Volume index - Journal index - Article index - Map ---- Back
Small cinemas, European convergence, original version, cultural diversity, digital society, audiovisual creation, cultural industry, critical vision
There have been numerous commitments by the UE and its member states to preserving and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity in Europe, in which cinema plays a key role as a paradigm of convergence between technological innovation, the economy and “cultural capital” formulated by Bordieu (2005). The “European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages” (ECRML) approved by the European Council on 25 June 1992 and adopted by UNESCO in 1996 committed its signatories in article 12b “to give priority to the variety of access media in other languages to works produced in regional or minority languages, thus enabling and developing the activities of translation, dubbing and post-synchronization and subtitling” (EC, 1992).
This was the context for the research project “eDCINEMA: Towards the European Digital Space. The role of small movie theatres in original version cinema” (CSO2012-35784), undertaken between 2013-2015 by the Grupo de Estudos Audiovisuais at the University of Santiago de Compostela, financed through the Ministry of Economy and Competiveness’ National R+D+i Plan.
Most of the research developed around neuroscience enables us to isolate empirical evidence of the extent of the diffusion of cinematographic content in original version (OV) within linguistic and cultural education. Vez, Muñoz and Llinares (2011: 2-3), in their report “Promotion of the Original Version in the diffusion of audiovisual content. Contributions from research on linguistic education”, state that linguistic diversity should not be circumscribed by the regulated educational system because of the latter’s obvious limitations in terms of the appropriation of foreign languages in contexts of effective interculturality. This appropriation is, a priori, supportive in nature and can only later become expressive.
Access to audiovisual content in OV thus becomes an indispensable part of the configuration of “an open space for civic culture in which a profile develops of a citizenry that is more socially cohesive and which shares a concept of communication that can better attend to the empathetic, diversifying and socio-cultural aspects that must form part (…) of the metacommunicative conscience of those who aspire to be competent plural European citizens” (Vez, Muñoz, & Llinares, 2011: 3). This reflection is based on two principles:
• The narrative structure adapts ideally to the cognitive activation processes.
• The audiovisual incident in its original conception, that is, made in the language in which it was conceived, unequivocally recreates models of situations that mobilize in the receiver the three constituent cognitive processes of empathetic learning: to activate, construct and integrate.
The viewer becomes a subject who experiences situations of mediated linguistic immersion in which he/she intuitively and autonomously appropriates cultural and linguistic meanings through these three processes. Numerous key authors –Kuppens (2010), Sundqvist & Sylvén (2014), Collins & Muñoz (2016), etc.– state that, at the level of understanding, audiovisual content shows greater effectivity and dynamism than the proverbial academic resources of linguistic teaching-learning.
In terms of the broad regulatory framework available, the “eDCINEMA” investigation has primarily focused on the European Digital Agenda (EDA) and the Creative Europe 2014-2020 plan, both as a main documentary source and as a partial study approach. The material documents a short-term integral development model with an economic-industrial focus that will eventually determine the European socio-cultural model to be adopted. We have designed some of the core objectives of our research around the following plan:
• The analysis of the situation, based on EC policy, of small cinemas in terms of their volume of production, the scale of the local market and the vehicular languages (Hjort & Petrie, 2007).
• The taxonomy of incentives authorized for European cinema produced in non-hegemonic languages and their showing in OV/SOV, within the cultural diversity considered in the EDA.
• The identification of actions aimed at fostering visibility and accessibility to productions from small cinematographic frameworks in the European digital audiovisual space.
• The relevance of showing films in OV/SOV to achieve the cultural and linguistic diversity as envisaged by the EDA.
The approach to these objectives requires placing the EDA in its context (EC, 2014) in relation to the antecedents of this new digital project directed at the “cultural citizen” (León, 2009). In 2007, the European Commission, in its commitment to stimulate media literacy, proposed an “Agenda” as a guideline to the Community approach towards culture, based on a proposal in which technological innovation should be in the service of knowledge of the European audiovisual heritage and cultural identities. At the same time, media literacy in the educational setting would enhance the connection to creative digital content (EC, 2009: 10). Continuous learning constituted the necessary counterpart in this symbiotic approach of culture and digital innovation: this was seconded by the two other institutional standard bearers of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Council, when defining as key competences “those which all people need for their personal development in order to be active citizens, for social inclusion and employment” (EP, 2006: 13), as well as emphasising communication in one’s mother tongue and in foreign languages, digital competence and cultural and awareness and expression.
These EU proposals led to initiatives in Spain by the Institute of Cinematography and Audiovisual Arts (ICAA) and the Ministry of Education’s Office of the Secretary of State for Education and Vocational Training, which set up a Committee of Experts in July 2011. One of the main conclusions of the committee was the need to promote access to audiovisual works in original version as a key objective of all cultural and political education, to bring the audience into contact with diversity, neutralizing the false appropriation of a homogenous reality that consists of characters, referential universes and undifferentiated social profiles, and at the same time modifying the social habit of majority access to dubbed audiovisual content (Committee of Experts, 2011:3). A difficult objective to achieve if one considers that, in the six years prior to the establishment of the committee, the average number of SOV films was around 30% of all the movies shown in cinemas, yet the average number of viewers of SOV films barely reached 3% of all cinema goers, as the following Table 1 shows.
Based on the ICAA data, the Committee of Experts proposed stimulating demand for, and increasing the number of, films shown in OV, and it urged Spain’s Senate to incorporate all the country’s official languages in subtitling, which the Senate duly approved on 12 July 2011, recommending that the government take steps to give effect to the policy.
The committee also recommended greater coordination between all competent authorities in formulating public funding systems to digitalize movie theatres to better accommodate works in OV, and to halt the trend for cinemas in rural areas to disappear (Committee of Experts, 2011: 9).
The reflections and arguments presented by this committee are praiseworthy for their clarity, accuracy and feasibility compared to the work of certain European institutions: the committee warns of a clear structural threat in the deterioration of the cultural fabric of society resulting from the erosion of cinematographic and linguistic pathways.
The complexity of the contemporary socio-cultural environment in general, and the intricacy of certain study subjects in particular, lead research groups to undertake broad and inclusive transdisciplinary approaches, often based on multiple triangulations –data-based, investigative, theoretical and methodological– that are stratified in nature. This is the case of our project: a multidisciplinary proposal based on an exchange of knowledge arising from the critical revision of the literature and regulations, broadened and contrasted by qualitative and quantitative contributions from an “initial population” –later constituted as a “Panel”– of 62 European experts resident in minority language areas of the EU –Catalonia (6.45%), the Basque Country (14.52%), Galicia (24.19%), Valencia (3.22%), Scotland (1.61%), Wales (3.22%), Finland (4.83%), France (3.22,%), Holland (6.45%), Italy (1.61%) and Portugal (1.61%)–, segmented in four profiles of competence –«Academic” (37.10%), “Institutional” (24.19%), “Cultural Manager” (22.58%) and “Creator” (16.13%)– and which envisages in-depth interviews of elites and prospective Delphi questionnaires.
The Figure below shows the stratification of our research in four successive and complementary phases.
As the Figure shows, only after a critical and exhaustive review of the literature, regulations and reports, as well as conducting the Forum of Experts to provide meeting points and spaces for reflection for the main agents involved, was it feasible to select the population of experts for the interviews and design the interview which, in line with the methodology of the so-called “interviews of elites”, was subject to modification by the interviewees themselves in their role as experts on the theme of this research. Given that this type of interview can generate an amount of potentially irrelevant information greater than in other types of interview, Ruiz-Olabuénaga (2007) recommends using “interview guides”.
When the interviews were finished, the considerable content they had yielded was analysed using the ATLAS.ti qualitative data analysis software for the isolation and taxonomy of a series of fundamental topics that could be used in a second phase for the prospective Delphi questionnaire. For the design of this survey we consulted earlier studies (Pazos & Ruiz 2008; Mohedano, 2013; San-Eugenio, Fernández, & Jiménez, 2013).
The questionnaire was applied in successive rounds to a “Panel of Experts” selected from the specialists interviewed, based on their particular competence and the proactivity shown during the development of the in-depth interview phase. In order to make best use of the limited space available, we will not present an overview of the interview questionnaires and Delphi here as these will be examined in depth later under “Analysis and Results” and “Discussion and Conclusions”.
We used two types of specialist software for data extraction and management depending on the qualitative or quantitative nature of the analysis (see Table 2).
An overview of the regulations studied in this investigation is important for understanding the role of cinema in achieving linguistic diversity and the extracurricular acquisition or consolidation of key competences in minority languages. We are referring to EDA / Europa 2020, a nodal, prospective European Community project that has generated several other documents that have also been analysed here. In addition, the intensive documental analysis methodology derived from the application of controlled hermeneutics by inference –in the style of López (2002), Bardin (2013: 15-29), Krippendorf (2013) and Chevrier (2009: 53-87), provided a more accurate valuation of the incidence of the audiovisual narrative in the very diversity of language and culture (Ledo & Castelló, 2013).
In the EDA framework, we can see how the role apportioned to “Language Technologies” in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) programme (EC, 204:14) is significant, with a clear socio-economic objective: the consolidation of a single European digital market accessible to all citizens. In this context, connectivity via fast cheap broadband for European citizenry is increasingly in demand, as documented in the report by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (CIRE, 2010) which emphasises:
• The vindication of a Digital Society that is inclusive, based on accessibility to technology by competent users.
• The taking into account of the vital role of the Creative and Cultural Industries (CCI) in the configuration of a single market for creative content, with the CCI involved in the cultural and linguistic specificities.
• The promotion of “the virtuous 2015.eu spiral” which, under the auspices of Zen Business, aims to replace the traditional linearity of the value chain with a synergic effect in the creation of value shared among its actors (Coll, 2015).
• The consideration of “digital literacy” as essential for social integration, in line with Aguaded (2011: 8).
• The reinforcing of school learning via ICT innovations, especially related to early exposure to foreign languages, both being effective operatives in the service of cohesion.
The role of cinema in the European digital project is set out in a recent EDA report that the Committee of Culture and Education (CCE) presented to the European Parliament (CCE, 2015). The report cites the European film industry, with 1,500 films released in 2014, as one of the most productive worldwide, although it acknowledges that its financing model makes the structure of this output extremely irregular (CCE, 2015: 5), which undermines its performance as an “industry” and as “European”. The report also notes the paradox that, despite the undoubted quality, originality and diversity of productions, European cinema attracts only small audiences and is not widely distributed inside or outside the EU, and is incapable of providing a real alternative to strong international competition (CCE, 2015: 5).
Thus, it is of immediate importance to emphasise the cinematographic diversity and cultural and linguistic plurality of Europe as one of its main strengths, by guaranteeing its funding through institutional actions such as the MEDIA sub-programme, which provides financial support for the development of film production and distribution, with over half the general budget of the Creative Europe Program, some 1.5 million euros for 2014-2020 (CCE, 2015: 15).
In terms of the specific effect which the European development model praised by the EDA has had on political action undertaken by EU Member States in general, and on the Spanish multicultural, multilinguistic context in particular, the Council of Ministers approved the “Digital Agenda for Spain” on 15 February 2013. The strategy for political action on ICT, Electronic Government and the Information Society for 2013-2015 was shaped by the notion that the “Information Society” concept, as opposed to the term “Digital Society” coined by the European Community for its socio-cultural project, was outdated (Medialab, 2016).
The government, under the aegis of the Ministries of Industry, Energy and Tourism, Taxation and Public Administration, articulated the question of Spain’s linguistic diversity in its “Plan for the Promotion of Language Technologies”. It emphasised the development of linguistic infrastructures in Spanish and other official languages geared to the achievement of linguistic processors and resources considered indispensable for the development of the national industry for the Processing of Natural Language (PNL) and Automatic Translation (AT), with direct repercussions on film subtitling.
The Office of the Secretary of State for Telecommunications and the Information Society (SETSI in Spanish), which is responsible for coordinating and implementing the Digital Agenda for Spain, helps “Language Technologies” gather momentum: the PLN and AT act as processors that transcend text analysis and subsequent exploitation in computer applications (Language Technology Promotion Plan – PITL in Spanish, 2015: 11) in order to monitor reputations on social networks, create alerts, assist in the online learning of foreign languages and automate translation and text correction processes, mainly in the field of “grey literature” (SETSI, 2015: 6-7).
SETSI gives less prominence to AT restricting its business model to the commercialization of the services provided by the autonomous public administrations, mainly in via SaaS, “Software as a service”, paid for by users-clients on demand (SETSI, 2015: 112).
After studying the European Community regulations, we now turn to the vast array of documentation consulted with our panel of European experts. The system used consisted of synthesising the topics extracted from a critical review of the literature and in-depth interviews with experts into a prospective online Delphi questionnaire which, following an exhaustive pre-test phase, was applied to a Panel of Experts.
The data from the Delphi methodology were converted into a battery of retrospective, contemporary and prospective consensuses and disagreements around the topics put to the Panel, accompanied by the degree of concurrence reached among the panellists. With adjustments for appropriate clarifications, the Table 3 sets out the contributions from the panellists and their greatest degree of concurrence, with a highly homogenous degree of distribution.
To conclude this section, methodological rigor obliges us to review those topics which, although widely cited in the reference texts and in the in-depth interviews –and if not, might not have been included in the Delphi questionnaire–, triggered major discrepancies among the panellists. The question whether “screen quotas should be imposed for the daily showing of 50% of European films in OV” caused most controversy, for although the most selected option was “Disagree” (27.59%), the sum of the various options –overlapping in the Likert scale or the “evaluation methods summary”– that refute the statement and those that subscribe to it show similar scores (37.93%).
In our reflection on the European Community, we sense a clear aspiration to worldwide cultural leadership (Mattelart, 2006), with the potential for cultural penetration and positioning of the medium of cinema. While this aspiration is undoubtedly legitimate, it is currently unreachable since European filmmakers spend barely 1% of a film’s production budget on promoting and commercializing the product, whereas in the USA they tend to spend as much on promotion as on production. Hence the uncomfortable fact that European films are shown almost exclusively in their countries of origin and not beyond (CCE, 2015: 14).
What is more, support for the subtitled film genre by MEDIA inexplicably trails off when compared to the dubbed version, which appears to be a clear brake on the evolution of the treatment of cultural diversity in the European digital space, as well as the acquisition and consolidation of key competences in minority languages through cinema in original version. We can see how one of the potential strengths of European cinema becomes, once again due to faulty political strategy, one of its main weaknesses:
• Potential strength: in a European context of generalized digitalization, one would expect the European Community to fully support the promotion of subtitled multilingual cinema, emphasising those technologically and creatively innovative experiences which, always in the pursuit of quality subtitling and of its integration in cinematographic works, enable the viewer to benefit from the contributions to partial subtitling by O'Sullivan (2008), to creative subtitling by McClarty (2012), or even the universal design applied to media accessibility by Udo and Fels (2009).
• Real weakness: instead, the EU has opted for a participatory financial model to fund subtitling, namely, crowdsourcing, and there is a preparatory action underway (CCE, 2015: 7) that could possibly exclude MEDIA from all or part of the subsidy for European film subtitling. The aim would be to set up an online platform to attract funding for the translation of audiovisual subtitles (CCE, 2015: 17), which would lead the European Council to neglect its public duty by leaving to chance, in the form of voluntary contributions by individuals, compliance with the commitments set out the ECRML.
In Spain, the government aims to lead the multilingual experience of its four official languages (SETSI, 2015: 8) by reducing the distance that separates their linguistic infrastructures with regard to English, in terms of quantity, quality and availability of resources (PITL, 2015: 20). However, as in the case of Europe, it is only the idiosyncrasy of Spanish industry that could come up with the principle for such leadership: the high costs of production of the linguistic resources for each application domain means they are unaffordable for the small- and medium-sized companies that are the real operational and dynamic agents of the sector.
In addition, the reports by Gartner (2015) alert to the general lack of awareness of this type of application, and such is the shortage of demand that Spanish companies in the sector find manacled to almost pre-industrial ways of working: small-scale, between 1 and 10 workers, a lack of awareness in the sector or of partnership structures, etc.
We have seen that this apparent sense of drift in pursuit of language technologies clearly highlights the strategic fault at the heart of the proposal of the Digital Agenda for Spain: if film businesses find unacceptable the conditions that encumber non-hegemonic linguistic raw material, it is precisely the cultural perspective that must be confronted first instead of being passed over by, or even deleted from, the institutional discourse.
Put another way, if it is their very condition as non-hegemonic languages that relegates their respective technological PNL and AT markets to almost mute expression, only by the extent to which such languages can benefit from their vernacular, and not just vehicular, condition as a guarantee of real access to vast cultural and scientific repertories will they be able to position themselves in the transnational market of automatic translation and independent language text processing, the economic forecast for which is set to rise in their sector of the business, from the current 12 billion € to 30 billion € in 2020 (PITL, 2015: 12). This is, therefore, a strategic sector for the EU and its 24 official languages some of which are in “critical danger” of digital extinction. Hence the management of multilingualism in the Single European Digital Market is a priority objective for the “Connecting Europe Facility” (CEF) whose array of digital public services includes tools for accessing linguistic resources in various European languages (SETSI, 2015: 9). Likewise, reformulating political action in Spain with regard to language technologies must be done without delay, in line with increasing European concern about the Gordian knot which, for the Single European Digital Market, is linguistic diversity (SETSI, 2015: 19), even if not clearly stated in EU texts aimed at its citizens.
However, there is hope at hand in that the Spanish government’ proverbial quietism on the subject will be somewhat ameliorated by the actions of regional autonomous institutions that will gain strength by joining their respective cultural heritages to linguistic reality, transcending merely instrumental considerations. In this regard, SETSI (2015: 56) draws attention to three reference centres:
• The Centre for Terminology in the Catalan Language (TERMCAT: www.termcat.cat): created in 1985 by the Generalitat (autonomous Catalan government) and the Institut d’Estudis Catalans, its mission is to integrate Catalan terminology via numerous tools and linguistic resources, both in specialist sectors and among society at large.
• The Basque Centre of Terminology and Lexicography (UZEI: www.uzei.eus/es): in operation for over 35 years, it has become a compulsory point of reference in the field of research and development of language technologies thanks to the development of PNL tools through its euLEZ project.
• The Galician Language Institute (ILG: http://ilg.usc.es/es/recursos): attached to the University of Santiago de Compostela in collaboration with the Real Galician Academy, the ILG develops specialist scholarly resources in the field of the Galician language with a solid base in language technologies.
As a corollary of the contributions and reflections aired so far, we present the most important conclusions of our study:
• Access to OV content is an indispensable complement to European social cohesion and the achievement of the ideal of linguistic diversity, as it transcends the logical limitations of the regulated educational system in its proposition of intercultural contexts that are effective for the appropriation of foreign languages.
• That said, and although some actions to preserve the European Intangible Cultural Heritage are praiseworthy in their attempt to promote the subtitling of audiovisual content, the clear formal commitment of the Conventions (ECRML) usually ends up as batteries of random, fragmentary and contingent measures whose outcome is a systematic lack of results.
• Together with the proposals sent to the European Parliament by the Committee for Culture and Education (CCE, 2015), we draw attention to the urgent need to redirect European strategies for commercialization towards disruptive models that contemplate audiences’ cultural specificities by boosting subtitling as a guarantee of transnational circulation and of the projection of the linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe (Marzal, 2003).
• Likewise, in line with the calls from our experts, we cite the need for coordinated action among European institutions and policies to protect identity in cinema as European intangible cultural heritage by promoting its dissemination in cinemas, on television, digital platforms, at festivals, universities and film libraries.
• Priority should be given to funding the production and distribution of audiovisual works in their respective vernacular languages, not to dubbing, in order to familiarize the general public, especially children, with films in OV/SOV as a guarantee of mutual understanding at European level.
• The European audiovisual model must redirect its exploitation strategies regarding the EU’s 24 languages by focusing on the vernacular, not just the vehicular, as a guarantee of authentic access to huge cultural and scientific repertoires, taking the Danish example as best practice (López, Castelló & Arias, 2015).
As a corollary of this work, we acknowledge that the main limitation of this study in terms of the universalization of the results is the number of interviewees, those surveyed, and the countries involved. This does not? Prevent us from considering our research as a point of reference in its field in terms of methodology, content and results, with the hope that future investigations will deepen and broaden the exploration of our study subject.
Aguaded, I. (2011). Media Education: An International Unstoppable Phenomenon. [La educación mediática, un movimiento internacional imparable]. Comunicar, 37, 7-8. https://doi.org/10.3916/C37-2011-01-01
Bardin, L. (2013). L’analyse de contenu. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Bourdieu, P. (2005). Capital cultural, escuela y espacio social. México: Siglo XXI.
Chevrier, J. (2009). La spécification de la problématique. In B. Gauthier (Dir.), Recherche sociale: De la Problématique à la Collecte des Données (pp. 51-84). Sainte Foy: Presse de l’Université du Québec.
Coll, J.M. (2015). Zen Business: Los beneficios de aplicar la armonía en la empresa. Barcelona: Profit.
Collins, L., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The Foreign Language Classroom: Current Perspectives and Future Considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12305
Comisión de Expertos para el Fomento de la Versión Original en la Exhibición de Obras Audiovisuales (2011). Conclusiones, propuestas y recomendaciones. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura y Ministerio de Educación (http://goo.gl/jgujgR) (2015-01-11).
Committee on Culture and Education/CCE (2015). On European Film in the Digital Era. Report. (http://goo.gl/8DLzIy) (2015-02-20).
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy/CIRE (2010). On a New Digital Agenda for Europe: 2015.eu. Report. (http://goo.gl/5DymP7) (2015-02-20).
European Commission (1992). European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Strasbourg: Official Journal of the European Union (http://goo.gl/HbDBHY) (2015-01-27).
European Commission (2009). Commission Recommendation of 20 August 2009 on Media Literacy in the Digital Environment for a More Competitive Audiovisual and Content Industry and an Inclusive Knowledge Society. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union (http://goo.gl/6mCkka) (2015-03-15).
European Commission (2014). The EU Explained: Digital Agenda for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2775/41229
European Parliament & Council (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union (http://goo.gl/EuX6Wg) (2015-03-15).
Gartner (2015). Text Analytics 2015. Report. (goo.gl/0VqVX9) (2016-01-27).
Gobierno de España (2013). Agenda Digital para España. (https://goo.gl/n5h1ai) (2015-01-30).
Hjort, M., & Petrie, D. (Eds.) (2007). The Cinema of Small Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Krippendorf, K. (2013). Content Analysis: An Introducing to its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Kuppens, A.H. (2010). Incidental Foreign Language Acquisition from Media Exposure. Learning, Media and Technology, 35, 1, 65-85. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880903561876
Ledo-Andión, M., & Castelló-Mayo, E. (2013). Cultural Diversity across the Networks: The Case of National Cinema [La diversidad cultural a través de la Red: el caso del cine identitario]. Comunicar, 20(40), 183-191. https://doi.org/10.3916/C40-2013-03-09
León, G. (2009). Comunicación y ciudadanía cultural: la migración como práctica de comunicación, Razón y Palabra, 66. (https://goo.gl/xFISSt) (2015-08-15).
López-Gómez, A.M., Castelló-Mayo, E., & Arias-Iglesias, I. (2015). Las cinematografías minoritarias y minorizadas en la política cultural de la Unión Europea: la alternativa danesa. Fonseca, 11(11), 32-59 (http://goo.gl/Heg76r) (2016-04-20).
López-Noguero, F. (2002). El análisis de contenido como método de investigación. XXI, 4, 167-179 (http://goo.gl/udmUae) (2015-01-15).
Marzal, J.J. (2003). Atrapar la emoción: Hollywood y el Grupo Dogma 95 ante el cine digital. Arbor, 686, 373-389. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2003.i686.646
Mattelart, A. (2006). Diversidad cultural y mundialización. Barcelona: Paidós.
McClarty, R. (2012). Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach in Creative Subtitling. Monographs in Translating and Interpreting (MonTI), 4, 133-153. https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2012.4.6
Medialab (Ed.) (2016). Sociedad digital. Líneas estratégicas. Universidad de Granada. (http://goo.gl/NR0jxJ) (2016-04-01).
Mohedano, F.O. (2013). El método Delphi, prospectiva en Ciencias Sociales a través del análisis de un caso práctico. EAN, 64, 31-54 (http://goo.gl/qJo4mu) (2015-12-20).
O’Sullivan, C. (2008). Multilingualism at the Multiplex: A New Audience for Screen Translation? Linguistica Antverpiensia, 6, 81-97 (https://goo.gl/qiFLly) (2016-02-17).
Pazos, A.J.B., & Ruiz, B.C. (2008). Las revistas profesionales especializadas en publicidad en España: resultados de un estudio Delphi. Doxa Comunicación, 7, 59-81 (http://goo.gl/fC2j6I) (2015-12-03),
Ruiz-Olabuénaga, J.I. (2007). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
San-Eugenio, J., Fernández, J., & Jiménez M. (2013). Características y funciones para marcas de lugar a partir de un método Delphi. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 656-675. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2013-995
SETSI (2015). Informe sobre el estado de las tecnologías del lenguaje en España dentro de la Agenda Digital para España. (https://goo.gl/Uh9Oy8) (2015-12-23).
SETSI (2015). Plan de Impulso de las Tecnologías del Lenguaje (PITL). (https://goo.gl/iikEjH) (2015-11-01).
Sinclair, J., & Cunningham, S. (2000). Go with the Flow: Diasporas and the Media. Television & New Media, 1, 11-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/152747640000100102
Sundqvist, P., & Sylven, L.K. (2014). Language-related Computer Use: Focus on Young L2 English Learners in Sweden. ReCALL, 26, 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344013000232
Udo, J.P., & Fels, D. (2009). The Rogue Poster Children of Universal Design: Closed Captioning and Audio Description. Ted Rogers School of Information Technology Management Publications and Research, Paper 18, 1-32. (http://goo.gl/L3PPBr) (2016-03-21).
Unesco (1996). Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. (https://goo.gl/aUSyv7) (2015-06-15).
Vez, J.M., Muñoz, C., & Llinares, A. (2011). Fomento de la versión original en la difusión de contenidos audiovisuales. Aportaciones desde las investigaciones en educación lingüística. Informe. (https://goo.gl/pBeZtH) (2015-05-16).