Content area
To investigate the landscape of the studies on multimodal translation, 2573 papers extracted from the Web of Science (WoS) from 1990 to 2023 in related research were analyzed from the dimensions of the characteristics of publication, co-citations, and co-occurring terms using the bibliometric approach. The result indicates that the annual publications on multimodal translation have grown sharply, particularly in the last ten years (2012–2023). Meanwhile, the five top co-cited researchers and their works stand out from the dataset analyzed with three indicators: citation frequency, betweenness centrality, and citation burstness. Furthermore, the analysis of co-citation clustering reveals a notable tendency to prioritise research trends in the domain of subtitling in films and other streaming media. These research trends are predominantly characterized by corpus-based analysis and audience reception study. The hot topics include audiovisual texts, media accessibility, reception research, and language learning in a multimodal translation context. Under the discussion of the research results from the experimental research methods, research medium, and metafunctional approach, suggestions for future studies are provided.
Introduction
In recent years, multimodality in translation studies has received significant attention in various domains, such as subtitlers’ visibility (e.g., Pérez-González, 2014b; Huang, 2022), literary translation and multimodality (e.g., Boria et al., 2020; Pârlog, 2019; Pillière, 2021), audiovisual translation (AVT) and its related methods (e.g., Gambier, 2008; Szarkowska & Jankowska, 2025; Tuominen et al., 2018; Valdeón, 2022), and transmedial translation and multimodality (Kostopoulou & Misiou, 2024; Krebs, 2013; Zatlin, 2005). Existing studies assume that all other modalities, including the associated sub-modalities, must be integrated as a whole to understand translation. This approach sheds light on the extension of traditional definitions, themes, modes, mediums, and genres of translation. By incorporating the semiotic resources and their interplay relations, as well as the differentiation of modal components during the translation process, translation studies have the potential to broaden the definition of the field beyond the words in a text, incorporating visual, acoustic and linguistic elements, and investigating the cultural and sociological dimensions of translation in novel contexts with functional dynamics and different forms of medial realisation (Kaindl, 2013, pp. 257–258). The conceptualization of body sensor perception and motor simulations has the potential to render meaning construction and understanding more accessible to viewers or target members with internal representation of the image content (Ketola, 2016, p. 5), from various modes like discourse, design, production, and distribution. Multimodal translation also offers enough choices of modes and genres selection and function with the notions of intramodal translation, intermodal translation, intramedial translation, and intermedial translation (Kaindl, 2013, p. 261–262), including choices that cross-mode change (e.g., from linguistic mode into the image mode) and cross-media boundaries (e.g., in films, television programs, streaming media, illustrate books and magazines, etc).
The above significances set the scene for an active exploration of multimodality and multimodal texts in translation studies, thus giving rise to a series of scholarly studies. For instance, many specific themes have been issued in some related journals, such as “The Verbal, the Visual, the Translator” in Meta (2008), “Screen Transadaptation: Perception and Reception” and “Retranslation and Multimodality” in The Translators (2014, 2020), “Methods for the Study of Multimodality in Translation” in Lingistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies (Lans-TTS) (2018), “Audiovisual Translation as Intercultural Mediation” in Multilingua (2019), “Experimental Research in Audiovisual Translation Cognition, Reception, Production” in Journal of Specialised Translation (2020), and “Audiovisual Translation: Intersections”, “Latest Trends in Audiovisual Translation” and “Audiovisual Translation and Interdisciplinarity” in Perspectives (2019, 2020, 2022). This has meant that publications related to multimodality in translation studies are increasing rapidly. Therefore, it is helpful to systematically visualize this growth by bibliometric means to foreground certain trends, nodes, and hot topics in the knowledge domain of multimodal translation.
The present article employs a bibliometric approach to address the following three research questions: (1) What are the characteristics of the number of publications, the distribution of institutions and countries in the field of multimodal translation? (2) What are the top influential documents (including articles, books or book chapters) and the top-cited authors? (3) What are the research hotspots and future trends in multimodal translation?
Methodology
A map for quantitative observation of multimodal translation provides further insights for researchers and trainers in this field at both macro and micro levels. Li (2015) has outlined 15 bibliometric studies in various specialized domains in translation studies, such as interpreting research literature including conference interpreting, sign language interpreting, educational interpreting, and interpreting research trends, Index Translationum, didactic literature, interdisciplinarity, and quality assessment. After 2015, the most recent research domains using the bibliometric method include citation patterns in translation studies (Rovira-Esteva et al., 2019), cognitive translation and interpreting studies (Olalla-Soler et al., 2020), open access in translation studies (Franco et al., 2021), and translation technology teaching (He et al., 2022). The emerging domain of multimodal translation has not yet been addressed. Furthermore, studies using bibliometric indicators such as co-citation (co-cited publications and co-cited authors), cluster networks and co-occurring terms (also known as thematic analysis), are rare in the field of translation studies.
Bibliometrics refers to “the statistical study of (the flux of) information” (Roviro-Esteva & Franco Aixelá, 2018, p. 117) and has been applied to describe “a discipline synchronically and diachronically by identifying patterns and regularities in the flux of its published information” (Olalla-Soler et al., 2020, p. 27), such as the evolution, dynamics and trends of academic disciplines (Grbić, 2013), and the evaluation of scientific communities (van Doorslaer & Gambier, 2015). The following indicators are of particular significance in the bibliometric method: publication count, keyword analysis, citation network analysis, and term analysis. With the selected bibliographic attributes, such as authors, countries, and institutions, publication counting provides “insights into a wide range of scholarly processes, e.g., the growth (or decrease) of publication rates, the origin and evolution of disciplines…” (Grbić & Pöllabauer, 2008, p. 5). Small (1973) first introduced the concept of co-citation. Co-citation analysis refers to the formation of a co-citation relationship between two documents that appear together in the reference list of a third cited document (Small, 1973; van Raan, 2014). This concept has been applied to the field of citation network analysis, including author co-citation networks, document co-citation networks and journal co-citation networks. In this study, the author co-citation and document co-citation are emphasized to identify the most frequently co-cited authors and documents in the relevant literature. With regard to the keyword analysis, the co-occurrence network of keywords provided by each paper in the target dataset is presented for analysis. The present study goes further and analyzes the keywords co-occurrence cluster analysis, which helps to explore the main trends of research and the evolution of a cluster with the help of thematic labels and concept labels. The term analysis refers to the analysis of the co-occurrence network of noun phrases retrieved from the title, keywords, and abstract of each paper. The frequency and betweenness centrality of terms or noun phrases extracted from the articles are adopted to indicate hotspots in this knowledge domain (Li & Chen, 2017).
Citation databases
The articles for bibliometric analysis were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS), a comprehensive and authoritative database for researchers worldwide. In this study, the retrieval data source of multimodal translation was limited to articles indexed in SSCI and A&HCI from the Core Collection of WoS, as highly qualified papers in the target research field are essential for analyzing the citation and latency without distortions in the final results (Olalla-Soler et al., 2020). The time span of the retrieval data is from 1990 to 2023. Since the 1990s, translation studies have broadened its scope from the transfer of linguistic meaning to the transfer of culture, ideology, power, etc., and “the expansion of media and cultural studies afforded translation studies unprecedented opportunities” (Boria et al., 2020, p. 10), especially in the field of AVT.
Data retrieval
The appropriate data retrieval relies on a comprehensive understanding of the definition of multimodal translation and its related subject terms. Kaindl (2020, p. 58) proposed the multimodal definition of translation as “a conventionalised cultural interaction in which a mediator transfers texts in terms of mode, medium, and genre across semiotic and cultural barriers for a new target audience”. The term “multimodal translation” is a recent development in translation studies and remains without a consensus definition. However, most researchers agree that multimodality serves as the main conceptual framework for the analysis of translation texts, wherein texts are understood to generate meaning through multiple semiotic principles and modes (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Taylor, 2016; Pârlog, 2019). Kress and van Leeuwen (2001, p. 2) held “the view of multimodality in which common semiotic principles operate in and across different modes.” Kress (2010, p. 54) also claimed that “anyone working with multimodality needs to be clear what theoretical frame they are using.” Therefore, researchers exploring varied facets of translation may employ a range of theoretical frameworks and methods. This underlines the opportunities to broaden our view on multimodal texts and their meaning-making in translation with a broader perspective. It is expected to identify overlapping terms related to multimodal translation, such as AVT, media translation, screen translation and film translation. These terms are frequently employed interchangeably to encode the interlingual or intersemiotic transfer in a multimodal context (Perego & Pacinotti, 2020). Taylor (2020, p. 84) defined AVT as “the transfer from one language to another of the verbal components contained in audiovisual products. Feature films, television programs, theatre plays, musicals, opera, web pages, and video games are examples of the vast array of audiovisual products that require translation.” It seems that the definition of AVT gets more complex than the term “multimodal translation”. However, all the abovementioned terms address the multimodality in translation, and “the concepts from research on visual and multimodal communication need to be incorporated into the study of all types of translation” (Munday, 2004, p. 199).
Thus, all available data were searched and selected through the following subject terms and strategies:
Topic = (multimodal translation), OR (multimodality AND translation), OR (audiovisual translation), OR (multimedia translation), OR (screen translation), OR (television program AND translation), OR (streaming media AND translation), OR (film translation), OR (theater plays AND translation), OR (musicals AND translation), OR (opera AND translation), OR (web page AND translation), OR (game AND translation), OR (illustrated book OR picture book AND translation), OR (comic AND translation), OR (advertisement OR advertising AND translation). The articles with the above subject terms in the abstract, title, or keywords were reviewed and selected into the target dataset for analysis. Nonetheless, research articles that do not contain keywords or references, such as book reviews, editorial material, meeting abstracts, book chapters, etc., were excluded since bibliometric tools cannot analyze them. The retrieval data comprises 2573 bibliographic records in total.
Time span = 1990 to 2023.
Visualization instrument
Citespace, a professional software tool utilized in bibliometric research (Chen, 2006), was adopted to detect and visualize the knowledge domain of multimodal translation. The software facilitates the calculation of the number of publications made each year and the visualization of the nodes of the co-author, co-institution, and co-country networks. The analysis of co-citation networks has been demonstrated to reveal information about the top co-cited publications and top co-cited authors in the whole dataset. The analysis and visualization of cluster networks and co-occurring terms, with citation frequency, betweenness centrality, and citation burstness, can represent the research hotspots and emergent trends in the knowledge domain. Betweenness centrality evaluates the number of times a node performs as a bridge or intermediary, facilitating the shortest paths between pairs of other nodes (Freeman, 1977). This metric can be used to quantify the importance or centrality of a node within a network. Citation burstness measures the pattern of citation accumulation for a publication or author over time. In other words, the occurrence of sudden changes in the frequency of an entity over time, known as burstness, helps identify specific periods when new terms or concepts emerge within the context of the entity being studied (Kleinberg, 2003).
Results
Publication trend
By analysing the temporal pattern of publication numbers (see Fig. 1), the trend of multimodal translation research can be visualized and understood in its entirety. The annual publications in the field of multimodal translation demonstrate a consistent upward trend. A notable peak is observed in 2022, with 236 articles published. The total number of publications over the past decade (2012–2023) stands at 1969, whereas the figure for the period from 1990 to 2011 is only 512.
Fig. 1 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Annual publication involving multimodal translation in WoS from 1990–2023.
The size of the nodes and labels in the network represents the co-country, co-institution, or co-author network (i.e., cooperation between countries, institutions or authors) of the number of publications, and the more publications, the larger the node is. The connecting lines between nodes indicate a cooperative relationship between countries, institutions, or authors. The distribution of publications in the field of multimodal research over the past thirty-four years shows two distinct trends: (1) Regarding the total number of publications (based on citation frequency) (see the size of nodes in Fig. 2), the top five countries are the United States (456 articles), England (293 articles), Spain (280 articles), China (178 articles) and Canada (168 articles). English-speaking countries are leading the way in multimodal translation research, while non-English-speaking countries are the emergent areas. The betweenness centrality (see the purple circle in Fig. 2), a metric based on the frequency with which a node acts as a bridge or intermediary, substantiates the pivotal role of the United States, Canada, England, Spain, and the Netherlands within the network. (2) Universities are the leading institutions in the field of multimodal translation studies. The five institutions that have produced the most scholarly work (based on citation frequency) (see the size of the nodes in Fig. 3) are the University of London (68 articles), the Autonomous University of Barcelona (53 articles), the University of California System (38 articles), the University College London (35 articles), and the University of Toronto (33 articles).
Fig. 2 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Co-countries network involving multimodal translation in WoS from 1990 to 2023.
Fig. 3 [Images not available. See PDF.]
Co-institution network involving multimodal translation in WoS from 1990 to 2023.
Analysis of the most influential papers and authors
The identification of the most influential papers and authors was possible through analysis of the co-citation network in the knowledge domain of multimodal translation. The selection of the most co-cited papers was based on three indicators: citation frequency, betweenness centrality, and citation burstness. The high citation frequency of a particular paper is indicative of its significant influence within the field. The high betweenness centrality of a paper is indicative of a prominent turning point in the knowledge network, which has a leading influence in the field (Chen, 2006). Finally, citation burstness is a measure of an abrupt change in a specific duration for identifying emergent nodes (Kleinberg, 2003).
Table 1 presents the top ten most co-cited papers and authors based on citation frequency. These papers and authors mainly reveal the following three important aspects:
Table 1. The top ten most co-cited documents and authors based on citation frequency.
No. | Top-cited documents (author/year) (frequency) | Top-cited author (frequency) |
|---|---|---|
1 | R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Core Team, 2020) (16) | Jorge Díaz-Cintas (127) |
2 | The Translator’s Invisibility (Venuti, 2008) (16) | Lawrence Venuti (126) |
3 | “Subtitling’s a carnival”: New practices in cyberspace (Díaz-Cintas, 2018) (15) | Frederic Chaume (114) |
4 | Subtitling: Concepts and Practices (Díaz-Cintas and Remael, 2021) (15) | Yves Gambier (92) |
5 | Audiovisual Translation: Dubbing (Chaume, 2012) (13) | Gunther Kress (85) |
6 | The nature of accessibility studies (Greco, 2018) (13) | Gideon Toury (79) |
7 | Is audiovisual translation putting the concept of translation up against the ropes? (Chaume, 2018) (12) | Henrik Gottlieb (77) |
8 | Audiovisual Translation: Theories, Methods and Issues (Pérez-González, 2014a) (12) | Mona Baker (75) |
9 | A Theoretical Framework for a Multimodal Conception of Translation (Kaindl, 2020) (10) | Christiane Nord (60) |
10 | Dubbing versus subtitling yet again? An empirical study on user comprehension and preferences in Spain (Matamala et al., 2017) (9) | Basil Hatim (56) |
(1) Some authors and their articles or books both have appeared in the top list, which manifests great significance in the field of reference. Díaz-Cintas, Chaume, and Venuti, who have published many highly cited publications, rank higher than other authors because of their total citation frequency. Meanwhile, their specific publications have attracted researchers’ great interest and come to the top list because of the high co-citation frequency in this dataset. Venuti’s (2008) book, a second edition, posited that the translators’ invisible status in the long history of Anglo-American translation contributed to the subtitlers’ manipulation of subtitling under the traditional canon. It emphasized the ethical attitude that influenced the balance between visibility and invisibility of subtitlers (Huang, 2022). Díaz-Cintas (2018) explored the manipulation of subtitling beyond the dimension of linguistic analysis and discussed the sociocultural concerns with Bakhtin’s theory of carnival. Meanwhile, Díaz-Cintas and Remael’s (2021) book, which is also at the top of the list, delved into various aspects of AVT, including terminological evolution, subtitling workflows, technological advancements in subtitling, and the semiotics, technical dimensions, conventions and linguistic aspects of subtitling. These all emphasized on the importance of legibility and readability for viewers. Chaume’s (2012) textbook offered a comprehensive introduction to the field of dubbing, drawing on translation practice and experience. It covered the dubbing market and working environment, text segmentation, lip-syncing, oral discourse, and the semiotic nature of dubbing. Chaume (2018) proposed a critical analysis of the traditional translation concept and the essence of translation, with a particular focus on the “equivalence” notion under the new tendencies, such as localization, transadaptation, and transmedia narratives within the domain of AVT. The study also explored potential alternative terms, including iconic equivalence and narrative equivalence.
(2) Experimental studies and statistical tools are widely considered in the literature. In the knowledge domain of multimodal translation, the R language environment (R Core Team, 2020), a statistical computing tool, is at the top of the co-cited list. In particular, researchers using the R language tend to combine it with other experimental methods, such as eye-tracking, mainly focusing on subtitling translation and learning, cognitive processing and the resultant impact of subtitles, and cohesion patterns of mediated and non-native texts (Chan et al., 2022). Matamala et al. (2017) used empirical methods, including cognitive performance and evaluative measures, to investigate the debate on the reception of dubbing and subtitling modes. Their research measured comprehension, dialogue recognition, face-name association, and visual recognition and evaluation.
(3) The exploration of theoretical frameworks and the redefining of concepts have attracted significant attention in the field of multimodal translation. In order to propose a sound theoretical framework in multimodal translation, Kaindl (2020) reviewed other researchers’ theories and proposed a three-dimensional analysis, namely, the mode, medium, and genre in the translation-theoretical approach, which formed a basis for the definition of modality and taxonomy of translation. As an emergent research field, Greco (2018) explored the path and distinctive features of accessibility studies, particularly media accessibility (MA), from the aspects of accessibility processes and the methods of design, implementation, and evaluation. Pérez-González’s (2014a) book provided a comprehensive overview of AVT studies beyond the limit on subtitling and dubbing, emphasizing multimodal aspects with theoretical and methodological diversity and exploring non-professional practices and alternative translation paradigms driven by technological and socio-cultural changes. Moreover, Venuti’s appearance in Table 1 shows a high level of co-citation in the references of the identified papers. Despite not being associated with research on multimodal translation, Venuti is nonetheless a highly cited scholar because his well-known concepts, such as visibility and invisibility, have received much attention and are considered as important theoretical bases for subtitling research. Similarly, although Gunther Kress’s book or theory does not initially focus on translation, his theory renders him as a leading scholar in the field of multimodal translation. That’s to say, the theories adopted for multimodal analysis in translation are mainly borrowed from other fields, such as Gunther Kress’s systemic functional approach and Lawrence Venuti’s invisibility or visibility. This reveals that multimodal translation inherently demands an interdisciplinary approach to address its multifaceted challenges.
As illustrated in Fig. 4, the top ten most co-cited papers are presented based on betweenness centrality. It is evident that as betweenness centrality increases, the size of the nodes’ circle also increases. The articles as essential turning points in the network include Chaume (2012), Greco (2018), Pérez-González (2014a), Díaz-Cintas (2008), Perego (2015), Kruger (2014), Greco (2016), Díaz-Cintas (2018), Remael (2010) and Venuti (2008). The top three influential articles, namely Chaume (2012), Greco (2018), and Pérez-González (2014), and another two publications, Venuti (2008) and Díaz-Cintas (2018) have been introduced in Table 1. Among other prominent publications, Díaz-Cintas and Anderman (2008) explored various aspects of translation modes, with seventeen contributions, in audiovisual media, including subtitling for the media industry examining constraints and possibilities, revoicing technique of replacing the original soundtrack, accessibility to media discussing interlingual subtitling for the deaf and hard-of-hearing, and subtitling teaching highlighting the economy of translation and subtitler’s sensitivity. Perego et al.’s (2015) research, using empirical measures to investigate the cognitive and evaluative effects of watching dubbed versus subtitled films, posited that subtitled films were processed effectively, and there were no evaluative differences between young and older adults. Through eye tracking and self-report questionnaires, Kruger et al. (2014) investigated students’ visual attention distribution and cognitive resources in relation to different performance levels. Their research findings supported the view that subtitles using either first or second languages may benefit academic performance, and that native language subtitles mainly support schema formation in instructional design in long-term performance. Greco (2016) proposed the need to extend the concept of MA, which was traditionally employed in subtitling, surtitling, and audio description (AD), to a universal human right rather than the realm of disability rights. Remael (2010) introduced a comprehensive review of AVT, from the periphery to the center of translation studies, including various forms of AVT, the domains of AVT, and a broader concept of translation, with a quantitative research trend toward corpus-based approaches, eye-tracking, and digitization.
Fig. 4 [Images not available. See PDF.]
The top ten most co-cited papers based on betweenness centrality.
In Fig. 5, the top ten most co-cited publications based on citation burstness were visualized according to the first year of burstness. It is noteworthy that all the publications depicted in Fig. 5 are the same as those in Table 1, which have been extracted on the basis of citation frequency. Until 2023, the six references, including Greco (2018), R Core Team (2020), Matamala et al. (2017), Díaz-Cintas (2018), Chaume (2018), and Kaindl (2020), still have a high citation burstness with a long duration. This phenomenon can be interpreted as a reflection of the field of multimodal translation, which has garnered significant attention and has led to an emergent research trend. Furthermore, they mainly focus on critical analysis of the traditional understanding of translation, as evidenced by the works of Díaz-Cintas (2018), Chaume (2018) and Kaindl (2020), and experimental approach, as exemplified by Matamala et al. (2017).
Fig. 5 [Images not available. See PDF.]
The top ten most co-cited papers based on citation burstness.
In sum, the five top co-cited publications, detected by citation frequency, betweenness centrality, and citation burstness at the same time, include Chaume (2012), Greco (2018), Perez-Gonzalez (2014), Díaz-Cintas (2018) and Venuti (2008). All these highly influential publications serve as essential reference points for readers seeking to gain a comprehensive understanding of the field of multimodal translation. It is noteworthy that all the research articles retrieved and indexed in the database include open-access documents, which are freely available to the public without subscription or purchase barriers, and closed-access documents, which are only available to subscribers or through institutional access. A subsequent examination of document accessibility, as evidenced by the ten most co-cited documents in Table 1, reveals that the four of these documents, namely R Core Team (2020), Díaz-Cintas (2018), Chaume (2018), and Greco (2018), are classified as open access and available for download. This means that accessibility plays a crucial role in enhancing both readership and citation metrics. Conversely, other top co-cited documents are books, book chapters, or closed-access journals. Therefore, both Open Access and Closed Access research documents have received a lot of attention. In particular, Open Access leads to greater readership and significantly increases citation rates.
Major trends of research in the field of multimodal translation
The knowledge base in the field of multimodal translation consists of a collection of co-cited literature, and the clusters of a collection of citing literature that references this base knowledge reveal research trends in this field (Li & Chen, 2017). Through a co-citation cluster analysis, the collection of 2573 documents generated eight statistically significant clusters, with each cluster representing a distinct research trend and novel development.
As illustrated in Fig. 6, the top eight significant clusters in the knowledge domain of multimodal translation have been identified. The first trend, corpus-based analysis (Cluster #0), signifies a growing demand for high-quality, culturally sensitive translations. Among the highly cited articles in this cluster, Baños (2013) introduced the need to integrate corpus linguistics and AVT and discussed the corpus-based methodologies for analyzing the technical and professional constraints, social factors, and other dimensions in AVT. Freddi (2013) proposed a comparable corpus of film dialogues and their dubbed versions, discussing the main issues of corpora usage in AVT by combining the methodologies of corpus linguistics and AVT perspectives. Pavesi (2013) designed a parallel corpus (English-Italian) of film dialogue to explore the syntactic role, pragmatic function, and translation operation of demonstrative pronouns in the cinematic language.
Fig. 6 [Images not available. See PDF.]
The timeline view of the top eight clusters of the multimodal translation knowledge domain.
Cluster #1 reflects the trend of non-professional subtitling, mainly focusing on audience reception studies and collaborative subtitling. Wu and Chen (2022) proposed a corpus-driven approach in collocating and concordance analysis of viewer comments on streaming media and grouped the audience responses into ten themes. Ameri and Khoshsaligheh (2022) used another method, namely a questionnaire and semi-structured interview, to investigate viewers’ preferences and reception of amateur subtitling. Their findings indicated that viewers held a positive attitude toward non-professional subtitles, allowing audiences to access various audiovisual content. Talaván and Ávila-Cabrera (2021) explored the participants’ preference for the collaborative subtitling communities and analyzed and evaluated their translation competence and improvement in writing, reading, and vocabulary. The result indicated positive views from viewers regarding their translation and communicative competencies.
Cluster #2 reveals the research trend of empirical research. Remael et al. (2016) discussed the new trend of MA from the evolving landscape of AVT, which is approaching the convergence of subtitling for people who are deaf or hard of hearing and AD. They emphasized the need to integrate the concept of multimodality into the technology-driven solutions. In an introduction to a special issue entitled “Methods for the study of multimodality in translation”, Tuominen et al. (2018) systematically reviewed the traditional methods adopted in multimodal translation and also addressed the challenges in novel approaches based on the discussion of definitions of multimodality and mode. The authors identified three novel methods of multimodal translation studies that merited particular attention: namely, the multimodal transcription model, the holistic approach for film subtitling, museum context and video games, and decision-making in the translation process related to multimodality. Perego (2016) outlined a straightforward evolving process for empirical research in AVT and emphasized the integrated approach in conducting empirical studies from different disciplines, including translation, cognitive psychology, semiotics, and more. The three types of AVT—non-professional, standard and intralingual subtitling, dubbing and AD—have been discussed empirically from the aspects of long-debated questions, previously unaddressed problems, and several novel methods in this area.
Cluster #3 extracts the new research trend from the knowledge domain: subtitling in streaming media. Gouleti (2023) examined bilingual subtitling as an emerging mode of AVT, tracing its evolution from its origins in cinema to its resurgence in global streaming media. The article explored the role of various bilingual subtitling tools and practices in reshaping audience engagement, with a particular focus on language learning. It also highlighted collaborative initiatives promoting active audience participation in the landscape of streaming platforms. In a similar vein, Zheng et al. (2023) discussed the impact of digital technologies on streaming media translation and the viewers’ engagement in multimodal translation of YouTube comments for civic purposes. In the collaborative context of both human and non-human actors, such as the Bilibili platform and machine translation tools, the authors advocated the reconceptualization of translation as a multimodal assemblage in the era of automation and digitalization. In a separate study, Yang (2021) explored the danmu interface on Japanese and Chinese video-sharing platforms using Theo van Leeuwen’s social semiotic approach and the concept of semiotic regimes. The focus here was on collaborative user translation as a unique semiotic and social practice, with semiotic resources about danmu’s technology, professional AVT practices, and regulatory discourses being analyzed.
Cluster #4 reveals a new research trend in pragmatics in subtitling. Abu-Rayyash et al. (2023) utilized a corpus-assisted approach to analyze English swear words in Netflix subtitling with an English-Arabic parallel corpus of transcriptions from various movie genres. The researchers identified three types of translation strategies: omission, softening, and swear-to-non-swear, among which omission strategy was the most prevalent, particularly in drama. Guillot (2020) delved into film subtitles as a unique form of translation and a mode of expression in cinematic discourse from a cross-cultural pragmatics perspective, analyzing how different languages utilized their specificities, particularly the functional pragmatic markers, in adapting to the challenges and opportunities of interlingual subtitling. Guillot (2023) examined the use of swear words in film subtitles across languages and identified translation strategies. The study also explored the linguistic and pragmatic aspects influencing interlingual sense-making, highlighting the distinctive role of subtitling as a medium in shaping cinematic discourse.
Cluster #5 reflects a research trend in media accessibility (MA). Mazur and Vercauteren (2019) discussed the integration of MA in AVT and live events and emphasized the critical considerations in training professionals in this field, including the identification of skills and competencies, the development of didactic approaches and training materials, and the assessment of acquired skills. They also reviewed other researchers’ contributions to this field. Walczak and Fryer (2018) assessed the presence and emotional experience of blind and visually impaired users with two types of genres of emotive and non-emotive content delivered by human and synthetic voices. The study revealed that human-narrated AD significantly increased presence and was considered more interesting for drama, while documentary presence rates were similar for both voices.
Cluster #6 presents a research trend of cross-cultural interaction in streaming media. Hu (2023) explored the divergent perspectives of China and the United States on capitalism, propaganda, and labor rights in subtitles, which revealed varying levels of translator intervention that might impact the portrayal of cultural differences. The study argued that media platforms significantly influenced the representations of cultural differences in multilingual film subtitling in audio-visual intercultural communication. Guillot (2016) focused on language use across diverse cultures in AVT from cultural pragmatics approach, addressing questions of cultural representation in subtitling and dubbing languages, which have influenced audience reception. The study outlined the challenges faced by AVT research, such as fansubbing and crowdsourcing, which were reshaping AVT dynamics and prompting re-evaluations of quality and subjectivity in AVT research. In the special issue entitled “Intersections: audiovisual translation at the crossroads of disciplines”, Zonotti and Ranzato (2019) discussed the notion of interdisciplinarity in AVT, emphasizing the multidisciplinary nature of AVT studies and highlighting the independence of AVT as an autonomous discipline while recognizing its dependence on related disciplines.
The last cluster (cluster #7) shows a research focus on the translation of otherness. Delgado and Fancy (2001), both as translators of the French playwright Bernard-Marie Koltès, discussed the challenges in gaining recognition in English-speaking countries, specifically the poetic nature of his works, and proposed to balance between the interpretation and domestication of text’s strangeness and the preservation of the playwright Koltès’s vision. Starting with the cultural turn in the development of translation studies, Díaz-Cintas (2012) explored manipulation and translation in audiovisual contexts, involving translating cultural values with linguistics asymmetries and fundamental decisions based on power and ideology. The technical and ideological manipulation in subtitling as tools for local empowerment was also introduced, suggesting a need for broader research in AVT to unmask ideologically motivated changes within a socio-cultural context. Dwyer (2014) introduced how volunteer translators utilized new technologies and collective intelligence to operate in fan subtitling, taking internet start-up Viki as an example. This work challenged traditional concerns about the perceived poor quality of amateur output, emphasizing the subversive potential impetus of non-professional translation in audiovisual products.
All in all, the clusters analyzed above represent the main research trends in the knowledge domain of multimodal translation. The analysis of clusters shows that subtitling in films and other streaming media constitutes the most active research field, specifically focusing on the perspectives of corpus-based analysis and audience reception study.
Hot topics in the field of multimodal translation
Research hotspots refer to the topics that scholars in certain fields focus on within a specific time interval. The frequency and betweenness centrality of terms or noun phrases extracted from the articles’ titles, abstracts, and keywords were adopted to indicate hotspots in this knowledge domain (Li & Chen, 2017). To understand the latest hot topics of multimodal translation research in recent years, Table 2 presents the top six high-frequency terms within each year in the past five years (2019–2023).
Table 2. The development of the top high-frequency terms from 2019 to 2023.
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Audiovisual translation | Social media | Focus group | Machine translation | Online survey |
2 | Source text | Media accessibility | University students | Qualitative data | Target language |
3 | Translation strategy | Literary translation | Multimodal approach | Audiovisual text | Chinese subtitles |
4 | Audio description | Cultural adaptation | Audiovisual translator | Video game localization | Video games |
5 | Translation process | Translation quality | Digital technology | Interpreting study | Film adaptation |
6 | Foreign language | Analytical framework | Emotional response | Second language | Streaming media |
A close examination of the highly frequent terms extracted from the knowledge domain of multimodal translation reveals five main hot topics. Audiovisual text, particularly in the context of social media and streaming media, ranks as one of the hottest topics discussed in multimodal translation. This finding agrees with Valdeón’s (2022) research result. After searching the dataset of John Benjamin’s Translation Studies Bibliography, he pointed out that publications of AVT-related topics from 2020 to 2022 increased sharply. With its interdisciplinary features, AVT products, particularly the products of films, television, documentaries, video games, and other streaming media, are characterized by their multimodal nature.
The second main topic focuses on multimodal translation methods. The key terms employed, such as translation strategies, focus group, machine translation, online survey, qualitative data, and digital technology, reveal the importance of various methods used in the across-model research. In multimodal translation studies, the interplay between verbal and non-verbal information poses a methodological challenge for translators. Tuominen et al. (2018) reviewed three key methods in multimodal translation: metafunctional analysis, corpus-based methods, and cognitive methods such as questionnaires and interviews as offline measures, and eye tracking, EEG, galvanic skin response, and heart rate as online measures in reception research.
The third hot topic extracted from the data is MA. In MA, audiovisual translators have facilitated access to audiovisual content for individuals with sensory impairments. AD and audio subtitling have received widespread concern in the field of MA.
Reception research is the fourth hot topic identified in the present dataset. In reception studies, researchers are more concerned with cultural adaptation, film adaptation, video game localization, and emotional response. Tuominen (2019) pointed out that reception research in AVT has gained significant attention recently, and that translations usually modify the original media text, thereby influencing the audience’s experience.
The last hot topic concerns language learning in a multimodal translation context. The related key terms include university students, foreign language, second language, and translation quality. It proves that the multimodal translation context has provided a potentially efficient way for language learners. Vazquez-Calvo et al. (2019) presented a very positive research result, revealing that fan translators in fan translation of screencast videos have learned language in multiple ways, including peer-to-peer feedback, identity building, and creative use of machine translation.
In conclusion, taking into account the frequency and betweenness centrality of terms in the dataset, the most significant hot topics include subtitling in films, multimodal translation methods, MA, reception research, and language learning in multimodal translation contexts. It is possible that other key terms may be identified as hot topics in the above table. However, this study only considers the related terms within a given topic appearing across at least two years, which may reflect certain widespread concerns in continuity.
Discussion and conclusion
Based on the review of the definition of multimodal translation, the present study collected 2573 bibliometric records ranging from 1990 to 2023 and adopted CiteSpace software as a visualization instrument to analyze these documents from the aspects of publication characteristics, co-cited documents, cluster analysis, and co-occurring terms. The result shows that: (1) The annual publications in the field of multimodal translation have grown sharply, particularly in the recent ten years (2012–2023). English-speaking countries, including the United States, England, and Canada, are the major contributors to the study of multimodal translation. In contrast, non-English-speaking countries, such as China and Spain, are the emergent bodies. (2) The experimental studies and theoretical frameworks, such as the metafunctional approach, receive great attention from the influential authors and their works. (3) The analysis of future trends, based on the co-citation clustering, shows that subtitling in films and other streaming media represents the most active research field, specifically focusing on the perspectives of corpus-based analysis and audience reception study. Based on the analysis of co-occurring terms, the hot topics mainly focus on audiovisual texts, multimodal translation methods, MA, reception research, and language learning in a multimodal translation context. The findings can be divided into three aspects of research: experimental research methods, films as a research medium, and a metafunctional approach.
Various experimental research methods have attracted much attention from scholars specializing in multimodal translation. A comprehensive analysis of the co-citation network across the three dimensions of citation frequency, betweenness centrality, and citation burstness reveals that nearly half of the top-cited articles are concerned with experimental methods in their research. Specifically, the two clusters labeled as corpus-based analysis and empirical research and some co-occurring terms with high frequency all reveal the prominent position of multidimensional research methods in multimodal translation. In light of the results of this bibliometric analysis, it is evident that eye tracking, questionnaires, interviews, R language, corpus-based analysis, and metafunctional analysis are the most adopted methods or tools. However, the integration of multiple methods or the use of triangulation research is rare. Triangulation in experimental methods is significant in multimodal translation studies as it enhances research findings’ robustness, validity, and comprehensiveness and promotes methodological innovation and generalizability. In addition, it may overcome some challenges with a single method. Tuominen et al. (2018) pointed out the limitations in analyzing different modes separately with the metafunctional analysis method and the shortage in producing painstakingly detailed descriptions of the interplay modes in multimodal texts but with no clear generalizations of multimodal meaning-making. They also reviewed the bottleneck of corpus-based analysis of multimodal translation, that is, the visual and audio modes cannot be aligned automatically, so the failure of segmentation of multimodal texts cannot facilitate the subsequent semantic annotation of these text units. Hence, Taylor (2016) proposed that the methods of multimodal text analysis should emphasize the integration of all the semiotic modes in a multimodal text, including narrative considerations, linguistic considerations, semiotic considerations, and cultural considerations. Using multimodal transcription for the translation of multimodal texts is recommended when considering the above four dimensions through various methods.
Audiovisual texts undoubtedly have been given the most attention in the research medium, particularly with regard to films and streaming media. The number of articles, chapters, and books concerning subtitling, dubbing, danmu, and other materials in MA is predominant in the top-cited articles and authors. In addition, all the topics in the eight clusters and those in co-occurring terms also mainly concern audiovisual texts, such as fan subtitling, film dialogues, dubbing, and danmu, as well as comments in streaming media such as YouTube or Bilibili. In other words, audiovisual texts in films and streaming media represent the typical medium in multimodal translation studies. However, it should be noted that the scope of multimodal translation includes other multimodal texts. The special issue entitled “Methods for the Study of Multimodality in Translation” published in Lans-tts in 2018, contained AD corpus, webcomics and GIFs, graphic novels, museums of religious life and art, and paintings in AD for art museums, multimodal patient information guides, multimodal documents, comics. The audiovisual texts, including streaming media in this special issue, accounted for only three in fourteen. In the book The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, Jewitt (2011) adopted a variety of multimodal forms, including advertisements, gestures, and movement in tourists, drawings, exhibitions, music, and more. In the volume, multimodality is defined as “approaches that understand communication and representation to be more than about language, and which attend to the full range of communicational forms people use – image, gesture, gaze, posture, and so on – and the relationships between them” (p. 14). Hence, the translation of audiovisual texts cannot represent all the aspects and answer all the challenges regarding multimodality. It is also crucial to address other multimodal mediums in multimodal translation.
The metafunctional analysis, or the systemic functional approach, has received tremendous attention in multimodal translation studies. Among the top-cited publications, such as Kaindl (2020) and Matamala et al. (2017), and the top-cited authors, including Jorge Díaz-Cintas, Frederic Chaume, Yves Gambier, and Gunther Kress, the argument has been made that the systemic functional approach is a critical analytical framework for multimodal translation, especially in audiovisual texts. Particularly, the systemic functional approach adopted to multimodality in translation studies is termed “multimodal theory” in Pérez-González’s (2014b) work “Multimodality in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” Critique of systemic functional approaches, however, also accompanies its prominent position. These critiques primarily encompass the following aspects: the analysis of modes not on all three metafunction levels, the absence of the interaction of all modes, the undertaking of “infinite detail” descriptions of multimodal texts, and the analysis of all modes without discrimination (for a detailed review, see Ketola 2018). Therefore, it is imperative to address new questions and methods that go beyond the limitations of metafunctional analysis in multimodal translation. A number of novel analytical frameworks have been proposed, including multimodal transcription (Taylor, 2016), phasal analysis (Malcolm, 2010), multimodal interaction analysis (Ketola, 2018), integration of cognitive linguistic and multimodal methods (Hart, 2016), cognitive-pragmatic framework (Braun, 2016), and polysemiotic network (Silvester, 2018). These frameworks have been widely explored and are attracting increasing attention.
To conclude, experimental research methods, films as a research medium, and metafunctional approaches have received significant attention in multimodal translation, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the field. However, due to the interplay of various modes and the interdisciplinary nature of multimodal translation, it is impossible to address all the questions within a single approach or methodology in the domain of multimodal translation. Thus, it is recommended that future studies should consider the following four directions: (1) examining various multimodal texts and the interplay relations of these texts; (2) adopting multidimensional or triangulation research methodology in experimental studies; (3) addressing the nature of meaning-making of different modes in multimodal texts with innovative analytical frameworks; (4) exploring reception studies which may lead to a rethinking of analytical frameworks and research methods.
Author contributions
Gaopan Guo, as the single author of this article, devised the project and all the conceptual ideas. He also analyzed the data and visualized the data with software, and wrote the manuscript.
Data availability
The datasets generated during the current study are available from Web of Science, and they also can be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Abu-Rayyash, H; Haider, A; Al-Adwan, A. Strategies of translating swear words into Arabic: A case study of a parallel corpus of Netflix English-Arabic movie subtitles. Humanit Soc Sci Commun; 2023; 10, 39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01506-3]
Ameri, S; Khoshsaligheh, M. An experiment on amateur and professional subtitling reception in Iran. J Transl Interpret; 2022; 14, pp. 2-21.
Baños, R; Bruti, S; Zanotti, S. Corpus linguistics and audiovisual translation: In search of an integrated approach. Perspectives; 2013; 21, pp. 483-490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2013.831926]
Boria M et al (2020) Translation and multimodality: Beyond words. Routledge, London
Braun, S. The importance of being relevant? A cognitive-pragmatic framework for conceptualizing audiovisual translation. Target; 2016; 28, pp. 302-313.
Chan, WS; Kruger, JL; Doherty, S. An investigation of subtitles as learning support in university education. J Spec Transl; 2022; 38, pp. 155-179.
Chaume F (2012) Audiovisual translation: Dubbing. Routledge, London
Chaume, F. Is audiovisual translation putting the concept of translation up against the ropes. J Spec Transl; 2018; 30, pp. 84-104.
Chen, CM. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol; 2006; 57, pp. 359-377.
Delgado, M; Fancy, D. The theatre of Bernard-Marie Koltès and the “Other Spaces” of translation. N Theatre Q; 2001; 17, pp. 141-160.
Díaz-Cintas, J. Clearing the smoke to see the screen: Ideological manipulation in audiovisual translation. Meta; 2012; 57, pp. 279-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1013945ar]
Díaz-Cintas, J. Subtitling’s a carnival: New practices in cyberspace. J Spec Transl; 2018; 30, pp. 127-149.
Díaz-Cintas J, Anderman G (2008) Audiovisual translation: Language transfer on screen. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Díaz-Cintas J, Remael A (2021) Subtitling: Concepts and practices. Routledge, London
Dwyer, T. Fansub dreaming on ViKi. Translator; 2014; 18, pp. 217-243.
Franco, J; Olalla-Soler, C; Rovira-Esteva, S. Open access in translation studies: A bibliometric overview of its distribution and development. Transl Interpret; 2021; 13, pp. 1-23.
Freeman, CL. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry; 1977; 40, pp. 35-41.
Freddi, M. Constructing a corpus of translated films: A corpus view of dubbing. Perspectives; 2013; 21, pp. 491-503.
Gambier Y (2008) Recent developments and challenges in audiovisual translation research. In: Chiaro D, Heiss C, Bucaria C (eds) Between text and image: Updating research in screen translation. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, p 11–33
Gouleti, K. Bilingual subtitling in streaming media: Pedagogical implications. Target; 2023; 35, pp. 354-377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/target.00013.gou]
Grbić N (2013) Bibliometrics. In: Gambier Y and van Doorslaer L (eds) Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 4. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, p 20–24
Grbić, N; Pöllabauer, S. To count or not to count: Scientometrics as a methodological tool for investigating research on translation and interpreting. Transl Interpret Stud; 2008; 3, pp. 87-146.
Greco G M (2016) On accessibility as a human right, with an application to media accessibility. In: Matamala A, Orero P (eds) Researching audio description. Palgrave Macmillan, England, p 11–34
Greco, GM. The nature of accessibility studies. J Audio Transl; 2018; 1, pp. 205-232.
Guillot, M. Cross-cultural pragmatics and audiovisual translation. Target; 2016; 28, pp. 288-301.
Guillot, M. The pragmatics of audiovisual translation: Voices from within in film subtitling. J Pragmat; 2020; 170, pp. 317-330.
Guillot, M. Doing swearing across languages: The curious case of subtitling. J Pragmat; 2023; 215, pp. 41-54.
Hart, C. The visual basis of linguistic meaning and its implications for critical discourse studies: Integrating cognitive linguistic and multimodal methods. Discourse Soc; 2016; 27, pp. 335-350.
He, Y; Hao, Y; Liu, S; Liu, H; Li, H. Research on translation technology teaching in Chinese publications and in international English language publications (1999-2020): A bibliometric analysis. Interpret Translator Train; 2022; 16, pp. 275-293.
Hu, B. Translating intercultural interactions in the Netflix-branded film American Factory. Target; 2023; 35, pp. 378-403.
Huang, B. Relatively abusive and relatively corrupt: An analytical framework for the study of subtitlers’ visibilities. J Spec Transl; 2022; 38, pp. 102-127.
Jewitt C (2011) The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge, New York
Kaindl K (2013) Multimodality and translation. In: Millán C, Bartrina F (eds) The Routledge handbook of translation studies. Routledge, London and New York, p 257–269
Kaindl K (2020) A theoretical framework for a multimodal conception of translation. In: Boria M et al (eds) Translation and multimodality: Beyond words. Routledge, London and New York, p 49–70
Ketola, A. Towards a multimodally oriented theory of translation: A cognitive framework for the translation of illustrated technical texts. Transl Stud; 2016; 9, pp. 1-15.
Ketola A (2018) Word–image interaction in technical translation: Students translating an illustrated text. Doctoral dissertation, Tampere University Press
Kleinberg, J. Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Min Knowl Discov; 2003; 7, pp. 373-397.
Kostopoulou L, Misiou V (2024) Transmedial perspectives on humour and translation: From page to screen to stage. New York and London: Routledge
Krebs K (2013) Translation and adaptation in theatre and film. Routledge, New York
Kress G (2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge, London and New York
Kress G, van Leeuwen T (2001) Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold, London
Kruger, JL; Hefer, E; Matthew, G. Attention distribution and cognitive load in a subtitled academic lecture: L1 vs. L2. J Eye Mov Res; 2014; 7, pp. 1-15.
Li J, Chen C M (2017) CiteSpace: Text ming and visualization in scientific literature. Capital University of Economics and Business Press, Beijing
Li, X. International visibility of mainland China Translation Studies community: A scientometric study. Perspectives; 2015; 23, pp. 183-204.
Malcolm K (2010) Phasal analysis: Analysing discourse through communication linguistics. Continuum, London
Matamala, A; Perego, E; Bottiroli, S. Dubbing versus subtitling yet again? An empirical study on user comprehension and preferences in Spain. Bable; 2017; 63, pp. 423-441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/babel.63.3.07mat]
Mazur, I; Vercauteren, G. Media accessibility training. Linguistica Antverpiensia N. Ser –Themes Translation Stud; 2019; 18, pp. 1-22.
Munday, J. Advertising: Some challenges to translation theory. Translator; 2004; 10, pp. 199-219.
Olalla-Soler, C; Franco Aixelá, J; Rovira-Esteva, S. Mapping cognitive translation and interpreting studies: A bibliometric approach. Linguistica Antverpiensia N. Ser –Themes Transl Stud; 2020; 19, pp. 25-52.
Pârlog A C (2019) Intersemiotic translation: Literary and linguistic multimodality. Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland
Pavesi, M. This and that is the language of film dubbing: A corpus-based analysis. Meta; 2013; 58, pp. 103-133.
Pérez-González L (2014a) Audiovisual translation: Theories, methods and issues. Routledge, London and New York
Pérez-González L (2014b) Multimodality in translation and interpreting studies: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. In: Bermann S, Porter C (eds) A companion to translation studies. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Chichester, p 119–131
Perego, E; Missier, FD; Bottiroli, S. Dubbing versus subtitling in young and older adults: Cognitive and evaluative aspects. Perspectives; 2015; 23, pp. 1-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2014.912343]
Perego, E. History, development, challenges and opportunities of empirical research in audiovisual translation. Across Lang Cult; 2016; 17, pp. 155-162.
Perego E, Pacinotti R (2020) Audiovisual translation through the ages. In: Bogucki Ł, Deckert M (eds) The Palgrave handbook of audiovisual translation and media accessibility. Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland, p 33–56
Pillière L (2021) Intralingual translation of British novels: A multimodal stylistic perspective. Bloomsbury Academic, London and New York
R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Remael A (2010) Audiovisual translation. In: Gambier Y, van Doorslaer L (eds) Handbook of translation studies. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, p 12–17
Remael, A; Reviers, N; Vandekerckhove, R. From translation studies and audiovisual translation to media accessibility: Some research trends. Target; 2016; 28, pp. 248-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/target.28.2.06rem]
Rovira-Esteva S, Franco J (2018) Bibliometric tools: Evaluation, mapping. In: D’hulst L, Gambier Y (eds) A history of modern translation knowledge: Sources, concepts, effects. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, p 117–122
Rovira-Esteva, S; Franco, J; Olalla-Soler, C. Citation patterns in translation studies: A format-dependent bibliometric analysis. Transl Interpret; 2019; 11, pp. 147-171.
Silvester, H. From paratext to polysemiotic network: A holistic approach to the study of subtitled films. Linguistica Antverpiensia N. Ser – Themes Transl Stud; 2018; 14, pp. 71-83.
Small, H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci; 1973; 24, pp. 265-269.
Szarkowska A, Jankowska A (2025) Introducing audiovisual translation. New York and London: Routledge
Talaván, N; Ávila-Cabrera, JJ. Creating collaborative subtitling communities to increase access to audiovisual materials in academia. Interpreter Translator Train; 2021; 15, pp. 118-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2021.1880305]
Taylor, C. The multimodal approach in audiovisual translation. Target; 2016; 28, pp. 222-236.
Taylor C (2020) Multimodality and intersemiotic translation. In: Bogucki Ł, Deckert M. (eds) The Palgrave handbook of audiovisual translation and media accessibility. Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland, p 83–100
Tuominen, T. Experiencing translated media: Why audience research needs translation studies. Translator; 2019; 25, pp. 229-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2019.1615694]
Tuominen, T; Hurtado, CJ; Ketola, AM. Why methods matter: Approaching multimodality in translation research. Linguistica Antverpiensia N. Ser – Themes Transl Stud; 2018; 17, pp. 1-21.
Valdeón, RA. Latest trends in audiovisual translation. Perspectives; 2022; 30, pp. 369-381.
Van Doorslaer, L; Gambier, Y. Measuring relationships in Translation Studies: On affiliations and keyword frequencies in the Translation Studies Bibliography. Perspectives; 2015; 23, pp. 305-319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1026360]
Van Raan AFJ (2014) Advances in bibliometric analysis: Research performance assessment and science mapping. In: Blockmans W, Engwall L, Weaire D (eds) Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance. Portland Press, London, p 17–28
Vazquez-Calvo, B et al. Fan translation of games, anime, and fanfiction. Lang Learn Technol; 2019; 23, pp. 49-71.
Venuti L (2008) The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge, London
Walczak, A; Fryer, L. Vocal delivery of audio description by genre: Measuring users’ presence. Perspectives; 2018; 26, pp. 69-83.
Wu, Z; Chen, Z. Towards a corpus-driven approach to audiovisual translation (AVT) reception: A case study of YouTube viewer comments. J Spec Transl; 2022; 38, pp. 128-154.
Yang, Y. Making sense of the “raw meat”: A social semiotic interpretation of user translation on the danmu interface. Discourse Context Media; 2021; 44, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100550] 100550.
Zatlin P (2005) Theatrical translation and film adaptation: A practitioner’s view. Multilingual Matters LTD, Clevedon, Buffalo and Toronto
Zanotti, S; Ranzato, I. Intersections: Audiovisual translation at the crossroads of disciplines. Perspectives; 2019; 27, pp. 173-181.
Zheng, B et al. Reconceptualizing translation and translators in the digital age: YouTube comment translation on China’s Bilibili. Transl Stud; 2023; 16, pp. 297-316.
Copyright Palgrave Macmillan Dec 2025