisual translation encompass?

Subtitling and dubbing are still commonly regarded as the two main AVT modes, with voiceover being the third (see Voiceover and dubbing). However, the boom and proliferation of AV texts at the close of the 20th century led to a corresponding boom in AVT modes and eventually to increasingly interdisciplinary research. Developments that majorly impacted the AV landscape include the globalisation of AV distribution and production systems, the financial integration of TV broadcasting companies and the film industry, digitization (e.g., the advent of DVD technology, which allows for various translation modes on one disc), and related technological developments such as expansion of the Internet and proliferation of on-the-go gadgets like mobile phones, iPods and the like. Some of these developments and their theoretical capacities for supplying tailor-made products have led to the diversification of target audiences (and ‘narrowcasting’) and, most recently, to the capacity for users to actively participate in the translation of certain AV products (Gambier 2003). These newer forms of AVT are variants of older forms and/or new developments that share features with other, related types of translation. Newer variants include surtitling for the stage (Mateo 2007), subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing (SDH) (Neves 2009) and its subcategory of live subtitling with speech recognition, as well as intralingual subtitling that confronts linguistic variation within a language (Remael et al. 2008). Fansubbing and fandubbing are a form of User-Generated Translation (UGT) in which Internet users subtitle or dub their favourite productions, thereby challenging commercial production modes (Nornes 2007). In fact, since 2009 YouTube has offered subtitling options to its users. Related to dubbing is audio description (AD) for the blind (Braun 2008), which translates essential visual information from an AV production into verbal narration between film dialogues, sometimes in combination with audio-subtitling (AST), an adapted aural version of subtitling. Video game localisation, which mixes AV forms like dubbing or subtitling with features of localisation, could be considered a completely new genre. Needless to say, the proliferation of AV modes and technical developments is linked to the growing number of new environments (museums, opera houses, trains stations, etc.) where AVT is used.

2. Unity in variation: An attempt at structuring the field and its research topic

Many forms of AVT, as other forms of translation or interpretation, still share the challenges of transposing text in one language into text in another language. However, audiovisual texts, unlike ‘traditional’ printed texts, typically use two types of signs and two different channels of communication. They are composed of audio-verbal signs (the words uttered), audio-nonverbal signs (all other sounds), visual-verbal signs (writing), and visual nonverbal signs (all other visual signs) (see Zabalbeascoa 2008: 24; and also e.g., Delabastita 1989). The different sign systems interact and together constitute the audiovisual text, a structure that is more complex than the simple summation of its parts. First, the relative importance of each system can vary. Second, even the verbal component of an AV text is never purely ‘verbal’: its shape is determined by the sign systems that surround it. Indeed, integration of the verbal component in a complex sign system meant to be watched, heard and sometimes read, often results in this component taking a hybrid form, i.e., one that is neither purely written nor purely spoken language. Moreover, as language varies according to use and genre, the language of AVT is never a monolithic entity (Freddi & Pavesi 2009: 32).

Both the expansion and increased specialization of AVT practice and research have led to various re-namings of the field and to different definitions of the practice and/or research topic(s). Film translation and cinema translation were among the first terms in use, but such terms soon failed to cover every mode of translation, especially as modes expanded to television and DVD, including different types of programmes (e.g., talkshows) that were not ‘films’ in the strict sense. Screen translation is more encompassing, and includes translations done for the plethora of screens being produced by today’s audiovisual market. Yet this term encompasses localization, which is not necessarily a form of AVT. Moreover, Screen Translation does not include surtitling for the stage, even though surtitling (or supertitling, the American term) forms part of a text that is composed of the aforementioned sign systems and communication channels. Another term, (Multi)Media Translation (Gambier & Gottlieb 2001), can include translations for the stage as well as different forms of screen translation, and refers explicitly to the multitude of media and channels now used in global and local communication. The term Multimedia Localisation is a newcomer that appears occasionally today. The addition of SDH and AD to the research arena has led some researchers to define AVT as a form of Media Accessibility, thus stretching the concept of ‘translation’ to include ‘translation’ from sounds or images into words (Díaz Cintas et al. 2007). At the time of this writing, Audiovisual Translation is the most commonly used term in the field. This term refers to the different components involved in the type of text under scrutiny, and though it does not explicitly point to the interactive component of multimedia, it does not exclude it either.

The main challenge posed by this expansion is the increasing difficulty in delineating the AVT domain. Starting from the four constitutive features of AV(T) texts (cf. supra), Zabalbeascoa (2008: 29) proposes a way of mapping the object of study of AVT, placing

AV texts, types of AV texts and parts of them […] on a plane defined by the following coordinates: a cline that indicates the presence (amount and importance) of verbal communication in proportion to other semiotic forms of expression; [and] another cline for measuring the relative importance of sound in the audio channel weighed against visual signs.

The area closest to the centre of the two clines is where the most prototypical instances of the AV text must be situated (i.e., texts in which both audio channels and visual channels as well as verbal and non-verbal codes are active in producing meaning). As one moves away from the centre (in either direction), one communication channel and/or sign system gains prominence. This flexible schematic allows for all existing and future AV texts and their translations to be classified as more or less prototypical, and precludes omission of potentially interesting newcomers. Likewise, the schematic can incorporate or provide links to texts (e.g., cartoons) that have verbal and visual components but lack an audio channel (Kaindl & Oittinen 2008).

Zabalbeascoa (2008: 29)

3. Audiovisual translation and Translation Studies

The multimodal or semiotic nature of AVT once led scholars to question if AVT was indeed a form of translation. The view of AVT as a form of ‘constrained’ translation, in which the other sign systems over-determine the translator’s contribution, stimulated such considerations. Constraints include, in dubbing, the need for various forms of synchrony between text and image/sound; and, in subtitling, the need to compress, paraphrase and adapt speech to a hybrid form of writing. Today, however, the discussion may need to be revisited. The 21st century may well see the advent of the “audiovisual turn” in TS. Initially, TS limited itself to bible translation and literary translation. Only later did TL research extend to translation of other text types, although it remained focused on translation of verbal texts in one language into verbal texts in another language, or, in Jakobson’s terms, interlingual translation or translation proper (Jakobson 1959/2000). Jakobson also coined intralingual translation (or rewording) and intersemiotic translation (or transmutation) to refer to related fields, but his very terminology relegated the terms to translation’s periphery. The current inundation of text production modes and the ubiquity of image and/or sound in texts have made it virtually impossible to adhere to such a limited concept of translation. This also brings translation and other forms of text production closer together, as well as propelling aspects of AVT into other translation types or leading to incorporation of AVT modes (subtitling, subbing, AD, SDH, etc.) into other communication settings, such as website localisation.

It is difficult to predict if the trend towards expanding the concept of translation to encompass this diversification will prevail over the opposite trend, that of introducing new terms (such as localization, technical communication and multimedia localisation (cf. supra)) that aim to reduce translation to one link within a larger communication chain. This will depend not only on the decisions of scholars and university policies, but also on politico-economic developments that determine the translation market. Most forms of AVT have always involved some form of collaboration, rendering AV translators and their work dependent on other agents in the production process. New technical and socio-economic developments are enhancing that process, sometimes to the detriment of translators’ status and working conditions, and a focus on quantity rather than quality.

4. Research trends

The developments described in the previous sections pose interesting challenges for researchers and have produced a wealth of material. Numerous collections of articles offer good overviews of current research topics (see e.g., Díaz Cintas 2009; Gambier 2003, 2008; Lavaur & Serban 2008; Orero 2004; Remael & Neves 2007), and, as a quick Internet search will demonstrate, academic programs throughout Europe offer training and research in AVT.

Some scholars deplore the lack of an encompassing theory of AVT, yet one cannot help wondering if such a theory would even be useful. Although interdisciplinarity increasingly characterizes AVT research today, the frameworks within which much AVT research has been and is being conducted are those of Descriptive Translation Studies, Polysystem Theory, and, more recently, Functionalist Translation Studies (the last is particularly apt for the study of video game localization (O’Hagan 2009). Such studies stimulate partial descriptive theories (e.g., Zabalbeascoa 2008; Chaume 2004). Researchers continue to use (or re-use) research methods and concepts from various linguistic disciplines (including pragmatics, text linguistics, and cognitive linguistics), but combine them, depending on the particular research, with methods from literary studies, (experimental) psychology, film studies, statistics, reception studies, anthropology, history, didactics, etc. This is a result of the realisation that studying only the verbal component of AVT does not suffice and that AV media have inestimable social and ideological impact (witness e.g., the study of censorship in AVT) that merits further in-depth study. Research has gradually begun moving away from case studies and towards corpus-based approaches, thus facilitating more extensive research of the sign systems of the (digitized) AV text. Moreover, logging systems and eye-tracking offer new perspectives for quantitative research. More generally, digitization and Internet access facilitate research by increasing the availability of AV products and their components (e.g., scripts) and furthering the circulation of affordable AV(T) software for education, production, analysis and publishing. AVT is definitely here to stay and will, even by any other name, remain an interesting field for exploration.

References

Braun, Sabine. 2008. “Audiodescription research: State of the art and beyond.” Translation Studies in the New Millenium. An International Journal of Translation and Interpreting 6: 14–30.  TSB

Chaume, Frederic. 2004. Cine y traducción. Madrid: Catedra.  TSB

Delabastita, Dirk. 1989. “Translation and mass-communication: Film and TV translation as evidence of cultural dynamics.” Babel 35 (4): 193–218.  TSB

Díaz Cintas, Jorge & Anderman, Gunilla. 2009. Audiovisual Translation. Language Transfer on Screen. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Díaz Cintas, Jorge, Orero, Pilar & Remael, Aline. 2007. Media for All. Subtitling for the Deaf, Audio Description, and Sign Language. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.  TSB

Freddi, Maria & Pavesi, Maria. 2009. Analysing Audiovisual Dialogue. Linguistic and Translational Insights. Bologna: CLUEB.  TSB

Gambier, Yves. 2003. “Introduction: Screen transadaptation: Perception and reception. Special issue on screen translation.” The Translator 9 (2): 171–190.

Gambier, Yves. 2008. “Recent developments and challenges in audiovisual translation research”. In Between Text and Image. Updating Research in Screen Translation, D. Chiaro, Ch. Heiss & C. Buccaria (eds), 11–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  TSB

Gambier, Yves & Gottlieb, Henrik. 2001. (Multi)Media Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.  TSB

Jakobson, Roman. 1959/2000. “On linguistic aspects of translation”. In The Translation Studies Reader. L. Venuti (ed.), 113–118. London & New York: Routledge.  TSB

Kaindl, Klaus & Oittinen, Riita (eds). 2008. Le verbal, le visuel, le traducteur/The Verbal, the visual, the translator. Special issue of Meta LIII (1).  TSB

Lavaur, Jean-Marie & Serban, Adriana. 2008. La traduction audiovisuelle. Brussels: De Boeck.  TSB

Mateo, Marta. 2007. “Surtitling today: New uses, attitudes and developments.” In Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series 6: 135–154.  TSB

Neves, Josélia. 2009. “Interlingual Subtitling for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing.” In Audiovisual Translation. Language Transfer on Screen. J. Díaz Cintas & G. Anderman (eds), 151–169. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nornes, Abe Mark. 2007. Cinema Babel. Translating Global Cinema. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press.  TSB

Orero, Pilar. 2004. Topics in Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  BoP  TSB

O’Hagan, Minako. 2009. “Towards a cross-cultural game design: An explorative study in understanding the player experience of a localised Japanese video game.” Journal of Specialised Translation 11: 211–233. http://www.jostrans.org/issue11/art_ohagan.php [Accessed 18 January 2010]  TSB

Remael, Aline, De Houwer, Annick & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2008. “Intralingual open subtitling in Flanders: Audiovisual translation, linguistic variation and audience needs.” Journal of Specialized Translation 10: 76–105. http://www.jostrans.org/issue10/art_houwer.php [Accessed 18 January 2010]  TSB

Remael, Aline & Neves, Josélia. 2007. A Tool for Social Integration? Audiovisual Translation from Different Angles. Theme issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series.  TSB

Zabalbeascoa, Patrick. 2008. “The nature of the audiovisual text and its parameters.” In The Didactics of Audiovisual Translation, J. Díaz Cintas (ed.), 21–38. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  TSB