Models in Translation Studies

Andrew Chesterman

Table of contents

A model can be defined as a kind of empirical theory which aims to show some kind of isomorphic relation with its object. A model offers a simplified representation of what are believed to be the essential features of the object. Good models not only describe their object accurately, but also incorporate or generate possible explanations, and predictions that can be tested. A good example of a powerful predictive model is Mendeleev's one of the periodic table of the chemical elements, which he developed around 1870. His table had gaps which the model predicted would be filled by elements that would be discovered later. This prediction eventually came true, which was powerful evidence that the explanatory principles on which the table was based were correct.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Alvstad, Cecilia, Hild, Adelina & Tiselius, Elisabet
(eds) 2011Methods and Strategies of Process Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Catford, John C
1965A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1998“Causes, translations, effects.” Target 10 (2): 201–230. Crossref logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
2000“A causal model for Translation Studies.” In Intercultural Faultlines, Maeve Olohan (ed.), 15–27. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.  TSBGoogle Scholar
2013 “Models of what processes?” In Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and events, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, Séverine Hubscher-Davidson & Ulf Norberg (eds), 155-168. Special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2) .. Crossref logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2005Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Aline & Schweite, John W
(eds) In press. Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Garcia-Landa, Mariano
1990“A general theory of translation (and of language).” Meta 35 (3): 476–488. Crossref logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August
2000Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa
2008Translating Institutions. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Leppihalme, Ritva
1997Culture Bumps. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene A
1964Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1991Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
(ed.) 2000Intercultural Faultlines. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1998Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan C
1994Language Engineering and Translation – Consequences of automation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995/2012Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2002“What's the problem with ‘translation problem’?” In Translation and Meaning 6, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcel Thelen (eds), 57–71. Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd.Google Scholar