Translation Studies

Jeremy Munday
1. The canonization of pre-Translation Studies writing
2. Deciding a name for the discipline
3. The conceptualization of translation
4. What does Translation Studies study?
5. The development of Translation Studies
6. Translation Studies since the turn of the millenium
7. The evolving identity of Translation Studies
References
Handbook of Translation Studies
2010 John Benjamins Publishing Company. Not to be reproduced in any form without written
permission from the publisher.
An entry on Translation Studies in a Handbook of Translation Studies runs the risk of
being considered superfluous, superficial or an ill-advised bout of navel-gazing. After all,
what is happening in Translation Studies will surely be covered in the other entries,
ranging as they do from Adaptation to Web and translation. But the term
Translation Studies is far from uncontroversial and this entry will attempt to reduce the
risks by concentrating on its identity, history, development and ideas since the second
half of the twentieth century. This may serve as a context for the understanding of areas
that are dealt with in more detail elsewhere in the volume, and to highlight particular
questions of debate.
Translation Studies is the discipline which studies phenomena associated with
translation in its many forms. Although translation and interpreting are practices
that have been conducted for millennia, Translation Studies is a relatively new area of
inquiry, dating from the second half of the twentieth century and initially emerging out
of other fields such as Modern Languages, Comparative Literature and Linguistics. Like
other new areas of study, it has had to fight for recognition and was additionally
hampered by an entrenched bias against it resulting from a long-held disregard for
translation. In academia, translation has often been perceived to be of lesser value
because, as a product, it is derivative and supposedly subservient to the original, and, as
a practice, it was associated in schools and universities with classical or foreign language
learning (hence was merely a means to a higher goal of learning Greek, Latin, etc.) or
with a non-academic and underpaid profession. It is only really since the 1980s that this
perception has begun to shift significantly.
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
1 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
1. The canonization of pre-Translation Studies writing
Before the 1950s, writings about translation, which generally were produced by
translators themselves and to be found in the prefaces to their works, tended to be rather
unsystematic. Ideas, however insightful, were often not developed from one translator to
the next. In a major early survey of English translation theory written in 1920, Flora
Amos makes the point that [t]his lack of consecutiveness in criticism is probably
partially accountable for the slowness with which translators attained the power to put
into words, clearly and unmistakably, their aims and methods (Amos [1920]/1973: x).
Couched in more modern terms, one might say that a consistent theory of translation is
necessary in order to produce a metalanguage through which the process of translation
may be discussed with precision.
That is not to say that earlier writings did not have something valuable to say. But
they tended to centre on issues such as whether translations should be literal or free,
which Translation Studies has generally traced back to Cicero (106 BCE43 BCE),
Horace (65 BCE8 BCE) and St Jerome (c.347420 CE). In the West it was the
translation of the classics and of the Bible which provided the bulk of input to nascent
translation theory for two thousand years (see Kelly 1979, Rener 1987). The fact that
translation was essential for the spread of Christianity, most obviously through the
widely used Greek Septuagint translation of the Jewish scriptures made in the 3rd1st
centuries BCE and Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of the Old and New Testaments of
the Christian Bible (late 4th century CE), meant that crucial questions of accuracy and
the relation between source and target texts occupied centre stage in theological debate
(see Religious translation). In Protestant Reformation Europe of the sixteenth
century, aided by the development of the printing press, translation also became a major
political weapon of opposition to Catholic Rome. The Bible was translated into the local
vernacular languages and by this mere fact contributed to the establishment of national
languages. Amongst the most famous were Martin Luther's translation into German
(completed in 1534) and Wyclif (138295) Tyndale translations into English (15256).
With such a history of translation and with a discipline that initially emerged in the
West, it is perhaps not surprising that prefaces by Cicero, Horace, St Jerome and Luther
have since become the canonized precursors of modern Translation Studies. While what
they said may no longer occupy centre stage in theory, they are acknowledged as an
important part of the history of the discipline in the West and commonly anthologized in
collections in English along with others such as the English poet-translators of the 17th
century (notably John Dryden [16311700]), the German Romanticists of the 18th-early
19th centuries (e.g., Johann Wolfgang von Goethe [17491832], Friedrich Hlderlin
[17701843], August Wilhelm Schlegel [17671845] and, most particularly, Friedrich
Schleiermacher [17681834]), Victorians such as Matthew Arnold (18221868) and 20th
century thinkers and writers such as Walter Benjamin (18921940), Ezra Pound
(18851972), Jorge Luis Borges (18991986) and Vladimir Nabokov (18991977).
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
2 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
Important modern anthologies include Biguenet and Schulte (1989), Schulte and
Biguenet (1992), Robinson (1997), Venuti (2000/2004) and Weissbort and Eysteinsson
(2006).
2. Deciding a name for the discipline
In academic circles, interest in translation grew particularly from the 1950s onwards and
generally from a linguistic perspective. Prominent among the scholars of this time were
the French linguist and semiotician Georges Mounin (born Louis Leboucher,
19101993), the US linguist and Bible translator Eugene Nida (born 1914) who brought
Chomskyian ideas to the scientific analysis of translation and equivalence (see Nida
1964), and, from Canada, the comparative stylistics of the French-born Jean-Paul Vinay
(19101999) and Jean Darbelnet (19041990) which was published with the subtitle
mthode de traduction (method of translation) in French in 1958 and in English
translation in 1995 (Vinay & Darbelnet 1958, 1995). Despite this early work, the name
Translation Studies was not proposed until 1972 as an alternative to translatology
(French translatologie) or translation science, or science of translating and the German
!bersetzungswissenschaft. The proposer was James S. Holmes (19241986), a US-born
lecturer and poetry translator at the University of Amsterdam, in a now famous
conference paper aptly entitled The name and nature of Translation Studies, delivered
at the Third International Conference of Applied Linguistics, held in Copenhagen in
August 1972. The abstract of the paper begins:
Though the study of translation and translations has a long history, and during
the past two decades has begun to display more and more the characteristics of
a separate discipline, there is as yet little general agreement as to what this new
discipline should be called. (Holmes 1972: 88).
Holmes proposes the designation Translation Studies (in lower case) which became
established within the English-speaking world and beyond. This preference has come to
dominate in institutional names (Centres/Departments/Schools of/for Translation
Studies in many universities), as well as in the names of prominent academic
associations such as The Canadian Association for Translation Studies (founded in
Hamilton, Ontario, in 1987), The European Society for Translation Studies (founded in
Vienna in 1992) and The International Association for Translation and Intercultural
Studies (founded in Seoul in 2004). However, competing terms have persisted in other
languages, exemplified in the trilingual title of Kittel et al.'s major handbook published in
Germany as: bersetzung/Translation/Traduction: Ein internationales Handbuch zur
bersetzungsforschung [Translation research]/An International Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies/Encyclopdie internationale des sciences de traduction [sciences of
translation] (Kittel et al. 2004).
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
3 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
3. The conceptualization of translation
For such an area of study, the conceptualization of translation is clearly key. Yet
translation is far from straightforward; it may be understood as a process of rendering a
text from one language into another (translating, see Translation process), a product
(the translated text) or as a subject and phenomenon itself (e.g., cultural translation,
translation in the Middle Ages). Typically, Translation Studies has used the famous
Russo-American linguist Roman Jakobson's (18961982) categorization of three forms
of translation as a process:
Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means
of other signs of the same language.
1.
Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal signs
by means of some other language.
2.
Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by
means of signs of nonverbal sign systems. (Jakobson 1959: 233, emphasis in
original)
3.
In Jakobson's categorization, it is interlingual translation (i.e., translation between
different verbal languages, German>French, Chinese>Arabic, English>Russian, etc.),
which is the focus. It has also been, and remains, the main object of study in Translation
Studies. However, the definition of other language is not unproblematic (is dialect
considered a different language, for instance?) and this blurs the dividing line between
interlingual and intralingual translation. Most importantly, though, Jakobson's
definitions refer to signs, above and beyond the written or spoken word. In recent years
this has proved valuable as the interest of Translation Studies has extended to embrace
many forms of intersemiotic translation (the role of the visual, the translation of music,
comics and films, and many other forms of adaptation, etc.) including those which cross
over with intralingual translation (e.g., sign language interpreting, audio
description, intralingual subtitling) and interlingual translation (e.g., interlingual
subtitling).
Also influential for the development of the discipline was the terminological
distinction made by Otto Kade (19271980) from the renowned Leipzig School. He
proposed Translation (upper case) as a superordinate term to cover !bersetzen
(translation, lower case) and Dolmetschen (interpreting). The definitions he suggests
(Kade 1968: 35; in Snell-Hornby 2006: 278) exceed a simplistic distinction between
written and spoken performance by focusing on the constraints of the activities. Hence,
interpreting is carried out orally but from a text that is presented once-only in real time
and which permits little revision or correction; written translation is performed from a
normally fixed, written text which usually allows detailed and repeated correction.
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
4 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
4. What does Translation Studies study?
As well as suggesting a name for the discipline, Holmes (1972, 1988) also discusses its
nature. He explicitly proposes a structure of an empirical discipline with a pure
research side divided into (1) Descriptive Translation Studies and (2) theoretical
Translation Studies or translation theory. The goals of pure research are to describe the
phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of
our experience, and [] to establish general principles by means of which these
phenomena can be explained and predicted (Holmes 1988: 71). Holmes adds a third
area (3) Applied Translation Studies in which the findings of the pure research
are applied in actual translation situations, in translation training, and in translation
criticism. Holmes' attempt to systematically classify the subject has, he says, the
advantage of revealing which areas have been most studied, and which ones have been
largely or wholly neglected. The interest in the applied side, though rather
underdeveloped in Holmes' schema, also reflects a keenness to integrate theory and
practice (Weissbort & Eysteinsson 2006: 406), a question which persists in Translation
Studies to this day. Indeed, since Holmes' time the questions which Translation Studies
has sought to answer have multiplied, but, as above, relate specifically to process
(understanding the cognitive, decision-making capacities of the translator), product
(what are the features of a translated text or genre, what are the characteristics of
translated language explicitation, standardization, interference, etc. , how do we
judge translation quality, what is untranslatable) and phenomenon (what is
understood as translation by different cultures, what was translation like at different
historical and geographical points, how was a specific translation or group of translations
received in the target culture, etc.).
Not widely circulated until after Holmes' death, his paper has since had an
enormous impact. By 1993 Edwin Gentzler was describing it as being generally accepted
as the founding statement for the field (Gentzler 1993: 92). Holmes was also a prime
instigator of international co-operation in the field, and important international
conferences were convened in Leuven (1976), Tel Aviv (1978) and Antwerp (1980).
Collaborators included Itamar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury in Tel Aviv. It was the
latter who brought Holmes' paper into even sharper focus in his own now seminal
Descriptive Translation Studies And beyond in which he begins by projecting Holmes'
schema into a graphic map of the discipline (Toury 1995: 10). Toury's work provides a
cogent argument for the branch of descriptive studies, with a systematic methodology
that will allow individual case studies, assumptions and results to be replicated,
compared and adjusted. The goal of such a descriptive branch is the identification of
patterns of translation behaviour and ultimately the formulation of probabilistic laws of
translation.
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
3 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
5. The development of Translation Studies
The introduction of more systematic linguistic theories from the mid twentieth century
onwards (see above) transformed the study of translation and prepared the basis for the
establishment of the discipline. Since the late 1980s, Translation Studies has expanded
enormously thanks to the rapid growth in practical translator training programmes,
underpinned by related research and responding to a greater international demand for
translation, and the general interest in translation as an intercultural phenomenon. This
explosion in interest and in published research is illustrated by the growing number of
research journals devoted to the field. Invidious as it may be to select just a few, among
the most prominent internationally are, in chronological order of foundation, Babel (the
Netherlands, founded in 1955), META (Canada, 1955), Traduction, terminologie,
rdaction (Canada, 1988), Target (The Netherlands, 1989), Perspectives on
Translatology (Denmark, 1993), The Translator (UK, 1995), Interpreting (The
Netherlands, 1996), Across Languages and Cultures (Hungary, 2001), Translation
Studies (UK, 2008) and, illustrating the move to open-access online publications, the
Journal of Specialized Translation (UK, 2004). Such has been the increase in activity
that two on-line databases now offer researchers searchable databases of work in
Translation Studies: Translation Studies Abstracts (St Jerome, 1998) and Translation
Studies Bibliography (John Benjamins, 2004). In addition, many widely-used general
volumes on Translation Studies have appeared, their number increasing significantly
from the 1990s onwards: Translation Studies (Bassnett 1980/1991/2002),
Contemporary Translation Theories (Gentzler 1993, 2001), The Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Baker & Malmkjr 1997; Baker & Saldanha 2008),
Dictionary of Translation Studies (Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997), Introducing
Translation Studies (Munday 2001/2008), A Companion to Translation Studies
(Kuhiwczak & Littau 2007), The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (Munday
2009) and the current project, the Handbook of Translation Studies (HTS).
Different attempts have been made to categorize this huge development in the
discipline. For example, Chesterman (1997: Chapter 2) sees five central ideas or
supermemes (translation from source to target; equivalence; untranslatability; free vs
literal; all writing is translating) and eight major stages in their evolution through
translation theory (words, word of God, rhetoric, logos, linguistic science,
communication, target and cognition); Snell-Hornby (2006) describes the various
turns of Translation Studies from the emergence of the discipline through to a
pragmatic turn in linguistics, the cultural turn of the 1980s, the interdiscipline of the
1990s and other turns of the 1990s (empirical, globalization, etc.).
Despite differences in perspective, a history of the discipline in the West till the end
of the twentieth century can broadly be traced through the following, sometimes
overlapping, moves:
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
6 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
Linguistic translation theory, including contrastive analysis of languages, and the
emergence of the central concept of equivalence between source and text.
1.
Functionalist approaches to translation from Germany, including theories of
text-type and skopos theory where the communicative purpose and function of the
target, rather than source, text were deemed to be crucial. These were followed by
text and discourse analysis approaches to translation, which have generally
imported more dynamic models from linguistics (notably systemic functional
linguistics) to analyse translation communication functionally. In these
approaches, the focus moved away from literary translation (see Literary
Studies and Translation Studies) and towards a range of non-literary texts.
2.
Polysystem theory and other systems theories, including the Manipulation
School and the Descriptive Translation Studies branch (Toury 1995; see also
Pym et al 2007). The aim of many of these studies is to establish the norms of
translation at different socio-historical points. For Toury (see above), the ultimate
aim is to establish laws of translation.
3.
The cultural turn heralded in Bassnett and Lefevere (1990). In the 1990s,
Translation Studies borrowed or adapted theoretical models from Cultural Studies,
most particularly from Feminist and Gender Studies and Postcolonial Studies.
Questions of power and ideology, and how these are manipulated through
translation, became crucial. A linguistic approach to the study of translation was
marginalized.
4.
A continued interest, inspired by the German Romanticists, notably
Schleiermacher, in philosophical questions related to literary hermeneutics and
to ethics. Venuti's The Translator's Invisibility (1995/2008) has been very
influential in developing an ethical critique of the translation tendencies of
foreignization and domestication, most particularly in his view of the prevailing
British and American publishing practices which erase characteristics of the
foreign.
5.
6. Translation Studies since the turn of the millenium
Since the turn of the millenium, Translation Studies has continued to expand in so many
diverse ways. A brief description of some of the major developments can only really
scratch the surface. Firstly, there has been a marked interest in the West in non-Western
theories, spurred initially by postcolonial studies. It has gone hand-in-hand with the
growth of Translation Studies worldwide, notably in China, India and the Arab world.
Some of the publications in this area have aimed to disseminate what are deemed to be
key ideas, through anthology or critical introductions, with Chinese translation discourse
particularly prominent. This has begun to cause a reassessment of the pre-history of
Translation Studies, taking into account the translation projects of the oral Buddhist
scriptures from Sanskrit and other languages to Chinese in the 1st to 8th centuries CE
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
7 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
and later (Cheung 2006), in the 20th century, the seminal influence of scholar and
translator Yan Fu (Chan 2004). The spread has also amplified the range of languages and
of historical circumstances and translation situations that are being investigated (as
exemplified by the variety of papers in Hermans 2006) and has even begun to see a
reassessment of the conceptualization of translation itself (Tymoczko 2007).
There has also been an increasing interest in the role of the translator rather than in
the translation product. This has manifested itself in the concern for translator ethics
and identity and in a strong trend towards a translation sociology. The influence of
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is very keen. In English, much work has also gone
into the construction of detailed histories of translation and translators (e.g., Gillespie &
Hopkins 2005 and subsequent volumes in the Oxford History of Literary Translation in
English series, see Translation history).
Another huge development has been technological. This has revolutionized the
practice of translation, which in many cases involves project managers, the use of
translation memory systems and other computer-aided translation tools and the
dispersal of translators in a globalized marketplace that treats translation as one element
in a globalization-internationalization-localization-translation (GILT) set-up. It has
also had a substantial impact on translation research, with a major return to automatic
and machine translation of various types and, in process-oriented and cognitive
research (see Cognitive approaches), the rise of corpus-based Translation Studies
(see Corpora), think-aloud protocols, eye-tracking and other aids to the observation
of the translator's decision-making processes. Such research now requires significant
investment in equipment and collaboration in multidisciplinary and international
research teams. Furthermore, new media have generated their own sub-branches of
activity and research, the most notable being audiovisual translation (or screen
translation) which has come to incorporate not only long-established dubbing and
subtitling practices but also the localization of video games, the spread of unofficial
fansubbing and the like.
7. The evolving identity of Translation Studies
Given these advances, a question that is frequently raised is the disciplinary and
identitary nature of Translation Studies. The question is no longer that which
preoccupied Holmes in 1972 (when many were unsure of the worth of Translation
Studies), but rather whether there is so much fragmentation that we are really studying
different or incompatible things and, a related question, whether Translation Studies
should therefore be considered a discipline in its own right, or more of an interdiscipline.
The problem that still confronts Translation Studies is that it (and many of its
researchers) has come together out of other disciplines and for this reason in many
countries it lacks a strong institutional identity. On the other hand, the fluidity of
modern scholarship often privileges interdisciplinary research as a dynamic and creative
force. Much good research on translation also takes place in disciplines that until
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
8 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
recently have not obviously interfaced with Translation Studies.
In 2000, Chesterman and Arrojo's paper Shared ground, published in Target,
attempted to reconcile what they termed essentialist approaches to translation (where
meanings are stable, and it is the task of the translator to transfer these) and
non-essentialist approaches (meaning is unstable, and translation itself is open to
question) with thirty jointly-constructed theses about the object of study. Since then,
the expansion of the field has been so great that sub-branches such as Interpreting
Studies have become semi-autonomous and have begun to anthologize separately (e.g.,
Pchhacker & Shlesinger 2002; Pchhacker 2004). Advances have caused a
reassessment of the metalanguage of translation (Gambier & van Doorslaer 2007). Van
Doorslaer's own contribution to that volume, leaning on his experience in co-developing
the online Translation Studies Bibliography, challenges the Holmes classification and
supports an open and descriptive map of the subject to provide an expandable
framework for research (van Doorslaer 2007: 220). Importantly for an interdisciplinary
field, a flexible framework allows new research to be incorporated and interrelationships
to be established especially when new technologies and models are constantly being
tested. Furthermore, the expansion of MA and doctoral programmes in Translation
Studies, boosted by international research methodology summer schools such as those
organized by CETRA at Leuven and by Edinburgh-Manchester-University College
London in the UK and Hong Kong, have had a positive effect, meaning that there is a
growing number of younger researchers who have trained specifically in Translation
Studies.
References
Amos, Flora R. 1973. Early Theories of Translation. New York: Octagon. Originally published by
Columbia University Press, 1920. TSB
Baker, Mona & Malmkjr, Kirsten (eds). 1997. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 1st
edition. London & New York: Routledge. TSB
Baker, Mona & Saldanha, Gabriela (eds). 2008. 2nd edition. Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies. London & New York: Routledge. TSB
Bassnett, Susan. 1980/1991/2002. Translation Studies. 1st/2nd/3rd edition. London & New York:
Routledge. TSB
Bassnett, Susan & Lefevere, Andr (eds). 1990. Translation, History and Culture. London & New
York: Pinter. TSB
Biguenet, John & Schulte, Rainer (eds). 1989. The Craft of Translation. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. TSB
Chan, Leo Takhung (ed.). 2004. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. BoP TSB
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of Translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. TSB
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
9 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
Chesterman, Andrew & Arrojo, Rosemary. 2000. Shared ground in Translation Studies. Target
12 (1): 151160. TSB
Cheung, Martha (ed.). 2006. An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation: From earliest
times to the Buddhist project, Vol.1. Manchester: St. Jerome. TSB
Gambier, Yves & van Doorslaer, Luc (eds). 2007. The Metalanguage of Translation. Special issue
of Target 19 (2). [Also available in book form with the same title, published in 2009.
Amsterdam: Benjamins Benjamins Current Topics 20] BoP TSB
Gentzler, Edwin. 1993. 1st edition. Contemporary Translation Theories. London & New York:
Routledge. TSB
Gentzler, Edwin. 2001. 2nd edition. Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters. TSB
Gillespie, Stuart & Hopkins, David (eds). 2005. The Oxford History of Literary Translation in
English: Volume 3: 16601790. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TSB
Hermans, Theo (ed.). 2006. Translating Others. 2 vols. Manchester: St. Jerome. TSB
Holmes, James S. 1972. The Name and nature of Translation Studies. In Third International
Congress of Applied Linguistics (Copenhagen, 2126 August 1972): Congress Abstracts,
Jacques Qvistgaard (eds), 88. Copenhagen: Ehrverskkonomisk Forlag.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b
/80/39/3b/59.pdf [Accessed 27 April 2010] TSB
Holmes, James S. 1988. The Name and nature of Translation Studies. In Translated! Papers on
Literary Translation and Translation Studies, James S. Holmes (ed.), 6780, Amsterdam &
Atlanta: Rodopi. TSB
Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In On Translation, Reuben Brower
(ed.), 17395. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. TSB
Kade, Otto. 1968. Zufall und Gesetzmigkeit in der bersetzung. Leipzig: Enzyklopdie.
Kelly, Louis. 1979. The True Interpreter: History of translation theory and practice in the West.
New York: St. Martin's Press. BoP TSB
Kittel, Harald, Frank, Armin Paul, Greiner, Norbert, Hermans, Theo, Koller, Werner, Lambert,
Jos, Paul, Fritz (eds). 2004. bersetzung/Translation/Traduction: Ein internationales
Handbuch zur bersetzungsforschung/An International Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies/Encyclopdie internationale des sciences de traduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuhiwczak, Piotr & Littau, Karin. (eds). 2007. A Companion to Translation Studies. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. BoP TSB
Munday, Jeremy. 2001/2008. 1st/2nd edition. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and
applications. London & New York: Routledge. TSB
Munday, Jeremy (ed.). 2009. The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. London & New
York: Routledge. TSB
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and
Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill. TSB
Pchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London/New York: Routledge. BoP
TSB
Pchhacker, Franz & Shlesinger, Miriam. (eds). 2002. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London &
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
10 de 11 11/02/28 14:37
New York: Routledge. BoP TSB
Pym, Anthony, Schlesinger, Miriam & Simeoni, Daniel (eds). 2007. Beyond Translation Studies.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rener, Frederick. 1989. Interpretatio: Language and translation from Cicero to Tytler.
Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. TSB
Robinson, Douglas. (ed.). 1997. Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche.
Manchester: St. Jerome. TSB
Schulte, Rainer & Biguenet, John. (eds). 1992. Theories of Translation. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. TSB
Shuttleworth, Mark & Cowie, Moira. 1997. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St.
Jerome. TSB
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies: New paradigms or shifting
viewpoints? Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. BoP TSB
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins. BoP TSB
Tymoczko, Maria. 2007. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St.
Jerome. TSB
van Doorslaer, Luc. 2007. Risking conceptual maps. Target 19 (2): 21733. TSB
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995/2008. 1st/2nd edition. The Translator's Invisibility: A history of
translation. London & New York: Routledge. BoP TSB
Venuti, Lawrence (ed.). 2000/2004. 1st/2nd edition. The Translation Studies Reader. London &
New York: Routledge. BoP TSB
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean. 1958. Stylistique compare du franais et de l'anglais. Paris:
Didier. TSB
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean. 1958. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A
methodology for translation. Translated and edited by Juan C. Sager & Marie.-J. Hamel,
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. TSB
Weissbort, Daniel & Eysteinsson, Astradur (eds). 2006. Translation Theory and practice: A
historical reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Related articles: Adaptation, Web and translation, Religious translation,
Translation process, Sign language interpreting and translating, Applied
Translation Studies, Functionalist approaches, Descriptive Translation
Studies (DTS), Translation history, Computer-aided translation, Cognitive
approaches, Corpora, Think-aloud protocol, Audiovisual translation,
Subtitling, Interpreting Studies
1ranslauon SLudles hup://www.ben[amlns.com/cgl-bln/bbr_hLs.cgl?cmd=show_a...
11 de 11 11/02/28 14:37