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-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:19:49.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - The Nature of Translation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2022

Edited by
Kirsten Malmkjær
Kirsten Malmkjær
Affiliation:
University of Leicester
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Translation , pp. 11 - 116
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

Bibliography

Adami, E., and Ramos Pinto, S. (forthcoming). Translation and Multimodality. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2006). Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bassnett, S., and Lefevere, A., eds. (1990). Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. (2008). Multimodality and Genre. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Boase-Beier, J. (2010). Who needs theory? In Fawcett, A., Guadarrama García, K. and Hyde Parker, R., eds., Translation: Theory and Practice in Dialogue. London/New York: Continuum, pp. 25–38.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power, trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Catford, I. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chan, L. T.-h., ed. (2004). Twentieth Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues and Debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A., ed. (1989). Readings in Translation Theory. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
Cheung, M., ed. (2006). An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation: From Earliest Times to the Buddhist Project (vol. 1). Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Christensen, T., ed. (2002). The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, M. (2016). Eco-translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dryden, J. ([1680] 1992). Metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation: Extracts of preface to Ovid’s Epistles (1680). In Schulte, R. and Biguenet, J., eds., Theories of Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 17–31.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fedorov, A. V. (1953/2021). Vvedenie v teoriiu perevoda. Trans. and ed. B. J. Baer as Introduction to Translation Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gutt, E. A. (2000). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. 2nd ed. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). Towards a theory of good translation. In Steiner, E. and Yallop, C., eds., Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production: Beyond Content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Matthiessen, C. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.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
Hermans, T., ed. ([1985] 2014). The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hermans, T. (2003). Cross-cultural translation studies as thick translation. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 66(3), 380–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. S. (1988). Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hsu, C. Y., trans. (Autumn 1973). General remarks on translation by Yen Fu (1854–1921). Renditions, 1, 4–6. Available at www.cuhk.edu.hk/rct/pdf/e_outputs/b01/v01p004.pdf.Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2020). Eco-Translatology: Towards an Eco-paradigm of Translation Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In Brower, R., ed., On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 232–9.Google Scholar
Jerome, E. H. (St Jerome) (395 CE). De optime genere interpretandi (Letter 101, to Pammachius), trans. P. Carroll as On the best kind of translator. In Robinson, D., ed. (1997). Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 22–30.Google Scholar
Kim, M., Munday, , J., Wang, Z., and Wang, P., eds. (2021). Systemic Functional Linguistics and Translation Studies. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kress, G., and van Leeuwen, T. (2021). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levý, J. (2011). The Art of Translation, trans. P. Corness, ed. Jettmarová, Z.. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marais, K. (2014). Translation Theory and Development Studies: A Complexity Theory Approach. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marais, K. (2018). A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Socio-cultural Reality. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-Making. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies. 4th ed. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Munday, J., and Zhang, M., eds. (2015). Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies. Special issue of Target, 27(3).Google Scholar
Nida, E., and Taber, C. R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Nord, C. (2003). Function and loyalty in Bible translation. In Calzada-Pérez, M., ed., Apropos of Ideology. Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 89–112.Google Scholar
OED. (n.d.). Entry: ‘theory’. Available at www.oed.com/view/Entry/200431.Google Scholar
Pym, A. (2007). Natural and directional equivalence in theories of translation. Target, 19(2), 271–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pym, A. ([2010] 2014). Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reiss, K., and Vermeer, H. ([1984] 2013). Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained, trans. C. Nord, English reviewed by M. Dudenhöfer. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Robinson, D., ed. (1997). Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Saldanha, G., and O’Brien, S. (2014). Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, F. ([1813] 1992). On the different methods of translating. In Schulte, R. and Biguenet, J., eds., Theories of Translation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 36–54.Google Scholar
Schulte, R., and Biguenet, J., eds. (1992). Theories of Translation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, E. (2004). Translated Text: Properties, Variants, Evaluations (Sabest Saarbrucker Beitrage Zur Sprach- Und Translationswissenschaft 4). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2020). Multimodality and media archaeology: Complementary optics for looking at digital stuff? Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36(2), 482–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toury, G. ([1995] 2012). Descriptive Translation Studies–And Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tytler, A. F. (Lord Woodhouselee). (1797). Essay on the Principles of Translation. Extracted in Robinson, D., ed. (1997). Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 208–12.Google Scholar
Vasserman, E. (forthcoming). The theory of translation by Russian scholar Andrei Fedorov. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Vermeer, H. (1989). Skopos and commission in translation action. In Chesterman, A., ed., Readings in Translation Theory. Helsinki: Finn Lectura, pp. 173–200.Google Scholar

References

Alves, F. (1995). Zwischen Schweigen und Sprechen: Wie bildet sich eine transkulturelle Brücke? Eine psycholinguistisch orientierte Untersuchung von Übersetzungs-vorgängen zwischen portugiesischen und brasilianischen Übersetzern. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
Alves, F., ed. (2003). Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alves, F. (2007). Cognitive effort and contextual effect in translation: A relevance theoretic approach. Journal of Translation Studies, 10(1), 18–35.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Gonçalves, J. L. (2003). A relevance theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes in translation. In Alves, F., ed., Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Gonçalves, J. L. (2015). Investigating the conceptual‐procedural distinction in the translation process: A relevance‐theoretic analysis of micro and macro translation units. In Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Göpferich, S. and O᾽Brien, S., eds., Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–26.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Hurtado Albir, A. (2010). Cognitive approaches. In Gambier, Y. and van Doorslaer, L., eds., The Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 28–35.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Hurtado Albir, A. (2017). Evolution, challenges and perspectives for research on cognitive aspects of translation. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A., eds., The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 537–54.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Vale, D. C. (2009). Probing the unit of translation in time: Aspects of the design and development of a web application for storing, annotating, and querying translation process data. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 251–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. (2010). The Think‐Aloud Controversy in Second‐Language Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breedveld, H. (2002). Writing and revising processes in professional translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 3(1), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buswell, G. (1935). How People Look at Pictures: A Study of the Psychology of Perception in Art. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carl, M. (2009). Triangulating product and process data: Quantifying alignment units with keystroke data. In Mees, I. M., Alves, F. and Göpferich, S., eds., Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 225–47.Google Scholar
Carl, M. (2012). Translog-II: A program for recording user activity data for empirical translation process research. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
Carl, M., and Dragsted, B. (2012). Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production. Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition, 2(1), 127–45.Google Scholar
Carl, M., and Schaeffer, M. (2017a). Sketch of a noisy channel model for the translation process. In Hansen-Schirra, S., Czulo, O. and Hofmann, S., eds., Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 71–116.Google Scholar
Carl, M., and Schaeffer, M. (2017b). Models of the translation process. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A., eds., The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 50–70.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. (2013). Models of what processes? Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8(2), 155–68. Reprinted in M. Ehrensberger-Dow, B. Englund Dimitrova, S. Hubscher-Davidson and U. Norberg, eds., Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
CRITT (n.d.) TPR database: https://sites.google.com/site/centretranslationinnovation/tpr-db.Google Scholar
Dechert, H.‐W., and Sandrock, U. (1986). Thinking‐aloud protocols: The decomposition of language processing. In Cook, V., ed., Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 111–26.Google Scholar
Dragsted, B. (2004). Segmentation in Translation and Translation Memory Systems: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM System into the Translation Process. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Dragsted, B. (2005). Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty. Target, 17(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted territory. In Shreve, G. and Angelone, E., eds., Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar
Dragsted, B., and Carl, M. (2013). Towards a classification of translation styles based on eye‐tracking and key‐logging data. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 133–58.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K., and Simon, H. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–51.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K., and Simon, H. (1993 [1984]). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flower, L., and Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–87.Google Scholar
García, A. M. (2019). The Neurocognition of Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gerloff, P. A. (1986). Second language learners’ reports on the interpretive process: Talk-aloud protocols of translation. In House, J. and Blum-Kulka, S., eds., Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 243–62.Google Scholar
Gerloff, P. A. (1987). Identifying the unit of analysis in translation: Some uses of think-aloud protocol data. In Færch, C. and Kasper, G., eds., Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 135–58.Google Scholar
Gerloff, P. A. (1988). From French to English: A look at the translation process in students, bilinguals and professional translators. Unpublished DEd thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Goldman‐Eisler, F. (1972). Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech, 15, 103–13.Google Scholar
Gutt, E.-A. (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell. (2nd ed. published by Routledge, 2000.)Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2003). The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target, 15(2), 197–241.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2017). Gravitational pull in translation: Testing a revised model. In de Sutter, G., Lefer, M.-A. and Delaere, I., eds., Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 9–46.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2019). ‘Default’ translation: A construct for cognitive translation and interpreting studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(2), 187–210.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. S. (1972). The name and nature of translation studies. In Holmes, J., ed., Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 67–80. Reprinted in L. Venuti, ed. (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 172–85.Google Scholar
Hönig, H. G. (1988). Wissen Übersetzer eigentlich, was sie tun? Lebende Sprachen, 33(1), 10–14.Google Scholar
Hurtado Albir, A. (2001/2011). Traducción y Traductología. Introducción a la Traductología. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. (2011). Allocation of cognitive resources in translation: An eye-tracking and key-logging study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Immonen, S. (2006). Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production. Target, 18(2), 313–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immonen, S., and Mäkisalo, J. (2010). Pauses reflecting the processing of syntactic units in monolingual text production and translation. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 44, 45–61.Google Scholar
Ivir, V. (1981). Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited. Poetics Today, 2(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. (1987). What Happens in a Translation Process: Think-Aloud Protocols of Translation. A pro gradu thesis. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. (1989). Translation assignment in professional vs. non-professional translation. In Séguinot, C., ed., The Translation Process. Toronto: H. G. Publications, York University, pp. 87–98.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. (1990). Features of Successful Translation Processes: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. (2002). Think-aloud protocol studies into translation: An annotated bibliography. Target, 14(1), 107–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R., and Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1991). Automatised processes in professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In Tirkkonen-Condit, S., ed., Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 89–109.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. (2003). Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision, and segmentation. In Alves, F., ed., Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–95.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. (2006). Research methods in translation – Translog. In Sullivan, K. P. H. and Lindgren, E., eds., Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 95–105.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L., and Jensen, K. T. H. (2008). Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading task. In Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L. and Mees, I. M., eds., Looking at Eyes: Eye‐Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 103–24.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L., and Schou, L. (1999). Translog documentation. In Hansen, G., ed., Probing the Process in Translation. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 151–86.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. (2000). The Effect of Time on Cognitive Processes and Strategies in Translation. PhD thesis. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–54.Google Scholar
Kiraly, D. (1995). Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Königs, F. G. (1987). Was beim Übersetzen passiert. Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen. Die neueren Sprachen, 86(2), 162–85.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. (1986). Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: eine Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. (1987). The use of introspective data in translation. In Færch, C. and Kasper, G., eds., Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 158–76.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. (2001). Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Livbjerg, I., and Mees, I. M. (1999). A study of the use of dictionaries in Danish‐English translation. In Hansen, G., ed., Probing the Process in Translation. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 135–49.Google Scholar
Livbjerg, I., and Mees, I. M. (2003). Patterns of dictionary use in non‐domain‐specific translation. In Alves, F., ed., Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–36.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, M. P. (1999). La seguridad del traductor profesional en la traducción a una lengua extranjera. In Hansen, G., ed. Probing the Process in Translation. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 121–35.Google Scholar
Lörscher, W. (1986). Linguistic aspects of translation processes: Towards an analysis of translation performance. In House, J. and Blum-Kulka, S., eds., Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 277–92.Google Scholar
Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Miller, G. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 141–4.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R. (2010). Leave no stone unturned: On the development of cognitive translatology. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 5(2), 145–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, S. (2006). Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post‐editing machine translation output. Across Languages and Cultures, 7(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Pavlović, N. (2007). Directionality in translation and interpreting practice: Report on a questionnaire survey in Croatia. Forum, 5(2), 77–99.Google Scholar
Pokorn, N. (2005). Challenging the Traditional Axioms: Translation into a Non‐mother Tongue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. (1989). The Psychology of Reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Reiß, K., and Vermeer, H. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, M., and Carl, M. (2015). Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. In Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Englund Dimitrova, B., Hubscher-Davidson, S. and Norberg, U., eds., Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J. (1996). It’s about Time: Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Séguinot, C. (1989). The translation process: An experimental study. In Séguinot, C., ed., The Translation Process. York University, School of Translation: H. G. Publications, pp. 21–53.Google Scholar
Séguinot, C. (1991). A study of student translation strategies. In Tirkkonen-Condit, S., ed., Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. (1968). L’interprète dans les conférences internationales. Problèmes de langage et de communication. Paris: Minard.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D., and Lederer, M. (1984). Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier Érudition.Google Scholar
Shannon, C., and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1987). Think-aloud protocols in the study of the translation process. In Nyyssönen, H., Kataja, R. and Komulainen, V., eds., CDEF 86. Papers from the Conference of Departments of English in Finland. Publications of the Department of English 7. Oulu: University of Oulu, pp. 39–49.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1989). Professional vs non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In Séguinot, C., ed., The Translation Process. Toronto: H. G. Publications, York University, pp. 73–85.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S., ed. (1991). Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: G. Narr.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2005). The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta, 50(2), 405–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive Translation Studies—and Beyond. Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye Movements and Vision. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Austermühl, F. (2014). Electronic Tools for Translators. Abingdon: Routledge. Available at http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/port/items/1133149.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2018/1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Available at http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/port/items/1276427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawden, R., Sennrich, R., Birch, A., and Haddow, B. (2018). Evaluating discourse phenomena in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2018 (pp. 1304–13). Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00513.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bowker, L. (2002). Translation-memory systems. In Bowker, L., ed. Computer-Aided Translation Technology: A Practical Introduction. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 93–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowker, L. (2005). Productivity vs. quality? A pilot study on the impact of translation memory systems. Localization Focus, 4(1), 13–20. Available at www.localisation.ie/sites/default/files/publications/Vol4_1Bowker.pdf.Google Scholar
Bowker, L. (2006). Translation memory and ‘text’. In Bowker, L., ed., Lexicography, Terminology, and Translation: Text-Based Studies in Honour of Ingrid Meyer. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 175–87.Google Scholar
Bowker, L. (2019). Fit-for-purpose translation. In O’Hagan, M., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 453–68.Google Scholar
Bowker, L., and Fisher, D. (2010). Computer-aided translation. In Gambier, Y. and van Doorslaer, L., eds., Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 60–5.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution. (2017). BS ISO 18587:2017 BSI Standards Publication Translation services – Post-editing of machine translation output – Requirements. London.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution. (2018). BS EN 17100:2015+A1:2017 BSI Standards Publication Translation Services – Requirements for translation services. London.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, T. P. (2011). Studies on the mental processes in translation memory-assisted translation: The state of the art. Trans-Kom, 4, 137–60. Available at www.trans-kom.eu/bd04nr02/trans-kom_04_02_02_Christensen_Translation_Memory.20111205.pdf.Google Scholar
Christensen, T. P., and Schjoldager, A. (2010). Translation-memory (TM) research: What do we know and how do we know it? Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 44, 89–102.Google Scholar
Čulo, O., Gutermuth, S., Hansen-Schirra, S., and Nitzke, J. (2014). The influence of post-editing on translation strategies. In O’Brien, S., Carl, M., Simard, M., Specia, L. and Winther Balling, L., eds., Post-Editing of Machine Translation: Processes and Applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 200–18.Google Scholar
Daems, J., De Clercq, O., and Macken, L. (2017). Translationese and post-editese: How comparable is comparable quality? Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 16, 89–103. Available at https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8516838/file/8554001.pdf.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R., and Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Doherty, S. (2017). Issues in human and automatic translation quality assessment. In Kenny, D., ed., Human Issues in Translation Technology. London/New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 131–49.Google Scholar
Dragsted, B. (2006). Computer-aided translation as a distributed cognitive task. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 443–64. Available at https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.2.17dra.Google Scholar
Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in Professional Translation: Assessment and Improvement. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Drugan, J., and Babych, B. (2010). Shared resources, shared values? Ethical implications of sharing translation resources. In Proceedings of the Second Joint EM+/CNGL Workshop ‘Bringing MT to the User: Research on Integrating MT in the Translation Industry’, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., and Massey, G. (2017). Socio-technical issues in professional translation practice. Translation Spaces, 6(1), 104–21. Available at https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.1.06ehr.Google Scholar
Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Forcada, M. (2017). Making sense of neural machine translation. Translation Spaces, 6(2), 291–309. Available at https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.2.06for.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, I. (2007). Power shifts in web-based translation memory. Machine Translation, 21(1), 55–68. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-008-9033-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, I. (2010). The proper place of professionals (and non-professionals and machines) in web translation. Revista Tradumàtica, 8, 1–7.Google Scholar
Garcia, I. (2011). Translating by post-editing: Is it the way forward? Machine Translation, 25(3), 217–37. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-011-9115-8.Google Scholar
Göpferich, S., and Jääskeläinen, R. (2009). Process research into the development of translation competence: Where are we, and where do we need to go? Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 169–91.Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, A. (2013). What do professional translators think about post-editing? Journal of Specialised Translation, 19, 75–95.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17(3), 241–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M., and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hatim, B., and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hess, C., and Ostrom, E. (2007). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1972). The name and nature of translation studies. In Translated: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 66–80. Reprinted in L. Venuti, ed. (2004). The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, pp. 180–92.Google Scholar
Huang, H., and Wu, C. (2009). The unit of translation: Statistics speak. Meta, 54(1), 110–30. Available at https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7202/029796ar.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Crespo, M. A. (2017). Crowdsourcing and Online Collaborative Translations: Expanding the Limits of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kay, M. (2014). Does a computational linguist have to be a linguist? Invited Talk, COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland [online]. www.coling-2014.org/martin-kay.php.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. (2011). The ethics of machine translation. In New Zealand Society of Translators and Interpreters Annual Conference 2011. Auckland, New Zealand. Available at http://doras.dcu.ie/17606/.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. (2017). Introduction. In Kenny, D., ed., Human Issues in Translation Technology. London/New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 131–49.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. (2018). Machine translation. In Rawling, P. and Wilson, P., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 428–45.Google Scholar
Koponen, M. (2016). Is machine translation post-editing worth the effort? A survey of research into post-editing and effort. Journal of Specialised Translation, 25, 131–48. Available at www.jostrans.org/issue25/art_koponen.pdf.Google Scholar
Lavault-Olléon, É. (2011). L’ergonomie, nouveau paradigme pour la traductologie [Ergonomics as a New Paradigm for Translation Studies]. In ILCEA 14. Available at http://ilcea.revues.org/1078.Google Scholar
LeBlanc, M. (2017). ‘I can’t get no satisfaction!’ Should we blame translation technologies or shifting business practices? In Kenny, D., ed., Human Issues in Translation Technology. London/New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 45–62.Google Scholar
Li, L., Nakazawa, T., and Tsuruoka, Y. (2019). Bunmyakujouhou o kouryoshita nichiei nyuuraru kikaihonyaku:文脈情報を考慮した日英ニューラル機械翻訳 [Japanese-English Neural Machine Translation in consideration of discourse information]. In 25th Natural Language Processing NLP2019 Conference Proceedings, pp. 101–4. Available at www.anlp.jp/proceedings/annual_meeting/2019/pdf_dir/A2-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Lumeras, M. A., and Way, A. (2017). On the complementarity between human translators and machine translation. Hermes, 56, 21–42. Available at https://doi.org/https://tidsskrift.dk/her/article/view/97200.Google Scholar
Massardo, I., van der Meer, J., O’Brien, S., Hollowood, F., Aranberri, N., and Drescher, K. (2016). MT Post-Editing Guidelines. Available at www.taus.net/academy/bestpractices/postedit-best-practices/machine-translation-post-editing-guidelines.Google Scholar
Moorkens, J. (2017). Under pressure: Translation in times of austerity. Perspectives, 25(3), 1–14. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1285331.Google Scholar
Moorkens, J., and Lewis, D. (2019). Research questions and a proposal for the future governance of translation data. Journal of Specialised Translation, 32, 2–25.Google Scholar
Moorkens, J., Toral, A., Castilho, S., and Way, A. (2018). Translators’ perceptions of literary post-editing using statistical and neural machine translation. Translation Spaces, 7(2), 240–62. Available at https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.18014.moo.Google Scholar
Nitzke, J., Hansen-Schirra, S., and Canfora, C. (2019). Risk management and post-editing competence. Journal of Specialised Translation, 31, 239–59.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S., ed. (2014). Post-Editing of Machine Translation: Processes and Applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Available at http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/port/items/1216444.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S., and Simard, M., eds. (2014). Special issue: Post-Editing. Machine Translation, 28. https://link.springer.com/journal/10590/volumes-and-issues/28-3.Google Scholar
O’Hagan, M. (2013). The impact of new technologies on translation studies: A technological turn? In Millán-Varela, C. and Bartrina, F., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 503–18.Google Scholar
Olohan, M. (2011). Translators and translation technology: The dance of agency. Translation Studies, 4(3), 342–57. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2011.589656.Google Scholar
Olohan, M. (2017). Technology, translation and society. Target, 29(2), 264–83. Available at https://doi.org/10.1075/target.29.2.04olo.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559–89.Google Scholar
Popović, M. (2018). Error classification and analysis for machine translation quality assessment. In Moorkens, J., Castilho, S., Gaspari, F. and Doherty, S., eds., Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 129–58.Google Scholar
Reiss, K., and Vermeer, H. J. (2013/1984). Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Risku, H., Rogl, R., and Milosevic, J. (2017). Translation practice in the field. Translation Spaces, 66(1), 3–26. Available at https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.1.01ris.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, A. (2019a). Unintended consequences of translation technologies: From project managers’ perspectives. Perspectives, 27(1), 58–73. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1473452.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, A. (2019b). Why do many translators resist post-editing? A sociological analysis using Bourdieu’ s concepts. Journal of Specialised Translation, 31, 201–16.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, A., Evans, J., and Torres-Hostench, O. (2018). Introduction to the Special Dossier Section: Translation and Disruption. Revista Tradumàtica, 16. Available at https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.223.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, M., Nitzke, J., and Hansen-Schirra, S. (2019). Predictive turn in translation studies: Review and prospects. In Brunn, S. D. and Kehrein, R., eds., Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 1–23. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73400-2_217-1.Google Scholar
SDL. (2017). SDL Certification: Post-Editing Certification.Google Scholar
Shreve, G. M. (2017). Text linguistics, translating, and interpreting. In Malmkjær, K., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 165–78. Available at https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315692845-12.Google Scholar
Teixeira, C. S. C., and O’Brien, S. (2017). Investigating the cognitive ergonomic aspects of translation tools in a workplace setting. Translation Spaces, 6(1), 79–103. Available at https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.1.05tei.Google Scholar
Toral, A. (2019). Post-editese: An exacerbated translationese. In Proceedings of MT Summit XVII, Vol. 1. Dublin, pp. 272–81.Google Scholar
Toral, A., and Way, A. (2018). What level of quality can neural machine translation attain on literary text? In Moorkens, J., Gaspari, F., Castilho, S. and Doherty, S., eds., Translation Quality Assessment: From Principles to Practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, pp. 263–87. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_12.Google Scholar
Vieira, L. N. (2018). Automation anxiety and translators. Translation Studies, 1–21. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2018.1543613.Google Scholar
Vieira, L. N., Alonso, E., and Bywood, L. (2019). Introduction: Post-editing in practice – Process, product and networks. Special issue of the Journal of Specialised Translation, 31, 2–13.Google Scholar
Wang, L. (2019). Discourse-Aware Neural Machine Translation. PhD thesis, Dublin City University.Google Scholar
Zaretskaya, A. (2017). Machine translation post-editing at TransPerfect: The ‘human’ side of the process. Revista Tradumàtica, 15, 116–23. Available at https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.201.Google Scholar

References

Anokhina, O. (2019). Cas limites d’autotraduction: cercle, spirale, chaos. In Hartmann, E. and Hersant, P., eds., Au miroir de la traduction: avant-texte, intratexte, paratexte. Paris: Éditions des Archives Contemporaines, pp. 97–109.Google Scholar
Anselmi, S. (2012). On Self-Translation: An Exploration in Self-Translators’ Teloi and Strategies. Milan: LED Edizioni Universitarie.Google Scholar
Apter, E. (2013). Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability. London: Verso.Google Scholar
AUTOTRAD. (2007). L’autotraduction littéraire comme domaine de recherche. Atelier de traduction 7, 91–100.Google Scholar
Barré, G. (2010). La ‘mondialisation’ de la culture et la question de la diversité culturelle: étude des flux mondiaux de traductions entre 1979 et 2002. Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales, 18(8), 183–217.Google Scholar
Bassnett, S. (2013). The self-translator as rewriter. In Cordingley, A., ed., Self-Translation: Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture. London: Continuum, pp. 13–25.Google Scholar
Beaujour, E. K. (1989). Alien Tongues: Bilingual Russian Writers of the ‘First’ Emigration. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Beebee, T. O. (2012). Transmesis: Inside Translation’s Black Box. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Belobarodova, O., Van Hulle, D., and Verhulst, P. (2021). Reconstructing collaborative (self)translations from the archive: The case of Samuel Beckett. Meta, 66(1).Google Scholar
Bordas, C. (2017). How to Behave in a Crowd. New York: Tim Duggan Books.Google Scholar
Bordas, C. (2018). Isidore et les autres. Paris: Editions incultes.Google Scholar
Bordas, C. (2020). Unpublished email interview with Anthony Cordingley (8 March).Google Scholar
Bujaldón de Esteves, L., Bistué, B., and Stocco, M., eds. (2019). Literary Self-Translation in Hispanophone Contexts: La autotraducción literaria en contextos de habla hispana. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Calvet, L.-J. (1999). Pour une écologie des langues du monde. Paris: Pion.Google Scholar
Casanova, P. (1999). La République mondiale des Lettres. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Casanova, P. (2004 [1999]). The World Republic of Letters, trans. Malcolm DeBevoise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Castro, O., Mainer, S., and Skomorokhova, S., eds. (2017). Self-Translation and Power: Negotiating Identities in Multilingual European Contexts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Chan, L. T.-h. (2004). Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues and Debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, N. F. (2015). Does ‘translation’ reflect a narrower concept than ‘fanyi’? On the impact of Western theories on China and the concern about Eurocentrism. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 10(2), 223–42.Google Scholar
Cheung, M. (2005). ‘To translate’ means ‘to exchange’? A new interpretation of the earliest Chinese attempts to define translation (‘fanyi’). Target, 17(1), 27–48.Google Scholar
Cheung, M., ed. (2009). Chinese Discourses on Translation: Positions and Perspectives. Special issue of The Translator, 15(2).Google Scholar
Cordingley, A. (2019). Self-translation. In Washbourne, K. and Van Wyke, B., eds., Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 352–68.Google Scholar
Cordingley, A., and Frigau Manning, C., eds. (2017a). Collaborative Translation: From the Renaissance to the Digital Age. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Cordingley, A., and Frigau Manning, C. (2017b). What is collaborative translation? In Cordingley, A. and Frigau Manning, C., eds., Collaborative Translation: From the Renaissance to the Digital Age. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Cronin, M. (1995). Altered states: Translation and minority languages. TTR, 8(1), 85–103.Google Scholar
Dasilva, X. M. (2009). Autotraducirse en Galicia: ¿bilingüismo o diglosia? Quaderns: Revista de Traducció, 16, 143–56.Google Scholar
Dasilva, X. M. (2011). La autotraducción transparente y las autotraducción opaca. In Dasilva, X. M. and Tanqueiro, H., eds., Aproximaciones a la autotraducción. Vigo: Academia del Hispanismo, pp. 45–67.Google Scholar
Dasilva, X. M. (2016). En torno al concepto de semiautotraducción. Quaderns: Revista de Traducció, 23, 15–35.Google Scholar
Dasilva, X. M. (2017). A semiautotradução: modalidade e variantes. Cadernos de Tradução, 37(2), 229–44.Google Scholar
Delabastita, D. (2009). Fictional representations. In Baker, M. and Saldanha, G., eds., Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 109–12.Google Scholar
Delabastita, D. (2011). Continentalism and the invention of traditions in translation studies. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 6(2), 142–56.Google Scholar
Delabastita, D., and Grutman, R. (2005). Introduction: Fictional representations of multilingualism and translation. In Delabastita, D. and Grutman, R., eds., Fictionalising Translation and Multilingualism, special issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia, 4, 11–34.Google Scholar
De Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the World: The Global Language System. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
De Swaan, A. (2010). Language systems. In Coupland, N., ed., The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
De Swaan, A. (2020). The unequal exchange of texts in the world language system. In Vigouroux, C. B. and Mufwene, S. S., eds., Bridging Linguistics and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–23.Google Scholar
Evangelista, E.-M. (2013). Writing in translation: A new self in a second language. In Cordingley, A., ed., Self-Translation: Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture. London: Continuum, pp. 177–87.Google Scholar
Falceri, G., Gentes, E., and Manterola, E., eds. (2017). Narrating the Self in Self-Translation. Special issue of Ticontre, 7.Google Scholar
Fitch, B. T. (1988). Beckett and Babel: An Investigation into the State of the Bilingual Work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, P., and van Doorslaer, L. (2011). On constructing continental views on translation studies: An introduction. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 6(2), 113–20.Google Scholar
Foscolo, A. L., and Smorag-Goldberg, M., eds. (2019). Plurilinguisme et autotraduction. Langue perdue, langue ‘sauvée.’ Paris: Eur’Orbem.Google Scholar
Gallén, E., Lafarga, F., and Pegenaute, L., eds. (2011). Traducción y autotraducción en las literaturas ibéricas. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gallén, E., and Ruiz Casanova, J. F., eds. (2018). Bilingüisme, autotraducció i literatura catalana. Lleida: Punctum.Google Scholar
Gibeau, M. (2013). Indigenization and opacity: Self-translation in the Okinawan/Ryukyuan writings of Takara Ben and Medoruma Shun. In Cordingley, A., ed., Self-Translation: Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture. London: Continuum, pp. 141–55.Google Scholar
Gentes, E. (2017). (Un-)Sichtbarkeit der literarischen Selbstübersetzung in der romanischsprachigen Gegenwartsliteratur. Eine literatur- und übersetzungs- soziologische Annäherung. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf. https://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-45333/Gentes_Dissertation.lit_Selbst%C3%BCbersetzung.pdf.Google Scholar
Gentes, E. (2020). Bibliography: Autotraduzione/autotraducción/self–translation, XXXVIII ed. www.self-translation.blogspot.com.Google Scholar
Grayson, J. (1977). Nabokov Translated: A Comparison of Nabokov’s Russian and English Prose. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grutman, R. (2009a). Self-translation. In Baker, M. and Saldanha, G., eds., Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, pp. 257–60; (2019). 3rd ed. London: Routledge, pp. 514–18.Google Scholar
Grutman, R. (2009b). La autotraducción en la galaxia de las lenguas. Quaderns: Revista de Traducció, 16, 123–34. http://ddd.uab.cat/pub/quaderns/11385790n16p123-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Grutman, R. (2011). Diglosia y autotraducción ‘vertical’ (en y fuera de España). In Dasilva, X. M. and Tanqueiro, H., eds., Aproximaciones a la autotraducción. Vigo: Academia del Hispanismo, pp. 69–91.Google Scholar
Grutman, R. (2013). A sociological glance at self-translation and self-translators. In Cordingley, A., ed., Self-Translation: Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 63–80.Google Scholar
Grutman, R., and Van Bolderen, T. (2014). Self-translation. In Bermann, S. and Porter, C., eds., A Companion to Translation Studies. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 323–32.Google Scholar
Grutman, R. (2015). Francophonie et autotraduction. Interfrancophonies, 6, 1–17.Google Scholar
Grutman, R. (2016). L’autotraduction, de la galerie de portraits à la galaxie des langues. In Ferraro, A. and Grutman, R., eds., L’autotraduction littéraire: perspectives théoriques. Paris: Classiques Garnier, pp. 39–63.Google Scholar
Grutman, R. (2017). Babel in (spite of) Belgium: Patterns of self-translation in a bilingual country. In Castro, O., Mainer, S. and Skomorokhova, S., eds., Self-Translation and Power: Negotiating Identities in Multilingual European Contexts. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–49.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. (1995). Mondialsering en transnationaal cultureel verkeer. Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, 22(1), 162–80.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. (1999). Towards a sociology of translation: Book translations as a cultural world-system. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(4), 429–44.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J., and Sapiro, G. (2016). Translation: Economic and sociological perspectives. In Ginsburg, V. and Weber, S., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Economics and Language. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hermans, T., ed. (2006). Translating Others. 2 vols. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Hersant, P., ed. (2020). Traduire avec l’auteur. Paris: Sorbonne Université Presses.Google Scholar
Hokenson, J., and Munson, M. (2007). The Bilingual Text: History and Theory of Literary Self-Translation. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Hung, E., and Wakabayashi, J., eds. (2005). Asian Translation Traditions. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Jansen, H., and Wegener, A., eds. (2013). Authorial and Editorial Voices in Translation 1: Collaborative Relationships between Authors, Translators and Performers. Montréal: Éditions québécoises de l’oeuvre.Google Scholar
Kaindl, K. (2014). Going fictional! Translators and interpreters in literature and film: An introduction. In Kaindl, K. and Spitzl, K., eds., Transfiction: Research into the Realities of Translation Fiction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Kaindl, K. (2018). Fictional representations. In D’hulst, L. and Gambier, Y., eds., A History of Modern Translation Knowledge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–6.Google Scholar
Kippur, S. (2015). Writing It Twice: Self-Translation and the Making of a World Literature in French. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Krause, C. (2013). ‘Why bother with the original?’: Self-translation and Scottish Gaelic poetry. In Cordingley, A., ed., Self-Translation: Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture. London: Continuum, pp. 127–40.Google Scholar
Lau, J. S.-m. (1995). Self-translation: Author as translator. In Chan, S.-w. and Pollard, D. E., eds., Encyclopaedia of Translation: Chinese–English/English–Chinese Translation. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, pp. 949–59.Google Scholar
Lee, T.-K. (2013). Translating anglophobia: Tensions and paradoxes of biliterate performances in Singapore. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 25(2), 228–51.Google Scholar
López López-Gay, P. (2006). Lieu du sens dans l’(auto)traduction littéraire. In Lederer, M., ed., Le sens en traduction. Paris-Caen: Lettres Modernes Minard, pp. 215–23.Google Scholar
Manterola, E. (2011). La autotraducción en la literatura vasca. In Dasilva, X. M. and Tanqueiro, H., eds., Aproximaciones a la autotraducción. Vigo: Academia del Hispanismo, pp. 111–40.Google Scholar
Manterola Agirrezabalaga, E. (2014). Literatura vasca traducida. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Manterola Agirrezabalaga, E. (2015). La autotraducción en el contexto vasco: entre distancia interlingüística y la constitución de un campo literario nacional transfronterizo. Glottopol, 25, 71–87.Google Scholar
Manterola Agirrezabalaga, E. (2017). Collaborative self-translation in a minority language: Power implications in the process, the actors and the literary systems involved. In Castro, O., Mainer, S. and Skomorokhova, S., eds., Self-Translation and Power: Negotiating Identities in Multilingual European Contexts. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 191–215.Google Scholar
Montini, Chiara. (2012). Self-translation. In Gambier, Yves and van Doorslaer, Luc, eds., Handbook of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 306–8.Google Scholar
Oustinoff, M. (2001). Bilinguisme d’écriture et auto–traduction: Julien Green, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2014). The Bilingual Mind and What It Tells Us about Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puccini, P., ed. (2015). Regards croisés autour de l’autotraduction. Special issue of Interfrancophonies, 6.Google Scholar
Recuenco Peñalver, M. (2011). Más allá de la traducción: La autotraducción. Trans, 15, 193–208.Google Scholar
Ricci, R., and van der Putten, J., eds. (2011). Translation in Asia: Theories, Practices, Histories. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Rose, M. G., ed. (2000). Beyond the Western Tradition. Binghamton: State University of New York Binghamton, Centre for Research in Translation.Google Scholar
Rubio Árquez, M., and D’Antuono, N., eds. (2012). Autotraduzione. Teoria ed esempi fra Italia e Spagna (e oltre). Milano: LED dizioni Universitarie di Lettere Economia Diritto.Google Scholar
Santoyo, J.–C. (2005). Autotraducciones: Una perspectiva histórica. Meta, 50(3), 858–67.Google Scholar
Santoyo, J.–C. (2006). Francisco Martínez de la Rosa, autor y traductor: Nueva visita a Aben Humeya. In Lafarga, F. and Pegenaute, L., eds., Traducción y traductores: Del Romanticismo al Realismo. Bern/New York: Peter Lang, pp. 463–88.Google Scholar
Santoyo, J.–C. (2010). Autotraducciones intrapeninsulares: Motivos históricos, razones actuales. In Gallén, E., Lafarga, F. and Pegenaute, L., eds., Traducción y autotraducción en las literaturas ibéricas. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 365–80.Google Scholar
Santoyo, J.–C. (2013a). On mirrors, dynamics and self-translations. In Cordingley, A., ed., Self-Translation: Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture. London: Continuum, pp. 27–38.Google Scholar
Santoyo, J.–C. (2013b). Autotraducción: ensayo de tipología. In Martino Alba, P., Albaladejo Martínez, J. A. and Pulido, M., eds., Al humanista, traductor y maestro Miguel Ángel Vega Cernuda. Madrid: Dykinson, D.L., pp. 205–21.Google Scholar
Stillinger, J. (1991). Multiple Authorship and the Myth of Solitary Genius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Susam-Sarajeva, Ş. (2002). A ‘multilingual’ and ‘international’ translation studies? In Hermans, T., ed., Crosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation Studies II. Historical and Ideological Issues. Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 193–207.Google Scholar
Susam-Sarajeva, Ş. (2017). In search of an ‘international translation studies’: Tracing terceme and tercüme in the blogosphere. Translation Studies, 10(1), 69–86.Google Scholar
Tsu, J. (2011). Sound and Script in Chinese Diaspora. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tymoczko, M. (2007). Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Van Bolderen, T. (2014). Huston, we have a problem …: (or what on earth is ‘Canadian self-translation’ supposed to mean?). Tradução em Revista, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
Van Bolderen, T. (2021). Literary self-translation and self-translators in Canada (1971–2016): A large-scale study. PhD dissertation. University of Ottawa. http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-26966.Google Scholar
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, J., and Kothari, R., eds. (2009). Decentering Translation Studies: India and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Walkowitz, R. L. (2015). Born Translated: The Contemporary Novel in an Age of World Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Whyte, C. (2002). Against self-translation. Translation and Literature, 11(1), 64–71.Google Scholar

References

Assis Rosa, A. (2012). Translating place: Linguistic variation in translation. Word and text. Journal of Literary Studies and Linguistics, 2(2), 75–97.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In Somers, H., ed., Terminology, LSP and Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.175–86.Google Scholar
Bassnett, S. (1980). Translation Studies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Bjerke, A. (1967). Ravnen. In Drømmen i en Drøm. Oslo: Aschehoug, pp. 30–7.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. Reprinted in Venuti, L., ed. (2001). The Translation Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 298–313 from J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, eds., Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Boase Beier, J. (2006). Stylistic Approaches to Translation. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. (2004). Beyond the particular. In Mauranen, A. and Kujamäkki, P., eds., Translation Universals, Do They Exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–49.Google Scholar
D’Amico, G. (2011). Marketing Ibsen: A study of the First Italian Reception, 1883–1891. Ibsen Studies, 11(2), 145–75.Google Scholar
D’Amico, G. (2013). Domesticating Ibsen for Italy. PhD thesis. Università degli Studi di Torino.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (2014). About phonological, grammatical, and semantic accents in bilinguals’ language use and their cause. In Filipovíc, L. and Pütz, M., eds., Multilingual Cognition and Language Use: Processing and Typological Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–62.Google Scholar
Eco, U. (2003). Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Eikli, R. (2019). (Member of the Norwegian Translators’ Association) Personal communication.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B. (2004). Orality, literacy, reproduction of discourse and the translation of dialect. In Helin, I., ed., Dialektübersetzung und Dialekt in Multimedia. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 121–39.Google Scholar
Epstein, B. J. (2014). Are there blacks in Europe? How African-American characters are (or are not) translated. In Epstein, B. J., ed., True North: Literary Translation in the Nordic Countries. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp.84–98.Google Scholar
Frawley, W. (1984). Translation, Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. (1977). Linguistics and the Novel. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. L. (2017). Gravitational pull in translation: Testing a revised model. In de Sutter, G., Lefer, M.-A. and Delaere, I., eds., Empirical Translation Studies. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.9–46.Google Scholar
Hammond, W. G., and Scull, C. (2005). The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S., and Steiner, E. (2012). Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hayward, C. T. R. (1995). St Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis (translation). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hermans, T. (1996). The translator’s voice in translated narrative. Target, 8(1), 23–49.Google Scholar
Hönig, H., and Kussmaul, P. (1984). Strategie der Übersetzung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Re-visited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Leppihalme, R. (2000). The two faces of standardization: On the translation of regionalisms in literary dialogue. The Translator, 6(2), 247–69.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, K. (2003). Et lingvistisk perspektiv på litterær oversettelse (from English: A linguistic perspective on literary translation. Trans. B. Behrens). In Behrens, B. and Christensen, B., eds., Oversettelse i teori og praksis. Oslo: Novus, pp. 55–89.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, K. (2004). Translational stylistics. Language and Literature, 13(1), 13–24.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, K. (2012). Translation universals. In Malmkjær, K. and Windle, K., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, Online.Google Scholar
Munday, J. (2007). Style and Ideology in Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Olohan, M., and Baker, M. (2000). Reporting that in translated English: Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures, 1(2), 141–58.Google Scholar
Øverås, L. (1998). In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta, 43(4), 571–88.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Poe, E. A. (1845). The Raven, full text available at www.poetryfoundation.org.Google Scholar
Pym, A. (2015). Translating as risk management. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 67–80.Google Scholar
Rem, H. (1985). Ravnen. In Bak Dør på Gløtt. Oslo: Cappelen, pp.39–45.Google Scholar
Rem, T. (2019). Introduction to Henrik Ibsen. A Doll’s House and Other Plays. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Rogde, I. (1984). Translator’s preface to Alice Walker: Fargen bortenfor (The Color Purple). Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, F. (1838). Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens. In Sämtliche Werke, vol. II. Berlin, pp.201–38.Google Scholar
Skogmo, S. F. (2015). Marked Language in Norwegian Literary Text. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo. Oslo: Akademika.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2004). Relating narrative events in translation. In Ravid, D. and Shyldkrot, H. B., eds., Perspectives on Language and Language Development: Essays in Honor of Ruth A. Berman. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Smith, Z. (2000/2001). White Teeth / Hvite tenner. Norwegian trans. by T. Sjøgren Erichsen. Oslo: Aschehough & Co.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, M. (2003). Re-creating the hybrid text: Postcolonial Indian writings and the European scene. Linguistica Antwerpiensia. New Series, 2, 173–89.Google Scholar
Soovik, E.-R. (2006). Translating the translated: Arundhati Roy and Salman Rushdie in Estonian. In Granqvist, R., ed., Writing Back in/and Translation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 155–65.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Teich, E. (1999). System-oriented and text-oriented comparative linguistic research: Crosslinguistic variation in translation. Languages in Contrast, 2(2), 187–210.Google Scholar
Teich, E. (2012). Crosslinguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Toury, G. (1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute.Google Scholar
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Venuti, L. (2007). Translation, community and utopia. In Venuti, L., ed., The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 482–502.Google Scholar
Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos and commission in translational action. Trans. A. Chesterman. In Venuti, L., ed. (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, pp.221–32.Google Scholar
Wikimedia Commons (October 2016). https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_Corbeau_(The_Raven)_by_Edgar_Allan_Poe.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
×