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.
1990Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. Oxford: Freeman.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1992A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona
1992In 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
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. 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. 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.
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 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
1995Cross-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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla
1996Contrastive Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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. 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
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. 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. 2009The Metalanguage of Translation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
ed. 1983Topic Continuity in Discourse: a Quantitative Cross-language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984Syntax. A Functional-typological Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001aSyntax. An Introduction. Vol. I. Revised edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001bSyntax. 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
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. 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
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. 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
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
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
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
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
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. 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
2006The Contribution of Reference and Co-reference to Cohesion. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Robert B.
1966 “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education.” Language Learning 16: 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Károly, Krisztina
2002Lexical Repetition in Text. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2007Szövegtan 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
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. 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
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
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
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. 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.
2005RST – 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
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. 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
1992English Text. System and Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian, and Adriana Şerban
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. 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
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]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renkema, Jan
2004Introduction 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
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 [URL] doi: 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
1997Dictionary 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
1988Translation 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. 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. 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.
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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 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
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. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 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
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. 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
1976A Text Grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle  Meyer.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry Great
1978Language 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
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