Discussion published In:
TargetVol. 13:2 (2001) ► pp.339–343
Discussion
Do we need a shared ground?
Article outline
- 1.What is translation?
- 2.Why is translation like this?
- 3.What consequences do translations have?
-
References
References (7)
Chesterman, Andrew and Rosemary Arrojo. 2000. “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12:1: 151–160. 
De Groot, Annette. 1997. “The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael McBeath, eds. Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1997. 25–56.
Halverson, Sandra. 1998. Concepts and categories in Translation Studies. Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of English. [Ph.D. dissertation]
. 1998a. “Translation Studies and representative corpora: Establishing links between translation corpora, theoretical/descriptive categories and a conception of the object of study”. Meta 41: 494–514.
. 2000. “The fault line in our common ground”. Target 12:2: 356–362.
Mandelblit, Nili. 1996. “The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory”. Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcel Thelen, eds. Translation and meaning, Part 3. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press, 1996. 482–495.
Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet. 2000. “The suspended potential of culture research in TS”. Target 12:2. 345–355.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Arrojo, Rosemary
2002. Lessons learned from Babel. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 14:1 ► pp. 137 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.