Cover not available
Article published In:
"Les limites du traduisible" / "The Limits of the Translatable"
[FORUM 2:2] 2004
► pp. 241–261

On the Translatability of Sublanguages

| Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration |
Keywords: LSP, Fachsprache, sublanguage, domain-focal term, conceptual asymmetry
Published online: 1 October 2004
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.2.2.13bre
References (19)
References
Ahmad, K. (1996). A terminology dynamic and the growth of knowledge: a case study in nuclear physics and in the philosophy of science. In Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, Vienna. Frankfurt: INDEKS-Verlag: 1–11.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, R. de (1988). Systemic versus contextual aspects of terminology. In Proceedings of the 1st International Congress on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, Trier. Frankfurt: INDEKS-Verlag: 7–24.Google Scholar
Brekke, M. and R. Skarsten (1988). Machine Translation: a Threat or a Promise? In Picken C. (ed) Translating and the Computer 9; Potential and Practice. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
Brekke, M. (1996). Are special languages (machine) translatable? Journal of the International Institute of Terminological Research. 7.2: 5–21.Google Scholar
(2000). Lexical Identification of Domain Focal Text and Terminology Paper read at COMLEX 2000, Patras, Greece.Google Scholar
(2002). TERMINEC. A Clearinghouse for Economics Text and Terminology. In Peters P., Collins P & Smith A, (eds) New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Proceedings of ICAME 2000. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming). Linguistic aspects of the translation of scientific and technical text. In Kittel, H. et al., Translation: An International Handbook of Translation Studies, de Gruyter, Berlin.
Brekke, M., Ø. Andersen, T. Dahl and J. Myking (eds.) (1994). Applications and implications of current LSP research: Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on LSP. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
Hatim, B. and J. Mason (1991). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kittredge, R.I. (1987). The significance of sublanguage for automatic translation. In Nirenburg S. (ed.): 59–67.Google Scholar
Lehrberger, J. and L. Borbeau (1988). Automatic translation and the concept of sublanguage. In Kittredge, R.I. and J. Lehrberger (eds.). Sublanguage: studies of language in restricted domains. Berlin: de Gruyter: 81–106.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J. (1984). Linguistic theory in America. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nirenburg, S. (ed.) (1987). Machine translation. Theoretical and methodological issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S. (1994). Sublanguage, text type and machine translation. In Brekke, M., Ø. Andersen, T. Dahl and J. Myking (eds.): 832–839.Google Scholar
Sager, J.C. (1994). Language engineering and translation - Consequences of automation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, J.C., D. Dungworth and P.F. McDonald (1980). English special languages. Wiesbaden: Brandstetter.Google Scholar
Scott, B. E. (1989). The Logos system. Paper read at MT Summit II, Munich.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (1991). German Philosophy: Language and Style Topoi, 101: 155–161 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet (1958/1969). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar