Abdallah, Kristiina
2012Translators in Production Networks. Reflections on agency, quality and ethics. Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Available at: [URL].
Airaksinen, Timo A.
(ed.) [1991] 1993Ammattien ja ansaitsemisen etiikka. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
Alvstad, Cecilia, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius
(eds) 2011Methods and Strategies of Process Research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amman, Margret
1990 “Anmerkungen zu einer Theorie der Übersetzungskritik und ihrer praktischen Anwendung”. TextConText 5: 209–250.Google Scholar
Andreotti, Julia Lambertini
2016Comprehension of Legal Discourse in Interpreter-Mediated Judicial Proceedings. PhD thesis, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona. Available at [URL]
Appiah, Kwame Anthony
[1993] 2000 “Thick translation”. Callaloo 16 (4): 808–819. Reprinted in L. Venuti (ed.) 2000, The Translation Studies Reader, 417–429. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Karen
2005A Short History of Myth. Edinburgh: Canongate.Google Scholar
Arrojo, Rosemary
1998 “The revision of the traditional gap between theory and practice and the empowerment of translation in postmodern times”. The Translator 4 (1): 25–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aunger, Robert
(ed.) 2000Darwinizing Culture. The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John L.
1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bachleiter, Norbert, and Michaela Wolf
(eds) 2004Soziologie der literarische Übersetzung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona
1993 “Corpus linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and applications”. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “Linguistics and Cultural Studies. Complementary or competing paradigms in Translation Studies?” In Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch. Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70. Geburtstag, A. Lauer, H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, J. Haller and E. Steiner (eds), 9–19. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2006Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate
1987Norms of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere
1996Constructing Cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Berglund, Lars O.
1990 “The search for social significance”. Lebende Sprachen 35 (4): 145–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Antoine
1984L’Épreuve de l’étranger. Culture et traduction dans l’Allemagne romantique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
1985Traduction et la lettre ou l’auberge du lointain. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
1990 “La retraduction comme éspace de la traduction”, Palimpsestes 4: 1–7 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Sandra, and Michael Wood
(eds) 2005Nation, Language and the Ethics of Translation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berthele, Raphaele
2000 “Translating African-American vernacular English into German: The problem of ‘Jim’ in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (4): 588–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, Susan
1999The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1986 “Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation”. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bly, Robert
1984 “The eight stages of translation”. In Translation. Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, W. Frawley (ed.), 67–89. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Boase-Beier, Jean
2011A Critical Introduction to Translation Studies. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory C. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams
2005The Craft of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brems, Elke, and Sara Ramos Pinto
2013 “Reception and translation”. Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 4, Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer (eds), 142–147. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brisset, Annie
1990Sociocritique de la traduction. Théâtre et altérité au Québec (1968–88). Québec : Editions du Préambule.Google Scholar
Brooke-Rose, Christine
1968The Brooke-Rose Omnibus. Manchester: Carcanet Press.Google Scholar
Brownlie, Siobhan
2006 “Narrative theory and retranslation theory”. Across Languages and Cultures 7 (2): 145–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buzelin, Hélène
2005 “Unexpected allies: How Latour’s Network Theory could complement Bourdieusian analyses in Translation Studies”. The Translator 11 (2): 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Emma, and Robert Mills.
(eds) 2012Rethinking Medieval Translation: Ethics, Politics, Theory. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Campbell, Stuart
1998Translation into the Second Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael
2012 “A computational cognitive model of human translation processes”. In Emerging Applications of Natural Language Processing: Concepts and New Research, S. Bandyopadhyay, S. K. Naskar and A. Ekbal (eds), 110–128. Hershey, PA.: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Catford, John C.
1965A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, Alan
[1976] 1999What is this thing called Science? Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1996 “Teaching translation theory: the significance of memes”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. New Horizons, C. Dollerup and V. Appel (eds), 63–71. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[1997a] 2016Memes of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. (Revised edition 2016.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997b “Explanatory adequacy and falsifiability in translation theory”. In Transferre Necesse Est. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, K. Klaudy and J. Kohn (eds), 219–224. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar
1998a “Causes, translations, effects”. Target 10 (2): 201–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998b Review of Hans J. Vermeer, A Skopos Theory of Translation (Some arguments for and against). Target 10 (1): 155–159.Google Scholar
1998cContrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999a “The empirical status of prescriptivism”. Folia Translatologica 6: 9–19.Google Scholar
1999b “Translation typology”. In The Second Riga Symposium on Pragmatic Aspects of Translation, A. Veisbergs and I. Zauberga (eds), 49–62. Riga: University of Latvia.Google Scholar
2000a “A causal model for Translation Studies”. In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, M. Olohan (ed.), 15–27. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
2000b “Memetics and Translation Studies”. Synapse 5 (2000) 1–17. Bergen: Norges Handelshøyskole.Google Scholar
2000c “What constitutes ‘progress’ in Translation Studies?”, in Översättning och tolkning. Rapport från ASLA:s höstsymposium, Stockholm, 5–6 november 1998, B. Englund Dimitrova (ed.), 33–49. Uppsala: ASLA.Google Scholar
2001a “Skopos and after. An interview with Hans J. Vermeer”. Across Languages and Cultures 2 (1): 133–138.Google Scholar
2001b “Empirical research methods in Translation Studies”. Erikoiskielet ja käännösteoria [VAKKI-symposiumi XX, Vaasa, Finland] 27: 9–22.Google Scholar
2001c “Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath”. The Translator 7 (2): 139–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “On the interdisciplinarity of Translation Studies”. Logos and Language 3 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
2003 “Between text and culture”. In The Third Riga Symposium on Pragmatic Aspects of Translation. Proceedings, A. Veisbergs (ed.), 27–47. Riga: University of Latvia / Aarhus School of Business.Google Scholar
2004a “Beyond the particular”. In Translation Universals. Do they Exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds), 33–49. Amsterdam and Philadephia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004b “Paradigm problems?” In Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, C. Schäffner (ed.), 52–56. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2004c “Translation as an object of research”. In Übersetzung, Translation, Traduction, H. Kittel, A. P. Frank and N. Greiner (eds), 93–100. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2005 “Problems with strategies”. In New Trends in Translation Studies. In Honour of Kinga Klaudy, K. Károly and Á. Fóris (eds.), 17–28. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2006a “Interpreting the meaning of translation”. In A Man of Measure. Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th Birthday, M. Suominen, A. Arppe, A. Airola, O. Heinämäki, M. Miestamo, U. Määttä, J. Niemi, K. K. Pitkänen and K. Sinnemäki (eds), 3–11. Turku: Linguistic Association of Finland. Also available at [URL].
2006b “Questions in the sociology of translation”. In Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines, J. Ferreira Duarte, A. Assis Rosa and T. Seruya (eds), 9–27. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 9–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007a “Similarity analysis and the translation profile”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21: 53–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b “What is a unique item?” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger and R. Stolze (eds), 3–13. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007c “Bridge concepts in translation sociology”. In Constructing a sociology of translation, M. Wolf and A. Fukari (eds), 171–183. Amsterdam and Philadelpia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a “The status of interpretive hypotheses”. In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, G. Hansen, A. Chesterman and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds), 49–61. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2008b “On explanation”. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury, A. Pym, M. Shlesinger, and D. Simeoni (eds), 363–379. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “The significance of hypotheses”. TTR 24 (2): 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, and Rosemary Arrojo
2000 “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12 (1): 151–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, and Mona Baker
2008 “Ethics of renarration. An interview with Mona Baker”. Cultus 1, 1: 10–33.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador, and Yves Gambier
(eds) 2000Translation in Context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, and Emma Wagner
2002Can Theory Help Translators? A Dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Chevalier, Jean-Claude
1995 “D’une figure de traduction : le changement de ‘sujet’”. In L’Horlogerie de Saint Jérôme, J-C. Chevalier and M-F. Delport, 27–44. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Cheyfitz, Eric
1991The Poetics of Imperialism. Translation and Colonization from The Tempest to Tarzan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crisafulli, Edoardo
2003The Vision of Dante. Cary’s translation of The Divine Comedy. Market Harborough: Troubador.Google Scholar
Croft, William
[1990] 2003Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael
2000Across the Lines: Travel, Language and Translation. Cork: Cork University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, Graham
1998 “Review of Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies”. ITI Bulletin, Feb. 27, 1998.Google Scholar
Cumps, Jan L.
1996 “The Impact of law students’ language preference on translation”. Paper read at the Transferre Necesse Est Second International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, 5–7 September 1996, Budapest.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles
[1859] 1968The Origin of Species. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard
1976The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005 “Research in translation between paralysis and pretence”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 51: 33–49.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean
1993La traduction raisonnée. Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean, Hannelore Lee-Jahnke, and Monique C. Cormier
1999Terminologie de la traduction / Translation Terminology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delisle, Jean, and Judith Woodsworth
(eds) 1995Translators through History. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C.
1991Consciousness Explained. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
1995Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Devy, Ganesh
1999 “Translation and literary history”. In Post-colonial Translation, S. Bassnett and H. Trivedi (eds), 182–188. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Diamond, Jared
2005Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. London: Allen Lane. (Penguin Books 2006.)Google Scholar
Diriker, Ebru
Doherty, Monika
(ed.) 1996Information Structure: a Key Concept for Translation Theory. Linguistics 34 (3) (Special issue).Google Scholar
Dolet, Etienne
1540La Manière de Bien Traduire d’une Langue en Aultre. Paris: Marnef.Google Scholar
Dollerup, Cay
1997 “Translation as imposition vs. translation as requisition”. In Translation as Intercultural Communication, M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová and K. Kaindl (eds), 45–56. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Sharon O’Brien
2015 “Ergonomics of the translation workplace: Potential for cognitive friction”. Translation Spaces 4 (1): 98–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
1997 “Translation of dialect in fictional prose – Vilhelm Moberg in Russian and English as a case in point”. In Norm, Variation and Change in Language. Proceeedings of the centenary meeting of the Nyfilologiska sällskapet, Nedre Manilla 22–23 March, 1996, 49–65. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
2005Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, Olof
2004 “Entre traductologie et linguistique contrastive : La notion de ‘Transposition’”. In Actes du 6e Colloque franco-finlandais de Linguistique Contrastive, J. Härmä and U. Tuomarla (eds), 88–103. Helsinki: Département des Langues Romanes.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar
1990Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 11 (1).Google Scholar
Faerch, Claus, and Gabriele Kasper
(eds) 1983Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1992Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Peter
1997Translation and Language. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Firth, John R.
1957Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flotow, Luise von
1991 “Feminist translation: Contexts, practices and theories”. TTR 4 (2): 69–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flynn, Peter
2004 “Skopos Theory: An ethnographic enquiry”. Perspectives 12 (4): 270–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Føllesdal, Dagfinn
[1979] 1994 “Hermeneutics and the hypothetico-deductive method”. Dialectica 33 (3–4): 319–336. Reprinted in M. Martin and L. C. McIntyre (eds) 1994, Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, 233–245. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Føllesdal, Dagfinn, Lars Walløe, and Jon Elster
1984Argumentasjonsteori, Språk og Vitenskapsfilosofi. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Foot, Philippa
ed. 1967Theories of Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Footit, Hilary, and Michael Kelly
(eds) 2012Languages at War. Policies and Practices of Language Contacts in Conflict. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fortey, Richard
2004The Earth. An Intimate History. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Fraser, Janet
1996 “Mapping the process of translation”. Meta 41 (1): 84–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William
1984 “Prolegomenon to a theory of translation”. In Translation. Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, W. Frawley (ed.), 159–175. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves
1994 “La retraduction, tour et retour”, Meta 39 (3): 413–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Stratégies et tactiques en traduction et interpretation”. In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, G. Hansen, A. Chesterman and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds), 63–82. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
García-Landa, Mariano
1990 “A general theory of translation (and of language)”. Meta 35 (3): 476–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun
2001 “Equivalence parameters and evaluation”. Meta 46 (2): 227–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel
2004a “Translation research versus interpreting research: Kinship, difference and prospects for partnership”. In Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, C. Schäffner (ed.), 10–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2004b “Response to the invited papers”. In Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, C. Schäffner (ed.), 124–127. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2005a “The liberal arts paradigm and the empirical science paradigm”. Available at [URL] Research issues.
2005bLa Traduction: la Comprendre, l’Apprendre. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Revised edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney G., and Strauss, Anselm L.
1967The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gombrich, Ernst H.
[1960] 1977Art and Illusion (fifth edition). London: Phaidon.Google Scholar
González Núñez, Gabriel
2016 “On translation policy”. Target 28 (1): 87–109). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson
1972 “Seven strictures on similarity”. In Problems and Projects, N. Goodman, 437–447. Indianapolis, IN.: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2009 “Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: the longitudinal study TransComp”. In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen and I. M. Mees (eds), 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel
1990 “Traduction signalétique”. Meta 35 (2): 332–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouanvic, Jean-Marc
1999Sociologie de la traduction. Arras: Artois Presses Université.Google Scholar
2002 “The stakes of translation in literary fields”. Across Languages and Cultures 3 (2): 159–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gran, Laura, and John Dodds
(eds) 1989 The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto.Google Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas J.
1983Du Sens. Vol. 2. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul
1975 “Logic and conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August
[1991] 2000Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell. (Revised edition 2000. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.)Google Scholar
Güttinger, Fritz
1963Zielsprache: Theorie und Technik des Übersetzens. Zürich: Menesse Verlag.Google Scholar
Haddadian-Moghaddam, Esmaeil
2014Literary Translation in Modern Iran. A Sociological Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1961 “Categories of the theory of grammar”. Word 17 (3): 241–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
1998aConcepts and Categories in Translation Studies. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
1998b “Translation Studies and representative corpora: Establishing links between translation corpora, theoretical/descriptive categories and a conception of the object of study”. Meta 43 (4): 494–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Prototype effects in the ‘translation’ category”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo and Y. Gambier (eds), 3–16. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “The cognitive basis of translation universals”. Target 15 (2): 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Investigating gravitational pull in translation: The case of the English progressive construction”. In Texts, Process and Corpora: Research Inspired by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, R. Jääskeläinen, T. Puurtinen and H. Stotesbury (eds), 175–195. Joensuu: Publications of the Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.Google Scholar
Hansen, Gyde
(ed.) 1999Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2002 “Zeit und Qualität im Übersetzungsprozess”. In Empirical Translation Studies: process and product, G. Hansen (ed.), 29–54. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2005Störquellen in Übersetzungsprozessen. Copenhagen: CBS.Google Scholar
Harris, Brian
1990 “Norms in interpretation”. Target 2 (1): 115–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason
1990Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heat-Moon, William Least
1984Blue Highways. A journey into America. London: Picador/Pan Books.Google Scholar
Hebenstreit, Gernot
2007 “Defining patterns in Translation Studies”. Target 19 (2): 197–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hekkanen, Raila
2009 “Fields, networks and Finnish prose: A Comparison of Bourdieusian Field Theory and Actor-Network Theory in translation sociology”. In Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008, D. De Crom (ed.). Available at [URL].
Heidegger, Martin
1962Being and Time. (Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson.) New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Heilbron, Johan
2000 “Translation as a cultural world system”. Perspectives 8 (1): 9–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G.
1952Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Henry, Ronald
1984 “Points of inquiry into total translation. A review of J. C. Catford’s A Linguistic Theory of Translation ”. Meta 29 (2): 152–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo
(ed.) 1985aThe Manipulation of Literature. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1985b “Introduction. Translation Studies and a new paradigm”. In The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation, T. Hermans (ed.), 7–15. London. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1985c “Images of translation. Metaphor and imagery in the Renaissance discourse on translation”. In The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation, T. Hermans (ed.), 103–136. London. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1991 “Translational norms and correct translations”. In Translation Studies: The State of the Art, K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), 155–169. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1999Translation in Systems. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
2003 “Cross-cultural Translation Studies as thick translation”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 66 (3): 380–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2006Translating Others, vol. 1. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
2007aThe Conference of the Tongues. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
2007b “Translation, irritation and resonance”. In Constructing a sociology of translation, M. Wolf and A. Fukari (eds), 57–75. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Leo
(ed.) 1998The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert
1991Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Holmes, James S.
1988aTranslated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
[1988b] 2000 “The name and nature of Translation Studies”. In J. S. Holmes, Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 67–80. Reprinted e.g. in L. Venuti (ed.) 2000, The Translation Studies Reader, 172–185. London.Google Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa
1984Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans
1995Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G., and Paul Kußmaul
1982Strategie der Übersetzung. Ein Lehr-und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
1981A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. (Second edition.) Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2008 “Beyond intervention. Universals in translation?trans-com 1 (1): 6–19.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, Hasnah
1994 “Translation assessment: a case for a spectral model”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, C. Dollerup and A. Lindegaard (eds), 151–156. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira
(ed.) 2005 “Bourdieu and the sociology of translation and interpreting”. Special issue of The Translator, 11 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012Interpreting Justice. Ethics, Politics and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa
1983Causality in Linguistic Theory. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ivir, Vladimir
1981 “Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited”. In Theory of Translation and Intercultural Relations, I. Even-Zohar and G. Toury (eds), 51–59. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semotics, Tel Aviv University [= Poetics Today 2:4].Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1993 “Investigating translation strategies”. In Recent Trends in Empirical Translation Research, S. Tirkkonen-Condit and J. Laffling (eds), 99–119. Joensuu: University of Joensuu, Faculty of Arts.Google Scholar
1999Tapping the Process: An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
2004 “The fate of ‘The Families of Medellín’. Tampering with a potential translation universal in the translation class”. In Translation Universals. Do they exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds), 205–214. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
1999 “Logging target text production with Translog”. In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, G. Hansen (ed.), 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2011 “Tracking translators’ keystrokes and eye movements with Translog”. In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds), 37–55. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jandl, Ernst
1966Laut und Luise. Kassel: Olten.Google Scholar
Jansen, Astrid, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
2000 “Translating under time pressure”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), 105–116. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jantunen, Jarmo H.
2001 “Synonymity and lexical simplification in translations: A corpus-based approach”. Across Languages and Cultures 2 (1): 97–112.Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam
1993The Power of Silence: Social and Pragmatic Perspectives. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jerome, Eusebius
[395] 1997De optime genere interpretandi. Translated by P. Carroll as “On the best kind of translator”, in Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche, D. Robinson (ed.), 22–30. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Jodl, Friedrich
1918Allgemeine Ethik. Stuttgart and Berlin: J. G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Jones, Francis R.
2011Poetry Translating as Expert Action: Processes, Priorities and Networks. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kafka, Franz
[1926] 1935Das Schloß. Berlin: Schocken Verlag. (First English translation by Edwin and Willa Muir as The Castle 1930 New York: Knopf.)Google Scholar
Kalinowski, Isabelle
2002 “La vocation au travail de traduction”. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 144: 47–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Michael, and Ellen Kaplan
2006Chances are… Adventures in Probability. London: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
Katan, David
1999Translating Cultures. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Kellerman, Eric
1986 “An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon”. In Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood Smith (eds), 35–48. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kelletat, Andreas. F.
1986Die Rückschritte der Übersetzungstheorie. Vaasa: Vaasan korkeakoulu.Google Scholar
Kelly, Louis G.
1979The True Interpreter. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kemble, Ian
(ed.) 2005Translation Norms. What is ‘Normal’ in the Translation Profession? Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth, School of Languages and Area Studies.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy
1998 “Creatures of habit? What translators usually do with words”. Meta 43 (4): 515–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinnunen, Tuija, and Kaisa Koskinen
(eds) 2010Translators’ Agency. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Available at [URL].
Klaudy, Kinga
1996 “Back-translation as a tool for detecting explicitation strategies in translation”. In Translation Studies in Hungary, K. Klaudy, J. Lambert and A. Sohár (eds), 99–114. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar
2003Languages in Translation. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar
Klein, Julie Thompson
1990), Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice, Detroit, MI.: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Kohlmayer, Rainer
1988 “Der Literaturübersetzer zwischen Original und Markt. Eine Kritik funktionalistischer Übersetzungstheorien”. Lebende Sprachen 33 (4): 145–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, Werner
1979Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
1990 “Zum Gegenstand der Übersetzungswissenschaft”. In Übersetzungswissenschaft. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven, Festshcrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 65. Geburtstag, R. Arntz and G. Thome (eds), 19–30. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa
2000a “Institutional illusions. Translating in the EU Commission”. The Translator 6 (1): 49–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000bBeyond Ambivalence. Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
2008Translating Institutions. An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa, and Outi Paloposki
2015Sata Kirjaa, Tuhat Suomennosta. Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kranach, Svenja
2014 “Translations as a locus of language contact”. In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, J. House (ed.) 96–115. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P.
1986Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeshrittenen Franzözischlernern. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred L., and Clyde Kluckhohn
1952Cultures: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. [Peabody Museum Papers Vol. 47, no. 1.] Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P.
1990Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S.
[1962] 1970The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second, enlarged edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kujamäki, Pekka
1998Deutsche Stimmen der Sieben Brüder. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kukkonen, Pirjo
1993Kielen Silkki. Hiljaisuus ja rakkaus kielen ja kirjallisuuden kuvastimessa. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
Kundera, Milan
1993aLes Testaments Trahis. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
1993bNesmrtelnost. Brno: Atlantis.Google Scholar
1995 Interview in Lidové Noviny, Oct. 30.Google Scholar
2003L’ignorance. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
2011 “Innovative subtitling. A reception study”. In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds), 187–200. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid, and Klaus Kaindl
(eds) 2005Wortklauber, Sinnverdreher, Brückenbauer? DolmetscherInnen und ÜbersetzerInnen als literarische Geschöpfe. Vienna: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
Kußmaul, Paul
2007Verstehen und Übersetzen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Laaksovaara, Tuula H., and Gary Farell
1992 “Position of silence in English and Finnish culture”. Erikoiskielet ja Käännösteoria / VAKKI-symposium XII, 107–118.Google Scholar
Lado, Robert
1957Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre
1970 “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes”. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds), 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laland, Kevin N. and Gillian R. Brown
2002Sense and Nonsense. Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, José
1991 “Shifts, oppositions and goals in Translation Studies: Towards a Genealogy of Concepts”. In Translation Studies: The State of the Art, K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), 25–37. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1996 “Language and translation as general management problems”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3: New Horizons, C. Dollerup and V. Appel (eds), 271–293. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, José, and Hendrik van Gorp
1985 “On describing translations”. In The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation, T. Hermans (ed.), 42–53. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Lang, George
2000 “Translation from, to and within the Atlantic Creoles”. TTR 8 (2): 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lanstyák, István, and Pál Heltai
2012 “Universals in language contact and translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 99–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger
1980On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
1996The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): A Resource and a Methodology for the Empirical Study of Translation. Unpublished PhD thesis, UMIST, Manchester.Google Scholar
Law, John, and John Hassard
(eds) 1998Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lefevere, André
1992aTranslation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1983Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lefevere, André
(ed.) 1992bTranslation / History / Culture. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leppihalme, Ritva
1997Culture Bumps. An empirical approach to the translation of allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
2000a “Foreignizing strategies in drama translation: the case of the Finnish Oleanna”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), 153–162. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000b “Kulttuurisidonnaisuus kaunokirjallisuuden kääntämisessä”. In Käännöskirjallisuus ja sen Kritiikki, O. Paloposki and H. Makkonen-Craig (eds), 89–105. Helsinki: AKO.Google Scholar
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van
1989/1990 “Translation and original. Similarities and dissimilarities, I and II”. Target 1 (2): 151–181 and 2 (1): 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levenston, Edward A.
1971 “Over-indulgence and under-representation – Aspects of mother-tongue interference”. In Papers in Contrastive Linguistics, G. Nickel (ed.), 115–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel
1982Éthique et Infini. Dialogues avec Philippe Nemo. Paris: Fayard and Radio-France.Google Scholar
1987Philosophy and the Idea of Infinity. Collected philosophical papers. Translated by Alphonso Lingin. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levý, Jiři
[1967] 1989 “Translation as a Decision Process”. In To Honor Roman Jakobson, vol. II, 1171–1182. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Reprinted in A. Chesterman (ed.) 1989, Readings in Translation Theory, 37–52. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K.
1969Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Philip E.
1985 “The measure of translation effects”. In Difference in Translation, J. Graham (ed.), 31–62. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1989 “Models of the translation process: Claim and reality”. Target 1 (1): 43–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991Translation Performance, Translation Process and Translation Strategies: A psycholinguistic investigation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas
1990Essays on Self-Reference. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair
1981After Virtue. A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Maia, Belinda
1998 “Word order and the first person singular in Portuguese and English”. Meta 43 (4): 589–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, Carol
2006 “The Translator as Theôros: Thoughts on Cogitation, Figuration and Current Creative Writing”. In Translating Others, vol. 1, Theo Hermans (ed.), 163–180. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Malblanc, Alfred
1963Stylistique Comparée du Français et de l’Allemand. 2nd edition. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten
1994 “Translating customer expectations into teaching”. In Quality-Assurance, Management and Control. ITI Conference 7, Proceedings, C. Picken (ed.), 143–155. London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting.Google Scholar
2000 “Multidisciplinarity in process research”. In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riittä Jääskeläinen (eds), 163–170. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Norms and nature in Translation Studies”. Synaps (Norges Handelshøyskole, Bergen) 16: 13–19.Google Scholar
2007 “Norms and nature in translation studies”. In Incorporating Corpora – Corpora and the Translator, G. Anderman and M. Rogers, (eds), 49–59. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L.
1988The Science of Linguistics in the Art of Translation. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White
2005The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín de León, Celia
2008 “Skopos and beyond. A critical study of functionalism”. Target 20 (1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian
2000 “Audience design in translating”. The Translator 6 (1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M
2001 “The environment of translation”. In Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production, E. Steiner and C. Yallop (eds), 41–124. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
2000 “Strange strings in translated language. A study on corpora”. In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, M. Olohan (ed.), 119–141. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Pekka Kujamäki
(eds.) 2004Translation Universals. Do they exist? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayoral Asensio, Roberto
2000 “Parámetros sociales y traducción”. Trans: Revista de traductología 4: 111–118.Google Scholar
McCarty, Willard
1999 “Humanities computing as interdiscipline”. Available at: [URL]
McDonough Dolmaya, Julie
2011a “The ethics of crowdsourcing”. Linguistica Antverpiensia 10: 97–111.Google Scholar
2011b “Moral ambiguity: Some shortcomings of professional codes of ethics for translators”. JoSTrans 15: 28–49.Google Scholar
Medin, Douglas L., and Robert L. Goldstone
1995 “The predicates of similarity”. In Similarity in Language, Thought and Perception [Semiotic and Cognitive Studies 1], C. Cacciari (ed.), 83–110. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Melby, Alan K., with C. Terry Warner
Meylaerts, Reine
2011 “Translation policy”. In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 2, Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer (eds), 163–168. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milton, John
2001 “The figure of the factory translator”. Paper presented at the Third EST Congress, Copenhagen, August 30 – September 1, 2001.
Misgeld, Dieter
1991 “Modernity and hermeneutics: a critical-theoretical rejoinder”. In Gadamer and Hermeneutics, H. J. Silverman (ed.), 163–177. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Misgeld, Dieter, and Graeme Nicholson
1992 “Writing and the living voice. Interview with Hans-Georg Gadamer”. In Hans-Georg Gadamer on Education, Poetry, and History, D. Misgeld and G. Nicholson (eds), 63–71. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Molina, Lucía, and Amparo Hurtado Albir
2002 “Translation techniques revisited: A dynamic and functionalist approach”. Meta 47, 4, 498–512.
 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brian
1998 “Four questions about the work habits of translators”. Paper read at the EST Congress, Granada, 23–26.9.1998.Google Scholar
2000 “The workplace procedure of professional translators”. In A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), Translation in Context, 39–48. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[2001] 2007Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Moster, Stefan
2003 “Birthday blues”. Books from Finland 2003 (1): 59–60. Also available at [URL]
Munday, Jeremy
2001Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2007Translation as Intervention. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2000 “Translation strategies. Somewhere over the rainbow”. In Investigating Translation, A. Beeby, D. Ensinger and M. Presas (eds), 129–138. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Shirin
2003 “Second language transfer during third language acquisition”. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 3 (2). ([URL], 7 Jan. 2007)
Neubert, Albrecht
2001Review of Chesterman et al. (2000). Target 13 (2): 387–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht, and Gregory M. Shreve
1992Translation as Text. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1981Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
1988A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
[1969] 1989 “Science of translation”. Language 45(3): 483–498. Reprinted in A. Chesterman (ed.) 1989, Readings in Translation Theory, 80–98. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka
1983Tieteellinen Päättetly ja Selittäminen. Helsinki: Otava.Google Scholar
Norberg, Ulf
2003Übersetzen mit Doppeltem Skopos. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1988Textanalyse und Übersetzen. Theorie, Methode und didaktische Anwendung einer übersetzungsrelevanten Textanalyse. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
1991aText Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1991b “Scopos, loyalty, and translational conventions”. Target 3 (1): 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Nordman, Lieselott
2009Lagöversättning som process och produkt. Helsinki: Institutionen för nordiska språk och nordisk litteratur, Helsingfors universitet.Google Scholar
Odlin, Terence
1991 “Irish English idioms and language transfer”. English World-Wide 12 (2): 175–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olk, Harold
2002 “Critical Discourse Analysis in translation”. The Translator 8 (1): 101–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve, and Mona Baker
2000 “Reporting that in translated English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation?Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Øverås, Linn
1998 “In search of the third code: an investigation of norms in literary translation”. Meta 43 (4): 571–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paasilinna, Arto
1984Ukkosenjumalan poika. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
1999Der Sohn des Donnergottes. (Translation by S. Moster.) München: Ehrenwirth.Google Scholar
Paloposki, Outi
1996 “Originality in translation”. In Aspectus varii translationis II [Studia Translatologica, Ser. B., vol. 2.], R. Oittinen, O. Paloposki and J. Schopp (eds), 66–84. Tampere: Tampere University Publications.Google Scholar
2009 “Limits of freedom. Agency, choice and constraints in the work of the translator”. In Agents of Translation, J. Milton and P. Banda (eds), 189–208. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paloposki, Outi, and Kaisa Koskinen
2004 “Thousand and one translations. Retranslation hypothesis revisited”. In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær and D. Gile (eds), 27–38. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pápai, Vilma
2004 “Explicitation: a universal of translated text?” In Translation Universals. Do they exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds), 143–164. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peeters, Jean
1999La médiation de l’étranger. Une sociolinguistique de la traduction. Arras: Artois Presses Université.Google Scholar
Pergnier, Maurice
[1978] 1993Les fondements sociolinguistiques de la traduction. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
Phillips, Adam
2007 “After Strachey”. London Review of Books, 4.10.2007, 36–38.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth. L.
1959 “Language as particle, wave and field”. Texas Quarterly 2 (2): 37–54.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pokorn, Nike K.
2000 “Translation into a non-mother tongue in translation theory: deconstruction of the traditional”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), 61–72. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polezzi, Loredana
(ed.) 2006Translation, Travel, Migration. Special issue of The Translator, 12 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poltermann, A.
1992 “Normen des literarischen Übersetzens im System der Literatur”. In Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung. Histories, Systems, Literary Translation, H. Kittel (ed.), 5–31. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Popovič, Anton
1970 “The concept ‘shift of expression’ in translation analysis”. In The Nature of Translation, J. S. Holmes, F. de Haan and A. Popovič (eds), 78–87. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R.
[1945] 1962The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
1959The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
1963Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
1972Objective Knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Prunč, Erich
1997a “Versuch einer Skopostypologie”. In Text – Kultur – Kommunikation, N. Grbic and M. Wolf (eds), 33–52. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Prunč, E.
1997b “Translationskultur. Versuch einer konstruktiven Kritik des translatorischen Handels”. TEXTconTEXT 11 (2): 99–127.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary
2002The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Puurtinen, Tiina
1995Linguistic Acceptability in Translated Children’s Literature. [University of Joensuu Publications in the Humanities 15.] Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1992aTranslation and Text Transfer. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1992b “The relation between translation and material text transfer”. Target 4 (2): 171–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992c “Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience, C. Dollerup and A. Loddegaard (eds), 279–288. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 
 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 “European Translation Studies, une science qui dérange, and why equivalence needn’t be a dirty word”. TTR 8 (1): 153–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[1997] 2012Pour une éthique du traducteur. Arras Presses Université. (English translation 2012: On Translator Ethics. Principles for mediation between cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
1998Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
1999 “Translation Studies beyond 2000”. In Translation and the (Re)Location of Meaning, J. Vandaele (ed.), 443–448. Leuven: CETRA, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
2000 “On cooperation”. In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Apects, M. Olohan (ed.), 181–192. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
2004The Moving Text. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “On the social and the cultural in Translation Studies”. In Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting, A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and Z. Jettmarová (eds), 1–25. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007a “Natural and directional equivalence in theories of translation”. Target 19(2): 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b “On history in formal conceptualizations of translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 8 (2): 153–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Using process studies in translator training. Self-discovery through lousy experiments”. In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, S. Göpferich, F. Alves & I. M. Mees (eds), 135–156. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2010Exploring Translation Theories. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2011 “Translation theory as historical problem-solving”. Intercultural Communication Review 9: 49–61.Google Scholar
2016Translation Solutions for Many Languages – Histories of a Flawed Dream. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van O.
1960Word and Object. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Raittila, Hannu
2001Canal Grande. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph
1975Practical Reason and Norms. London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina
1971Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer
1984Grundlegung einer Allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Retsker, Ya. I.
1974Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktika. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnie otnosheniya.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna
1998Translatorische Kompetenz. Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2002 “Situatedness in Translation Studies”. Cognitive Systems Research 3 (3): 523–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Roland Freihoff
2000 “Kooperative Textgestaltung im translatorischen Handlungsrahmen”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), 49–59. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Douglas
1991The Translator’s Turn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
1997Becoming a Translator. An Accelerated Course. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1999 “Nine theses about anecdotalism in the study of translation (With Special Reference to Sherry Simon, Ed., Culture in Transit)”. Meta 44 (2): 402–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Round, Nicholas G.
2005 “Translation and its metaphors: the (N+1) wise men and the elephant”. SKASE 1 (1): 47–69.Google Scholar
Rudner, Richard
[1953] 1998 “The scientist qua scientist does make value judgements”. Philosophy of Science 20, 1–6. Reprinted in E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger and D. W. Rudge (eds) 1998, Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science (3rd edition), 492–498. Amherst, NY.: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Runciman, W. G.
1998The Social Animal. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Rushdie, Salman
1992Imaginary Homelands. London: Granta Books.Google Scholar
Sager, Juan C.
1994Language Engineering and Translation. Consequences of Automation, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “Text types and translation”. In Text Typology and Translation, A. Trosberg (ed.), 25–41. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C.
1998Causality and Explanation. New York: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savory, Theodore H.
[1957] 1968The Art of Translation. London: Cape.Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina
(ed.) 1998Translation and Quality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1999Translation and Norms. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schiavi, Giuliana
1996 “There is always a teller in a tale”. Target 8 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleifer, Ronald
1987A. J. Greimas and the Nature of Meaning: Linguistics, Semiotics and Discourse. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Morena Azbel
2005“How Do You Do it Anyway?” A Longitudinal Study of three Translator Students Translating from Russian into Swedish. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Available at [URL]
Schreiber, Michael
1998 “Übersetzungstypen und Übersetzungsverfahren”. In Handbuch Translation, M. Snell-Hornby, H. G. Hönig, P. Kußmaul and P. A. Schmitt (eds), 151–154. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Schulte, Rainer, and John Biguenet
(eds) 1992Theories of Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
[1964] 1967 “How to derive ‘ought’ from ‘is”. Philosophical Review 73: 43–58. Reprinted e.g. in P. Foot (ed.) 1967, Theories of Ethics, 101–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Segerstråle, Ullica
2000Defenders of the Truth. The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Séguinot, Candace
1982 “The editing function of translation”. Bulletin of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 151–161.Google Scholar
1989 “The translation process: an experimental study”. In The Translation Process, C. Séguinot (ed.), 21–53. School of Translation, York University: H. G. Publications.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica, and Marianne Lederer
1984Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone
2011 “Sight translation and speech disfluency: Performance analysis as a window to cognitive translation processes”. In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds), 93–120. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shuttleworth, Mark, and Moira Cowie
1997Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Siitonen, Arto
[1991] 1993 “Insinöörin etiikasta”. In Airaksinen (ed.) [1991] 1993: 265–284.Google Scholar
Simeoni, Daniel
1998 “The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus”. Target 10 (1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simmel, Georg
[1908] 1950Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Forme der Gesellschaft. Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot. Translated and edited by Kurt. H. Wolff 1950) as The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press. (“The stranger” is the title of Chapter 3, pp. 402–408.)Google Scholar
Sintonen, Matti
1984The Pragmatics of Scientific Explanation. Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1991 “Translation Studies – Art, science or utopia?” In Translation Studies: The State of the Art, K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), 13–23. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2006The Turns of Translation Studies. Ansterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl
(eds) 1994Translation Studies. An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sovran, Tamar
1992 “Between similarity and sameness”. Journal of Pragmatics 18 (4): 329–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deidre Wilson
1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sprung, R. C.
(ed.) 2000Translating into Success. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stecconi, Ubaldo
2004 “Interpretive semiotics and translation theory: the semiotic conditions to translation”. Semiotica 150: 471–489.Google Scholar
Stetting, Karen
1989 “Transediting – a new term for coping with a grey area between editing and translating”. In Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies, G. D. Caie, K. Haastrup, A. L. Jakobsen, J. E. Nielsen, J. Sevaldsen, H. Specht and A. Zettersten (eds), 371–382. Copenhagen: Department of English, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Sunwoo, Min
2007 “Operationalizing the translation purpose (Skopos)”. MuTra conference proceedings: LSP Translation Scenarios. Available at [URL] (Accessed 16.4.2009).
Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem
2001 “Is one case always enough?Perspectives 9 (3): 167–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taivalkoski-Shilov, Kristiina
2002 “Traduire la mixité formelle: l’exemple des premières (re)traductions de Fielding en France. Faits de Langue 19: 85–97.Google Scholar
2006La Tierce Main. Le discours rapporté dans les traductions françaises de Fielding au XVIIIe siècle. Arras Cedex: Artois Presses Université.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, and Muriel Saville-Troike
(eds) 1985Perspectives on Silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tarasti, Eero
1988 “Suomi semiootikon silmin”. Synteesi 1–2: 12–19.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2000 “In search of translation universals: non-equivalence or ‘unique’ items in a corpus test”. Paper presented at the UMIST/UCL Research Models in Translation Studies Conference, Manchester, 28–30 April 2000.
2002 “Translationese – a myth or an empirical fact?Target 14 (2): 207–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “Unique items – over- or under-represented in translated language?” In Translation Universals. Do they exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds.), 177–184. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “The Monitor Model revisited: Evidence from process research”. Meta 50 (2): 405–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1980In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
1985 “A rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies”. In The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation, T. Hermans (ed.), 16–41. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1991 “What are descriptive studies into translation likely to yield apart from isolated descriptions?” In Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies, K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), 179–192. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
[1995] 2012Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Revised edition 2012.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “In search of laws of translational behavior”. In Basic Issues in Translation Studies: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, A. Neubert, G. M. Shreve, and K. Gommlich (eds), 45–56. Kent, OH.: Kent State University PressGoogle Scholar
2002 “What’s the problem with ‘translation problem’?” In Translation and Meaning, Part 6, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and M. Thelén (eds), 57–71. Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd, Maastricht School of Translation and Interpreting.Google Scholar
2004a “Probabilistic explanations in Translation Studies: Universals – or a challenge to the very concept?” In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær and D. Gile (eds), 15–25. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004b “Probabilistic explanations in translation studies. Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals?” In Translation Universals. Do they Exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, (eds), 15–32. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Conducting research on a ‘wish-to-understand’ basis”. In Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines, J. Ferreira Duarte, A. Assis Rosa and T. Seruya (eds), 55–66. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trivedi, Harish
2006 “In our own time, on our own terms: ‘translation’ in India”. In Translating Others, Volume 1, T. Hermans (ed.), 102–119. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos
1977 “Features of similarity”. Psychological Review 84: 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria
1998 “Computerized corpora and the future of Translation Studies”. Meta 43 (4): 652–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
2000 “Translation and political engagement. Activism, social change and the role of translation in geopolitical shifts”. The Translator 6 (1): 23–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Connecting the two infinite orders. Research methods in Translation Studies”. In Crosscultural Transgressions, T. Hermans (ed.), 9–25. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
2006 “Reconceptualizing translation theory. Integrating non-Western thought about translation”. In Translating Others, Volume 1, T. Hermans (ed.), 13–32. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
2007a “Why European translators should want to de-Westernize Translation Studies”. Plenary talk to the European Society for Translation Studies Conference, Ljubljana, September 2007. (See also [URL].)
2007bEnlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria, and Gentzler, Edwin
(eds) 2002Translation and Power. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Tytler, Alexander F.
[1797] 1978Essay on the Principles of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna
1977The Emergence of Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ulrych, Margherita
2009 “Translating and editing as mediated discourse: focus on the recipient”. In Translators and Their Readers. In Homage to Eugene A. Nida, R. Dimitriu and M. Shlesinger (eds), 219–234. Brussels: Editions du Hasard.Google Scholar
van Dam, Helle, and Karen K. Zethsen
2008 “Translator status. A study of Danish company translators”. The Translator 14 (1): 71–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M., and Ton Naaijkens
(eds) 1991Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri
1989Quasi-correctness. A Critical Study of Finnish Translations of Russian Journalistic Texts. Helsinki: Neuvostoliittoinstituutti.Google Scholar
Vehviläinen, Päivi
2000Kerro, Kerro Kääntäjä. Kaunokirjallisuuden suomentajan identiteetti haastettelupuheessa. Licentiate thesis, Department of Translation Studies, University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence
1995The Translator’s Invisibility. A history of translation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998The Scandals of Translation: towards an ethics of difference. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2000The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “The difference that translation makes: the translator’s unconscious”. In Translation Studies: perspectives on an emerging discipline, A. Riccardi (ed.), 214–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J.
1996A Skopos Theory of Translation. (Some arguments for and against.) Heidelberg: TEXTconTEXT.Google Scholar
1997 “Translation and the ‘meme’”. Target 9 (1): 155–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “Starting to unask what translatology is all about”. Target 10 (1): 41–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viaggio, Sergio
1994 “Theory and professional development: or admonishing translators to be good”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, C. Dollerup and A, Lindegaard (eds), 97–105. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vieira, Else R. P.
1994 “A postmodern translational aesthetics in Brazil”. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker and K. Kaindl (eds), 65–72. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet
1958Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
von Wright, Georg H.
1968An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. Amsterdam: North-Holland. [Acta Philosophica Fennica 21.]Google Scholar
1971Explanation and Understanding. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, Judy, and Rita Kothari
(eds) 2009Decentering Translation Studies. India and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman
2002The Map. A beginner’s guide to doing research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Wilson, Andrew
2009Translators on Translating. Inside the invisible art. Vancouver: CCSP Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward O.
1998Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge. London: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Wolf, Michaela, and Alexandra Fukari
(eds) 2007Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zabalbeascoa, Patrick
2000 “From techniques to types of solutions”. In Investigating Translation, A. Beeby, D. Ensinger and M. Presas (eds), 117–127. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zalán, Peter
1990 “Zur Problematik von Normen und Übersetzen”. In Übersetzungswissenschaft. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 65. Geburtstag, R. Arntz and G. Thome (eds), 55–58. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar