Current Approaches: Polish and International Academia

between media, modes, and sign systems; she differentiates four categories, one of which is the multisemiotic category that includes comics (p. 44).³⁶ O’Sullivan (2013) positively evaluates Snell-Hornby’s categories, which can be seen as divergent and permeable, but she still decides to stick to the all-encompassing term multimodality to avoid needless confusion and division, something that Snell-Hornby’s categorization may bring about.

As can be seen, much of early translation theory, while understanding the need to perceive multimodal works as a whole, was unsure of how to approach the translation of such works from a practical point of view. In many ways it continues to be unsure; the easiest thing to be done was to divide the modes, and give priority to the mode that seemingly contained the most information, or perhaps had the biggest priority- in many cases, this was the verbal aspect. Examples of this were seen in e.g. Grun and Dollerup’s (2003) study, which focused on how the dialogue and character names were adapted and domesticated in select comics without greater adherence to the visual aspect: a notable example is how the earlier Danish translations of the Donald Duck^© comics were domesticated in their dialogue to such an extent that they could have thought to be originally Danish (p. 197). Among other things, swear words were omitted and Danish neologisms were used, with little regard to the illustrations and overall pacing of the comics (Grun & Dollerup, 2003, p. 197).

Based on such examples, it is clear that the linguistic/verbal mode is not the only thing that needs to be taken into consideration when translating multimodal works. Moreover, works should not be considered along such a strict division. Regardless, this tends to be an aspect ignored in comics translation, as Klaus Kaindl shows in his article on the translation of humor in comics; making recourse to the famous French comic series Astrix and Obelix, Kaindl (2004) shows where the text had been carelessly translated without regard for the surrounding imagery, thus impacting the humor in the comic, or omitting it at times altogether (pp. 177-178; pp. 180-182).

connects each category to visual, spatial and cultural aspects that are relevant in given translation contexts (pp. 38-39). Granted, Kaindl’s perspective uses the linguistic as a starting point for comic translation, but broadens it according to given examples and aspects. The five categories that Kaindl (2004; 2010) differentiates are: title, dialogue texts, narrations, inscriptions and onomatopoeia (pp.

229-253; 38-39).

To use a category as an example, he (Kaindl, 2010) pays attention to narration as a

“contextualizing function” that conveys: “the temporal and local context at the macrolevel (between the individual panels) and control[s] the understanding of the respective situation at the microlevel (within a panel)” (p. 38). He (2010) also brings attention to inscriptions and onomatopoeia as key elements of comics that can undergo a range of translation strategies such as direct borrowing or complete domestication (pp. 38-39). Thus, Kaindl and O’Sullivan’s academic approaches reflect a greater trend towards perceiving comics in translation as complex multimodal texts, not texts constrained by other modes. Current approaches are also reflective of this attitude, including in Polish academia, as can be seen e.g. in Borodo’s (2015; 2016; 2017a) and Skwarzyński’s (2019) recent academic articles.

Such a shift was to be expected with the rise of a greater number of postmodern works that take full advantage of multimodality, such as video games, streaming platforms, and webcomics. It is due to the onset of new media that there have been rapid changes to the complexity of multimodal works; they have become not only more conspicuous, but more intertwined with each other, especially within the online/digital realm (O’Sullivan, 2013, p. 5). This has gradually impacted translation theory, as “with changing media technologies (. . .) come changing theories of translation” (Littau, 2011, qtd. in O’Sullivan, 2013, p. 6). Moreover, it is especially true for works that function to some extent in an online/digital environment, as they are susceptible to translation practices that are based on fan culture and amateur work, rather than professional endeavors (Zanettin, 2018, p. 452). Along with the advent of new technologies and with it new modes and media, translation approaches moved away from being largely linguistic (Kaindl, 2010, p. 37).

Indeed, O’Sullivan (2013) does also give examples of progress in multimodal translational methodologies, discussing, among others, film translation, transcreation or multimodal transcription (pp. 6-8).

While it is preferable to retain as many features of the SIT as possible in translation, it is sometimes not possible to do so; an imagetext may be impossible to completely reproduce in translation (O’Sullivan, 2013, p. 9). As much as a source-oriented approach is on the rise in comic translation (Zanettin, 2018, p. 452), the reality is such that sometimes, certain changes to form or content have to be implemented into the TIT. This is an issue that continues to be recognized in current academia (Kaindl, 2004; Zanettin, 2008a; Zanettin, 2008b; Rota, 2008; Jankowski, 2014;

interdisciplinary perspective that took into account not just illustrations, but also typography.

Borodo, 2017b; Borodo, 2017a; Wieczorek, 2019). O’Sullivan (2013) herself gives examples of how the multimodality in comics is purposefully flaunted in order to reframe a given target text and make it understandable for the target readers; or indeed how images are subject to erasure or alteration, e.g. due to copyright (p. 9). Sometimes, the features present in the source text may not be realized at all in the target text (Grun & Dollerup, 2003, pp. 189-193). It is interesting that among other things, some authors, like Grun & Dollerup, (2003) try to pinpoint a reason as to why translation studies seem to look at multimodal translation in an unforgiving way: they cite a false sense of equivalence that tends to prevail in translation studies and a striving for a perfect translation that seems to be based on an extreme duality- either very poor or the same as an original work (p. 185). It is obvious that such a two-factored approach isn’t a balanced one, but a more so faulty one when approaching the translation of works created in the comic medium. When undergoing translation, SIT’s are susceptible to changes that are not done on a whim, but rather a necessity dictated by the TIT’s and the target culture, publishing practices, affordances, and readership.

For instance, in his encyclopedic entry dedicated to the translation of comics, Zanettin (2011) outlines the basic process of rendering a comic work into the TIT (which he refers to as an ST) noting along the way that possible changes may easily take place, such as: “editing or removing pictures, adding/removing/altering colors, changing layout and pagination” (p. 39). These alterations often take place in the editing stage of the translation process, and may or may not take place at the recommendation of the translator. While e.g. Groensteen (1999/2007) may see such changes as violent and intrusive on their own, in the context of comics translation such change is practically unavoidable: “when comics are published in translation they are often manipulated at both textual and pictorial level. Such modifications may range from the omission of panels, or even pages, to the retouching or redrawing of <part of> the layout and content” (Zanettin, 2011, p. 39).

This is due to the fact that it is often not enough to simply translate the text, as there are different conventions governing the iconic language in the comic medium. Thus, much like the text itself, images can and often should undergo translation in order for the target readership to be able to appreciate and understand the work at hand. Citing Zanettin (2011): “non-verbal signs are as culture-bound as verbal signs” (p. 39). O’Sullivan (2013) specifically warns against adapting a mindset that dictates images as non-translatable (p. 9), and presents the previously mentioned translations as examples of necessary change.

In this vein, Valerio Rota (2008) makes mention of the multiple comic formats that exist in countries. Above all, he (Rota, 2008) notes e.g. the big differences between comic medium conventions in Japan, America, France, and Italy: “Different cultures produce different kinds of comics: the size and contents of publications, for historical and practical reasons, vary from nation to nation, accommodating to the tastes and expectations of the different reading public” (p. 80).

This significantly impacts the translation process, as in many cases, alterations must be made or the TIT is at risk of not being received by readership, as evidenced by the publication attempts of the Italian translation of Neil Gaiman’s comic book series Sandman (1989-1993) (Rota, 2008, p. 86).

Rota (2008) points out the significant differences in the adaptation of the comic medium in American and Italian audiences, noting that e.g. Americans like to read comics in short installments over the course of a number of issues, while Italians greatly prefer reading completed story arcs in one volume (p. 86). In this example, the main issue was not in the translation of the text itself, but rather the adaptation of the established comic format in the target culture, which involved changes in surrounding paratext, image size and binding, as each aspect carried certain associations in the target culture.

Along with other examples, Rota reminds of an obvious fact in comic translation: “changing the size of the original publication is an operation which has important consequences for the translated comic and its enjoyment” (p. 84). However, it is noted that not always can a SIT undergo a domestication involving format, visual imagery and text; at times, a given SIT is so strongly grounded in its source culture that a change would not only constitute excessive effort, but it would also be negatively perceived by the target audience. Rota (2008) discusses Japanese manga as an example of this, noting that Western publishers adhere to the right-to-left order or reading and do not change the intrapanel paratext that contributes to the visual language of Japanese comics (pp.

92-95). In this case, the target audience appreciates the retaining of Japanese comic medium features. Still, Rota (2008) discusses how a good translation would retain the form and idea of Japanese manga, but at the same time would not let a potential reader become confused (p. 84).

Rota gives examples of where a foreignizing strategy is adapted, but it does break unspoken taboos of e.g. leaving footnotes in the gutter in order to explain certain words, customs and cultural aspects that can be found in the given manga: “these versions [of manga], then, adopt a foreignizing strategy, but at the same time try to avoid disorienting the reader by providing some cultural coordinates” (p. 94). Thus, it can be seen that changes are widespread in comic translation, and these changes are not done out of carelessness, but done with a clear goal in mind, a goal that is connected to the target culture and audience.

In more recent approaches to comic translation, there has appeared a heightened sensitivity to the interplay of the visual and the verbal, as well as paratextual factors that constitute the entirety of a given comic (Groensteen, 2007; Kaindl, 2010; Batinić, 2016, O’Sullivan, 2013; Domingo et al.

2014; O’Hagan, 2016; Marques, 2017; Zanettin, 2018). The superficially conflicting visual and verbal modes are usually not analyzed anymore from the point of view of constrained translation, but rather seen as complimenting factors that can provide the reader with a unique experience.

Interesting theoretical advances in this field can be seen in Polish scholarship: for instance, Michał Borodo (2015) approaches comic translation from a multimodal and semiotic perspective on the

basis of Thorgal translations by Jean Van Hamme and Grzegorz Rosiński. Borodo (2015) references Kress and Van Leeuwen; as well as the framework of Royce, who in turn addresses how visual and verbal modes interact on a page to create coherency (pp. 23-24). Using examples of select panels from French and Polish Thorgal issues as well as highlighting Kaindl’s framework for analyzing translated comics, Borodo (2015) concludes that such an approach could be immensely helpful in translation endeavors: “Investigating comics from a multimodal perspective may be another step towards a more complete understanding of the nature of this still largely unexplored sphere within Translation Studies” (p. 40). Borodo & Sikorska (2017) comes back to these issues in their discussion of both the translation of Thorgal and the translation of Shaun Tan’s works (pp. 53-69;

151-171). Skwarzyński (2019) also presumes from the outset that comics are complex, multimodal works that require media literacy and a deep understanding of the form to not only successfully interpret and interact with, but to also translate (pp. 113-115). Furthermore, he acknowledges the role of visual narration, and how its different types (e.g. drawing styles, font type, inking) can impact reception (p. 107).

Jakub Jankowski (2014) also takes on an interesting approach stemming from his focus on the graphic side of comics. He uses the term “graphic translation” within the context of comic translation, but notes that the term can be used for any work where graphics, illustrations, pictures, or any kind of visual design come into play (Jankowski, 2014, p. 68). Jankowski (2014) gives more weight to the visual side of comics, noting that comics are primarily created in a graphic/visual language that can be published through different platforms (p. 68). One of Jankowski’s core ideas is that comics are a very dynamic form that constantly undergoes change; above all they constitute a unified graphic language, where the verbal is an inseparable part of the comic (Jankowski, 2014, p.

69). Thus, his approach signals that a successful comic translation is one that takes into account the predominance of the visual, which also extends to the verbal. It is for this reason that Jankowski uses the term “graphic translation”, because as he himself says, the term ideally depicts the so-called “translation maneuvers” that a translator has to do when translating a comic; the visual can both hinder and help in a translation, and while it may not always be translated into the target culture, it influences translation choices and strategies (Jankowski, 2014, p. 82). While one might call into question Jankowski’s fairly enthusiastic embracing of the visual in comics and their importance in comic translation, he does indeed view comics as holistic works in a translatory sense. Furthermore, he goes on to say that comics are a conceptual language (Jankowski, 2014, p.

69), paying attention to how the visual impacts reader reception and translation practices, similarly to Skwarzyński (2019).

Furthermore, Jankowski (2014) rightfully foregrounds that words in comics are not simply read, but also visually received by a given reader (p. 69). How a word is registered and how it sounds in a reader’s mind depends on graphic characteristics, which Jankowski (2014) divides into

direct and indirect (p. 69). Direct characteristics are font, word color, spaces between letters and words, and the arrangement of words within or outside the confines of the speech bubble and additional markers such as marking words in italics or bold. Indirect characteristics are the colors and shapes of speech bubbles, as well as the facial expressions and gestures of the characters. All of these factors influence the reception of the words, and give the reader cues as to how to interpret the presented material from a visual angle. It is here that Jankowski (2014) calls upon the importance of taking into account semiotic theory, noting that looking at comics from a semiotic point of view is a valuable tool for translation; this is due to the fact that meaning is created on the mental plane by enriching Saussure’s concept of the linguistic sign and its meaning by a third dimension, which is the graphical (p. 71).

Like other scholars have mentioned, semiotics play a role in deciphering the language in comics, which in turn becomes vital for their proper translation. Semiotics and comics translation are indeed interrelated, and while some scholars³⁸ argue about the validity of the claim that translation occurs between graphical elements, the importance of analyzing comics from a semiotic perspective is a point of agreement. As Jankowski (2014) points out, numerous paratextual elements are translated in comics, such as epilogues, introductions, signs and notes that are included in illustrations, etc. (p. 71). Given that it is often in comics that literal signs need to be translated, among other elements that are highly intertwined with the visual layer, semiotics simply cannot be excluded from a proper comic translation.

Within Polish academia, it is also worth mentioning the translation journal Przekładaniec, which regularly addresses the translation of texts involving more than one mode. Among other things, semiotic and grammatical translation approaches are brought up in select articles, such as in Marta Kaźmierczak’s (2018) article on intersemiotic translation, or Elżbieta Muskat-Tabakowska’s (2018) article on the connection between the verbal and mental imagery in the context of translation. Notable are issues 34 and 35 published in 2017, which are specifically dedicated to the translation of word and image- some articles were even translated into English and published in 2018 under the title “Word and Image”. For instance, an interesting example is Jeremi K. Ochab’s (2018) article on the translation of Randall Munroe’s Thing Explainer (2015), which is an image heavy book referring to popular science. In the article, Ochab (2018) goes out of his way to explain in length the challenging process of translating the xkcd (2006-current) spin-off book, including how the translator tackled using the issue of using only the 1000 most common words in Polish; this is because Munroe uses only the first thousand most commonly used words in English in Thing Explainer (2015).

Another theoretically relevant article can be found in issue 34, where Hubert Kowalewski (2017) approaches comics translation from a rather innovative angle, namely from the point of view

38 Please refer to the thesis subchapter “Semiotics and the Translation of Comics and Webcomics”, where e.g.

Professor Kaźmierczak questions the validity of translation taking place between graphical elements.

of Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner’s Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT). According to the author, the theory is useful in not just unraveling the complexities of the comic medium, but also:

“allows for describing the content derived from various codes and semantic frames <linguistic and visual meanings, cultural scripts, etc.>” (p. 108). As can be seen, Kowalewski (2017) here takes a more cognitive approach, where the main presupposition is such that elements and modes are blended in a subconscious process and ultimately make up a coherent semantic complex. Therefore, using such examples such as Maus (1980) and Persepolis (2000), Kowalewski (2017) sees comics as a blended space, which in translation should correspond to the so-called emergent structure in the source culture, which is the prevailing structure made up of prevailing actions and semantic understandings (p. 110). If a translator understands not just the structure but the semantic spaces in a source culture and source work, then they can properly understand the relations in a blended space and thus produce a satisfactory translation. At the same time, Kowalewski (2017) points out that he does not think that a translator needs to be very fluent in semiotic or conceptual blending theory, but rather simply familiarize themselves with the theory and use it as a way of being privy to the inner workings that take place in interdependent imagetexts (p. 125). In fact, Kowalewski insinuates that it could help in forming the foundation of an appropriate translation strategy for a given comic.

The aforementioned Polish approaches reflect contemporary attitudes towards comics translation; the constrained approach is largely a thing of the past, and it is no question that a comic must be translated whilst taking into account, at the very least, the imagetext as a whole. Examples can also be found in international academia; a fairly recent example is the special issue published by journal New Readings titled “Comics and Translation” in 2015, which includes novel translation approaches to comics translation. Within the issue, Weissbrod and Kohn (2015) approach comics as multimodal texts that are subject to translational changes that have a widespread effect on all comic modes; specifically, they question the idea of re-illustrating as translation. Their reasoning is such that as multimodal texts, comics are influenced by the change of one or more components (Weissbrod and Kohn, 2015, p. 1); this reasoning is backed up by both Borodo’s (2015) and O’Sullivan’s (2013) previously cited academic works. Both authors conclude at the end of the article that when it comes to the changing of illustrations in comics, as was regarding their case study of Hebrew comics, this process can be regarded as a translation: “From the point of view of Translation Studies, the new versions of Uri Cadduri and Mr. Fibber can be seen as multimedia translation, in which the translators replace image for image rather than word for word, thus affecting the entire work” (p. 16). Weissbrod and Kohn’s approach portrays a more detailed attitude towards comic translation, one that was already singled by Kaindl (2004; 2010).

In the same issue, scholars Armour and Takeyama (2015) discuss a more niche topic in comic translation: typefaces and fonts in the context of Japanese manga. They approach the topic from a variety of angles: for instance, they discuss comics as multi-semiotic texts based on

O’Sullivan’s writings, and also discuss comic translation from the point of view of classic translation theory, such as Reiss’ text-type categories, Snell-Hornby’s multimodal text division, and even Venuti’s foreignization vs. domestication debate (Armour & Takeyama, 2015, p. 23; p. 32).

Furthermore, they (Armour & Takeyama, 2015) also allude to Kress’ work regarding modes, namely how the interpretation of given modes and signs (e.g. typeface and font) is interpreted differently in each culture and society (p. 23); as such, semiotic reach of given typefaces is different in each culture, with some not even existing in a given language. Thus, both researchers conclude that sometimes a change in typeface is not only recommended but necessary in order to provide the recipient with a reading experience similar to that of the source text: this is especially due to the fact that typeface reflects mood and atmosphere (Armour & Takeyama, 2015, p. 33).

While it may seem that contemporary comic translation studies are mode-focused and detail-oriented, they also branch out into more general views. For example, scholar Dimitris Asimakoulas (2019) addresses the challenge of translating humor in comics in his book Rewriting Humor in Comics, thus limiting his scope of interest to one semantic/cognitive category and topic, namely the comic book adaptations and subsequent translations of Aristophanes’ plays. At the same time, Asimakoulas (2019) approaches the topic of humor from a multimodal and semiotic context, reflecting current academic trends. He notes that comics are intersectional works that combine a variety of modes (pp. 1-5). Thus, he (Asimakoulas, 2019) proposes a methodological approach that focuses on the plurality of comics as multimodal works, and not taking a methodological approach that is a: “painstaking examination of individual linguistic features and their distribution within one case study/work (Asimakoulas, 2019, p. 5). It is in this way Asimakoulas draws attention to the importance of not singling out miniscule examples limited to one or two case studies when it comes to comic translation, but to secure a broader scope that is intersectional.³⁹ This advice rings true, as one can easily become lost in taxonomies and typologies, which while may be interesting from a theoretical point of view, may add little to the practical aspect of translation. Frederico Zanettin (2008a; 2008b; 2018) holds similar views whilst detailing comic translation advancements.

Mirroring current trends in comic translation studies, Zanettin (2018) takes a semiotic approach to comic translation, noting that comics have “prototypical semiotic features, sometimes referred to as the vocabulary narrative”⁴⁰ in which sequential action is organized (pp. 445-446). At the same time, Zanettin (2018) provides valuable historical context with a brief overview of comic publication and history, including the rarely referred to pseudo-translations popular post World-War Two (p. 449). Such comics were “original comics presented as translations”, and were created due to the high demand for foreign comics- sometimes such comics veered into transcreation, e.g.

Disney comics that adapted narratives and original characters to local cultures, locations and stories

39 Asimakoulas (2019) also emphasis the importance of researching comedy and humor within the scope of Adaptation Studies (p. 4).

40 Reminiscent to Neil Cohn’s category of VNG.

(Zanettin, 2018, p. 449). Zanettin also points out the differences between Western and Eastern comics, e.g. between typical American comics and Japanese manga, noting graphic conventions, pacing, reading order, and even colors as important characteristics (pp. 450-452) that influence translation decisions. While not detailed, Zanettin’s overview emphasizes the growing diversity and rich history of the comic medium, which enlightens about the varied approaches one has to take when translating. In fact, Zanettin (2018) differentiates between four key fields in contemporary comics translation:

First, the study of translation strategies, processes and practices as related to comics characterised by different geographical provenance, genre and publication format, and addressed to different readerships; second research on the history of comics translation;

third, the study of comics translation as a way to investigate concepts of cultural, social and political identity; and fourth, research on intersemiotic translation/adaptation between comics and other media/art forms. (p. 452)

Zanettin (2018) gives examples of areas of research and advancements within the aforementioned fields over the past decade, also mapping out potential research paths in the future (pp. 452-454).

He observes that due to the increased variety of case studies and interest in non-fictional works in the comic medium, translation strategies and norms are being better described within the context of specific examples of comic and graphic novel translation (Zanettin, 2018, p. 453). This signals a heightened awareness for the value of case studies, as these can be analyzed from both a holistic and individual point of view. Yet despite theoretical and practical progress, Zanettin (2018) continues to emphasize that the history of comics translation is still an area that lacks proper research, especially in the domains of copyright, censorship, ideology and the role of publishing houses, along with the more recent digital manipulation that is possible in comic translation due to technological advancement (p. 453).

At the same time, there has been a rising tendency to analyze comic translation from the point of view of cultural, social and political identity, especially within comparative studies between original and translated works. Within this context, Zanettin (2018) mentions transcreation⁴¹ and pseudo-translation as valuable points of interest (p. 453). All these approaches are backed by a translation approach that does not solely fall back on classic translation theory that is linguistically focused, but that also encompass semiotic and adaptation studies and is intersectional at its core, including media and mode/medium studies and communication theory (pp. 453-454). In all fields, Zanettin cites a variety of scholars, including those already mentioned here such as Borodo, O’Sullivan, Rota, Kaindl, Altenberg and Owen, Weissbrod and Kohn and many others (pp.

452-41 Zanettin (2018) talks about transcreation as a psuedotranslation in the context of Pellitteri (2006), Jüngst (2008), O’Sullivan’s (2011) Bosco Tierno (2015)’s academic approaches. This is because while translation does take place, there is a significant degree of adaptation and even creation of original content in the TL on the basis of the SL.

Zanettin (2018, p. 456) comments that such phenomenon often play an important role e.g. in establishing literary canons in certain cultures.

454).

Overall, Zanettin (2018) provides a thorough scope of research and academic theory within the scope of comic translation studies. He adequately summarizes that most recent comics translation studies involve “a multimodal approach (. . .) which accounts for the mixing and blending of verbal and visual signs in comics and graphic novels” (p. 454). This observation confirms the previously described trends in post-2010 comic translation, where the linguistic aspect in comics is only a part of a greater whole. This is especially reflected in the localization approach towards comics translation (Zanettin, 2008a; 2008b; 2014) where translation is only one step of a broader process involving publishing, formatting, arranging page layout, adjusting visual components and designs (Zanettin, 2018, p. 454). Localization therefore goes beyond the translation of the imagetext, which in turn can provide additional context in the translation of culturally-impactful or challenging works. Aside from localization, noteworthy are the advancements in manga (Japanese comic), webtoon (Korean mobile comics) translation studies and scanlation⁴² practices (Pexito Martins, 2015; Curran, 2015; Iglesia, 2016; Lynn, 2016; Fabbretti, 2017;

Masuchika, 2020), which according to Zanettin (2018) have influenced translation norms, causing foreignization and formal equivalence to become favored instead of domestication (p. 455). Source-oriented approaches have grown in strength due to the popularization of foreign comics, particularly from Asian countries; European and American comic translation is not the sole focus, thus reflecting a valuable shift that strives towards a broader comic translation cannon. Furthermore, comics that have been established are being published again with better, source-oriented translations, as e.g. the new editions of Calvin and Hobbes (1985) (Borodo, 2016) and the Transformers comic series (Wieczorek, 2019) in Poland. At the same time, modern approaches do not shy away from focusing on detailed studies, an example being the aforementioned comic translation studies focused on font or typeface, or also studies dedicated to lettering (Armour and Takeyama, 2015; Gonsalves de Assis, 2015).

It can be seen that comic translation is developing in a two-fold manner: in a holistic manner which sees the comic medium as a sum of all components (the imagetext and beyond, e.g.

paratextual elements), and in a detailed manner which heavily contextualizes certain detailed aspects of chosen comic works. At the same time, there is no doubt that translation approaches will continue to develop, with new approaches perhaps appearing: “as new forms of graphic narrative develop, new forms of transfer and norms of translation emerge” (Zanettin, 2018, p. 455). A comic translator has to be aware of these developments and act as a “semiotic investigator” (Celotti, 2008, pp. 34), someone who is aware that comics are a fluid medium that at their very base thrive on the conjunction of image and text-and neither one or the other are constraints (Zanettin, 2018, p. 455).

42 Often an act of fan translation, scanlation is the act of scanning a comic page onto a computer, erasing digitally the source language and paratext, and then inputting the translated linguistic features digitally and publishing it usually illegally for free.

Thankfully, it seems that current comic translation studies have adapted to an increasingly dynamic and diverse medium. It can be seen that the relationship of image and text within the realm of comics, be it printed or not, along with the cultural significance and shifting cultural expectations depending on the target and source audience, have gained gradual interest on the part of translation studies/scholars. Based on the aforementioned past and current approaches, it can be concluded that comics have begun to be perceived as complex imagetexts that combine not just the visual and verbal, but are often surrounded by other paratext that influences their reception, and thus their translation. Such an approach has been in part triggered by the proliferation of digital and non-print media, which often employs a number of modes.

Analysis has been done by using classic translation theories and approaches, as well as branching out into relevant fields. Semiotics have also been taken into consideration; while the combining of semiotics and translation studies is not inherently new in itself, it has become a point of discussion when discussing the translation of multimodal works, such as video games, websites, and of course, webcomics. Given that over the past few years there has been a rising tendency to look at comic translation from a semiotic perspective (something which has been already briefly referenced) a more detailed analysis of this phenomenon will be undertaken.

2.2. The Contemporary Internet Landscape: Platforms Studies, Media Archeology, Online