Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T12:27:36.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Context in Translation and Interpreting Studies

from Part IV - Applications of Context Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2023

By
Luis Pérez-González
Edited by
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Get access

Summary

This chapter explores how scholarly thinking on context has informed research and disciplinary discourses in translation and interpreting studies. It begins with an historical overview of the contribution that linguistics made to the emergence, development, and consolidation of translation and interpreting studies as a self-standing discipline between the late 1940s and the late 1980s. Since the early 1990s, previous theorizations of translation and interpreting as forms of mediation positing the essential determinacy of meaning have been superseded by a range of academic perspectives that study how translators and interpreters exercise their professional judgment in context. These range from cognitive approaches exploring how participants in each communicative encounter come to share and make use of a given set of contextual assumptions, to conceptions of context as a field of power play where participants’ identities are dynamically negotiated. This exploration is illustrated with examples from different domains of translation and interpreting research to foreground the breadth of theoretical and methodological orientations that converge within the discipline.

Keywords

translation studiessocial perspectives on contextcognitive perspectives on contextstatic perspectives on contextdynamic perspectives on contextneutral perspectives on contextpower-sensitive perspectives on context
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 371 - 392
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alkroud, E. (2018). Renarrating the Berbers in three Amazigh translations of the Holy Quran: Paratextual and framing strategies. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Arias, A. (2007). Taking Their Word: Literature and the Signs of Central America, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2003). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In Baker, M., Francis, G., and Tognini–Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and Technology (pp. 233–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2005). Linguistic models and methods in the study of translation. In Kittel, H., Frank, A. P., Greiner, N., Hermans, T., Koller, W., Lambert, J., and Paul, F. (eds.), Übersetzung, Translation, Traduction (pp. 285–294). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2006a). Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (2006b). Contextualization in translator- and interpreter-mediated events. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (2010). Narratives of terrorism and security: “Accurate” translations, suspicious frames. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 3(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (2019). Audiovisual translation and activism. In Pérez-González, L. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Audiovisual Translation (pp. 453–467). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, M., and Pérez-González, L. (2011). Translation and interpreting. In Simpson, J. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics 1st ed. (pp. 39–52). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bao-Rozée, J. (2016). Using multimodal analysis to investigate the role of the interpreter. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Stirling.Google Scholar
Bassi, S. (2015). Italy’s Salman Rushdie: The renarration of “Roberto Saviano” in English for the post-9/11 cultural market. Translation Studies, 8, 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, K. (2018). Translation and Paratexts. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, K. (2022). Translation, media and paratexts. In Bielsa, E. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Translation and Media (pp. 122–135). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bell, R. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Belli, G. (2001). El país bajo mi piel: Memorias de amor y guerra. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Belli, G. (2002). The Country under My Skin: A Memoir of Love and War, trans. K. Cordero and G. Belli. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., Russo, M., Collard, C., and Defrancq, B. (2018). Building Interpreting and Intermodal Corpora. In Russo, M., Bendazzoli, C., and Defrancq, B. (eds.), Making Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies (pp. 21–42). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, S., trans. (1829). The History of Thucydides, Newly Translated into English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boéri, J. (2008). A narrative account of the Babels vs. Naumann controversy: Competing perspectives on activism in conference interpreting. The Translator, 14(1), 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calzada-Pérez, M. (2007). Transitivity in Translating: The Interdependence of Texture and Context. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Casanova, P. (2004). The World Republic of Letters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. (2000). A causal model for translation studies. In Olohan, M. (ed.), Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies (pp. 12–27). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. (2006). Questions in the sociology of translation. In Ferreira Duarte, J., Assis Rosa, A., and Seruya, T. (eds.), Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines (pp. 9–27). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, B. (2002). A model for the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1273–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davitti, E. (2012). Dialogue interpreting as inter-cultural mediation: Integrating talk and gaze in the analysis of mediated parent–teacher meetings. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Davitti, E. (2015). Gaze. In Pöchhacker, F. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies (pp. 168–169). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davitti, E., and Pasquandrea, S. (2017). Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings, Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Inés Antón, T. (2017). Translating Central American life writing for the anglophone market: A socio-narrative study of women’s agency and political radicalism in the original and translated works of Claribel Alegría, Gioconda Belli and Rigoberta Menchú, Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Desilla, L. (2012). Implicatures in film: Construal and functions in Bridget Jones romantic comedies, Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desilla, L. (2014). Reading between the lines, seeing beyond the images: An empirical study on the comprehension of implicit film dialogue meaning across cultures. The Translator, 20(2), 194–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirdal, H. (2014). Individual variation between translators in the use of clause building and clause reduction. Corpus-Based Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 6(1), 119–142.Google Scholar
Diriker, E. (2004). De-/Re-contextualising Simultaneous Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analysing Talk at Work: An Introduction. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S., Picci, G., and Baroni, M. (2010). Web corpora for bilingual lexicography: A pilot study of English–French collocation extraction and translation. In Xiao, R. (ed.), Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (pp. 337–359). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Fonseca, N. B. (2015). Directionality in translation: Investigating prototypical patterns in editing procedures. Translation and Interpreting, 7(1), 111–125.Google Scholar
Fryer, L. (2019). Psycholinguistics and perception in audiovisual translation. In Pérez-González, L. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Audiovisual Translation. (pp. 209–224). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gambier, Y. (2006). Pour une socio-traduction. In Ferreira Duarte, J., Assis Rosa, A., and Seruya, T. (eds.), Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines (pp. 29–42). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1987). Seuils. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, trans. J. E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York: Harper Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. 1992). Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 229–253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gutt, E. A. (2000). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, 2nd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2017). Developing a cognitive semantic model: Magnetism, gravitational pull, and questions of data and method. In de Sutter, G., Lefer, M.-A., and Delaere, I. (eds.), Empirical Translation Studies: New Methods and Theoretical Traditions (pp. 9–45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harding, S.-A. (2012). Beslan: Six Stories of the Siege. Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Hatim, B., and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hatim, B., and Mason, I. (1997). The Translator as Communicator. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hill, H. (2007). The Bible at Cultural Crossroads: From Translation to Communication, Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Hermans, T., ed. (1985). The Manipulation of Literature. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hermans, T. (1996). The translator’s voice in translated narrative. Target, 8(1), 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (1977/1981). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. (2017). Eye tracking in translation process research. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 248–264). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1964). Toward ethnographies of communicative events. American Anthropologist, 66, 12–25; repr. in Giglioli, P., ed. (1972). Language and Social Context (pp. 21–44). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. (1999). Tapping the Process: An Explorative Study on the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating. University of Joensuu Publications in the Humanities 22, Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. (2006). Research methods in translation–translog. In Kirk, P., Sullivan, H., and Lindgren, E. (eds.), Computer Keystroke Logging: Methods and Applications (pp. 95–105). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jones, H. (2019). Shifting characterizations of the “common people” in Modern English retranslations of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War: A corpus-based analysis, Palgrave Communications, 5(135). DOI:10.1057/s41599-019-0348-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, J.-H. (2007). Recontextualization of news discourse: A case study of translation of news discourse on North Korea. The Translator, 13(2), 219–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. (1998). Equivalence. In Baker, M. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 96–99). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. (2009). Corpora. In Baker, M. and Saldanha, G. (eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd ed. (pp. 59–62). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koskinen, K. (2008). Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation, Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kruger, J.-L. (2012). Making meaning in AVT: Eye tracking and viewer construction of narrative. Perspectives, 20(1), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kübler, N., and Volanschi, A. (2012). Semantic prosody and specialized translation, or how a lexicogrammatical theory of language can help with specialized translation. In Boulton, A., Carter-Thomas, S., and Rowley-Jolivet, E. (eds.), Corpus-Informed Research and Learning in ESP: Issues and Applications (pp. 105–135). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kung, S.-W. (2010). Network and cooperation in translating Taiwanese literature into English. In Fawcett, A., Guadarrama García, K. L., and Hyde Parker, R. (eds.), Translation: Theory and Practice in Dialogue (pp. 164–180). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lacruz, I. (2017). Cognitive effort in translation, editing, and post-editing. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 248–264). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lattimore, S., trans. (1998). Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Laviosa, S. (2002). Corpus-Based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lee, S. (2021). Translating YouTube vlogs for a global audience: Innovative subtitling and community building. International Journal of Cultural Studies. DOI:10.1177/1367877920979717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions. London: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstrom, L. (1992). Context contests: Debatable truth statements on Tanna (Vanuatu). In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 101–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
López-Rodríguez, C. I. (2016). Using corpora in scientific and technical translation training: Resources to identify conventionality and promote creativity. Cadernos de Tradução, 36(1), 88–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Marín Lacarta, M. (2020). Research methodologies, translation. In Baker, M. and Saldanha, G. (eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 3rd ed. (pp. 479–484). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marinetti, C. (2011). Cultural Approaches. In Gambier, Y. and van Dorsaaler, L. (eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. II (pp. 26–30). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mason, I. (1999). Introduction. The Translator, 5(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. (2001). Introduction. In Mason, I., ed., Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting (pp. i–vi). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Mason, I. (2004). Projected and perceived identities in dialogue Interpreting, Paper delivered at the I IATIS Conference: Translation and the Construction of Identity, Seoul, August 12–14, 2004.Google Scholar
Mason, I. (2006). On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting, Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. (2012). Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreter-mediated dialogues. In Baraldi, C. and Gavioli, L. (eds.), Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting (pp. 177‒199). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mason, I., and Stewart, M. (2001). Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In Mason, I. (ed.), Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting (pp. 51–70). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
McDonough Dolmaya, J. (2011). A window into the profession: What translation blogs have to offer translation studies. The Translator, 17(1), 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough Dolmaya, J. (2012). Analysing the crowdsourcing model and its impact on public perceptions of translation, The Translator, 18(2), 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, R. (1999). The gum syndrome: Predicaments in court interpreting, Forensic Linguistics, 6(1), 6–29.Google Scholar
Munday, J. (2009). Issues in translation studies. In Munday, J. (ed.), Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (pp. 1–19). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating, with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A., and Taber, C. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Nord, C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orero, P. (2008). Three different receptions of the same film. European Journal of English Studies, 12, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orero, P., and Vilaró, A. (2012). Eye tracking analysis of minor details in films for audio Description. MonTI, 4, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasquandrea, S. (2011). Managing multiple actions through multimodality: Doctors’ involvement in interpreter-mediated interactions, Language in Society, 40(4), 455-481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-González, L. (2006). Interpreting strategic recontextualization cues in the courtroom: Corpus-based insights into the pragmatic force of non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 390–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-González, L., and Susam-Saraeva, Ş. (2012). Non-professionals translating and interpreting: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. The Translator, 18(2), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-González, L. (2014). Audiovisual Translation: Theories, Methods and Issues. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, L. (2021). Source text readers as censors in the digital age: A paratextual examination of the English translation of Wuhan Diary. Perspectives. DOI:10.1080/0907676X.2021.1939741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, C. (1958). The linguistics of translation. In Smith, A. H. (ed.), Aspects of Translation: Studies in Communication (Vol. II, pp. 123–145). London: Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar
Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Inés, P. (2017). Corpus-based insights into cognition. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 248–264). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roy, C. (2000). Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saldanha, G. (2009). Linguistic approaches. In Baker, M. and Saldanha, G. (eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd ed. (pp. 148–152). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saldanha, G. (2014). Style in, and of, translation. In Berman, S. and Porter, C. (eds.), A Companion to Translation Studies (pp. 95–106). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sapiro, G., ed. (2014). Translation and globalization. Special issue of Bibliodiversity, Journal of Publishing in Globalization, February.Google Scholar
Schäffner, C. (2003). Third ways and centres: Ideological unity or difference? In Calzada Pérez, M. (ed.), Apropos of Ideology: Translation Studies on Ideology. Ideologies in Translation Studies (pp. 23–41). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schäffner, C. (2012). Unknown agents in translated political discourse. Target, 24(1), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweda Nicholson, N. (1994). Professional ethics for court and community interpreters. In Hammond, D. L. (ed.), Professional Issues for Translators and Interpreters (pp. 79–97). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweda Nicholson, N., and Martinsen, B. (1997). Court Interpretation in Denmark. In Carr, S. E., Roberts, R., Dufour, A., and Steyn, D. (eds.), The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 259–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharrock, W., and Anderson, B. (1986). The definition of alternatives: Some sources of confusion in interdisciplinary discussion. In Button, G. and Lee, J. (eds.), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 290–321). Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Slettebakk Berge, S. (2018). How sign language interpreters use multimodal actions to coordinate turn-taking in group work between deaf and hearing upper secondary school students. Interpreting, 20(1), 96–125.Google Scholar
Soffritti, M. (2019). Multimodal corpora and audiovisual translation studies. In Pérez-González, L. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Audiovisual Translation (pp. 334–349). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Szymor, N. (2017). Translation: Universals or cognition? A usage-based perspective. Target, 30(1), 53–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagnin, S. E., and Teixeira, E. D. (2012). Translator-oriented, corpus-driven technical glossaries. Corpora, 7(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesseur, W. (2014). Transformation through translation: Translation policies at Amnesty International. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Aston University.Google Scholar
Torikai, K. (2009). Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in Post-World War II Japan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, M. (2013). Translation theory. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 5928–5937). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001a). Text and context revisited. In Proceedings of the First Seoul International Conference on Discourse and Cognitive Linguistics: Perspectives for the 21st Century, Seoul, June 9–10. Seoul: The Discourse and Cognitive Linguistics Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001b). Discourse, ideology and context. Folia Linguistica, 35, 11–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos and commission in translational action. In Chesterman, A. (ed.), Readings in Translation Theory (pp. 173–187). Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab; repr. in L. Venuti, ed. (2000), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 221–232). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as Interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Watts, R. (2005). Packaging Post/Coloniality: The Manufacture of Literary Identity in the Francophone World. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
Yu, C. (2017). Collaborative translation in online communities of practice: An ethnographic study of Yeeyan. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Hong Kong Baptist University.Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, C. (2020). Research methodologies, interpreting. In Baker, M. and Saldanha, G. (eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 3rd ed. (pp. 474–479). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×