Cover not available
Part of
Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation: The case of Hungarian-English news translation
Krisztina Károly
[Benjamins Translation Library 134] 2017
► pp. 235–250

References

Abdulla, Adnan K. 2001. “Rhetorical repetition in literary translation.” Babel 47 (4): 289–303. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John R. 1990. Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. Oxford: Freeman.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1987. Norms 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. 1980/1991. Translation Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de. 1980. “The pragmatics of discourse planning.” Journal of Pragmatics 4: 15–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de, and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de. 1984. Text 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. New 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. 2011a. Explicitation 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
. 2011b. “When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study.” Target 23 (1): 26–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1991. The Language of News Media. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Language and the media.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15: 23–41. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1991. Translation 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analyzing 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1989. “A typology of English texts.” Linguistics 27 (1): 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “On the complexity of discourse complexity: a multi-dimensional analysis.” Discourse Processes 15 (2): 133–163. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 1995. Cross-linguistic Patterns of Register Variation: a Multi-dimensional Comparison of English, Tuvaluan, Korean, and Somali. Cambridge, England and New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bielsa, Esperança. 2007. “Translation in global news agencies.” Target 19 (1): 135–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Cosmopolitanism, translation and the experience of the foreign.” Across Languages and Cultures 11 (2): 161–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bielsa, Esperança, and Susan Bassnett. 2009. Translation 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. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, James Dean. 1991. Understanding Research in Second Languaga Learning. A Teacher’s Guide to Statistics and Research Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Callow, Kathleen. 1974. Discourse 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. C. 1965/2000. A 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
1994. Discourse, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The Memes of Translation. The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 2001. Hypotheses 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla, and Robert B. Kaplan. eds. 1987. Writing 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. 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. 1983. Strategies 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams 1987. On the Definition of Word. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Clefts in translation between English and German.” Target 11 (2): 289–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Parametrized beginnings of sentences in English and German.” Across Languages and Cultures 4 (1): 19–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doorslaer, Luc van 2010a. “The double extension of translation in the journalistic field.” Across Language and Cultures 11 (2): 175–188. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2003. Explicitation 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
. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Peter. 1997/2003. Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Fedorov, A. V. 1953. Vegyenyije v tyeoriju perevoda. Moscow: Izd. Lityeraturi na inosztrannih jazikah.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Aline, and John W. Schwieter. eds. 2015. Psycolinguistic 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves, and Luc van Doorslaer. eds. 2009. The Metalanguage of Translation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garnham, Alan. 1985. Psycholinguistics: Central Topics. London and Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gayor, Helén Ronini. 2008. Rhetorical 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. 2012. A 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. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. ed. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: a Quantitative Cross-language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Syntax. A Functional-typological Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Syntax. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. Syntax. An Introduction. Vol. I. Revised edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Syntax. An Introduction. Vol. II. Revised edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, Henrik. 2010. “Multilingual translation vs. English-fits-all in South African media.” Across Languages and Cultures 11 (2): 189–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanna. 1995. “A pragmatic classification of LSP texts in science and technology.” Target 7 (2): 305–326. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1996. Theory 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. 1976. Cohesion in Literary Texts: a Study of some Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1968. “The users and uses of language.” in Reading in the Sociology of Language, ed. by Joshua A. Fishman, 139–169. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London and Boston: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1978. Language and Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London and Boston: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1989. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruquaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1989. Language, 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. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 2004. “The cognitive basis of translation universals.” Target 15 (2): 197–241. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason 1990. Discourse 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
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. On 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
1990. Literature and Cognition. Lecture Notes, Number 21. Center for the Study of Language and Information. Leland Stanford Junior University.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 2004. Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jabr, Abdul-Fattah M. 2001. “Arab translators’ problems at the discourse level.” Babel 47 (4): 304–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 1993. “Translation as textual (re)production.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 2: 155–165. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 2006. The Contribution of Reference and Co-reference to Cohesion. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Johns, Tim. 1991. It 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Robert B. 1966. “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education.” Language Learning 16: 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Károly, Krisztina. 2002. Lexical Repetition in Text. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2007. Szövegtan és fordítás. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013c. “News discourse in translation: Topical structure and news content in the analytical news article.” META 57 (4): 884–908. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, Walter. 1998. Comprehension. 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
. 1987. Fordítás és aktuális tagolás. Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 123. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 1994. A 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
. 2003. Languages 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2001. “Discourse in cognitive grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2): 143–188. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Cher-leng. 1993. “Translating zero anaphoric subjects into English.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 1993 (1): 47–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Limon, David. 2004. “Translating news genres between Slovene and English: An analytical framework.” Across Languages and Cultures 5 (1): 43–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1991. Translation 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. 2003. Cross-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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 2005. RST – Rhetorical Structure Theory. Available at [URL]
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1986. “Relational propositions in discourse.” Discourse Processes 9 (1): 37–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. “Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James Robert. 1992. English Text. System and Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian, and Adriana Şerban. 2003. “Deixis as an interactive feature in literary translation from Romanian into English.” Target 15 (2): 269–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael, and Ronald Carter. 1994. Language 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. ed. 1995. Functional 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. 1963. Les 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht. 1985. Text and Translation (Übersetzungswissenschaftliche Beiträge 8). Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht, and Gregory M. Shreve. 1992. Translation as Text. Kent: The Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1981/1988. Approaches to Translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Norberg, Ulf. 2003. Übersetzen mit doppeltem Skopos. Eine empirische Prozess- und Produktstudie. [= Studia Germanica Uppsaliensia 42]. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity – Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Oakhill, Jane, and Alan Garnham. 1988. Becoming a Skilled Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Orozco, Mariana, and Amparo Hurtado Albir. 2002. “Measuring translation competence acquisition.” META 47 (3): 375–402. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1988. Text 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. 1976. Dictionary 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. 1963. Conjectures 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.. 1950. O zakonomernih szootvetsztvijah pri perevogye na rodnoj jazik. In Voproszi tyeorii i metogyiki ucsebnovo perevoda. Moscow: Izd. Akademii pedagogischeskicseszkih nauk.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina. 1976. Texttyp und Übersetzungsmethode. Der Operative Text. Kronberg: Scriptor.Google Scholar
. 2000. Translation Criticism – The Potentials and Limitations. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Linguistische Arbeiten 147]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renkema, Jan. 2004. Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, Dudley. W. 1995. “Repetition in nonnative speaker writing: More than quantity.” Studies on Second Language Acquisition 17 (2): 185–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna. 1998. Translatorische 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 [URL] DOI logo
Rogers, Margaret. 1997. “Synonymy and equivalence in special-language texts.” in Text Typology and Translation, ed. by Anna Trosborg, 217–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Structuring information in English: A specialist translation perspective on sentence beginnings.” The Translator 12 (1): 29–64. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan C. 1997. “Text types and translation.” in Text Typology and Translation, ed. by Anna Trosborg, 25–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. “What distinguishes major types of translation?” The Translator 4 (1): 69–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman. 1992. “Toward a raxonomy of coherence relations.” Discourse Processes 15 (1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seguinot, Candace. 1988. “Pragmatics and the explicitation hypothesis.” TTR: Traduction, Terminolgie, Redaction 1 (2): 106–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, Larry, R. M. Todd Trimble, and Louis Trimble. 1976. “Presuppositional rhetorical information in EST discourse.” TESOL Quarterly 10 (3): 281–290. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shuttleworth, Mark, and Moira Cowie. 1997. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Sidiropoulou, Maria. 1995a. “Headlining in translation: English vs. Greek press.” Target 7 (2): 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995b. “Causal shifts in news reporting: English vs. Greek press.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 3 (1): 83–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Quantities in translation: English vs. Greek press.” Target 10 (2): 319–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: an Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1998. Handbuch Translation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szilágyi, N. Sándor. 1980. Magyar nyelvtan. Bucharest: Editura Didactica Si Pedagogica.Google Scholar
Taboada, Maria Teresa. 2004. Building Coherence and Cohesion. Task-oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maria Teresa, and William C. Mann. 2006a. “Rhetorical Structure Theory: looking back and moving ahead.” Discourse Studies 8 (3): 423–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. “Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory.” Discourse Studies 8 (4): 567–588. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1985. Argumentative 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tolcsvai Nagy, Gábor. 1998. A 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
. 2001. A magyar nyelv szövegtana. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
. 2005. A Cognitive Theory of Style. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. ed. 2006. Szöveg és típus. Szövegtipológiai tanulmányok. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
. 2011. Coherence 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. 1977. Translational Norms and Literary Translation into Hebrew, 1930–1945. Tel Aviv University: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
. 1980. In 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
. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Törkenczy, Miklós. 1997. Hungarian Verbs and Essentials of Grammar. A Practical Guide to the Essentials of Hungarian. Budapest: Corvina.Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. ed. 1997. Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valdeón, Roberto A. 2005. “The ‘translated’ Spanish service of the BBC.” Across Languages and Cultures 6 (2): 195–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. “Euronews in translation: Constructing a European perspective of/for the world.” Forum 7 (1): 123–153. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
guest ed. 2012. Journalism and translation. META 57 (4).Google Scholar
2015. “Fifteen years of journalistic translation research and more.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 23 (4): 634–662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri. 1989. Quasi-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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 1958. Stylistique 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
. 1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. (J. C. Sager és M. J. Hamel ford.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werlich, Egon. 1976. A Text Grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle  Meyer.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry Great. 1978. Language Teaching as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Accountability in translation within and beyond the sentence as the key functional UT: Three case studies.” META 50 (1): 312–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar