Various labels have been used to describe the relationship between the source text and the target text, often in a binary opposition, such as literal translation vs. free translation, or word-for-word translation vs. sense-for-sense translation. With the development of more systematic, or ‘scientific’, reflections about translation in the second half of the 20th century, the concept of ‘equivalence’ was most frequently used to account for this relationship. What equivalence-based theories have in common is the attempt to define which texts are related to a source text by a translation relation and thus find criteria to set translation apart from other forms of secondary, or text-based text production (cf. Koller 1995).
2007“Reframing conflict in translation.”Social Semiotics 17 (2): 151–169 TSB
1987Norms of Language. London: Longman.
1992“Didactic and Pedagogic Tendencies in the Norms Dictating the Translation of Children’s Literature: The Case of Postwar German-Hebrew Translations.”Poetics Today 13 (1): 198–221
1994The Location of Culture. London & New York: Routledge.
1997Memes of Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John BenjaminsTSB
1999“Description, explanation, prediction: A response to Gideon Toury & Theo Hermans.” In Translation and norms, Christina Schäffner (ed.), 91–97. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
2006“A note on norms and evidence.” In Translation and interpreting – training and research,Jorma Tommola & Yves Gambier (eds), 13–19. Turku: University of Turku, Department of English Translation Studies. TSB
de Geest, Dirk
1992“The notion of ‘system’: Its theoretical importance and its methodological implications for a functionalist translation theory.” In Geschichte, System, Literarische Űbersetzung/Histories, Systems, Literary Translations, Harald Kittel (ed.), 32–45. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
1978Papers in historical poetics. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. TSB
1999“Translation and normativity.” In Translation and norms, Christina Schäffner (ed.), 50–71. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. TSB
1988Translated! Papers on literary translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. BoP
1995“The concept of equivalence and the object of Translation Studies.”Target 7 (2): 191–222 TSB
2008“Description in the translation classroom: Universals as a case in point.” In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury, Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, Daniel Simeoni (eds), 119–132. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John BenjaminsTSB
Mauranen, Anna & Kujamäki, Pekka
(eds)2004Translation Universals. Do they exist?Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John BenjaminsBoP
2008“Translators and (their) norms: Towards a sociological construction of the individual.” In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury, Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, Daniel Simeoni (eds), 91–102. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John BenjaminsTSB
Reiss, Katharina & Vermeer, Hans J
1991Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: NiemeyerBoP
(ed.)1999Translation and norms. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. BoP
2005“How to be a (recognized) translator: Rethinking habitus, norms, and the field of translation.”Target 17 (1): 1–26 BoP
1998“The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus.”Target 10 (1): 1–39 TSB
1980In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. TSB
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John BenjaminsBoP
1999“A Handful of Paragraphs on ‘Translation’ and ‘Norms’.” In Translation and norms, Christina Schäffner (ed.), 9–31. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. TSB