Startseite Does subtitle segmentation via spaces facilitate Chinese viewers’ reading? An eye-tracking study on the Chinese subtitling of English documentaries
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Does subtitle segmentation via spaces facilitate Chinese viewers’ reading? An eye-tracking study on the Chinese subtitling of English documentaries

  • Ying Cui und Xiao Liu EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 6. Juni 2025
Multilingua
Aus der Zeitschrift Multilingua Band 44 Heft 5

Abstract

Interlingual subtitle reading is cognitively demanding, with audio information being in viewers’ foreign language. Chinese subtitle reading is particularly effortful, as the lack of inter-word markers intensifies viewers’ effort to delineate linguistic units. This study aims to explore whether segmenting Chinese subtitles with spaces may impact viewers’ processing effort, viewing experience, and comprehension via an eye-tracking experiment. It focuses on the Chinese subtitling of English documentaries, which are information intensive. Eighty-six participants took part in the experiment. Two parallel versions of a documentary clip were prepared, one with unspaced subtitles and the other with spaced subtitles. In the spaced version, spaces were inserted between subtitle segments which were within Chinese viewers’ perceptual span and were semantically coherent. Participants were randomly assigned to watch one version. Data analyses show that the group of participants watching the spaced version demonstrate lower total fixation duration, first-pass gaze duration, and fixation count, larger saccade amplitude, and fewer regressions, and there is no significant difference between the two groups’ comprehension scores. It suggests that the exploratory method of subtitle segmentation reduces Chinese viewers’ processing effort, improves their viewing experience, and does not hamper their comprehension.

摘要

阅读匹配外语音频的语际字幕,于观众而言认知负荷较高。因中文无词间空格,阅读中文字幕时识别语言单位会格外耗费认知资源。本研究聚焦信息性明确的纪录片字幕,通过眼动实验探讨用空格切分中文字幕是否影响观众认知努力、观影体验及语义理解。本次实验共招募86名被试,实验材料为英文纪录片选段。视频匹配的中文字幕含两个版本,一版不用空格,另一版插入空格,所切分语言单位不超过中文观众知觉广度且语义连贯。实验中,随机分配被试观看其中一版视频。数据分析显示,观看空格组的被试总注视时长、首轮注视时长、注视次数较低,眼跳幅度更大,回看次数更少,且两组阅读测试得分没有显著差异。这一结果说明,切分字幕可降低中文观众认知努力,改善观影体验,且不影响理解效果。

Keywords: Chinese subtitle segmentation; spaced subtitles; interlingual subtitle comprehension; subtitle reading effort; viewing experience
关键词: 中文字幕切分; 字幕空格; 语际字幕理解; 字幕阅读努力; 观影体验
Corresponding author: Xiao Liu, Shandong University at Weihai, 180, Wenhuaxi Road, Weihai, China, E-mail:

Funding source: Humanities and Social Sciences Project Fund of Ministry of Education of China

Award Identifier / Grant number: 23YJC740007

Funding source: Guangdong Philosophy and Social Science Research Programme

Award Identifier / Grant number: GD25CWY20

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Humanities and Social Sciences Project Fund of Ministry of Education of China under Grant [23YJC740007] and Guangdong Philosophy and Social Science Research Programme under Grant [GD25CWY20]. The eye-tracking data were collected at the Bilingual Cognition and Development Lab, Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.

  1. Ethical approval: The study was approved by Bilingual Cognition and Development Lab, Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.

  2. Author contributions: The first author designed the study and drafted the paper. The second author implemented the experiment, processed data, conducted data analyses, and revised the paper.

  3. Conflict of interest: The authors declare none.

  4. Data availability: The experiment materials and comprehension test are publicly available at: https://github.com/2236117534/Subtitling-experimental-materials.git. The data generated in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Appendix

See Tables A1–A6.

Table A1:

Final model of total fixation duration.

Fixed effects
Coefficient SE 95 % CI z χ2 p
Intercept 1.68 0.08 [1.53, 1.83] 21.33 0.000
Subtitle Type −0.14 0.04 [−0.23, −0.05] −3.16 9.96 0.002
Random effects
Variance SD
Participants’ English Level (Intercept) 1.38e-33 3.18e-18
Individual Subtitle (Intercept) 0.60 0.09
Model fit
AIC BIC df
6,202.57 6,225.14 4

  1. Model equation: meglm FixationDuration i.SubtitleType || Participants’ English level: || Individual Subtitle:

Table A2:

Final model of fixation count.

Fixed effects
Coefficient SE 95 % CI z χ2 p
Intercept 7.58 0.33 [6.93, 8.23] 22.78 0.000
Subtitle Type −0.70 0.18 [−1.05, −0.35] −3.95 15.57 0.000
Random effects
Variance SD
Participants’ English Level (Intercept) 4.63e-29 9.19e-15
Individual Subtitle (Intercept) 0.91 0.56
Model fit
AIC BIC df
12,000.29 12,022.86 4

  1. Model equation: meglm FixationCount i.SubtitleType || Participants’ English level: || Individual Subtitle:

Table A3:

Final model of first-pass gaze duration.

Fixed effects
Coefficient SE 95 % CI z χ2 p
Intercept 1.08 0.06 [0.96, 1.20] 17.8 0.000
Subtitle Type −0.14 0.04 [−0.21, −0.06] −3.45 11.90 0.000
Random effects
Variance SD
Participants’ English Level (Intercept) 0.005 0.01
Individual Subtitle (Intercept) 0.20 0.03
Model fit
AIC BIC df
5,636.29 5,664.50 5

  1. Model equation: meglm First-passGazeDuration i.SubtitleType || Participants’ English level: || Individual Subtitle:

Table A4:

Final model of progressive saccade amplitude.

Fixed effects
Coefficient SE 95 % CI z χ2 p
Intercept 3.38 0.13 [3.11, 3.64] 25.23 0.000
Subtitle Type 0.41 0.09 [0.24, 0.58] 4.81 23.14 0.000
Random effects
Variance SD
Participants’ English Level (Intercept) 0.05 0.04
Individual Subtitle (Intercept) 0.29 0.07
Model fit
AIC BIC df
6,840.61 6,867.81 5

  1. Model equation: meglm ProgressiveSaccadeAmplitude i.SubtitleType || Participants’ English level: || Individual Subtitle:

Table A5:

Final model of regressive saccade count.

Fixed effects
Coefficient SE 95 % CI z χ2 p
Intercept 5.14 0.21 [4.73, 5.55] 24.70 0.000
Subtitle Type −0.37 0.11 [−0.59, −0.15] −3.24 10.52 0.001
Random effects
Variance SD
Participants’ English Level (Intercept) 3.39e-32 6.52e-17
Individual Subtitle (Intercept) 0.23 0.61
Model fit
AIC BIC df
9,979.51 10,002.02 4

  1. Model equation: meglm RegressiveSaccadeCount i.SubtitleType || Participants’ English level: || Individual Subtitle:

Table A6:

Final model of comprehension score.

Fixed effects
Coefficient SE 95 % CI z χ2 p
Intercept 14.68 0.33 [14.03, 15.33] 44.46 0.000
Subtitle Type −0.64 0.40 [−1.42, 0.13] −1.63 2.66 0.103
Random effects
Variance SD
Participants’ Major (Intercept) 1.25e-09 3.01e-08
Individual Subtitle (Intercept) 0.30 0.28
Model fit
AIC BIC df
356.64 368.85 5

  1. Model equation: mixed ComprehensionScore i.SubtitleType || Participants’ Major: || Individual Subtitle:

References

Baek, Hyunah, Wonil Choi & Peter C. Gordon. 2023. Reading spaced and unspaced Korean text: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 76(5). 1072–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221104736.Suche in Google Scholar

Bai, Xuejun, Guoli Yan, Chuanli Zang, Simon P. Liversedge & Keith Rayner. 2008. Reading spaced and unspaced Chinese text: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 34(5). 1277–1287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1277.Suche in Google Scholar

Brysbaert, Marc & Michaël Stevens. 2018. Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition 1(1). 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10.Suche in Google Scholar

Burnham, Kenneth P. & David R. Anderson. 2004. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research 33. 261–304.10.1177/0049124104268644Suche in Google Scholar

Caffrey, Colm. 2012. Using an eye-tracking tool to measure the effects of experimental subtitling procedures on viewer perception of subtitled AV content. In Elisa Perego (ed.), Eye tracking in audiovisual translation, 223–258. Rome: Arcane.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Hsuan-Chih & Chi-Kong Tang. 1998. The effective visual field in reading Chinese. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 10(3–5). 245–254.10.1023/A:1008043900392Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Ken, Lei Gu, Hongshan Zuo & Qiaoyan Bai. 2021. Can word-word space facilitate L2 Chinese reading: Evidence from the two empirical studies by advanced L2 learners of Mandarin Chinese. Sage Open 11(4). 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211059150.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Sheng-Jie. 2004. Linguistic dimensions of subtitling: Perspectives from Taiwan. Meta 49(1). 115–124. https://doi.org/10.7202/009027ar.Suche in Google Scholar

Clifton, Charles, Fernanda Ferreira, John M. Henderson, Albrecht W. Inhoff, Simon P. Liversedge, Erik D. Reichle & Elizabeth R. Schotter. 2016. Eye movements in reading and information processing: Keith Rayner’s 40 year legacy. Journal of Memory and Language 86. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Cui, Ying, Xiao Liu & Yuqin Cheng. 2023. Attention-consuming or attention-saving: An eye tracking study on punctuation in Chinese subtitling of English trailers. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 42(5). 739–763. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2022-0138.Suche in Google Scholar

Díaz Cintas, Jorge. 2012. Subtitling: Theory, practice and research. In Carmen Millán & Francesca Bartrina (eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies, 273–287. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Díaz Cintas, Jorge & Aline Remael. 2007. Audiovisual translation: Subtitling. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Díaz Cintas, Jorge & Aline Remael. 2021. Subtitling: Concepts and practices. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315674278Suche in Google Scholar

Drieghe, Denis, Keith Rayner & Alexander Pollatsek. 2005. Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31(5). 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.954.Suche in Google Scholar

Engbert, Ralf, Antje Nuthmann, Eike M. Richter & Reinhold Kliegl. 2005. SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review 112(4). 777. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.4.777.Suche in Google Scholar

Frey, Aline & Marie-Line Bosse. 2018. Perceptual span, visual span, and visual attention span: Three potential ways to quantify limits on visual processing during reading. Visual Cognition 26(6). 412–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2018.1472163.Suche in Google Scholar

Inhoff, Albrecht W. & Weimin Liu. 1998. The perceptual span and oculomotor activity during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24(1). 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.24.1.20.Suche in Google Scholar

Jordan, Timothy R., Victoria A. McGowan & Kevin B. Paterson. 2013. What’s left? An eye movement study of the influence of interword spaces to the left of fixation during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20(3). 551–557. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0372-1.Suche in Google Scholar

Khelifi, Rachid, Laurent Sparrow & Séverine Casalis. 2017. Are the final letters of a parafoveal word used by developing readers? Evidence from a single word reading task. Cognitive Development 41. 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.12.005.Suche in Google Scholar

Kruger, Jan-Louis. 2019. Eye tracking in audiovisual translation research. In Luis Pérez-González (ed.), The Routledge handbook of audiovisual translation, 350–366. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315717166-22Suche in Google Scholar

Kruger, Jan-Louis, Natalia Wisniewska & Sixin Liao. 2022. Why subtitle speed matters: Evidence from word skipping and rereading. Applied Psycholinguistics 43. 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716421000503.Suche in Google Scholar

Li, Xingshan, Pingping Liu & Keith Rayner. 2015. Saccade target selection in Chinese reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22(2). 524–530. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0693-3.Suche in Google Scholar

Li, Xingshan & Alexander Pollatsek. 2020. An integrated model of word processing and eye-movement control during Chinese reading. Psychological Review 127(6). 1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000248.Suche in Google Scholar

Li, Xingshan & Wei Shen. 2013. Joint effect of insertion of spaces and word length in saccade target selection in Chinese reading. Journal of Research in Reading 36(S1). S64–S77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01552.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Liao, Sixin, Jan-Louis Kruger & Stephen Doherty. 2020. The impact of monolingual and bilingual subtitles on visual attention, cognitive load, and comprehension. The Journal of Specialised Translation 33. 70–89.Suche in Google Scholar

Liao, Sixin, Lili Yu, Jan-Louis Kruger & Erik D. Reichle. 2021a. The impact of audio on the reading of intralingual vs. interlingual subtitles: Evidence from eye movements. Applied Psycholinguistics 43. 237–269. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716421000527.Suche in Google Scholar

Liao, Sixin, Lili Yu, Erik D. Reichle & Jan-Louis Kruger. 2021b. Using eye movements to study the reading of subtitles in video. Scientific Studies of Reading 25. 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1823986.Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, Pingping & Qin Lu. 2018. The effects of spaces on word segmentation in Chinese reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Research in Reading 41(2). 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12106.Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, Weilin, Bernhard Angele, Chunming Luo & Xingshan Li. 2018. Beyond the leftward limit of the perceptual span: Parafoveal processing to the left of fixation in Chinese reading. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 80(8). 1873–1878. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1599-3.Suche in Google Scholar

Ma, Guojie. 2017. Does interword spacing influence lexical processing in Chinese reading? Visual Cognition 25(7–8). 815–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2017.1338322.Suche in Google Scholar

McDonald, Scott A. 2006. Parafoveal preview benefit in reading is only obtained from the saccade goal. Vision Research 46(26). 4416–4424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.08.027.Suche in Google Scholar

Meteyard, Lotte & Robert A. I. Davies. 2020. Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language 112. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104092.Suche in Google Scholar

Miellet, Sébastien, Patrick J. O’Donnell & Sara C. Sereno. 2009. Parafoveal magnification: Visual acuity does not modulate the perceptual span in reading. Psychological Science 20(6). 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02364.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Oralova, Gaisha & Victor Kuperman. 2021. Effects of spacing on sentence reading in Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology 12. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.765335.Suche in Google Scholar

Perego, Elisa, Fabio Del Missier, Marco Porta & Mauro Mosconi. 2010. The cognitive effectiveness of subtitle processing. Media Psychology 13. 243–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.502873.Suche in Google Scholar

Rabe, Maximilian M., Dario Paape, Daniela Mertzen, Shravan Vasishth & Ralf Engbert. 2024. SEAM: An integrated activation-coupled model of sentence processing and eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language 135. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2023.104496.Suche in Google Scholar

Rayner, Keith. 1975. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology 7(1). 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5.Suche in Google Scholar

Rayner, Keith. 1986. Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 41(2). 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(86)90037-8.Suche in Google Scholar

Rayner, Keith. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124(3). 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.Suche in Google Scholar

Rayner, Keith. 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(8). 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461.Suche in Google Scholar

Rayner, Keith. 2015. Eye movements in reading. In James D. Wright (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, 631–634. San Diego: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.54008-2Suche in Google Scholar

Rayner, Keith, Timothy J. Slattery & Nathalie N. Bélanger. 2010. Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(6). 834–839. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.17.6.834.Suche in Google Scholar

Reichle, Erik D., Keith Rayner & Alexander Pollatsek. 2003. The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26(4). 445–476.10.1017/S0140525X03000104Suche in Google Scholar

Saldanha, Gabriela & Sharon O’Brien. 2013. Research methodologies in translation studies. Manchester: St Jerome.Suche in Google Scholar

Schotter, Elizabeth R. & Keith Rayner. 2012. Eye movements in reading: Implications for reading subtitles. In Elisa Perego (ed.), Eye tracking in audiovisual translation, 83–104. Rome: ARACNE.Suche in Google Scholar

Simola, Jaana, Kenneth Holmqvist & Magnus Lindgren. 2009. Right visual field advantage in parafoveal processing: Evidence from eye-fixation-related potentials. Brain and Language 111(2). 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Snell, Joshua, Sam van Leipsig, Jonathan Grainger & Martijn Meeter. 2018. OB1-reader: A model of word recognition and eye movements in text reading. Psychological Review 125(6). 969–984. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000119.Suche in Google Scholar

Szarkowska, Agnieszka & Julianna Boczkowska. 2022. Colour coding subtitles in multilingual films – a reception study. Perspectives 30(3). 520–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676x.2020.1853186.Suche in Google Scholar

Szarkowska, Agnieszka & Lidia Bogucka. 2019. Six-second rule revisited: An eyetracking study on the impact of speech rate and language proficiency on subtitle reading. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2(1). 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00022.sza.Suche in Google Scholar

Szarkowska, Agnieszka & Olivia Gerber-Morón. 2018. Viewers can keep up with fast subtitles: Evidence from eye movements. PLoS One 13. 1–30.10.1371/journal.pone.0199331Suche in Google Scholar

Szarkowska, Agnieszka & Olivia Gerber-Morón. 2019. Two or three lines: A mixed-methods study on subtitle processing and preferences. Perspectives 27(1). 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676x.2018.1520267.Suche in Google Scholar

Vitu, Françoise, George W. McConkie & David Zola. 1998. About regressive saccades in reading and their relation to word identification. In Geoffrey Underwood (ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception, 101–124. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50006-7Suche in Google Scholar

Wu, Siyuan, Yu Dong & Xin Jiang. 2020. Development of linguistic features system for Chinese text readability as assessment and its validity verification. Chinese Teaching in the World 34(1). 81–97.Suche in Google Scholar

Yan, Ming, Jinger Pan, Jochen Laubrock, Reinhold Kliegl & Hua Shu. 2013. Parafoveal processing efficiency in rapid automatized naming: A comparison between Chinese normal and dyslexic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 115(3). 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Yang, Jinmian, Keith Rayner, Nan Li & Suiping Wang. 2012. Is preview benefit from word n + 2 a common effect in reading Chinese? Evidence from eye movements. Reading & Writing 25(5). 1079–1091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9282-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Yu, Miao, Han Yan & Guoli Yan. 2018. Is the word the basic processing unit in Chinese sentence reading: An eye movement study. Lingua 205. 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.013.Suche in Google Scholar

Zang, Chuanli. 2019. New perspectives on serialism and parallelism in oculomotor control during reading: The multi-constituent unit hypothesis. Vision 3(4). 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision3040050.Suche in Google Scholar

Zang, Chuanli, Shuangshuang Wang, Xuejun Bai, Guoli Yan & Simon P. Liversedge. 2024. Parafoveal processing of Chinese four-character idioms and phrases in reading: Evidence for multi-constituent unit hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 136. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2024.104508.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-12-27
Accepted: 2025-05-11
Published Online: 2025-06-06
Published in Print: 2025-09-25

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. “But that’s what I’m saying”: experiential versus institutional truth in guardian-minor interactions
  4. Does subtitle segmentation via spaces facilitate Chinese viewers’ reading? An eye-tracking study on the Chinese subtitling of English documentaries
  5. A quarter century of online discussions on Arabic and Kurdish in Turkey: a comparative analysis of language attitudes and controversies
  6. Language ideologies of Greeks in Catalonia: hints of the mirror effect
  7. Digital trans-literacies on social media: the shaping effect on youth self-concept clarity and well-being
https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2024-0245
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
Chinese subtitle segmentation; spaced subtitles; interlingual subtitle comprehension; subtitle reading effort; viewing experience

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. “But that’s what I’m saying”: experiential versus institutional truth in guardian-minor interactions
  4. Does subtitle segmentation via spaces facilitate Chinese viewers’ reading? An eye-tracking study on the Chinese subtitling of English documentaries
  5. A quarter century of online discussions on Arabic and Kurdish in Turkey: a comparative analysis of language attitudes and controversies
  6. Language ideologies of Greeks in Catalonia: hints of the mirror effect
  7. Digital trans-literacies on social media: the shaping effect on youth self-concept clarity and well-being
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 20.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/multi-2024-0245/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen