Previous research within corpus-based translation studies has shown that written translations are more normalized or standardized compared to their source texts or comparable non-translated texts (Baker 1993). However, recent studies have repeatedly demonstrated that this standardization tendency depends on contextual parameters such as register, source language and target audience (e.g. Delaere & De Sutter 2013; Kruger & van Rooy 2012). In our study this vexed question is sent in a new, largely unexplored direction, viz. audiovisual translation (AVT). Although AVT is a widely investigated discipline within Translation Studies, research that focuses on linguistic variability in audiovisual translation is relatively scarce. Most of the attention went to the exploration of the general strategies that are used to cope with the information load in the original text (e.g. Barambones Zubiria 2012) and to specific linguistic features in audiovisual translation (e.g. Baños 2013). The present study measures linguistic norm-adherence in Belgian Dutch written and audiovisual translation. More particularly, it is investigated (i) whether subtitlers in (Dutch-speaking) Flanders prefer non-standard variants (frequently used in Flanders, but not accepted) rather than General Standard Dutch variants (used and accepted in both Flanders and the Netherlands) and (ii) to what extent their choices differ from those made by translators of written texts and by authors of original, non-translated texts. Furthermore, we explain the subtitlers’ linguistic behavior through the parameters program genre (news vs. entertainment), speaker type (voice-over vs. actor/interviewee) and source language (interlingual vs. intralingual). In order to achieve that goal, we gathered a set of 11 norm-related linguistic variables and extracted them from two corpora: (i) the SoNaR-corpus, a 500-million word balanced reference corpus for contemporary (1954-present) written Dutch (the SoNaR corpus; Hoste et al. 2010) and (ii) the Dutch Parallel Corpus (DPC; Macken et al. 2011), a bidirectional parallel corpus with (Belgian and Netherlandic) Dutch as a source language and as a target language. By means of a correspondence analysis (Plevoets, 2008), linguistic distances between the translation types (AVT, written translations, news, entertainment, …) and their interactions were measured and visualized in a two-dimensional plot. The results reveal significant differences between interlingual and intralingual subtitles, between subtitles and written translations, and between subtitles and original texts. More specifically, it is shown that subtitles hold a middle position between written translations and non-translations, as the subtitle data contained significantly more non-general Belgian Dutch variants compared to regular written translations but less than original Dutch texts. In-depth analyses pointed out that linguistic choices in subtitles are mainly determined by the source language and by the speaker type. Based on these results, we can conclude that Flemish subtitles tend to be normalized, but in a less extreme way than regular written translations, due to the fact that they are (heavily edited) translations on the one hand (stimulating norm-adherent behavior), and written reproductions of spoken language on the other hand (stimulating non-standardizing behavior). References Baker, M. 1993. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies. Implications and Applications. In: Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233-250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baños, R. 2013. ‘That is so cool’: investigating the translation of adverbial intensifiers in English-Spanish dubbing through a parallel corpus of sitcoms. In: Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, Vol. 21, No. 4. Routledge. Barambones Zubiria, J. 2013. Mapping the Dubbing Scene. Audiovisual Translation in Basque Television. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2012, 191 p. Delaere, I., & De Sutter, G. 2013. Applying a Multidimensional, Register-sensitive Approach to Visualize Normalization in Translated and Non-translated Dutch. Belgian Journal of Linguistics. In: M.-A. Lefer & S. Vogeleer (eds.) Interference and normalisation in genre-controlled multilingual corpora, Vol. 27. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hoste, V., Schuurman, I., Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Odijk, J., Piperidis, S., Rosner, M., & Tapias, D. 2010. Interacting semantic layers of annotation in SoNaR, a reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Kruger, H. & B. van Rooy 2012. Register and the features of translated language. Across Languages and Cultures. Vol. 13. No 1. 33–65. Macken, L., De Clercq, O. & H. Paulussen 2011. Dutch Parallel Corpus: A balanced, copyright-cleared parallel corpus. Meta. Vol. 56. No. 2. Plevoets, K. 2008. Tussen spreek-en standaardtaal: een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfo-syntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands. Prieels, L., Delaere, I., Plevoets, K. & De Sutter, G. (accepted). A corpus-based multivariate analysis of lexical norm-adherence in audiovisual and written translation. In: Across Languages and Cultures.