Article published in:
Vol. 24:2 (2012) ► pp. 203224


Baker, Mona
1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies. Implications and Applications.” In Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 222 ]
1996 “Corpus-Based Translation Studies: The Challenges that Lie Ahead.” In Terminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, ed. by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Shahar, Rina
1994 “Translating Literary Dialogue: A Problem and its Implications for Translation into Hebrew.” Target 6 (2): 195–212.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, and Adriano Ferraresi
2011 “Practice, Description and Theory Come Together: Normalization or Interference in Italian Technical Translation?Meta 56 (2): 226–246.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bush, Peter
2001 “Literary Translation — Practices.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 127–130. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1997Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, Isabelle Delaere, and Koen Plevoets
2012 “Lexical Lectometry in Corpusbased Translation Studies. Combining Profile-based Correspondence Analysis and Logistic Regression Modelling.” In Quantitative Methods in Corpus-based Translation Studies. A Practical Guide to Descriptive Translation Research, ed. by Michael P. Oakes and Ji Meng, 325–345. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers, and Dirk Speelman
1999Convergentie en divergentie in de nederlandse woordenschat. Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Greenacre, Michael
2007Correspondence Analysis in Practice 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy
1998 “Creatures of Habit? What Translators Usually do with Words.” Meta 43 (4): 515–523.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “Lexical Hide-and-Seek: Looking for Creativity in a Parallel Corpus.” In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 93–104. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Landauer, Thomas, and Susan Dumais
1997 “A Solution to Plato’s Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and the Representation of Knowledge.” Psychological Review 104 (2): 211–240.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macken, Lieve, Orphée De Clercq, and Hans Paulussen
2011 “Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Copyright-Cleared Parallel Corpus.” Meta 56 (2): 374–390.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten
1997 “Punctuation in Hans Christian Andersen’s Stories and in their Translations into English.” In Nonverbal Communication and Translation, ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 151–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
2008 “Universal Tendencies in Translation.” In Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, ed. by Gunilla Anderman and Margaret Rogers, 32–48. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
May, Rachel
1997 “Sensible Elocution: How Translation Works in & upon Punctuation.” The Translator 3 (1): 1–20.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, Stella
2011Contrastive Register Variation. A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
2008 “Scientific and Technical Translation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Second Edition, ed. by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 240–43. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve, and Mona Baker
2000 “Reporting that in Translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 141–158.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 223 ]
Øverås, Linn
1998 “In Search of the Third Code. An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.” Meta 43 (4): 557–570.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Penninckx, Willy, Paul Buyse, and Willy Smedts
2001Correct taalgebruik. Kortrijk-Heule: UGA.Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen
2008Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch–Nederlands. Doctoral dissertation. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.Google Scholar
In progress “The Correspondence Analysis of Linguistic Profiles.”Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen, Dirk Speelman, and Dirk Geeraerts
2007 “The Distribution of t/v Pronouns in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch.” In Variational Pragmatics, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider and Anne Barron, 181–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Puurtinen, Tiina
2003 “Genre-specific Features of Translationese? Linguistic Differences between Translated and Non-translated Finnish Children’s Literature.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 18 (4): 389–406.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2008 “On Toury’s Laws of how Translators Translate.” In Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Investigations in Honor of Gideon Toury, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reiczigel, Jeno
1996 “Bootstrap Tests in Correspondence Analysis.” Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis 12 (2): 107–117.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salton, Gerard, Andrew Wong, and Chung-Shu Yang
1975 “A Vector Space Model for Automatic Indexing.” Communications of the ACM 18 (1): 613–620.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Nelia
1998Normalisation and Readers’ Expectations: A Study of Literary Translation with Reference to Lispector’s A Hora Da Estrela. Doctoral dissertation. University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers, and Dirk Geeraerts
2003 “Profile-based Linguistic Uniformity as a Generic Method for Comparing Language Varieties.” Computers and the Humanities 37 (3): 317–337.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Erich
2001 “Translations English-German: Investigating the Relative Importance of Systemic Contrasts and of the Text Type ‘translation’.” SPRIKreports 7: 1–49.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dominic
2000 “Conventionality, Creativity, and Translated Text: The Implications of Electronic Corpora in Translation.” In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 73–91. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Strang, Gilbert
2009Introduction to Linear Algebra. Wellesley: Wellesley-Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Teich, Elke
2003Cross-linguistic Variation in System and Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria
1985Dutch Novels Translated into English: The Transformation of a “Minority” Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 15 other publications

Alasmri, Ibrahim & Haidee Kruger
2018. Conjunctive markers in translation from English to Arabic: a corpus-based study. Perspectives 26:5  pp. 767 ff. Crossref logo
Cvrček, Václav & Lucie Chlumská
2015. Simplification in translated Czech: a new approach to type-token ratio. Russian Linguistics 39:3  pp. 309 ff. Crossref logo
Dybiec-Gajer, Joanna
2017. Looby, Robert. 2015. Censorship, Translation and English Language Fiction in People’s Poland. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 29:2  pp. 344 ff. Crossref logo
Frankenberg-Garcia, Ana
2019. A corpus study of splitting and joining sentences in translation. Corpora 14:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2015. Cognitive Translation Studies and the merging of empirical paradigms. Translation Spaces 4:2  pp. 310 ff. Crossref logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2017.  In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition,  pp. 193 ff. Crossref logo
Kruger, Haidee & Bertus van Rooy
2016. Constrained language. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 37:1  pp. 26 ff. Crossref logo
Kruger, Haidee & Bertus van Rooy
2016. Syntactic and pragmatic transfer effects in reported-speech constructions in three contact varieties of English influenced by Afrikaans. Language Sciences 56  pp. 118 ff. Crossref logo
Paulussen, Hans, Lieve Macken, Willy Vandeweghe & Piet Desmet
2013.  In Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch [Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing, ],  pp. 185 ff. Crossref logo
Prieels, Lynn & Gert De Sutter
2018. Between language policy and language reality: a corpus-based multivariate study of the interlingual and intralingual subtitling practice in Flanders. Perspectives 26:3  pp. 322 ff. Crossref logo
Redelinghuys, Karien & Haidee Kruger
2015. Using the features of translated language to investigate translation expertise. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20:3  pp. 293 ff. Crossref logo
Ruette, Tom, Katharina Ehret & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2016. A lectometric analysis of aggregated lexical variation in written Standard English with Semantic Vector Space models. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21:1  pp. 48 ff. Crossref logo
Sutter, Gert, Patrick Goethals, Torsten Leuschner & Sonia Vandepitte
2012. Towards methodologically more rigorous corpus-based translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures 13:2  pp. 137 ff. Crossref logo
Vandevoorde, Lore
2019. Register, Source Language, and Cognateness Effects on Lexical Choice in Translated Dutch. Meta 63:3  pp. 627 ff. Crossref logo
Vandevoorde, Lore, Els Lefever, Koen Plevoets & Gert De Sutter
2017. A corpus-based study of semantic differences in translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 29:3  pp. 388 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 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.