Cover not available
Part of
Reflections on Translation Theory: Selected papers 1993 - 2014
Andrew Chesterman
[Benjamins Translation Library 132] 2017
► pp. 369–389

References

Abdallah, Kristiina. 2012. Translators in Production Networks. Reflections on agency, quality and ethics. Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Available at: <[URL]>.
Airaksinen, Timo A. (ed.). [1991] 1993. Ammattien ja ansaitsemisen etiikka. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
Alvstad, Cecilia, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius (eds). 2011. Methods and Strategies of Process Research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amman, Margret. 1990. “Anmerkungen zu einer Theorie der Übersetzungskritik und ihrer praktischen Anwendung”. TextConText 5: 209–250.Google Scholar
Andreotti, Julia Lambertini. 2016. Comprehension of Legal Discourse in Interpreter-Mediated Judicial Proceedings. PhD thesis, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona. Available at [URL]
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. [1993] 2000. “Thick translation”. Callaloo 16 (4): 808–819. Reprinted in L. Venuti (ed.), 2000, The Translation Studies Reader, 417–429. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Karen. 2005. A Short History of Myth. Edinburgh: Canongate.Google Scholar
Arrojo, Rosemary. 1998. “The revision of the traditional gap between theory and practice and the empowerment of translation in postmodern times”. The Translator 4 (1): 25–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aunger, Robert (ed.). 2000. Darwinizing Culture. The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bachleiter, Norbert, and Michaela Wolf (eds). 2004. Soziologie der literarische Übersetzung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. “Corpus linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and applications”. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Linguistics and Cultural Studies. Complementary or competing paradigms in Translation Studies?” In Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch. Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70. Geburtstag, A. Lauer, H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, J. Haller and E. Steiner (eds), 9–19. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator”. Target 12 (2): 241–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 1987. Norms of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere. 1996. Constructing Cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Berglund, Lars O. 1990. “The search for social significance”. Lebende Sprachen 35 (4): 145–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Antoine. 1984. L’Épreuve de l’étranger. Culture et traduction dans l’Allemagne romantique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
. 1985. Traduction et la lettre ou l’auberge du lointain. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
. 1990. “La retraduction comme éspace de la traduction”, Palimpsestes 4: 1–7 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Sandra, and Michael Wood (eds). 2005. Nation, Language and the Ethics of Translation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berthele, Raphaele. 2000. “Translating African-American vernacular English into German: The problem of ‘Jim’ in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (4): 588–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, Susan. 1999. The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1986. “Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation”. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bly, Robert. 1984. “The eight stages of translation”. In Translation. Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, W. Frawley (ed.), 67–89. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Boase-Beier, Jean. 2011. A Critical Introduction to Translation Studies. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory C. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. 2005. The Craft of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brems, Elke, and Sara Ramos Pinto. 2013. “Reception and translation”. Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 4, Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer (eds), 142–147. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brisset, Annie. 1990. Sociocritique de la traduction. Théâtre et altérité au Québec (1968–88). Québec : Editions du Préambule.Google Scholar
Brooke-Rose, Christine. 1968. The Brooke-Rose Omnibus. Manchester: Carcanet Press.Google Scholar
Brownlie, Siobhan. 2003. “Investigating explanations of translational phenomena: A case for multiple causality”. Target 15 (1): 111–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Narrative theory and retranslation theory”. Across Languages and Cultures 7 (2): 145–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buzelin, Hélène. 2005. “Unexpected allies: How Latour’s Network Theory could complement Bourdieusian analyses in Translation Studies”. The Translator 11 (2): 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Emma, and Robert Mills. (eds). 2012. Rethinking Medieval Translation: Ethics, Politics, Theory. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Campbell, Stuart. 1998. Translation into the Second Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2012. “A computational cognitive model of human translation processes”. In Emerging Applications of Natural Language Processing: Concepts and New Research, S. Bandyopadhyay, S. K. Naskar and A. Ekbal (eds), 110–128. Hershey, PA.: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Catford, John C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, Alan. [1976] 1999. What is this thing called Science? Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1993. “From ‘is’ to ‘ought’: translation laws, norms and strategies”. Target 5 (1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Teaching translation theory: the significance of memes”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. New Horizons, C. Dollerup and V. Appel (eds), 63–71. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. [1997a] 2016. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. (Revised edition 2016.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. “Explanatory adequacy and falsifiability in translation theory”. In Transferre Necesse Est. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, K. Klaudy and J. Kohn (eds), 219–224. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar
. 1998a. “Causes, translations, effects”. Target 10 (2): 201–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998b. Review of Hans J. Vermeer, A Skopos Theory of Translation (Some arguments for and against). Target 10 (1): 155–159.Google Scholar
. 1998c. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999a. “The empirical status of prescriptivism”. Folia Translatologica 6: 9–19.Google Scholar
. 1999b. “Translation typology”. In The Second Riga Symposium on Pragmatic Aspects of Translation, A. Veisbergs and I. Zauberga (eds), 49–62. Riga: University of Latvia.Google Scholar
. 2000a. “A causal model for Translation Studies”. In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, M. Olohan (ed.), 15–27. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2000b. “Memetics and Translation Studies”. Synapse 5 (2000) 1–17. Bergen: Norges Handelshøyskole.Google Scholar
. 2000c. “What constitutes ‘progress’ in Translation Studies?”, in Översättning och tolkning. Rapport från ASLA:s höstsymposium, Stockholm, 5–6 november 1998, B. Englund Dimitrova (ed.), 33–49. Uppsala: ASLA.Google Scholar
. 2001a. “Skopos and after. An interview with Hans J. Vermeer”. Across Languages and Cultures 2 (1): 133–138.Google Scholar
. 2001b. “Empirical research methods in Translation Studies”. Erikoiskielet ja käännösteoria [VAKKI-symposiumi XX, Vaasa, Finland] 27: 9–22.Google Scholar
. 2001c. “Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath”. The Translator 7 (2): 139–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “On the interdisciplinarity of Translation Studies”. Logos and Language 3 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Between text and culture”. In The Third Riga Symposium on Pragmatic Aspects of Translation. Proceedings, A. Veisbergs (ed.), 27–47. Riga: University of Latvia / Aarhus School of Business.Google Scholar
. 2004a. “Beyond the particular”. In Translation Universals. Do they Exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds), 33–49. Amsterdam and Philadephia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. “Paradigm problems?” In Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, C. Schäffner (ed.), 52–56. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
. 2004c. “Translation as an object of research”. In Übersetzung, Translation, Traduction, H. Kittel, A. P. Frank and N. Greiner (eds), 93–100. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Problems with strategies”. In New Trends in Translation Studies. In Honour of Kinga Klaudy, K. Károly and Á. Fóris (eds.), 17–28. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2006a. “Interpreting the meaning of translation”. In A Man of Measure. Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th Birthday, M. Suominen, A. Arppe, A. Airola, O. Heinämäki, M. Miestamo, U. Määttä, J. Niemi, K. K. Pitkänen and K. Sinnemäki (eds), 3–11. Turku: Linguistic Association of Finland. Also available at [URL].
. 2006b. “Questions in the sociology of translation”. In Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines, J. Ferreira Duarte, A. Assis Rosa and T. Seruya (eds), 9–27. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 9–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007a. “Similarity analysis and the translation profile”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21: 53–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. “What is a unique item?” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger and R. Stolze (eds), 3–13. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007c. “Bridge concepts in translation sociology”. In Constructing a sociology of translation, M. Wolf and A. Fukari (eds), 171–183. Amsterdam and Philadelpia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. “The status of interpretive hypotheses”. In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, G. Hansen, A. Chesterman and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds), 49–61. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2008b. “On explanation”. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury, A. Pym, M. Shlesinger, and D. Simeoni (eds), 363–379. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “The significance of hypotheses”. TTR 24 (2): 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, and Rosemary Arrojo. 2000. “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12 (1): 151–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, and Mona Baker. 2008. “Ethics of renarration. An interview with Mona Baker”. Cultus 1, 1: 10–33.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador, and Yves Gambier (eds). 2000. Translation in Context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, and Emma Wagner. 2002. Can Theory Help Translators? A Dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Chevalier, Jean-Claude. 1995. “D’une figure de traduction : le changement de ‘sujet’”. In L’Horlogerie de Saint Jérôme, J-C. Chevalier and M-F. Delport, 27–44. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Cheyfitz, Eric. 1991. The Poetics of Imperialism. Translation and Colonization from The Tempest to Tarzan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crisafulli, Edoardo. 2003. The Vision of Dante. Cary’s translation of The Divine Comedy. Market Harborough: Troubador.Google Scholar
Croft, William. [1990] 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael. 2000. Across the Lines: Travel, Language and Translation. Cork: Cork University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, Graham. 1998. “Review of Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies”. ITI Bulletin, Feb. 27, 1998.Google Scholar
Cumps, Jan L. 1996. “The Impact of law students’ language preference on translation”. Paper read at the Transferre Necesse Est Second International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, 5–7 September 1996, Budapest.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. [1859] 1968. The Origin of Species. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Research in translation between paralysis and pretence”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 51: 33–49.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean. 1993. La traduction raisonnée. Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean, Hannelore Lee-Jahnke, and Monique C. Cormier. 1999. Terminologie de la traduction / Translation Terminology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delisle, Jean, and Judith Woodsworth (eds). 1995. Translators through History. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1991. Consciousness Explained. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
1995. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Devy, Ganesh. 1999. “Translation and literary history”. In Post-colonial Translation, S. Bassnett and H. Trivedi (eds), 182–188. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. London: Allen Lane. (Penguin Books 2006.)Google Scholar
Diriker, Ebru. 2004. De-/Re-contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Monika (ed.). 1996. Information Structure: a Key Concept for Translation Theory. Linguistics 34 (3) (Special issue).Google Scholar
Dolet, Etienne. 1540. La Manière de Bien Traduire d’une Langue en Aultre. Paris: Marnef.Google Scholar
Dollerup, Cay. 1997. “Translation as imposition vs. translation as requisition”. In Translation as Intercultural Communication, M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová and K. Kaindl (eds), 45–56. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Sharon O’Brien. 2015. “Ergonomics of the translation workplace: Potential for cognitive friction”. Translation Spaces 4 (1): 98–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 1997. “Translation of dialect in fictional prose – Vilhelm Moberg in Russian and English as a case in point”. In Norm, Variation and Change in Language. Proceeedings of the centenary meeting of the Nyfilologiska sällskapet, Nedre Manilla 22–23 March, 1996, 49–65. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, Olof. 2004. “Entre traductologie et linguistique contrastive : La notion de ‘Transposition’”. In Actes du 6e Colloque franco-finlandais de Linguistique Contrastive, J. Härmä and U. Tuomarla (eds), 88–103. Helsinki: Département des Langues Romanes.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 11 (1).Google Scholar
Faerch, Claus, and Gabriele Kasper (eds) 1983. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Peter. 1997. Translation and Language. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Firth, John R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flotow, Luise von. 1991. “Feminist translation: Contexts, practices and theories”. TTR 4 (2): 69–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flynn, Peter. 2004. “Skopos Theory: An ethnographic enquiry”. Perspectives 12 (4): 270–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Føllesdal, Dagfinn. [1979] 1994. “Hermeneutics and the hypothetico-deductive method”. Dialectica 33 (3–4): 319–336. Reprinted in M. Martin and L. C. McIntyre (eds), 1994, Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, 233–245. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Føllesdal, Dagfinn, Lars Walløe, and Jon Elster. 1984. Argumentasjonsteori, Språk og Vitenskapsfilosofi. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Foot, Philippa, ed. 1967. Theories of Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Footit, Hilary, and Michael Kelly (eds). 2012. Languages at War. Policies and Practices of Language Contacts in Conflict. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fortey, Richard. 2004. The Earth. An Intimate History. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Fraser, Janet. 1996. “Mapping the process of translation”. Meta 41 (1): 84–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William. 1984. “Prolegomenon to a theory of translation”. In Translation. Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, W. Frawley (ed.), 159–175. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves. 1994. “La retraduction, tour et retour”, Meta 39 (3): 413–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Stratégies et tactiques en traduction et interpretation”. In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, G. Hansen, A. Chesterman and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds), 63–82. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
García-Landa, Mariano. 1990. “A general theory of translation (and of language)”. Meta 35 (3): 476–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun. 2001. “Equivalence parameters and evaluation”. Meta 46 (2): 227–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2004a. “Translation research versus interpreting research: Kinship, difference and prospects for partnership”. In Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, C. Schäffner (ed.), 10–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
. 2004b. “Response to the invited papers”. In Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, C. Schäffner (ed.), 124–127. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
. 2005a. “The liberal arts paradigm and the empirical science paradigm”. Available at [URL] > Research issues.
. 2005b. La Traduction: la Comprendre, l’Apprendre. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Revised edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney G., and Strauss, Anselm L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gombrich, Ernst H. [1960] 1977. Art and Illusion (fifth edition). London: Phaidon.Google Scholar
González Núñez, Gabriel. 2016. “On translation policy”. Target 28 (1): 87–109). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1972. “Seven strictures on similarity”. In Problems and Projects, N. Goodman, 437–447. Indianapolis, IN.: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne. 2009. “Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: the longitudinal study TransComp”. In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen and I. M. Mees (eds), 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel. 1990. “Traduction signalétique”. Meta 35 (2): 332–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 1999. Sociologie de la traduction. Arras: Artois Presses Université.Google Scholar
. 2002. “The stakes of translation in literary fields”. Across Languages and Cultures 3 (2): 159–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gran, Laura, and John Dodds (eds). 1989. The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto.Google Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas J. 1983. Du Sens. Vol. 2. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1990. “A theoretical account of translation – without a translation theory”. Target 2 (2): 135–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. [1991] 2000. Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell. (Revised edition 2000. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.)Google Scholar
Güttinger, Fritz. 1963. Zielsprache: Theorie und Technik des Übersetzens. Zürich: Menesse Verlag.Google Scholar
Haddadian-Moghaddam, Esmaeil. 2014. Literary Translation in Modern Iran. A Sociological Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1961. “Categories of the theory of grammar”. Word 17 (3): 241–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 1998a. Concepts and Categories in Translation Studies. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
. 1998b. “Translation Studies and representative corpora: Establishing links between translation corpora, theoretical/descriptive categories and a conception of the object of study”. Meta 43 (4): 494–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “Prototype effects in the ‘translation’ category”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo and Y. Gambier (eds), 3–16. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “The cognitive basis of translation universals”. Target 15 (2): 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Investigating gravitational pull in translation: The case of the English progressive construction”. In Texts, Process and Corpora: Research Inspired by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, R. Jääskeläinen, T. Puurtinen and H. Stotesbury (eds), 175–195. Joensuu: Publications of the Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.Google Scholar
Hansen, Gyde (ed.). 1999. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Zeit und Qualität im Übersetzungsprozess”. In Empirical Translation Studies: process and product, G. Hansen (ed.), 29–54. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2005. Störquellen in Übersetzungsprozessen. Copenhagen: CBS.Google Scholar
Harris, Brian. 1990. “Norms in interpretation”. Target 2 (1): 115–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heat-Moon, William Least. 1984. Blue Highways. A journey into America. London: Picador/Pan Books.Google Scholar
Hebenstreit, Gernot. 2007. “Defining patterns in Translation Studies”. Target 19 (2): 197–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hekkanen, Raila. 2009. “Fields, networks and Finnish prose: A Comparison of Bourdieusian Field Theory and Actor-Network Theory in translation sociology”. In Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008, D. De Crom (ed.). Available at <[URL]>.
Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and Time. (Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson.) New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Heilbron, Johan. 2000. “Translation as a cultural world system”. Perspectives 8 (1): 9–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1952. Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Henry, Ronald. 1984. “Points of inquiry into total translation. A review of J. C. Catford’s A Linguistic Theory of Translation ”. Meta 29 (2): 152–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo. (ed.). 1985a. The Manipulation of Literature. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1985b. “Introduction. Translation Studies and a new paradigm”. In The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation, T. Hermans (ed.), 7–15. London. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1985c. “Images of translation. Metaphor and imagery in the Renaissance discourse on translation”. In The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation, T. Hermans (ed.), 103–136. London. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Translational norms and correct translations”. In Translation Studies: The State of the Art, K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), 155–169. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 1999. Translation in Systems. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Cross-cultural Translation Studies as thick translation”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 66 (3): 380–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2006. Translating Others, vol. 1. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2007a. The Conference of the Tongues. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2007b. “Translation, irritation and resonance”. In Constructing a sociology of translation, M. Wolf and A. Fukari (eds), 57–75. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Leo (ed.). 1998. The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Holmes, James S. 1988a. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
[1988b] 2000. “The name and nature of Translation Studies”. In J. S. Holmes, Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 67–80. Reprinted e.g. in L. Venuti (ed.), 2000, The Translation Studies Reader, 172–185. London.Google Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans. 1995. Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G., and Paul Kußmaul. 1982. Strategie der Übersetzung. Ein Lehr-und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1981. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. (Second edition.) Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Beyond intervention. Universals in translation?” trans-com 1 (1): 6–19.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, Hasnah. 1994. “Translation assessment: a case for a spectral model”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, C. Dollerup and A. Lindegaard (eds), 151–156. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira (ed.). 2005. “Bourdieu and the sociology of translation and interpreting”. Special issue of The Translator, 11 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Interpreting Justice. Ethics, Politics and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 1983. Causality in Linguistic Theory. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ivir, Vladimir. 1981. “Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited”. In Theory of Translation and Intercultural Relations, I. Even-Zohar and G. Toury (eds), 51–59. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semotics, Tel Aviv University [= Poetics Today 2:4].Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1993. “Investigating translation strategies”. In Recent Trends in Empirical Translation Research, S. Tirkkonen-Condit and J. Laffling (eds), 99–119. Joensuu: University of Joensuu, Faculty of Arts.Google Scholar
. 1999. Tapping the Process: An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Think-aloud protocol studies into translation. An annotated bibliography”. Target 14 (1): 107–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “The fate of ‘The Families of Medellín’. Tampering with a potential translation universal in the translation class”. In Translation Universals. Do they exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds), 205–214. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 1999. “Logging target text production with Translog”. In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, G. Hansen (ed.), 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Tracking translators’ keystrokes and eye movements with Translog”. In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds), 37–55. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jandl, Ernst. 1966. Laut und Luise. Kassel: Olten.Google Scholar
Jansen, Astrid, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. 2000. “Translating under time pressure”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), 105–116. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jantunen, Jarmo H. 2001. “Synonymity and lexical simplification in translations: A corpus-based approach”. Across Languages and Cultures 2 (1): 97–112.Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam. 1993. The Power of Silence: Social and Pragmatic Perspectives. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jerome, Eusebius. [395] 1997. De optime genere interpretandi. Translated by P. Carroll as “On the best kind of translator”, in Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche, D. Robinson (ed.), 22–30. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Jodl, Friedrich. 1918. Allgemeine Ethik. Stuttgart and Berlin: J. G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Jones, Francis R. 2011. Poetry Translating as Expert Action: Processes, Priorities and Networks. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kafka, Franz. [1926] 1935. Das Schloß. Berlin: Schocken Verlag. (First English translation by Edwin and Willa Muir as The Castle, 1930. New York: Knopf.)Google Scholar
Kalinowski, Isabelle. 2002. “La vocation au travail de traduction”. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 144: 47–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Michael, and Ellen Kaplan. 2006. Chances are… Adventures in Probability. London: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
Katan, David. 1999. Translating Cultures. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Kellerman, Eric. 1986. “An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon”. In Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood Smith (eds), 35–48. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kelletat, Andreas. F. 1986. Die Rückschritte der Übersetzungstheorie. Vaasa: Vaasan korkeakoulu.Google Scholar
Kelly, Louis G. 1979. The True Interpreter. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kemble, Ian (ed.). 2005. Translation Norms. What is ‘Normal’ in the Translation Profession? Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth, School of Languages and Area Studies.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy. 1998. “Creatures of habit? What translators usually do with words”. Meta 43 (4): 515–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinnunen, Tuija, and Kaisa Koskinen (eds). 2010. Translators’ Agency. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Available at <[URL]>.
Klaudy, Kinga. 1996. “Back-translation as a tool for detecting explicitation strategies in translation”. In Translation Studies in Hungary, K. Klaudy, J. Lambert and A. Sohár (eds), 99–114. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar
. 2003. Languages in Translation. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar
Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990), Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice, Detroit, MI.: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Kohlmayer, Rainer. 1988. “Der Literaturübersetzer zwischen Original und Markt. Eine Kritik funktionalistischer Übersetzungstheorien”. Lebende Sprachen 33 (4): 145–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, Werner. 1979. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
. 1990. “Zum Gegenstand der Übersetzungswissenschaft”. In Übersetzungswissenschaft. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven, Festshcrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 65. Geburtstag, R. Arntz and G. Thome (eds), 19–30. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1995. “The concept of equivalence and the object of Translation Studies”. Target 7 (2): 191–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2000a. “Institutional illusions. Translating in the EU Commission”. The Translator 6 (1): 49–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. Beyond Ambivalence. Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
. 2008. Translating Institutions. An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa, and Outi Paloposki. 2015. Sata Kirjaa, Tuhat Suomennosta. Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kranach, Svenja. 2014. “Translations as a locus of language contact”. In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, J. House (ed.) 96–115. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P. 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeshrittenen Franzözischlernern. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred L., and Clyde Kluckhohn. 1952. Cultures: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. [Peabody Museum Papers Vol. 47, no. 1.] Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1990. Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. [1962] 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second, enlarged edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kujamäki, Pekka. 1998. Deutsche Stimmen der Sieben Brüder. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Finnish comet in German skies: Translation, retranslation and norms”. Target 13 (1): 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kukkonen, Pirjo. 1993. Kielen Silkki. Hiljaisuus ja rakkaus kielen ja kirjallisuuden kuvastimessa. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
Kundera, Milan. 1993a. Les Testaments Trahis. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
. 1993b. Nesmrtelnost. Brno: Atlantis.Google Scholar
. 1995. Interview in Lidové Noviny, Oct. 30.Google Scholar
. 2003. L’ignorance. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2011. “Innovative subtitling. A reception study”. In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds), 187–200. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid, and Klaus Kaindl (eds). 2005. Wortklauber, Sinnverdreher, Brückenbauer? DolmetscherInnen und ÜbersetzerInnen als literarische Geschöpfe. Vienna: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
Kußmaul, Paul. 2007. Verstehen und Übersetzen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Laaksovaara, Tuula H., and Gary Farell. 1992. “Position of silence in English and Finnish culture”. Erikoiskielet ja Käännösteoria / VAKKI-symposium XII, 107–118.Google Scholar
Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes”. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds), 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laland, Kevin N. and Gillian R. Brown. 2002. Sense and Nonsense. Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, José. 1991. “Shifts, oppositions and goals in Translation Studies: Towards a Genealogy of Concepts”. In Translation Studies: The State of the Art, K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), 25–37. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Language and translation as general management problems”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3: New Horizons, C. Dollerup and V. Appel (eds), 271–293. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, José, and Hendrik van Gorp. 1985. “On describing translations”. In The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation, T. Hermans (ed.), 42–53. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Lang, George. 2000. “Translation from, to and within the Atlantic Creoles”. TTR 8 (2): 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lanstyák, István, and Pál Heltai. 2012. “Universals in language contact and translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 99–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara. 1996. The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): A Resource and a Methodology for the Empirical Study of Translation. Unpublished PhD thesis, UMIST, Manchester.Google Scholar
Law, John, and John Hassard (eds). 1998. Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lefevere, André. 1992a. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lefevere, André (ed.). 1992b. Translation / History / Culture. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leppihalme, Ritva. 1997. Culture Bumps. An empirical approach to the translation of allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
. 2000a. “Foreignizing strategies in drama translation: the case of the Finnish Oleanna”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), 153–162. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. “Kulttuurisidonnaisuus kaunokirjallisuuden kääntämisessä”. In Käännöskirjallisuus ja sen Kritiikki, O. Paloposki and H. Makkonen-Craig (eds), 89–105. Helsinki: AKO.Google Scholar
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van. 1989/1990. “Translation and original. Similarities and dissimilarities, I and II”. Target 1 (2): 151–181 and 2 (1): 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levenston, Edward A. 1971. “Over-indulgence and under-representation – Aspects of mother-tongue interference”. In Papers in Contrastive Linguistics, G. Nickel (ed.), 115–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1982. Éthique et Infini. Dialogues avec Philippe Nemo. Paris: Fayard and Radio-France.Google Scholar
. 1987. Philosophy and the Idea of Infinity. Collected philosophical papers. Translated by Alphonso Lingin. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levý, Jiři. [1967] 1989. “Translation as a Decision Process”. In To Honor Roman Jakobson, vol. II, 1171–1182. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Reprinted in A. Chesterman (ed.), 1989, Readings in Translation Theory, 37–52. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Philip E. 1985. “The measure of translation effects”. In Difference in Translation, J. Graham (ed.), 31–62. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1989. “Models of the translation process: Claim and reality”. Target 1 (1): 43–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process and Translation Strategies: A psycholinguistic investigation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. 1990. Essays on Self-Reference. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue. A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Maia, Belinda. 1998. “Word order and the first person singular in Portuguese and English”. Meta 43 (4): 589–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, Carol. 2006. “The Translator as Theôros: Thoughts on Cogitation, Figuration and Current Creative Writing”. In Translating Others, vol. 1, Theo Hermans (ed.), 163–180. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Malblanc, Alfred. 1963. Stylistique Comparée du Français et de l’Allemand. 2nd edition. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten. 1994. “Translating customer expectations into teaching”. In Quality-Assurance, Management and Control. ITI Conference 7, Proceedings, C. Picken (ed.), 143–155. London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Multidisciplinarity in process research”. In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riittä Jääskeläinen (eds), 163–170. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Norms and nature in Translation Studies”. Synaps (Norges Handelshøyskole, Bergen) 16: 13–19.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Norms and nature in translation studies”. In Incorporating Corpora – Corpora and the Translator, G. Anderman and M. Rogers, (eds), 49–59. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. 1988. The Science of Linguistics in the Art of Translation. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín de León, Celia. 2008. “Skopos and beyond. A critical study of functionalism”. Target 20 (1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian. 2000. “Audience design in translating”. The Translator 6 (1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2001. “The environment of translation”. In Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production, E. Steiner and C. Yallop (eds), 41–124. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2000. “Strange strings in translated language. A study on corpora”. In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, M. Olohan (ed.), 119–141. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Pekka Kujamäki (eds.). 2004. Translation Universals. Do they exist? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayoral Asensio, Roberto. 2000. “Parámetros sociales y traducción”. Trans: Revista de traductología 4: 111–118.Google Scholar
McCarty, Willard. 1999. “Humanities computing as interdiscipline”. Available at: <[URL]>

McDonough Dolmaya, Julie. 2011a. “The ethics of crowdsourcing”. Linguistica Antverpiensia 10: 97–111.Google Scholar
. 2011b. “Moral ambiguity: Some shortcomings of professional codes of ethics for translators”. JoSTrans 15: 28–49.Google Scholar
Medin, Douglas L., and Robert L. Goldstone. 1995. “The predicates of similarity”. In Similarity in Language, Thought and Perception [Semiotic and Cognitive Studies 1], C. Cacciari (ed.), 83–110. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Melby, Alan K., with C. Terry Warner. 1995. The Possibility of Language. A discussion of the nature of language, with implications for human and machine translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meylaerts, Reine. 2011. “Translation policy”. In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 2, Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer (eds), 163–168. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milton, John. 2001. “The figure of the factory translator”. Paper presented at the Third EST Congress, Copenhagen, August 30 – September 1, 2001.
Misgeld, Dieter. 1991. “Modernity and hermeneutics: a critical-theoretical rejoinder”. In Gadamer and Hermeneutics, H. J. Silverman (ed.), 163–177. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Misgeld, Dieter, and Graeme Nicholson. 1992. “Writing and the living voice. Interview with Hans-Georg Gadamer”. In Hans-Georg Gadamer on Education, Poetry, and History, D. Misgeld and G. Nicholson (eds), 63–71. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Molina, Lucía, and Amparo Hurtado Albir. 2002. “Translation techniques revisited: A dynamic and functionalist approach”. Meta 47, 4, 498–512.
 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 1998. “Four questions about the work habits of translators”. Paper read at the EST Congress, Granada, 23–26.9.1998.Google Scholar
. 2000. “The workplace procedure of professional translators”. In A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), Translation in Context, 39–48. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. [2001] 2007. Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Moster, Stefan. 2003. “Birthday blues”. Books from Finland 2003 (1): 59–60. Also available at <[URL]>
Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2007. Translation as Intervention. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2000. “Translation strategies. Somewhere over the rainbow”. In Investigating Translation, A. Beeby, D. Ensinger and M. Presas (eds), 129–138. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Processes of what models? On the cognitive indivisibility of translation acts and events”. Translation Spaces 5 (1): 145–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Shirin. 2003. “Second language transfer during third language acquisition”. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 3 (2). ([URL], 7 Jan. 2007)
Neubert, Albrecht. 2001. Review of Chesterman et al. (2000). Target 13 (2): 387–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht, and Gregory M. Shreve. 1992. Translation as Text. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
[1969] 1989. “Science of translation”. Language 45(3): 483–498. Reprinted in A. Chesterman (ed.), 1989, Readings in Translation Theory, 80–98. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. 1983. Tieteellinen Päättetly ja Selittäminen. Helsinki: Otava.Google Scholar
Norberg, Ulf. 2003. Übersetzen mit Doppeltem Skopos. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1988. Textanalyse und Übersetzen. Theorie, Methode und didaktische Anwendung einer übersetzungsrelevanten Textanalyse. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
. 1991a. Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 1991b. “Scopos, loyalty, and translational conventions”. Target 3 (1): 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Nordman, Lieselott. 2009. Lagöversättning som process och produkt. Helsinki: Institutionen för nordiska språk och nordisk litteratur, Helsingfors universitet.Google Scholar
Odlin, Terence. 1991. “Irish English idioms and language transfer”. English World-Wide 12 (2): 175–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olk, Harold. 2002. “Critical Discourse Analysis in translation”. The Translator 8 (1): 101–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve, and Mona Baker. 2000. “Reporting that in translated English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation?” Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Øverås, Linn. 1998. “In search of the third code: an investigation of norms in literary translation”. Meta 43 (4): 571–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paasilinna, Arto. 1984. Ukkosenjumalan poika. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
. 1999. Der Sohn des Donnergottes. (Translation by S. Moster.) München: Ehrenwirth.Google Scholar
Paloposki, Outi. 1996. “Originality in translation”. In Aspectus varii translationis II [Studia Translatologica, Ser. B., vol. 2.], R. Oittinen, O. Paloposki and J. Schopp (eds), 66–84. Tampere: Tampere University Publications.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Limits of freedom. Agency, choice and constraints in the work of the translator”. In Agents of Translation, J. Milton and P. Banda (eds), 189–208. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paloposki, Outi, and Kaisa Koskinen. 2004. “Thousand and one translations. Retranslation hypothesis revisited”. In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær and D. Gile (eds), 27–38. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pápai, Vilma. 2004. “Explicitation: a universal of translated text?” In Translation Universals. Do they exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds), 143–164. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peeters, Jean. 1999. La médiation de l’étranger. Une sociolinguistique de la traduction. Arras: Artois Presses Université.Google Scholar
Pergnier, Maurice. [1978] 1993. Les fondements sociolinguistiques de la traduction. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
Phillips, Adam. 2007. “After Strachey”. London Review of Books, 4.10.2007, 36–38.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth. L. 1959. “Language as particle, wave and field”. Texas Quarterly 2 (2): 37–54.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pokorn, Nike K. 2000. “Translation into a non-mother tongue in translation theory: deconstruction of the traditional”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), 61–72. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polezzi, Loredana (ed.). 2006. Translation, Travel, Migration. Special issue of The Translator, 12 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poltermann, A. 1992. “Normen des literarischen Übersetzens im System der Literatur”. In Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung. Histories, Systems, Literary Translation, H. Kittel (ed.), 5–31. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Popovič, Anton. 1970. “The concept ‘shift of expression’ in translation analysis”. In The Nature of Translation, J. S. Holmes, F. de Haan and A. Popovič (eds), 78–87. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. [1945] 1962. The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
1972. Objective Knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Prunč, Erich. 1997a. “Versuch einer Skopostypologie”. In Text – Kultur – Kommunikation, N. Grbic and M. Wolf (eds), 33–52. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Prunč, E. 1997b. “Translationskultur. Versuch einer konstruktiven Kritik des translatorischen Handels”. TEXTconTEXT 11 (2): 99–127.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 2002. The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Puurtinen, Tiina. 1995. Linguistic Acceptability in Translated Children’s Literature. [University of Joensuu Publications in the Humanities 15.] Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1992a. Translation and Text Transfer. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 1992b. “The relation between translation and material text transfer”. Target 4 (2): 171–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992c. “Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience, C. Dollerup and A. Loddegaard (eds), 279–288. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 
 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. “European Translation Studies, une science qui dérange, and why equivalence needn’t be a dirty word”. TTR 8 (1): 153–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. [1997] 2012. Pour une éthique du traducteur. Arras Presses Université. (English translation 2012: On Translator Ethics. Principles for mediation between cultures. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Translation Studies beyond 2000”. In Translation and the (Re)Location of Meaning, J. Vandaele (ed.), 443–448. Leuven: CETRA, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
. 2000. “On cooperation”. In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Apects, M. Olohan (ed.), 181–192. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2004. The Moving Text. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “On the social and the cultural in Translation Studies”. In Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting, A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and Z. Jettmarová (eds), 1–25. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007a. “Natural and directional equivalence in theories of translation”. Target 19(2): 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. “On history in formal conceptualizations of translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 8 (2): 153–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Using process studies in translator training. Self-discovery through lousy experiments”. In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, S. Göpferich, F. Alves & I. M. Mees (eds), 135–156. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2010. Exploring Translation Theories. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Translation theory as historical problem-solving”. Intercultural Communication Review 9: 49–61.Google Scholar
. 2016. Translation Solutions for Many Languages – Histories of a Flawed Dream. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Raittila, Hannu. 2001. Canal Grande. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1975. Practical Reason and Norms. London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina. 1971. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer Allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Retsker, Ya. I. 1974. Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktika. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnie otnosheniya.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna. 1998. Translatorische Kompetenz. Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Situatedness in Translation Studies”. Cognitive Systems Research 3 (3): 523–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Roland Freihoff. 2000. “Kooperative Textgestaltung im translatorischen Handlungsrahmen”. In Translation in Context, A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds), 49–59. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Douglas. 1991. The Translator’s Turn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. Becoming a Translator. An Accelerated Course. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Nine theses about anecdotalism in the study of translation (With Special Reference to Sherry Simon, Ed., Culture in Transit)”. Meta 44 (2): 402–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Round, Nicholas G. 2005. “Translation and its metaphors: the (N+1) wise men and the elephant”. SKASE 1 (1): 47–69.Google Scholar
Rudner, Richard. [1953] 1998. “The scientist qua scientist does make value judgements”. Philosophy of Science 20, 1–6. Reprinted in E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger and D. W. Rudge (eds), 1998, Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science (3rd edition), 492–498. Amherst, NY.: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Runciman, W. G. 1998. The Social Animal. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Rushdie, Salman. 1992. Imaginary Homelands. London: Granta Books.Google Scholar
Sager, Juan C. 1994. Language Engineering and Translation. Consequences of Automation, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. “Text types and translation”. In Text Typology and Translation, A. Trosberg (ed.), 25–41. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. 1998. Causality and Explanation. New York: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savory, Theodore H. [1957] 1968. The Art of Translation. London: Cape.Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina (ed.). 1998. Translation and Quality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1999. Translation and Norms. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schiavi, Giuliana. 1996. “There is always a teller in a tale”. Target 8 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleifer, Ronald. 1987. A. J. Greimas and the Nature of Meaning: Linguistics, Semiotics and Discourse. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Morena Azbel. 2005. “How Do You Do it Anyway?” A Longitudinal Study of three Translator Students Translating from Russian into Swedish. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Available at <[URL]>
Schreiber, Michael. 1998. “Übersetzungstypen und Übersetzungsverfahren”. In Handbuch Translation, M. Snell-Hornby, H. G. Hönig, P. Kußmaul and P. A. Schmitt (eds), 151–154. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Schulte, Rainer, and John Biguenet (eds). 1992. Theories of Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. [1964] 1967. “How to derive ‘ought’ from ‘is”. Philosophical Review 73: 43–58. Reprinted e.g. in P. Foot (ed.), 1967, Theories of Ethics, 101–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Segerstråle, Ullica. 2000. Defenders of the Truth. The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Séguinot, Candace. 1982. “The editing function of translation”. Bulletin of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 151–161.Google Scholar
. 1989. “The translation process: an experimental study”. In The Translation Process, C. Séguinot (ed.), 21–53. School of Translation, York University: H. G. Publications.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica, and Marianne Lederer 1984. Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1989. “Extending the theory of translation to interpretation: Norms as a case in point”. Target 1 (1): 111–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone. 2011. “Sight translation and speech disfluency: Performance analysis as a window to cognitive translation processes”. In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds), 93–120. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shuttleworth, Mark, and Moira Cowie. 1997. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Siitonen, Arto. [1991] 1993. “Insinöörin etiikasta”. In Airaksinen (ed.) [1991] 1993: 265–284.Google Scholar
Simeoni, Daniel. 1998. “The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus”. Target 10 (1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simmel, Georg. [1908] 1950. Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Forme der Gesellschaft. Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot. Translated and edited by Kurt. H. Wolff. 1950) as The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press. (“The stranger” is the title of Chapter 3, pp. 402–408.)Google Scholar
Sintonen, Matti. 1984. The Pragmatics of Scientific Explanation. Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1991. “Translation Studies – Art, science or utopia?” In Translation Studies: The State of the Art, K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), 13–23. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. Ansterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl (eds). 1994. Translation Studies. An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sovran, Tamar. 1992. “Between similarity and sameness”. Journal of Pragmatics 18 (4): 329–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deidre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sprung, R. C. (ed.). 2000. Translating into Success. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stecconi, Ubaldo. 2004. “Interpretive semiotics and translation theory: the semiotic conditions to translation”. Semiotica 150: 471–489.Google Scholar
Stetting, Karen. 1989. “Transediting – a new term for coping with a grey area between editing and translating”. In Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies, G. D. Caie, K. Haastrup, A. L. Jakobsen, J. E. Nielsen, J. Sevaldsen, H. Specht and A. Zettersten (eds), 371–382. Copenhagen: Department of English, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Sunwoo, Min. 2007. “Operationalizing the translation purpose (Skopos)”. MuTra conference proceedings: LSP Translation Scenarios. Available at [URL] (Accessed 16.4.2009).
Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem. 2001. “Is one case always enough?” Perspectives 9 (3): 167–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taivalkoski-Shilov, Kristiina. 2002. “Traduire la mixité formelle: l’exemple des premières (re)traductions de Fielding en France. Faits de Langue 19: 85–97.Google Scholar
. 2006. La Tierce Main. Le discours rapporté dans les traductions françaises de Fielding au XVIIIe siècle. Arras Cedex: Artois Presses Université.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, and Muriel Saville-Troike (eds). 1985. Perspectives on Silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tarasti, Eero. 1988. “Suomi semiootikon silmin”. Synteesi 1–2: 12–19.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2000. “In search of translation universals: non-equivalence or ‘unique’ items in a corpus test”. Paper presented at the UMIST/UCL Research Models in Translation Studies Conference, Manchester, 28–30 April 2000.
. 2002. “Translationese – a myth or an empirical fact?” Target 14 (2): 207–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Unique items – over- or under-represented in translated language?” In Translation Universals. Do they exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds.), 177–184. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “The Monitor Model revisited: Evidence from process research”. Meta 50 (2): 405–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
. 1985. “A rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies”. In The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation, T. Hermans (ed.), 16–41. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1991. “What are descriptive studies into translation likely to yield apart from isolated descriptions?” In Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies, K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), 179–192. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. [1995] 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Revised edition 2012.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “In search of laws of translational behavior”. In Basic Issues in Translation Studies: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, A. Neubert, G. M. Shreve, and K. Gommlich (eds), 45–56. Kent, OH.: Kent State University PressGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “What’s the problem with ‘translation problem’?” In Translation and Meaning, Part 6, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and M. Thelén (eds), 57–71. Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd, Maastricht School of Translation and Interpreting.Google Scholar
. 2004a. “Probabilistic explanations in Translation Studies: Universals – or a challenge to the very concept?” In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær and D. Gile (eds), 15–25. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. “Probabilistic explanations in translation studies. Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals?” In Translation Universals. Do they Exist?, A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, (eds), 15–32. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Conducting research on a ‘wish-to-understand’ basis”. In Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines, J. Ferreira Duarte, A. Assis Rosa and T. Seruya (eds), 55–66. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trivedi, Harish. 2006. “In our own time, on our own terms: ‘translation’ in India”. In Translating Others, Volume 1, T. Hermans (ed.), 102–119. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos. 1977. “Features of similarity”. Psychological Review 84: 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 1998. “Computerized corpora and the future of Translation Studies”. Meta 43 (4): 652–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Translation and political engagement. Activism, social change and the role of translation in geopolitical shifts”. The Translator 6 (1): 23–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Connecting the two infinite orders. Research methods in Translation Studies”. In Crosscultural Transgressions, T. Hermans (ed.), 9–25. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Reconceptualizing translation theory. Integrating non-Western thought about translation”. In Translating Others, Volume 1, T. Hermans (ed.), 13–32. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2007a. “Why European translators should want to de-Westernize Translation Studies”. Plenary talk to the European Society for Translation Studies Conference, Ljubljana, September 2007. (See also [URL].)
. 2007b. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria, and Gentzler, Edwin (eds). 2002. Translation and Power. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Tytler, Alexander F. [1797] 1978. Essay on the Principles of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna. 1977. The Emergence of Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ulrych, Margherita. 2009. “Translating and editing as mediated discourse: focus on the recipient”. In Translators and Their Readers. In Homage to Eugene A. Nida, R. Dimitriu and M. Shlesinger (eds), 219–234. Brussels: Editions du Hasard.Google Scholar
van Dam, Helle, and Karen K. Zethsen. 2008. “Translator status. A study of Danish company translators”. The Translator 14 (1): 71–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M., and Ton Naaijkens (eds). 1991. Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri. 1989. Quasi-correctness. A Critical Study of Finnish Translations of Russian Journalistic Texts. Helsinki: Neuvostoliittoinstituutti.Google Scholar
Vehviläinen, Päivi. 2000. Kerro, Kerro Kääntäjä. Kaunokirjallisuuden suomentajan identiteetti haastettelupuheessa. Licentiate thesis, Department of Translation Studies, University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility. A history of translation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. The Scandals of Translation: towards an ethics of difference. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “The difference that translation makes: the translator’s unconscious”. In Translation Studies: perspectives on an emerging discipline, A. Riccardi (ed.), 214–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J. 1996. A Skopos Theory of Translation. (Some arguments for and against.) Heidelberg: TEXTconTEXT.Google Scholar
1997. “Translation and the ‘meme’”. Target 9 (1): 155–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. “Starting to unask what translatology is all about”. Target 10 (1): 41–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viaggio, Sergio. 1994. “Theory and professional development: or admonishing translators to be good”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, C. Dollerup and A, Lindegaard (eds), 97–105. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vieira, Else R. P. 1994. “A postmodern translational aesthetics in Brazil”. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker and K. Kaindl (eds), 65–72. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
von Wright, Georg H. 1968. An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. Amsterdam: North-Holland. [Acta Philosophica Fennica 21.]Google Scholar
1971. Explanation and Understanding. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, Judy, and Rita Kothari (eds). 2009. Decentering Translation Studies. India and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman. 2002. The Map. A beginner’s guide to doing research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Wilson, Andrew. 2009. Translators on Translating. Inside the invisible art. Vancouver: CCSP Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge. London: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Wolf, Michaela, and Alexandra Fukari (eds). 2007. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zabalbeascoa, Patrick. 2000. “From techniques to types of solutions”. In Investigating Translation, A. Beeby, D. Ensinger and M. Presas (eds), 117–127. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zalán, Peter. 1990. “Zur Problematik von Normen und Übersetzen”. In Übersetzungswissenschaft. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 65. Geburtstag, R. Arntz and G. Thome (eds), 55–58. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar