Article published in:
Target
Vol. 21:2 (2009) ► pp. 235264
References

References

Bell, Roger T.
1991Translation and Translating. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynne
2001 “Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 345–364.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Deborah
1996 “A Model of Translation Proficiency”. Target 8:2. 325–340.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, John B.
1966 “An Experiment in Evaluating the Quality of Translations”. Mechanical Translation 9:3–4. 55–66.Google Scholar
Colina, Sonia
2003Teaching Translation: From Research to the Classroom. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
2008 “Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical evidence for a Functionalist Approach”. The Translator 14:1. 97–134.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun
2001 “Equivalence Parameters and Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 227–242.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
1997The Translator as Communicator. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans
1997 “Positions, Power and Practice: Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment”. Current issues in language and society 4:1. 6–34.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
House, Julianne
1997Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2001 “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation”. Meta 46:2. 243–257.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lauscher, S.
2000 “Translation Quality-Assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice Meet?”. The Translator 6:2. 149–168.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht
1985Text und Translation. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene
1964Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene and Charles Taber
1969The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
[ p. 257 ]
Nord, Christianne
1997Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
PACTE
2008 “First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment: ‘Knowledge of Translation’ and ‘Efficacy of the Translation Process”. John Kearns, ed. Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates. London and New York: Continuum 2008 104–126.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina
1971Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der übersetungskritik. München: Hüber.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina and Vermeer, Hans
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations-Theorie. Tübingen: Niemayer.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van den Broeck, Raymond
1985 “Second Thoughts on Translation Criticism. A Model of its Analytic Function”. Theo Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm 1985 54–62.Google Scholar
Williams, Malcolm
2001 “The Application of Argumentation Theory to Translation Quality Assessment”. Meta 46:2. 326–344.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentation-Centered Approach, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 258 ]
Cited by

Cited by 24 other publications

No author info given
2017.  In Crowdsourcing and Online Collaborative Translations [Benjamins Translation Library, 131], Crossref logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3  pp. 322 ff. Crossref logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.  In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 61 ff. Crossref logo
Amini, Mojtaba
2018. How to evaluate the TEFL students’ translations: through analytic, holistic or combined method?. Language Testing in Asia 8:1 Crossref logo
Casado Valenzuela, Alicia
2018. Towards a Japanese video game localization quality analysis model. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 5:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Colina, Sonia
2011.  In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 2],  pp. 43 ff. Crossref logo
Colina, Sonia
2012.  In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Crossref logo
Colina, Sonia, Nicole Marrone, Maia Ingram & Daisey Sánchez
2017. Translation Quality Assessment in Health Research: A Functionalist Alternative to Back-Translation. Evaluation & the Health Professions 40:3  pp. 267 ff. Crossref logo
Depraetere, Ilse & Ilse Depraetere
2011.  In Perspectives on Translation Quality,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Desjardins, Renée
2017.  In Translation and Social Media,  pp. 95 ff. Crossref logo
Groves, Michael & Klaus Mundt
2015. Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes 37  pp. 112 ff. Crossref logo
Han, Chao
2020. Translation quality assessment: a critical methodological review. The Translator 26:3  pp. 257 ff. Crossref logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2017. How much would you like to pay? Reframing and expanding the notion of translation quality through crowdsourcing and volunteer approaches. Perspectives 25:3  pp. 478 ff. Crossref logo
Kuznetsova, Irina Aleksandrovna
2019. VOLUNTEER TRANSLATION IN MODERN TRANSLATION ACTIVITY: STUDY OF <i>TED: OPEN TRANSLATION PROJECT</i>. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice :8  pp. 249 ff. Crossref logo
Leiva Rojo, Jorge & Peter Stanley Fosl
2018. Phraseology as indicator for translation quality assessment of museum texts: A corpus-based analysis. Cogent Arts & Humanities 5:1  pp. 1442116 ff. Crossref logo
Martínez Mateo, Roberto, Silvia Montero Martínez & Arsenio Jesús Moya Guijarro
2017. The Modular Assessment Pack: a new approach to translation quality assessment at the Directorate General for Translation. Perspectives 25:1  pp. 18 ff. Crossref logo
Salmi, Leena & Tuija Kinnunen
2015. Training translators for accreditation in Finland. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9:2  pp. 229 ff. Crossref logo
Tang, Jun
2020. Graduate-level career preparation for Chinese translation students: a perspective of educational ergonomics. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4  pp. 405 ff. Crossref logo
Taylor, Rachel M., Nicola Crichton, Beki Moult & Faith Gibson
2015. A prospective observational study of machine translation software to overcome the challenge of including ethnic diversity in healthcare research. Nursing Open 2:1  pp. 14 ff. Crossref logo
Ustaszewski, Michael
2014. An der Schnittstelle von Translations- und Interkomprehensionsdidaktik. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 26:3  pp. 432 ff. Crossref logo
van Egdom, Gys-Walt, Heidi Verplaetse, Iris Schrijver, Hendrik J. Kockaert, Winibert Segers, Jasper Pauwels, Bert Wylin & Henri Bloemen
2019.  In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ],  pp. 26 ff. Crossref logo
van Rensburg, Alta, Cobus Snyman & Susan Lotz
2012. Applying Google Translate in a higher education environment: Translation products assessed. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30:4  pp. 511 ff. Crossref logo
Zlatnar Moe, Marija, Tamara Mikolic Juznic & Tanja Žigon
2015. I know languages, therefore, I can translate?. Translation and Interpreting Studies 10:1  pp. 87 ff. Crossref logo
Zlatnar Moe, Marija, Tamara Mikolic Juznic & Tanja Žigon
2017.  In Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy in Dialogue with Other Disciplines [Benjamins Current Topics, 90],  pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.