Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation

The case of Hungarian-English news translation

| Eötvös Loránd University
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027258816 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027265234 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
This book deals with the (re)production of cohesion and coherence in translation. Building on the theories and methods of Translation Studies and Discourse Analysis it answers some basic, still much debated questions related to translational discourse production. Such a question is whether it is possible to analyse the (re)production of coherence, and if yes, how? Can the models devised for the study of English original (not translated) and independent texts (unlike translations and their sources) be applied for the analysis of translation? How do cohesive, rhetorical and generic structure “behave” in translation? How do particular components of coherence relate to translation universals? The volume proposes a complex translational discourse analysis model and presents findings that bring new insights primarily for the study of news translation, translation strategies and translation universals. It is recommended for translation researchers, discourse analysts, practicing translators, as well as professionals and students involved in translator training.
[Benjamins Translation Library, 134]  2017.  xiii, 269 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Foreword
x–xiii
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–5
Chapter 2. The theoretical background
8–91
Chapter 3. Corpus: News discourse
94–104
Chapter 4. Cohesive ties in translation
106–138
Chapter 5. Repetition in translation
140–156
Chapter 6. Topical structure in translation
158–171
Chapter 7. Rhetorical structure in translation
174–204
Chapter 8. Summary and conclusions
206–234
References
235–250
Appendix A. Hungarian source text 05H
Appendix B. English target text 05E
Appendix C. Hungarian source text 09H
Appendix D. English target text 09E
Appendix E. The title, date of publication and source of texts in corpus
260
Appendix F. Lexical cohesion analysis of the first two sentences of Text 16
Appendix G. The statistical features of the corpus
Author Index
265
Subject Index
“Due to its theoretical, methodological and practical orientation, the book is highly recommended to experienced and novice researchers of Translation Studies and Discourse Analysis, PhD students, and to anybody who is interested in cross-linguistic issues, in particular, how languages behave when they come into contact in translation.”
References

References

Abdulla, Adnan K. 2001 “Rhetorical repetition in literary translation.” Babel 47 (4): 289–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Albert, Sándor
2011“A fövenyre épített ház” – A fordításelméletek tudomány- és nyelvfilozófiai alapjai. Budapest: Áron Kiadó.Google Scholar
Al-Jarf, Reima Sado
2007 “SVO word order errors in English-Arabic translation.” META 52 (2): 299–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khafaji, Rasoul
2006 “In search of translational norms. The case of shifts of lexical repetition in Arabic–English translations.” Babel 52 (1): 39–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John R.
1990Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. Oxford: Freeman.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1992A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona
1992In Other Words. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 “Corpus linguistics and translation studies. Implications and applications.” in Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclaire, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Matthijs, Koster Cees, and Kitty van Leuven-Zwart
1998 “Shifts of translation.” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies ed. by Mona Baker, 226–231. London and New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen
1990 “Pragmatic word order in English composition.” in Coherence in writing. Research and pedagogical perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, 43–65. Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate
1987Norms of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bathgate, Ronald, Harry
1980 “Studies of translation models: an operational model of the translation process.” The Incorporated Linguist 19 (4): 113–114.Google Scholar
Bassnett, Susan
1980/1991Translation Studies. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de
1980 “The pragmatics of discourse planning.” Journal of Pragmatics 4: 15–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de, and Wolfgang U. Dressler
1981Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de
1984Text Production: Toward a Science of Composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
1996 “The ‘pragmatics’ of doing language science: the ‘warrant’ for language corpus linguistics.” Journal of Pragmatics 25 (4): 503–535. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997New Foundations for a Science of Text and Discourse: Cognition, Communication, and Freedom of Access to Knowledge and Society. New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Becher, Viktor
2011aExplicitation and Implicitation in Translation. A Corpus-based Study of English-German and German-English Translations of Business Texts. PhD dissertation. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg.Google Scholar
Becher, Viktor 2011b “When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study.” Target 23 (1): 26–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan
1991The Language of News Media. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1995 “Language and the media.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15: 23–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “Text, time and technology in news English.” in Redesigning English: New Texts, New Identities (The English Language, Past, Present and Future, Book 4), ed. by Sharon Goodman, and David Graddol, 3–26. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1998 “The discourse structure of news stories.” in Approaches to Media Discourse, ed. by Allan Bell, and Peter Garrett, 64–104. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bell, Roger T.
1991Translation and Translating. Theory and Practice. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ben-Ari, Nitsa
1998 “The ambivalent case of repetitions in literary translation. Avoiding repetitions: a ‘universal’ of translation?Meta 43 (1): 68–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia
1987The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K.
1993Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
1997 “Translating legal genres.” in Text Typology and Translation, ed. by Anna Trosborg, 203–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1989 “A typology of English texts.” Linguistics 27 (1): 3–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “On the complexity of discourse complexity: a multi-dimensional analysis.” Discourse Processes 15 (2): 133–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 “The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings.” Computers and the Humanities 26 (5–6): 331–345.Google Scholar
1994 “An analytic framework for register studies.” in Sociolinguistic Perspecives on Register, ed. by Douglas Biber, and Edward Finegan, 31–56. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1995Cross-linguistic Patterns of Register Variation: a Multi-dimensional Comparison of English, Tuvaluan, Korean, and Somali. Cambridge, England and New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bielsa, Esperança
2007 “Translation in global news agencies.” Target 19 (1): 135–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Cosmopolitanism, translation and the experience of the foreign.” Across Languages and Cultures 11 (2): 161–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bielsa, Esperança, and Susan Bassnett
2009Translation in Global News. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Eddie Levenston A.
1983 “Universals of lexical simplification.” in Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, ed. by Claus Faerch, and Gabrielle Kasper, 119–139. London and New York: Longman.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, ed. by Juliane House, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule
1983Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, James Dean
1991Understanding Research in Second Languaga Learning. A Teacher’s Guide to Statistics and Research Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Callow, Kathleen 1974Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God. Michigan: Zondervan.Google Scholar
Canale, Michael, and Merrill Swain
1980 “Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.” Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. C.
1965/2000A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1976 “Givennes, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects and topics.” in Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1993 “From ’is’ to ’ought’: Translation laws, norms and strategies.” Target 5 (1): 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997The Memes of Translation. The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “A causal model for translation studies.” in Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 15–28. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
2001Hypotheses about translation universals. Conference paper. 3rd International EST Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 30–September 1, 2001.
2005 “Problems with strategies.” in New Trends in Translation Studies, ed. by Krisztina Károly, and Ágota Fóris, 29–44. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Colina, Sonia
1997 “Contrastive rhetoric and text-typological conventions in translation teaching.” Target 9 (2): 335–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla, and Robert B. Kaplan
eds. 1987Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey.Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla, and Mary Farmer
1990 “The teaching of Topical Structure Analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers.” in Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, ed. by Barbara Kroll, 126–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla
1996Contrastive Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Guy
1989Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daneš, Frantisek
1974 “Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text.” in Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, ed. by Frantisek Daneš, 106–128. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun A. van, and Walter Kintsch
1983Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun A. van
1985 “Structures of news in the press.” in Discourse and Communication, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 69–93. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams
1987On the Definition of Word. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, Monika
1997 “ ‘Acceptability’ and language-specific preference in the distribution of information.” Target 9 (1): 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “Clefts in translation between English and German.” Target 11 (2): 289–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Parametrized beginnings of sentences in English and German.” Across Languages and Cultures 4 (1): 19–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doorslaer, Luc van 2010a “The double extension of translation in the journalistic field.” Across Language and Cultures 11 (2): 175–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b “Journalism and translation.” in Handbook of translation studies, Volume 1, ed. by Yves Gambier, and Luc van Doorslaer, 180–184. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1993 “Az egyszerű mondat szerkezete.” in Strukturális magyar nyelvtan I. Mondattan, ed. by Ferenc Kiefer, 79–179. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Elimam, Ahmed Saleh
2009 “Marked word order in the Qur’ān: functions and translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (1): 109–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2003Explicitation in Russian-Swedish translation: Sociolinguistic and pragmatic aspects. In Alexander Pereswetoff-Morath & Birgitta Englund Dimitrova (eds.), Swedish Contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ljubljana, 15–21 August 2003, 21–31. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
2005Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik
1974 “’Theme dynamics’ and style.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensa 5 (1): 127–135.Google Scholar
1978 “Coherence, pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence.” in Cohesion and Semantics, ed. by Jan-Ola Ostman, 109–128. Abo: Akademi Foundation.Google Scholar
1990 “Seven problems in the study of coherence and interpretability.” in Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, 9–28. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1995Media Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Peter
1997/2003Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Fedorov, A. V.
1953Vegyenyije v tyeoriju perevoda. Moscow: Izd. Lityeraturi na inosztrannih jazikah.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Aline, and John W. Schwieter
eds. 2015Psycolinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita
2008 “Theme zones in contrast: an analysis of their linguistic realization in the communicative act of a non-acceptance.” in Languages and Cultures in Contrast: New Directions in Contrastive Linguistics, ed. by Maria Gómez-Gonzalez, Lachlan Mackenzie, and Elsa González Alvarez, 181–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan
1966 “On defining the theme in functional sentence perspective.” Traveaux Linguistiques de Prague 2: 239–256.Google Scholar
Flower, Linda, and John Hayes
1981a “A cognitive process theory of writing.” College Composition and Communication 32 (4): 365–387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1981b “Plans that guide the composing process.” in Writing: the Nature, Development, and Teaching of Written Communication, Volume 2, ed. by Carl Fredricksen, and Joseph Dominic, 39–58. Hive, Sussex and Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frank, A. P.
1990 “Forty years of studying the American/German translational transfer: a retrospect and some perspectives.” Amerikastudien/American Studies 35 (1): 7–20.Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H.
1995 “A personal view of Theme.” in Thematic Development in English Texts, ed. by Mohsen Ghadessy, 1–19. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Itule, Bruce D. and Dauglas A. Anderson
(1994): News Writing and Reporting for Today’s Media, New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Gallangher, John D.
1993 “The quest for equivalence.” Lebenden Sprachen 38 (4): 150–161.Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves
2010 “Translation strategies and tactics.” in Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 1, ed. by Yves Gambier, and Luc van Doorslaer, 412–418, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves, and Henrik Gottlieb 2001 “Multimedia, multilingua: Multiple challenges.” in (Multi) Media Translation. Concepts, Practices and Research, ed. by Yves Gambier, and Henrik Gottlieb, viii–xx. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves, and Luc van Doorslaer
eds. 2009The Metalanguage of Translation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garnham, Alan
1985Psycholinguistics: Central Topics. London and Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gayor, Helén Ronini
2008Rhetorical Structure Theory in Translation Analysis. MA thesis. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun, Jan Kunold, and Dorothee Rothfub-Bastian
2006 “Coherence, theme, rheme, isothopy: Complementary concepts in text and translation.” in Text Translation: Theory and Methodology of Translation, ed. by Carmen Heine, Klaus Schubert, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 349–370. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen
1995 “Thematic development and its relationship to registers and genres.” in Thematic Development in English Texts, ed. by Mohsen Ghadessy, 129–146. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Giannossa, Leonardo
2012A Corpus-based Investigation of Lexical Cohesion in EN & IT Non-translated Texts and in IT Translated Texts. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Kent State University.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
ed. 1983Topic Continuity in Discourse: a Quantitative Cross-language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984Syntax. A Functional-typological Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990Syntax. A Functional-typological Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1995 “Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind.” in Coherence in Spontaneous Text, ed. by Morton Ann Gernsbacher, and Talmy Givón, 59–115. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001aSyntax. An Introduction. Vol. I. Revised edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001bSyntax. An Introduction. Vol. II. Revised edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, Henrik
2010 “Multilingual translation vs. English-fits-all in South African media.” Across Languages and Cultures 11 (2): 189–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanna
1995 “A pragmatic classification of LSP texts in science and technology.” Target 7 (2): 305–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, William
1987 “Contrastive rhetoric and text-type research.” in Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Robert B. Kaplan, 115–135. England and Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, Workingham.Google Scholar
Grabe, William, and Robert B. Kaplan
1996Theory and Practice of Writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia, and Jerry Morgan
1981 “Pragmatics, grammar, and discourse.” in Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 167–181. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gutwinski, Waldemar
1976Cohesion in Literary Texts: a Study of some Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris
1973 “Prolegomena to a theory of word-formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3–16.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1967 “Notes on transitivity and theme in English: II.” Journal of Linguistics 3 (2): 199–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1968 “The users and uses of language.” in Reading in the Sociology of Language, ed. by Joshua A. Fishman, 139–169. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1973Explorations in the Functions of Language. London and Boston: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1978Language and Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London and Boston: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1985Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1989Spoken and Written Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruquaiya Hasan
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1989Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
2004An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
2004 “The cognitive basis of translation universals.” Target 15 (2): 197–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Cognitive translation studies: Developments in theory and method.” in Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone, 349–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harsányi, Ildikó
2008 “Metaforarendszerek fordítása – sajtószövegek elemzése kognitív megközelítésből.” Fordítástudomány 10 (1): 42–60.Google Scholar
2010 “A metafora mint az alternative konceptualizáció eszköze a fordításban.” Fordítástudomány 12 (2): 5–23.Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruquaiya
1984 “Coherence and cohesive harmony.” in Understanding Reading Comprehension, ed. by James Flood, 181–219. Delaware: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Hatch, Evelyn
1992Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason
1990Discourse and the Translator. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Hayes, John R., and Linda S. Flower
1980 “Identifying the organization of writing processes.” in Cognitive Processes in Writing, ed. by Lee W. Gregg, and Erwin R. Steinberg, 3–30. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hayes, John R.
1996 “A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.” in The Science of Writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications, ed. by C. Michael Levy, and Sarah Ransdell, 1–27. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Wolfgang
2000a “Textsorte – Textmuster – Texttyp.” in Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Linguistics of Text and Conversation, Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. by Klaus Brinker, Gerd Antos, Wolfgang Heinemann, and Sven F. Sager, 507–523. Berlin and NewYork: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2000b “Aspekte der Textsortendifferenzierung.” in Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Linguistics of Text and Conversation, Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. by Klaus Brinker, Gerd Antos, Wolfgang Heinemann, and Sven F. Sager, 523–546. Berlin and NewYork: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heltai, Pál
2003 “Az explicitáció egyes kérdései angol-magyar szakfordításban.” in Porta Lingua: Szaknyelvoktatásunk az EU kapujában, ed. by Magdolna Feketéné Silye, 173–198. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem ATC.Google Scholar
Heltai, Pál 2004 “A fordító és a nyelvi normák I.” Magyar Nyelvőr 128 (4): 407–433.Google Scholar
2005 “Explicitation, redundancy, ellipsis and translation.” in New Trends in Translation Studies, ed. by Krisztina Károly, and Ágota Fóris, 45–74. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Heltai, Pál, and Juhász Gabriella
2002 “A névmások fordításának kérdései angol–magyar és magyar–angol fordításokban.” Fordítástudomány 4 (2): 46–62.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo
2001 “Models of translation.” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 154–157. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R.
1979 “Coherence and coreference.” Cognitive Science 3 (1): 67–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985On the coherence and structure of discourse. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Leland Stanford Junior University. Report No. CSLI-85–37.Google Scholar
1990Literature and Cognition. Lecture Notes, Number 21. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Leland Stanford Junior University.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael
1991Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holland, Robert
2006 “Language(s) in the global news: Translation, audience design and discourse (mis)interpretation.” Target 18 (2): 229–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, James S.
1988a “Translation theory, translation theories, translation studies, and the translator.” in Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, ed. by James S. Holmes, 93–98. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1988b “The name and nature of translation studies.” in Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, ed. by James S. Holmes, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
2013 “Towards a news linguistic-cogntive orientation in translation studies.” Target 25 (1): 46–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hurtado Albir, Amparo, Fabio Alves, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, and Isabel Lacruz
2015 “A retrospective and prospective view of translation research from an empirical, experimental, and cognitive perspective: the TREC network.” Translation & Interpreting 7 (1): 5–25.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
2004Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jabr, Abdul-Fattah M.
2001 “Arab translators’ problems at the discourse level.” Babel 47 (4): 304–322. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
1993 “Translation as textual (re)production.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 2: 155–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
2004 “The fate of The Families of Medellín: tampering with a potential translation universal in the translation class.” in Translation Universals: Do they Exist?, ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Pekka Kujamäki, 205–214. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Studying the translation process.” in Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjaer, and Kevin Windle, 123–135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenei, Gabriella
2006The Contribution of Reference and Co-reference to Cohesion. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig
2004 “Why change the subject? On changes in subject selection in translation from English into Norwegian.” Target 16 (1): 29–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johns, Tim 1991It is Presented Initially: Linear Dislocation and Interlanguage Strategies in Brazilian Academic Abstracts in English and Portuguese. Mimeograph. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara
1987 “An introduction.” Text 7 (3): 205–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Robert B.
1966 “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education.” Language Learning 16: 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Károly, Krisztina
2002Lexical Repetition in Text. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2007Szövegtan és fordítás. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2010a “Shifts in repetition vs. shifts in text meaning: A study of the textual role of lexical repetition in non-literary translation.” Target 22 (1): 40–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b “Az ismétlésről a fordítási univerzálék tükrében: Lexikai ismétlés-eltolódások a magyar–angol fordításban.” Magyar Nyelv 106 (3): 322–338.Google Scholar
2011 “Sajtószöveg és fordítás: A topikszerkezet és a hírtartalom viszonya újságcikkek fordításában.” Magyar Nyelvőr 135 (4): 469–480.Google Scholar
2012a “A referenciális kohézió a fordítási univerzálék tükrében: referencia-eltolódások a magyar–angol sajtófordításban.” Magyar Nyelvőr 136 (3): 304–324.Google Scholar
2012b “A topikszerkezet szerepe a sajtófordításban.” in A szótól a szövegig, ed. by Vilmos Bárdosi, 129–137. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
2013a “A retorikai struktúra műfaji szempontú elemzésének módszereiről a magyar–angol sajtófordításban.” Fordítástudomány 15 (1): 5–30.Google Scholar
2013b “Translating rhetoric: Relational propositional shifts in the Hungarian–English translations of news stories.” The Translator 19 (2): 245–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013c “News discourse in translation: Topical structure and news content in the analytical news article.” META 57 (4): 884–908. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013d “Rhetoric in translation. Research methods for a genre-oriented analysis of rhetorical structure in Hungarian–English news translation.” Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 23(2): 175–202.Google Scholar
2013e “A referenciális kohézió fordításának kérdéseiről a magyar–angol sajtófordításban.” in Reáliák – a lexikográfiától a frazeológiáig. Értelmezések és fordítási kérdések, ed. by Vilmos Bárdosi, 247–257. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
2014a “Retorikai szerkezet és fordítás. Kapcsolódási propozicionális eltolódások hírszövegek magyar–angol fordításában. 1. rész.” Magyar Nyelv 110 (1): 17–29.Google Scholar
2014b “Retorikai szerkezet és fordítás. Kapcsolódási propozicionális eltolódások hírszövegek magyar–angol fordításában. 2. rész.” Magyar Nyelv 110 (2): 144–159.Google Scholar
2014c “Szövegalkotás a fordításban: a retorikai szerkezet újrateremtése.” in Szövegalkotó gondolatok, nyelvteremtő praktikák, ed. by Vilmos Bárdosi, 83–95. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
2014d “Szövegkohézió és fordítás: a referenciális kötések célnyelvi újrateremtését kísérő szövegszintű fordítói stratégiák a magyar–angol fordításban.” in Nyelv – Társadalom – Kultúra. Interkulturális és multikulturális perspektívák. Interkulturális és multikulturális perspektívák I., ed. by Mária Ladányi, Zsuzsanna Vladár, and Éva Hrenek, 167–171. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
2014e “Ismétlés és jelentés: a lexikai ismétlés szövegalkotó szerepe a fordításban.” in Az angol tudománya. 125 éves az egyetemi angol szak, ed. by Tibor Frank, and Krisztina Károly, 271–284. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó.Google Scholar
Károly, Krisztina, Anett Árvay, Melinda Edwards, Hajnal Fekete, Katalin Kolláth, and Gyula Tankó 2000 “A szövegkohézió mérése a vizsgafordítások értékelésében. Fordítástudomány 2 (2): 36–63.Google Scholar
Károly, Krisztina, Henrietta Ábrányi, Szilvia Kovalik Deák, Ágnes Laszkács, Andrea Mészáros, and Márta Seresi
2013 “Cohesion and news translation: An exploratory study of shifts of cohesion in the Hungarian–English translation of news stories.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 60 (4): 1–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kertész, András
2001 “Nyelvészet és tudományelmélet.” Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 150. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter, and Teun van Dijk
1978 “Toward a model of text comprehension and production.” Psychological Review 85 (5): 363–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, Walter
1998Comprehension. A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga
1984 “Hogyan alkalmazható az aktuális tagolás elmélete a fordítás oktatásában?Magyar Nyelvőr 108 (3): 325–332.Google Scholar
1987Fordítás és aktuális tagolás. Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 123. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
1994A fordítás elmélete és gyakorlata. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar
1996 “Concretization and generalization of meaning in translation.” in Translation and Meaning. Part 3. Proceedings of the 2nd International Maastricht-Łódz Duo Colloquium on ”Translation and Meaning” Maastricht, The Netherlands, 19–22 April 19 1995, ed. by Marcel Thelen, and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 141–163. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga, and Krisztina Károly
2000 “The text-organizing function of lexical repetition in translation.” in Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies 1. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 143–159. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga
2001 “Explicitation.” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 80–85. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2003Languages in translation. Lectures on the theory, teaching and practice of translation. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar
2004 “A kommunikatív szakaszhatárok eltűnése a magyarra fordított európai uniós szövegekben.” Magyar Nyelvőr 128 (4): 389–407.Google Scholar
2006 “Szövegszintű műveletek a fordításban.” in A mondat kaland. Hetven tanulmány Békési Imre 70. Születésnapjára, ed. by László Galgóczy, and László Vass, 204–211. Szeged: JGyTF Kiadó.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga, and Krisztina Károly
2005 “Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 6 (1): 13–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kocsány, Piroska
1995 “Műhelytanulmány az ‘ő’ névmásról.” Magyar Nyelvőr 119 (3): 285–293.Google Scholar
Labov, William, and Joshua Waletzky
1967 “Narrative analysis: oral versions of personal experience.” in Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts (Proceeding of the 1966 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society, ed. by June Helm, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1972Language in the Inner City. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001 “Discourse in cognitive grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2): 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lautamatti, Liisa
1987 “Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse.” in Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Robert B. Kaplan, 87–114. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
1990 “Coherence in spoken and written discourse.” in Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, 29–40. Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL.Google Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
1998 “Universals of translation.” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 288–294. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Le, Elisabeth
2004 “The role of paragraphs in the construction of coherence – text linguistics and translation studies.” IRAL 42 (3): 259–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chang-soo
2002 “Strategies for translating Korean broadcast news reports into English.” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Translation and Interpretation Studies, 93–111. Seoul, Korea: Graduate School of Interpretation and Translation, HUFS.Google Scholar
2006 “Differences in news translation between broadcasting and newspapers: A case study of Korean-English translation.” META 51 (2): 317–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Cher-leng
1993 “Translating zero anaphoric subjects into English.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 1993 (1): 47–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Limon, David
2004 “Translating news genres between Slovene and English: An analytical framework.” Across Languages and Cultures 5 (1): 43–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1991Translation Performance, Translation Process and Translation Strategies: a Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lux, Paul, and William Grabe
1991 “Multivariate approaches to contrastive rhetoric.” Lenguas Modernas 18: 133–160.Google Scholar
Magnuczné Godó, Ágnes
2003Cross-cultural Perspectives in Academic Writing. A Study of Hungarian and North American Students’ L1 Argumentative Rhetoric. PhD dissertation. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
Makkos, Anikó
2010 “Szöveggrammatikai eszközök fordítása és alkalmazása nyelvvizsgázók fordításaiban.” Fordítástudomány 12 (2): 96–121.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten
2000 “Multidisciplinarity in process research.” in Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, and Rita Jääskeläinen, 163–70. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Where are we? (From Holmes’s map until now).” in The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Carmen Millán, and Francesca Bartrina, 31–44. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mann, William C.
2005RST – Rhetorical Structure Theory. Available at www​.sfu​.ca​/rst​/01intro​/definitions​.html
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson
1986 “Relational propositions in discourse.” Discourse Processes 9 (1): 37–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988 “Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson
1992Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text (Pragmatics and Beyond, New Series, 16), ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marco, Josep 2009 “The terminology of translation: Epistemological, conceptual and intercultural problems and their social consequences.” in The Metalanguage of Translation, ed. by Yves Gambier, and Luc van Doorslaer, 65–80. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, James Robert
1992English Text. System and Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian, and Adriana Şerban
2003 “Deixis as an interactive feature in literary translation from Romanian into English.” Target 15 (2): 269–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael
1991Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael, and Ronald Carter
1994Language as Discourse. Perspectives for Language Teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn
1984 “Genre as social action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (2): 151–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ed. 1995Functional Approaches to Written Texts: Classroom Applications. Paris: TESOL France.Google Scholar
Morris, Jane, and Graeme Hirst
1991 “Lexical cohesion computed by Thesaural Relations as an indicator of the structure of text.” Computational Linguistics 17 (1): 21–48.Google Scholar
Mounin, Georges
1963Les problèmes théoriques de la traduction. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Myers, Gregory
1991 “Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts.” Discourse Processes 14 (1): 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht
1985Text and Translation (Übersetzungswissenschaftliche Beiträge 8). Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht, and Gregory M. Shreve
1992Translation as Text. Kent: The Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1981/1988Approaches to Translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Norberg, Ulf
2003Übersetzen mit doppeltem Skopos. Eine empirische Prozess- und Produktstudie. [= Studia Germanica Uppsaliensia 42]. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1991Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam-Atlanta, G.A.: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1995 “Text-functions in translation: Titles and headings as a case in point.” Target 7 (2): 261–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Translating as a Purposeful Activity – Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Oakhill, Jane, and Alan Garnham
1988Becoming a Skilled Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Orozco, Mariana, and Amparo Hurtado Albir
2002 “Measuring translation competence acquisition.” META 47 (3): 375–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paksy, Eszter
2005 “Szerző és olvasó viszonya a fordított szövegben.” Fordítástudomány 7 (1): 60–69.Google Scholar
2008 “Metaszöveg és ethosz a fordításban.” Fordítástudomány 10 (2): 47–60.Google Scholar
Papegaaij, Bart, and Klaus Schubert
1988Text Coherence in Translation. Dordrecht – Holland/Providence RI, USA: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Papp, Ferenc
1965/2006 “Modell.” Magyar Nyelvőr 89 (4): 462–468. In Papp Ferenc olvasókönyv. Papp Ferenc válogatott nyelvészeti tanulmányai, ed. by Kinga Klaudy, 45–52. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Pásztor Kicsi, Mária 2007 “Vajdasági magyar médiaszövegek mondatszerkesztésének összehasonlító kvantitatív elemzése.” Hungarológiai Közlemények 2: 71–85.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba, and Katalin Radics
1976 “ ‘Hiányos mondat’, pronominalizáció és a szöveg.” Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XI: 261–277.Google Scholar
Popovič, Anton
1976Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation. Edmonton: Department of Comparative Literature, The University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Polo, Javier Fernandez
1995 “Some discoursal aspects in the translation of popular science texts from English into Spanish.” in Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku conference. Anglicana Turkuensia 14, ed. by Brita Wårwik, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, and Rirto Hiltunen, 257–264. Turku, Finland: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R.
1963Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2005 “Explaining explicitation.” in New Trends in Translation Studies, ed. by Krisztina Károly, and Ágota Fóris, 29–43. Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó.Google Scholar
Recker, Ja I.
1950O zakonomernih szootvetsztvijah pri perevogye na rodnoj jazik. In Voproszi tyeorii i metogyiki ucsebnovo perevoda. Moscow: Izd. Akademii pedagogischeskicseszkih nauk.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina
1976Texttyp und Übersetzungsmethode. Der Operative Text. Kronberg: Scriptor.Google Scholar
2000Translation Criticism – The Potentials and Limitations. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Linguistische Arbeiten 147]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Renkema, Jan
2004Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, Dudley. W.
1995 “Repetition in nonnative speaker writing: More than quantity.” Studies on Second Language Acquisition 17 (2): 185–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna
1998Translatorische Kompetenz: Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. [Studien zur Translation 5].Google Scholar
2012 “Cognitive approaches to translation.” in The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by Carol A. Chapelle, 1–10. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Published online November 5, 2012 at http://​onlinelibrary​.wiley​.com​/doi​/10​.1002​/9781405198431​.wbeal0145​/pdf doi: Crossref
Rogers, Margaret
1997 “Synonymy and equivalence in special-language texts.” in Text Typology and Translation, ed. by Anna Trosborg, 217–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Structuring information in English: A specialist translation perspective on sentence beginnings.” The Translator 12 (1): 29–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E.
1975 “Notes on a schema for stories.” in Representation and Understanding, ed. by Daniel G. Bobrow, and Allan Collins, 211–236. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan C.
1997 “Text types and translation.” in Text Typology and Translation, ed. by Anna Trosborg, 25–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “What distinguishes major types of translation?The Translator 4 (1): 69–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman
1992 “Toward a raxonomy of coherence relations.” Discourse Processes 15 (1): 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman 2007 “Discourse and text structure.” in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 916–941. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina
2012 “Rethinking transediting.” META 57 (4): 866–883. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Melanie, and Ulla Connor
1990 “Analyzing topical structure in ESL essay: Not all topics are equal.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12 (4): 411–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seguinot, Candace
1988 “Pragmatics and the explicitation hypothesis.” TTR: Traduction, Terminolgie, Redaction 1 (2): 106–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, Larry, R. M. Todd Trimble, and Louis Trimble
1976 “Presuppositional rhetorical information in EST discourse.” TESOL Quarterly 10 (3): 281–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1991 “Interpreter latitude vs. due process: simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in in multilingual trials.” in Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies: Selected Papers of the TRANS-SIF Seminar, Savonlinna 1988, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, 147–155. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
1995 “Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting.” The Translator 1 (2): 193–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., and Erik Angelone
2010 “Translation and cognition: Recent developments.” in Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shuttleworth, Mark, and Moira Cowie
1997Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Sidiropoulou, Maria
1995a “Headlining in translation: English vs. Greek press.” Target 7 (2): 285–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995b “Causal shifts in news reporting: English vs. Greek press.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 3 (1): 83–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “Quantities in translation: English vs. Greek press.” Target 10 (2): 319–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988Translation Studies: an Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 “Translation studies – Art, science or utopia?” in Translation Studies: the State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S. Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies, ed. by Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart, and Ton Naaijkens, 13–23. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary, Hans G. Hönig, Paul Kussmaul, and Peter A. Schmidt
eds. 1998Handbuch Translation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stetting, Karen
1989 “Transediting – A new term for coping with the grey area between editing and translating.” in Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies, ed. by Graham Caie, Kirsten Haastrup, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, Jørgen Erik Nielsen, Jørgen Sevaldsen, Henrik Specht, and Arne Zettersten, 371–382. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Stolze, Radigundis
2003 “Vaguness in economic texts as a translation problem.” Across Languages and Cultures 4 (2): 187–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svindland, Arne S.
1995 “Originals and translations. The case of coordination.” in Organization in Discourse. Proceedings from the Turku Conference. Anglicana Turkuensia 14, ed. by Brita Wårwik, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, and Risto Hiltunen, 509–518. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szilágyi, N. Sándor
1980Magyar nyelvtan. Bucharest: Editura Didactica Si Pedagogica.Google Scholar
Taboada, Maria Teresa
2004Building Coherence and Cohesion. Task-oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maria Teresa, and William C. Mann
2006a “Rhetorical Structure Theory: looking back and moving ahead.” Discourse Studies 8 (3): 423–459. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006b “Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory.” Discourse Studies 8 (4): 567–588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, Elaine, Sharon Dwyer, Susan Gilette, and Vincent Icke
1981 “On the use of the passive in two astrophysics journal papers.” ESP Journal 1 (2): 123–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Christopher
1993 “Systemic linguistics and translation.” Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 7: 87–103.Google Scholar
Thompson, Susan
1994 “Aspects of cohesion in monologue.” Applied Linguistics 15 (1): 58–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
1985Argumentative Text Structure and Translation. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
2002 “Process research: State of the art and where to go next?Across Languages and Cultures 3 (1): 5–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tolcsvai Nagy, Gábor
1998A nyelvi norma. Nyelvtudományi Értekezések, 144. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2000 “Vázlat az ő – az anaforikus megoszlásról.” Magyar Nyelv XCVI (3): 282–296.Google Scholar
2001A magyar nyelv szövegtana. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
2005A Cognitive Theory of Style. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
ed. 2006Szöveg és típus. Szövegtipológiai tanulmányok. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
2011Coherence and discourse relations. In Dimensionen der Analyse von Texten und Diskursen. Festschrift für János Sándor Petőfi zum achtzigten Geburtstag, ed. by Klaus Hölker, and Carla Marello, 173–181. London, Berlin, Münster: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1977Translational Norms and Literary Translation into Hebrew, 1930–1945. Tel Aviv University: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
1980In Search of a Theory of Translation. The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
1984 “Translation, literary translation and pseudotranslation.” in Comparative Criticism 6, ed. by Elinor S. Shaffer, 73–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1986 “Monitoring discourse transfer: a test-case for a developmental model of translation.” in Interlingual and Intercultural Communication. Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, ed. by Juliana House, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 79–95. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.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 from the first James S Holmes symposium on translation studies, ed. by Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart, and Ton Naaijkens, 179–192. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Törkenczy, Miklós
1997Hungarian Verbs and Essentials of Grammar. A Practical Guide to the Essentials of Hungarian. Budapest: Corvina.Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna ed. 1997Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Andrea
1995 “Patterns of lexis: How much can repetition tell us about discourse coherence?Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 268–280. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Vaerenbergh, Leona Van
2009 “Polysemy and synonymy: Their management in translation studies dictionaries and in translator training.” in The Metalanguage of Translation, ed. by Yves Gambier, and Luc van Doorslaer, 45–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valdeón, Roberto A.
2005 “The ‘translated’ Spanish service of the BBC.” Across Languages and Cultures 6 (2): 195–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Euronews in translation: Constructing a European perspective of/for the world.” Forum 7 (1): 123–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Translation in the informational society.” Across Languages and Cultures 11 (2): 149–160. Special issue on “Translating information in the post-industrial society” (guest ed.: Roberto A. Valdeón). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
guest ed. 2012Journalism and translation. META 57 (4).Google Scholar
2015 “Fifteen years of journalistic translation research and more.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 23 (4): 634–662. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri
1989Quasi-correctness. A Critical Study of Finnish Translations of Russian Journalistic Texts. Helsinki: Neuvostoliittoinstituuti.Google Scholar
Ventola, Eija
1995 “Thematic development and translation.” in Thematic Development in English Texts, ed. by Mohsen Ghadessy, 85–104. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence
2001 “Strategies of translation.” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 240–244. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J.
1978 “Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie.” Lebende Sprachen 23 (3): 99–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989 “Skopos and commission in translational action.” Trans. Andrew Chesterman. In Readings in Translation Theory, ed. by Andrew Chesterman, 173–187. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean Paul, and Jean Darbelnet
1958Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction In Lawrence Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 84–93). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1995Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. (J. C. Sager és M. J. Hamel ford.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija
1995 “Analysing argumentative strategies: a reply to a complaint.” in Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku conference. Anglicana Turkuensia 14, ed. by Brita Wårwik, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, and Rirto Hiltunen, 539–547. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Weissbrod, Rachel
2004 “From translation to transfer.” Across Languages and Cultures 5 (1): 23–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werlich, Egon
1976A Text Grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle  Meyer.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry Great
1978Language Teaching as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Ian A.
2005 “Thematic items referring to research and researchers in the discussion section of Spanish biomedical articles and English-Spanish translations.” Babel 51 (2): 124–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Witte, Stephen 1983 “Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers’ judgements of students’ writing.” Visible Language 17: 177–205.Google Scholar
Zhu, Chunshen
1996 “Translation of modifications: About information, intention and effect.” Target 8 (2): 301–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Accountability in translation within and beyond the sentence as the key functional UT: Three case studies.” META 50 (1): 312–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Bakti, Mária
2019. Fang Tang. Across Languages and Cultures 20:1  pp. 135 ff. Crossref logo
Bartkutė, Darija & Daiva Verikaitė-Gaigalienė
2020. Spatial deictics in translation. Languages in Contrast 20:1  pp. 84 ff. Crossref logo
Valdeón, Roberto A
2020. Gatekeeping, ideological affinity and journalistic translation. Journalism  pp. 146488492091729 ff. Crossref logo
Valdeón, Roberto A.
2020. Journalistic translation research goes global: theoretical and methodological considerations five years on. Perspectives 28:3  pp. 325 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 august 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects

Translation & Interpreting Studies

Translation Studies
BIC Subject: CFP – Translation & interpretation
BISAC Subject: LAN023000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Translating & Interpreting
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017018546