Chapter published in:
Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics
Edited by Istvan Kecskes and Stavros Assimakopoulos
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 274] 2017
► pp. 255271
References
Austin, John L.
1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Batsalia, Friederike
1997Der Semiotische Rhombus. Ein Handlungstheoretisches Konzept zu einer Konfrontativen Pragmatik. Athen: Praxis Verlag.Google Scholar
Bild
2010 “Ihr griecht nix von uns!” 5/3/10. Available at: http://​www​.bild​.de​/politik​/wirtschaft​/griechenland​/keine​-hilfe​-fuer​-griechen​-11706824​.bild​.html (accessed: 26 February 2016)
Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen
1971 “Constants across Cultures in the Face and Emotion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17: 124–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Doris
1996 “Zum Übersetzen von Kulturspezifika in Fachtexten.” In Übersetzerische Kompetenz, ed. by Andreas F. Kelletat, 63–78. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Kuβmaul, Paul
1995Training the Translator. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Löwe, Barbara
1990 “Funktionsgerechte Kulturkompetenz von Translatoren: Desiderata an eine universitäre Ausbildung (am Beispiel des Russischen).” In Interkulturelle Kommunikation: Kongressbeiträge zur 20. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik GAL e. V. 1990, ed. by Bernd Spillner, 89–91. Frankfurt am Main / Bern / New York / Paris: Lang.Google Scholar
1994 “Welches Kulturwissen Braucht der Translator, und Wie Soll er es Erwerben?TextconText 9: 13–21.Google Scholar
2002 “Translatorische Kulturkompetenz: Inhalte – Erwerb – Besonderheiten.” In Übersetzen und Dolmetschen: Eine Orientierungshilfe, ed. by Johanna Best, and Sylvia Kalina, 148–161. Tübingen / Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
Maas, Utz, and Dieter Wunderlich
1976Pragmatik und sprachliches Handeln. Mit einer Kritik am Funkkolleg „Sprache”. Frankfurt am Main: Athenaion Verlag.Google Scholar
Maletzke, Gerhard
1996Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Zur Interaktion zwischen Menschen verschiedener Kulturen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag GMBH.Google Scholar
Poyatos, Fernando
1987 “Nonverbal Communication in Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation: A Theoretical Model and New Perspectives.” In Textcontext 2: 73–108.Google Scholar
1992a “The Audible-visible Approach to Speech as Basic to Nonverbal Communication Research.” In Advances in Non-Verbal Communication: Sociocultural, Clinical, Estetic and Literary Perspectives, ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 41–57. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992b “Paralanguage and Quasiparalinguistic Sounds as a Concern of Literary Analysis.” In Advances in Non-Verbal Communication: Sociocultural, Clinical, Estetic and Literary Perspectives, ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 301–319. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994a “Paralanguage and Extrasomatic and Environmental Sounds in Literary Translation: Perspectives and Problems.” TextconText 10: 25–45.Google Scholar
1994b “Kinesics and Other Visual Signs in Literary Translation: Perspectives and Problems.” In Textcontext 10: 121–144.Google Scholar
1997 “The Reality of Multichannel Verbal-nonverbal Communication in Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation.” In Nonverbal Communication and Translation. New Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media, ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 249–282. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reiβ, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer
1991Grundlegung Einer Allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Scherner, Maximilian
1984Sprache als Text. Ansätze zu einer Sprachwissenschaftlich Begründeten Theorie des Textverstehens: Forschungsgeschichte-Problemstellung-Beschreibung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seel, Olaf I
2004 “Η γραμμικότητα παραγλωσσικών μέσων ως πολιτισμικό πρόβλημα για τη μετάφραση” [The linearity of paralinguistic means as a culture-specific problem for translation]. In Μεταφράζοντας στον 21ο αιώνα: Τάσεις και προοπτικές [Translating in the 21st century: Tendencies and perspectives], ed. by Γιώργος Ανδρουλάκης 495–503. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
Seel, Olaf I.
2005 “Non-verbal Means as Culture-specific Determinants that Favour Directionality into the Foreign Language in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Communication & Cognition 38: 63–82.Google Scholar
2008Translation Kultureller Repertoires im Zeitalter der Globalisierung: Tendenzen, Möglichkeiten und Perspektiven Translatorischen Handelns im Zeichen einer 'Zweiten Kulturellen Wende’, Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Seel, Olaf I
2009 “Πολιτισμικοπραγματολογικές προϋποθέσεις και μετάφραση [Culture-pragmatic presuppositions and translation].” Dictio 2: 259–274.Google Scholar
2014 “Neologisms of Everyday Language as Challenge for Quality in Multilingual Term Bases: A Contrastive Culture-pragmatic Approach on the Basis of “The Greek Crisis Multilingual Term Project (GCMTP)” and of the Language Pairs Greek/German and Greek/English.” In Proceedings of the 6th Riga Symposium on Pragmatic Aspects of Translation, January 30–31, 2014, ed. by Gunta Ločmele, and Andrejs Veisbergs. The University of Latvia Press, 71–81.Google Scholar
Seel, Olaf I.
2015 “Intercultural Pragmatics and Text Typology: An Integrated Approach to Translation Teaching.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching Methods in Language Translation and Interpretation, ed. by Cui Ying, and Wei Zhao, 119–219. Hershey: IGI Global. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J.
1992 “Describing Nonverbal Behaviour in the Odyssey: Scenes and Verbal Frames as Translation Problems.” In Advances in Non-Verbal Communication: Sociocultural, Clinical, Estetic and Literary Perspectives, ed. by Fernanado Poyatos, 285–299. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viaggio, Sergio
1997 “Kinesics and the Simultaneous Interpreter: The Advantages of Listening with one’s Eyes and Speaking with one’s Body.” In Nonverbal Communication and Translation: New Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media, ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 283–293. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Witte, Heidrun
1987 “Die Kulturkompetenz des Translators – Theoretisch-abstrakter Begriff oder Realisierbares Konzept?TextconText 2: 109–136.Google Scholar
1996 “Contrastive Culture Learning in Translator Training.” In Papers from the Third Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark 9–11 June 1995: Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. New Horizons, ed. by Cay Dollerup, and Vibeke Appel, 75–79. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “Die Rolle der Kulturkompetenz.” In Handbuch Translation, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Hans G. Hönig, Paul Kußmaul, and Peter A. Schmitt, 345–348. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2000Die Kulturkompetenz des Translators: Begriffliche Grundlegung und Didaktisierung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar