See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335149528

TranslaTion and localizaTion A Guide for Technical and

Professional Communicators

Book · January 2019

CITATIONS READS

2 1,841

2 authors:

Bruce Maylath Kirk St.Amant

North Dakota State University Louisiana Tech University
47 PUBLICATIONS   357 CITATIONS    174 PUBLICATIONS   1,020 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thinking Globally, Composing Locally: Re-thinking Online Writing in the Age of the Global Internet View project

Call for chapters for Handbook of Research on Multilingual Writing and Pedagogical Cooperation in Virtual Learning
Environments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kirk St.Amant on 13 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Translation and
Localization
A Guide for Technical and
Professional Communicators

Edited by Bruce Maylath and Kirk St.Amant

Contents

Contributors ix
Acknowledgments xii
Series Editor Foreword xiii
Dr. Tharon W. Howard
Foreword xv
Pavel Zemliansky
Preface: Handling Technical and Professional Communication
for Audiences of All Languages xvii
Bruce Maylath

Introduction: The Dynamics of—and Need to
Understand—Translation and Localization in
Technical Communication 1
Kirk St.Amant

Part I
Translation 17
Area 1: Central Concepts 19

1 An Overview of the Main Issues of Translation 19

Federica Scarpa

2 Pragmatic Translation and Assessment for Technical

Communicators: Countering Myths and Misconceptions 39
Patricia Minacori
viii Contents

Area 2: Writing and Content Creation 65

3 Controlled Language and Writing for an International

Audience 65
Sharon O’Brien

4 Quality in Translation through “Controlled” Writing,

Editing, and/or Revising 89
Maria Teresa Musacchio

Part II
Localization 111
Area 3: Fundamentals, Contexts, and Content 113

5 Fundamentals of Localization for Non-Localizers 113

Paola Valli

6 How Streetsmart Marketers Try Phishing Customers:

(Mis)Communication or Missed Communication through
Loan Words 134
Birthe Mousten

7 Technical Communicators on Track or Led Astray! Using

Quality Standards in Practice 158
Birthe Mousten and Dan Riordan

Part III
Horizons 181
Area 4: Computing and Commerce 183

8 Computing and Translation: An Overview for Technical

Communicators 183
Tomáš Svoboda

9 The Future of Translation and Translators in a

Fast-Changing Economic and Technological Landscape 220
Giuseppe Palumbo

Glossary 243
Index 247
Introduction
The Dynamics of—and Need to
Understand—Translation and Localization
in Technical Communication

Kirk St.Amant

The New Nature of International Interaction

In the last decade, international online access has grown almost exponentially.
What was just over 360 million online connections in 2000 has blossomed
into over 4.2 billion persons with internet access as of this writing (“Internet
Growth Statistics” 2017, “Internet Usage Statistics” 2018). Such connectivity,
moreover, ranges across a variety of media and forms. These include everything
from static websites to dynamic social networking apps to online games com-
prised of players located around the world.
This global increase in online access has opened international markets on
a scope and scale unthinkable a decade ago. India’s online consumers, for ex-
ample, represent roughly US$39 billion and could become an online consumer
block of almost US$120 billion by 2020 (Press Trust of India 2016, M ­ aheshwari
2016, Dalal 2016). In comparison, the online market in China is estimated at
almost US$590 billion—and that number accounts for only 380 million of
­China’s 1.4 billion citizens (Tong 2016, “China’s E-Commerce Market” 2016).
These developments make global markets relatively easy—and tempting—to
tap if organizations can “speak the language” of this huge and growing base of
potential customers.
The convergence of these factors brings with it an impetus to create materials
for international audiences. The need for translation, for example, has become
paramount as more organizations can now connect directly and (almost) in-
stantly to individuals around the globe. For such access to be effective, materials
need to be in the preferred (often the native) language and style of the prospec-
tive consumer (Ulijn and Strother 1995, Ulijn 1996). As the number of languages
used online continues to grow, the need for quick and effective translation will
2  Kirk St.Amant

only increase (“Top Languages of the Internet” 2015, “Internet World Users by
Language” 2017). The implications for technical c­ ommunicators—the profes-
sionals often charged with coordinating an organization’s translation activi-
ties—are immense. But such factors encompass more than just translation.
Today’s organizations also face an increasing need to develop materials that
meet the design expectations and preferences of users from other nations. Do-
ing so involves more than just language and often encompasses the configura-
tion of products themselves (e.g., the visuals used on a website or the design of
electrical plugs on an appliance). Addressing such issues involves more than
providing materials in a format that audiences can recognize (e.g., I know what
this is.). It also requires doing so in a manner that audiences consider acceptable
(e.g., I consider this an appropriate way to address this topic) (Kostelnick 1995,
St.Amant 2005). Failure to meet both conditions can result in cultural and le-
gal repercussions affecting access to overseas markets (Kamath 2000). These
factors mean the demand for localization—designing materials to meet the
expectations of cultural audiences—is also on the rise. In fact, as of this writ-
ing, the global language industry (i.e., market for translation and localization
services) is estimated to constitute US$40 billion in value, and it is the fourth
fastest-growing industry in the United States (GALA 2017a).

Change and Contexts

For organizations wishing to compete in the new global economy, translation
and localization are no longer ancillary practices reserved only for certain oc-
casions. Rather, they have become core business practices central to “going
global” (Rolink 2017, Agrwal 2017). In today’s age of international online ac-
cess, one could argue that the nature of cyberspace makes it almost impossible
not to “go global” by virtue of going online (St.Amant and Rice 2015). This new
context brings to the fore a myriad of variables that organizations need to ad-
dress when tapping international markets. Effectively navigating such complex-
ities requires an understanding of the elements affecting different interactions
at multiple levels and in varying contexts (St.Amant 2015). The communica-
tion-based nature of such situations means that technical communicators are
often at the heart of these activities. Moreover, these situations are now a reality
affecting communication on a more local level.
Translation and localization have also become increasingly important at the
local level. Shifting geopolitical trends mean that individuals are now moving
internationally on an unprecedented scale. In the United States, for example,
some 43.3 million immigrants were living in the country as of 2015—more than
double the number of immigrants in the United States in 1990 ­(“Changing Pat-
terns in U.S. Immigration and Population” 2014; Zong, Batalova, and Hallock
2018). In some cases, this international movement reflects economics —indi-
viduals from one nation moving to another in search of work (Milanovic 2013).
 Introduction  3

In other instances, these global migrations are associated with education and
reflect students’ seeking opportunities at educational institutions in other na-
tions (“Choosing the USA” 2017). In yet other contexts, these shifts connect to
hopes of safety and stability as refugees relocate to find experiences different
from those in the lands that they left (Irons 2016).
These and other factors mean that the populations of nation states are
increasingly changing in relation to the cultures that they contain, the lan-
guages spoken within their borders, and the communication and design
needs of persons in their communities. For example, there are now more na-
tive Spanish speakers in the United States than in Spain—and many members
of this audience prefer materials in Spanish, rather than in English (Romero
2017). Accordingly, the need to understand—and effectively employ—trans-
lation and localization services is as much a growing local need as it is a
global imperative. These trends mean that state offices of motor vehicles need
to understand the dynamics of language, culture, and communication almost
as much as the multinational corporation operating in the same municipal-
ity. It is in this new global context that technical communicators are prac-
ticing their craft. Additionally, it is this new global context that they need to
understand how to integrate successfully into the world economy of today
and tomorrow.

The Nature of Technical Communication

Within these environments, technical communicators have become central to
meeting the communication needs of cultural and linguistic groups. Many of
the demands of the global economy—both international or local—involve cre-
ating effective, usable information (Sun and Getto 2017, St.Amant 2017a). Such
information often takes the form of materials that explain how a technology
works, how to perform an activity, or how to access a resource. This situation is
based upon the overarching truth that technologies are not inherently usable.
Rather, they reflect the expectations, preferences, and needs of the culture(s)
that created them (Pacey 1996, Norman 2012, Sun 2012). As a result, one can
never assume that an audience will instinctively know how to operate a new
technology. Yet understanding how to use materials and engage in activities is
essential to success in local and global settings. This makes the need to commu-
nicate such factors paramount to the success of any organization. And this area
is the realm of the technical communicator.
It is technical communicators who have become the recognized experts
at conveying information in ways that ensure an audience will use materi-
als as expected. After all, technical communicators are the ones who develop
the texts explaining how a process works or how a technology operates. They
are also the professionals who craft the content needed to operate a device
or perform processes to achieve a desired objective. What’s more, technical
4  Kirk St.Amant

communicators  are  the individuals generally charged with selecting the best
mechanism or media for delivering content in easy-to-use ways.
Their positioning means that technical communicators often serve as an
organization’s central actors when communicating with the world. It is also
why technical communicators have historically been tasked to coordinate with
translators and localizers to create content for audiences from different cultural
and linguistic backgrounds. These interactions have usually involved techni-
cal communicators doing everything from providing original source texts for
translation to collaborating with overseas writers to produce parallel texts in
other languages (Walmer 1999, Flint et al. 1999). Historically for localization,
this relationship often involved technical communicators creating materials
that localizers could more easily reconfigure to meet different cultural expecta-
tions (e.g., the design of an overall interface or website). In these situations, the
connection was clear: technical communicators worked with translators and
localizers to ensure that information moved effectively from one cultural and
linguistic group to another.
The success (or failure) of such relationships was often connected to a cen-
tral factor: understanding. The more technical communicators understood the
translation and localization processes, the better they could design materials
for them (Walmer 1999, Flint et al. 1999). Ideally, this understanding was based
on knowing why communication practices in one’s native culture needed to
be revised for different cultural groups. In truth, such understanding often
became encapsulated into “strategies.” Such strategies generally consisted of
quick, imperative steps for writing for translation or designing for localization
(e.g., “Use active voice”).
In some cases, these strategies attempted to convey a deeper understanding
(e.g., “Avoid long noun strings, for translators have difficulty determining the
subject of a noun string when translating texts”). The overall focus, however, of-
ten remained on what to do vs. why to write or design a certain way (e.g., “Avoid
long noun strings”). The understanding needed to create content for translation
and localization was often downplayed, lost, or overlooked in favor of quick tips
for generating materials.

The Need to Know

In today’s global economy, an understanding of other cultures is essential to
an organization’s success. This is because time has become compressed. Now,
organizations are continually vying for international market share. To do so,
they must create content that makes products readily usable on a global level
(Sherwin 2016). They also need to address a growing number of national trade
statutes and international commerce restrictions that make translating and lo-
calizing central to accessing overseas markets (Hunter 2016). Similarly, the need
to create more kinds of content has increased, as has the need to create content
 Introduction  5

for easy reuse to convey consistent messages across different media (e.g., web
pages, Facebook posts, or Twitter tweets) (Knight 2017). These new contexts
leave little room for error. This situation means that ineffective translations or
localizations can spell the difference between capturing a key global market or
missing out on an important international opportunity.
The same situation is occurring at the local level. The increasingly multilin-
gual and multicultural settings within nations mean that successfully tapping
local markets increasingly involves translation and localization (Romero 2017).
Additionally, changing national laws are increasingly affecting local practices.
Statutes, policies, and mandates, like US Executive Order 13166, can require
state and local agencies to translate and/or localize materials or face penalties
(St. Germaine-McDaniel 2010). Such factors contribute to an increased need
for effective translation and localization in a growing number of local contexts.
Their importance has led to the publication of academic journal issues dedi-
cated to examining translation and localization within technical communica-
tion. These include Bruce Maylath, Ricardo Muñoz Martín, and Marta Pacheco
Pinto’s 2015 issue of connexions: International Professional Communication
Journal focusing on “Translation and International Professional Communica-
tion” and Huatong Sun and Guiseppe Getto’s 2017 special issue of Technical
Communication focusing on “Localizing User Experience.”
These trends point to one central reality of the modern economy: Technical
communicators need to understand translation and localization to contribute
value to organizations (“Body of Knowledge” 2017). The first step toward such
an understanding is realization. Specifically, technical communicators need to
realize the connections between technical communication, translation, and lo-
calization. They then need to use this knowledge to build on these connections
in meaningful ways that foster understanding. Doing so requires all parties
to recognize that these different professions all focus on a common objective:
conveying meaning effectively from one group to another.

Connections and Differences

Technical communication is often likened to translation. In both fields, trained
individuals are responsible for conveying meaning from one group to another
(Puchleitner and Petrovic 2014, Center for Environmental Excellence 2014).
Such transfers of meaning often involve bridging different systems for convey-
ing ideas—be they from mathematical equation to printed text or from one
language system to another. Given such similarity, one might assume that
technical communicators are well equipped to work with translation and lo-
calization professionals. Unfortunately, this situation is not always—or even
often—the case.
As prior technical communication research notes, the process of translation
involves more than converting individual words from one language to another.
6  Kirk St.Amant

Rather, it involves understanding the nuances and complexities of conveying

meaning—what those words, in the aggregate, attempt to convey—across cul-
tural spheres (GALA 2017b). Such transfer encompasses more than language
and words. It also involves style, structure, and nuance—or rhetoric—when
sharing information with different cultural groups. In some cases, these dif-
ferences can include where to present a particular kind of information in a
document (Driskill 1996, Tebeaux 1999). In others, it can involve how much
and what kind of information that the members of a culture expect to encoun-
ter in a communique (Tebeaux 1999, St.Amant 2006). It can also mean deter-
mining which genres/kinds of communiques to use when conveying an idea to
other cultures or if certain genres even exist in other cultures (Woolever 2001,
St.Amant 2006). What’s more, it might require the creation of new terms as a
parallel word or phrase for a concept might not exist in another culture or lan-
guage (Mikelonis 2000).
At the same time, new contexts and technologies are affecting how indi-
viduals view translation within technical communication (Gonzales 2018). The
global diffusion of multimedia communication technologies, for example, has
prompted inquiries into whether translation should include non-verbal factors,
such as facial expressions, gestures, and posture, when addressing video-based
messages (Gonzales and Zantjer 2015). Similarly, the growing importance of
translation in specialty areas like medical communication has prompted work
on how to convey health-related information across languages and cultures
(Zhu and St.Amant 2007, Batova 2010). Then there is the growing interest in
how to employ approaches from usability and user experience design (UXD) to
create products for other cultures (Sun 2012, Getto and St.Amant 2014, Sun and
Getto 2017; St.Amant 2017a).
Folded into these practices are ideas of glocalization and transcreation: cre-
ating completely new, culture-specific versions of a product. The idea is such
versions are specifically designed to meet the expectations of the cultures that
will use them, in contrast to more conventional localization practices in which
products were created for one culture and reconfigured or redesigned to meet
the expectations of another (Merino 2006, Sun 2012, Pedersen 2014, Munday
2016). The resulting situation is complex, to say the least. For technical com-
municators new to such processes, this situation can seem truly overwhelming.

Practices in Pedagogy
These developments are also affecting technical communication education.
Now the topic of working in international context—with a particular focus on
translation and localization—appears in a number of introductory textbooks in
the field. John M. Lannon and Laura J. Gurak’s (2017) Technical Communica-
tion, 4th edition, for example, contains dedicated sections on “Identifying Your
Audience’s Cultural Background,” “Global Considerations When Working in
Teams,” and “Considering the Global Context.” A similar situation is true for
 Introduction  7

instructional texts that focus on more specialized areas in technical communi-

cation. Carolyn Rude and Angela Eaton’s (2010) textbook Technical Editing, 5th
edition, for example, has an entire chapter dedicated to aspects of translation
and localization. Likewise, Barbara A. Heifferon’s (2005) Writing in the Health
Professions—a textbook targeting a segment of the technical communication
field—includes an entire chapter on “Multicultural and International Medical
Writing.”
This focus on translation and global issues is mirrored in the pedagogical
research of the field. Bruce Maylath’s (1997) seminal JBTC article “Teaching
the Technical Writing Student to Prepare Documents for Translation” marks
one of the first examinations of this area of instruction. Educators have since
expanded upon these early examinations to mirror the changing nature of
technical communication pedagogy. The focus on culture and communication
in technical communication education has been integrated into the context of
online education (St.Amant 2017b, Slattery and Cleary 2016), which has also
been studied in how to teach students to work in globally distributed virtual
teams (Brewer 2016, Cleary et al. 2015). More recently, the teaching of transla-
tion has been explored in relation to service learning and community outreach
and engagement projects (Gonzales 2017).
So central is international understanding to technical communication edu-
cation that it represents a core program development area (“Interculturality”)
in the TecCOMFrame project for harmonizing technical communication cur-
ricula in Europe (“Academic Competence Framework,” n.d.). Thus, the field’s
pedagogical practices are aligning with those of industry. Now both recognize
the importance of working effectively with translators and localizers to succeed
in the modern global workplace.

Recognition and Understanding

Addressing such factors successfully involves developing an effective knowl-
edge of the translation and localization fields. Gaining such knowledge is in-
creasingly essential to the technical communicator’s role in an organization.
This situation also represents a key area where technical communicators can
add value, in large and very public ways, to their organizations (Giammona
2004, “Body of Knowledge” 2017). In this context, the question becomes, “What
to do and where to start?” The answers can be found in addressing two interre-
lated areas: recognition and understanding.
Recognition is an internal process that involves realizing the limits of one’s
knowledge and abilities. As a field of professionals, technical communicators
increasingly encounter this idea of recognition via work noting the need to bet-
ter understand the nuances of the modern global context (Giammona 2004,
St.Amant and Melonçon 2016). As noted, there is widespread recognition that
technical communicators need to address issues of translation and localiza-
tion as a part of their jobs. Understanding, by contrast, involves the external. It
8  Kirk St.Amant

requires individuals to move outside of the realm of what they know and to seek
out knowledge that is new and possibly different. The need now is for resources
that help technical communicators better grasp the dynamics of the translation
and localization professions. This collection is such a text.
The nine entries in this volume introduce technical communicators to foun-
dational practices, current approaches, and emerging trends in translation and
localization. Central to the contribution that these chapters make is the authors
who wrote them. Past technical communication scholarship in these areas was
often limited by the researchers’ abilities to understand “other” professions.
That is, technical communicators were often studying or observing translation
and localization practices and then reporting their experiences and observa-
tions (see, for example, Walmer 1999 and Mikelonis 2000).1 Without being a
part of and knowing the fields that they studied, most of these researchers were
limited in their abilities to capture and analyze the nuances of the contexts
that they examined. The level of understanding that such materials provided
on translation and localization practices was thus limited. The entries in this
volume seek to overcome these constraints.
To do so, the editors of this collection purposefully recruited authors from
the translation and localization industries. All of these contributors, moreover,
have previous experiences, stretching back decades, working with technical
communicators on international projects. Each individual was asked to con-
tribute a chapter that explained, to a non-translator/non-localizer, what a par-
ticular translation or localization practice was and how it worked. Contributors
were also asked to draw from their prior experiences working with technical
communicators and focus on the question, “Based on your prior experiences
working with technical communicators, what do they need to know to work
effectively with translators and localizers?”
The objective underlying this approach was to provide technical communi-
cators with the understanding of translation and localization needed to work
effectively with professionals in these fields. The resulting chapters form this
text. To this end, the book that you are holding is organized into three major
sections based on an examination of various key aspects of these professions.
The book’s first section, Translation, centers on the practices, approaches,
and ideas central to the translation profession. The second section, Localiza-
tion, examines core processes and various trends that technical communicators
need to understand to work effectively with localization specialists (many of
whom are, in fact, translators). The third and final section, Horizons, reviews
how shifts in technology and economics are affecting the “language industry”
and “language service providers,” general terms often used to encompass both
translation and localization practices. In so doing, the chapters in this final sec-
tion outline dynamics affecting practices in both translation and localization.
They also reveal the overlap and close relationship between translation and lo-
calization and how fluid the dynamics across these two professional areas are.
 Introduction  9

Through this organizational structure, technical communicators can gain a

fundamental understanding of practices and approaches in and across transla-
tion and localization. They can also gain insights into trends that will influence
the development of these fields in the future. Moreover, these entries can pro-
vide technical communicators with a foundational knowledge of factors that
can affect work done in both areas. With these ideas in mind, let’s look at the
sections and the entries in this collection.

Organization of the Text

The first major section, “Translation,” provides an overview of the dynamics of
moving meaning from one language and culture to others. The contributing au-
thors review factors influencing and affecting translation practices. To do so, this
overall section is split into two “Areas” that move readers from understanding
more fundamental practices to techniques for generating content for translation.
The initial Area in the Translation section focuses on “central concepts” that
guide practices in the translation industry. The section’s first chapter, Federica
Scarpa’s “An Overview of the Main Issues of Translation,” introduces readers
to what translation is, how its core practices operate, and the basic problems
that can affect translation work. The second chapter, “Pragmatic Translation
and Assessment for Technical Communicators: Countering Myths and Mis-
conceptions,” by Patricia Minacori, builds upon Scarpa’s chapter to examine
the methods that translators use when moving meaning from one language to
another. The combined information in these initial chapters provides techni-
cal communicators with a foundational understanding of what translators do
when working with texts, how, and why. Technical communicators can use this
information to consider how their actions as content creators and editors can
hinder or help the work translators do.
The second Area of examination in the Translation section is “Writing and
Content Creation.” The entries in this section review how the processes that
technical communicators use to create text can affect the ways in which trans-
lators approach a project. The first entry in this Area, Sharon O’Brien’s “Con-
trolled Language and Writing for an International Audience,” offers technical
communicators suggestions for how to craft texts to make them easier to trans-
late efficiently and effectively. The next entry, “Quality in Translation through
‘Controlled’ Writing, Editing, and/or Revising,” by Maria Teresa Musacchio,
reviews the connections between the quality of the translation products created
and the methods used to generate original source texts. Through their examina-
tion of these topics, the entries in this Area build on the concepts overviewed in
earlier chapters. They also provide technical communicators with effective ideas
for how to use that knowledge to work more effectively with translators.
The volume’s second major section, “Localization,” focuses on the practices
within and the forces affecting this segment of the language industry. Unlike
10  Kirk St.Amant

the discussion in the Translation section, this section organizes entries into one
thematic “Area” that examines “Fundamentals, Contexts, and Content” essen-
tial to understanding and working with members of this profession. The first
chapter here, Paola Valli’s “Fundamentals of Localization for Non-Localizers,”
is an introduction to what localization is. The author also reviews how local-
ization is connected to translation and the overall language industry and how
organizations view localization services.
The next two entries in this Area examine how the setting where localiza-
tion occurs affects the dynamics under which technical writers create source
materials for localization. The first of these two chapters, Birthe Mousten’s
“How Streetsmart Marketers Try Phishing Customers: (Mis)Communication
or Missed Communication through Loan Words,” reviews how international
business practices have affected approaches to localization. In the next chapter,
“Technicial Communicators on Track or Led Astray! Using Quality Standards
in Practice,” Mousten partners with the late Dan Riordan to review how tech-
nical communicators can use virtual teams to collaborate with localizers. In
examining these topics, the two entries review different contexts and methods
that technical communicators can use to work with localizers to generate source
materials. Accordingly, the chapters in this section create a starting point from
which technical communicators can explore ways to engage localizers as part-
ners in international content creation.
The book’s third and final major section, “Horizons,” examines factors that
overlap both translation and localization. The thematic “Area” for this section
focuses on how factors of technology (“Computing”) and economy (“Com-
merce”) are changing the translation and localization industries. In so doing,
these entries delineate how such forces might shape these fields in years to
come. For technical communicators, such information could be instrumental
to maintaining an up-to-date understanding of the translation and localization
professions over time.
The first chapter in this section, Tomáš Svoboda’s “Computing and Trans-
lation: An Overview for Technical Communicators,” reviews how computing
technologies, such as translation software and translation memory, are chang-
ing the work that translators do. In reviewing these topics, Svoboda also reveals
the changing contexts that technical communicators must consider when they
create source texts for translators. The section’s second and final entry, “The
Future of Translation and Translators in a Fast-Changing Economic and Tech-
nological Landscape,” by Giuseppe Palumbo, reviews the convergence of global
business practices affecting translation and localization. Palumbo also reveals
how advances in computing technology are changing the ways in which trans-
lators, and the organizations that employ them, conceptualize communication
practices. By examining these issues, the authors of these chapters introduce
technical communicators to the technological and economic forces shaping the
modern language industry. These entries also provide technical communicators
 Introduction  11

with frameworks for identifying and understanding such factors. In so doing,

these chapters provide readers with approaches to addressing such dynamics
and working effectively with translators and localizers over time.

Concluding Thoughts
A map is an essential tool for navigating a new territory. But a map is only a tool;
how it is used depends on the individual holding it. In many ways, this text rep-
resents a map that technical communicators can use to navigate the relatively
unknown areas of translation and localization. Like a map, this text provides
markers that one can use to gauge progress on his or her travels. The various
sections and areas of this book are designed as just that: markers. As technical
communicators move through the text, they move deeper and deeper into their
understanding of what translators and localizers do, how they do it, and why.
This guide, moreover, can be used by individuals from across technical com-
munication. First, it can help industry practitioners work more successfully
with translators and localizers to create effective products for greater global
markets. Second, it can provide academic researchers with the level of under-
standing needed to investigate the dynamics of cross-profession collaboration
in informed and meaningful ways that benefit all involved. Third, it can provide
technical communication educators with the understanding essential to help-
ing students develop the skills and knowledge needed to work with translation
and localization professionals upon graduation.
Like all maps, the background of the reader is important. However, the fact
that all readers are navigating toward a common goal—an increased under-
standing of translation and localization practices—allows this book to have
value across different groups within the field. In fact, this collection could fos-
ter closer relations by providing practitioners, researchers, and educators with a
common foundation for collaboration around a mutual interest. In these ways,
this text can help technical communicators negotiate the landscape of new and
different fields and navigate the various areas of their own discipline.

notes
1 In certain cases, such as Flint et al. 1999, a trained translator was involved in the
research process, but this involvement was often the exception.
1 Technical translation is not the same as localization, though they are two different
intersecting activities that partially overlap. Translation is the linguistic and cul-
tural process of converting text from one language to another to make it appropri-
ate to the specific socio-cultural context where it will be used. Besides the linguistic
and cultural adaptation of the texts and visuals, localization involves a series of
non-linguistic technological activities encompassing the development process of
a product (software engineering, testing, project management etc.) (Esselink 2000,
3–4). Thus, localization is only one, very specific, area of the translation enterprise
(Pym 2003).
2 Such parameters include the translator’s level of competence in the specific subject
matter of the text, the importance of the translation, the level of competence of the
readers of the translation with its subject matter, and how widely the translation will
be used.
3 The results of this survey can be found in the relevant OPTIMALE Progress Report
(public part) on the project’s website (www.translator-training.eu).
1 Evidence for this comes mainly from industry commentaries on CL, e.g., two
blog posts from large language service providers in 2010 (Lionbridge: http://blog.
lionbridge.com/translation/2010/06/07/controlled-language-benefits- document-
translation/) and 2013 (Moravia: http://info.moravia.com/blog/bid/313981/
Watch-Your-Language-3-Reasons-Writers-Dislike-Controlled-Language).
2 Between 2001 and 2006, I was involved in CL research in which companies agreed
to share CL rules for research purposes. However, several companies insisted on a
nondisclosure agreement. While STE, for example, is available to those who may
wish to use it, one had to pay for access, so there is still little evidence of sharing or
open-sourcing of CL rule sets at the time of this writing.
3 The classification of rules is by no means unproblematic, but a full discussion is
beyond our scope here. For a more detailed discussion of this problem, see O’Brien
2003.
1 In 2009, the European Union (EU), as the organization with the largest in-house
translation service in the world, estimated that the value of the European language
industry would amount to 16.5 billion euros in 2015, up from a projected 8.4 billion
euros in 2008 (Rinsche and Portera-Zanotti 2009, iii). This covered translating and
interpreting (including localization and website globalization activities), language
technology, subtitling and dubbing, language teaching, and multilingual support
within conference organization. According to the EU, in 2012, 74% of translators
were freelancers, and 60% were part-time workers, while annual salaries ranged
from 6,000 to 90,000 euros (Pym et al. 2012, 3).
2 A number of quality standards exist for translation, including ISO 9001 and 9002 as
applied to translation services, German DIN 2345, Austrian ÖNorm 1200 and 1201,
and US ASTM F2575. These norms generally concern the workflow in companies.
EU’s BS EN 15038 is the first quality standard for translation to deal with individual
translators rather than companies’ quality. For this reason, BS EN 15038 is used
here as more relevant to individual technical communicators. This standard can be
cross-referenced with ISO 17100.
3 Marketing and sales staffers play a very important role in this stage of the process.
1 With statistical advice and evaluation from Carl-Johan Nielsen
2 par Di; should have been par Dieu, in the same way as by “God.” The phrase was
normally used as a sentence enhancer or a small break in the sentence. Vimmelskaft
is a street name in the old quarter of Copenhagen. It is a part of the main pedestrian
street today and has gotten its name because of the crooked nature of the street,
which is probably the intended metaphor.
3 Translated from Dano-Norwegian playwright Ludvig Holberg’s comedy titled Jean
de France eller Hans Frandsen. Excerpt in original Danish: Pierre: “Mad. Isabelle
har dog et kiønt Ansigt.” Jean: “Ja, det er kiønt nok, men det er dog saa Dansk, c’est
une visage a la Danois, a la Vimmelskaft par Di, dog jeg kunde nok venne mig til
Ansigtet, dersom hun icke talede Dansk.”
4 Free word association has been used within both psychology and linguistics to
compare differences between the primary language (L1) and the second language
(L2) lexicon (Zareva 2007), and as a method to analyze word class influence (Nissen
and Henriksen 2006). To label my findings according to any existing system would
probably be wrong, because most existing research is based on frequent words in the
mental lexicon (Higginbotham 2010), not loan words.
5 Back-correction could be a problem if the contextual questions were given on the
same sheet as the word association questions, because people tend to understand
 words better in context. For this reason, the word association questions were kept
apart from the contextual questions.
6 I use the term “semi-false friends” for words that exist in two languages but either
with slightly different meanings or with different first-association uses of the word.
1 These teams are sometimes called “Globally Networked Learning Environments”
(GNLEs) by scholars of international technical communication (see Stärke-
Meyerring and Wilson 2008 and Melton 2008).
2 Another example is the translation of old Latin and medieval texts, which are full of
implicit, time-bound clues. These texts are now usually translated by adding endless
footnotes to explain context.
3 CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Republic of
North Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portu-
gal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the
United Kingdom. In other words, all EU countries and a range of other European
countries.
4 In this example, a supplier was first described as “one of the biggest,” which the
reviewer changed to “one of the most respected.” This decision represents a good
language change, but a company that is not very well known in the public can logi-
cally not be much respected.
5 The change of name from Socialdemokratiet (literally, ”The Social Democracy,” but a
better rendering in English is ”The Social Democratic Party”) to Socialdemokraterne
(”The Social Democrats”) was changed back again to Socialdemokratiet in 2016.
1 Unless specified otherwise, translation refers to the area of non-literary translation
here.
2 The discipline of translation studies (also referred to as translatology) was estab-
lished in the 1960s and early 1970s. Today, it is interdisciplinary, encompassing
(written) translation, (oral) interpreting as well as localization, and terminology
work.
3 A three-stage model would, for example, include reading the original text in the
source language, interpreting its message and reformulating the message in the tar-
get language.
4 For a discussion of some other classifications, see for instance Král 2012.
5 As Jiménez-Crespo (2009) notes, “Nevertheless, even when it has been previously
suggested that TM tools bring about increased quality and consistency . . . , there is a
scarcity of product-based empirical studies that compare texts translated using TM
tools with those produced without them in order to validate some of these underly-
ing assumptions” (215).
6 By way of example, a list of file formats supported by the SDL Trados Studio 2019,
the leading CAT software, is presented in Appendix 8.1.
7 TM is a crucial part of CAT tools. For an introductory discussion on TM, see the
preceding section.
8 Please note that pricing policies among CAT tools vendors differ and that today
there are tools available for free or with a time-bound licensing policy rather than
invoking a charge for installations.
9 For further considerations on the limitations of CAT tools, see Mačura 2012.
10 There are seven statuses to choose from. A translation process in the Editor is fin-
ished after all segments have the status “Translated” or “Signed off,” depending on
whether a revision step is included in the process.
11 Unfortunately, little comparable data is available to determine what texts are most
frequently rendered/translated through freely accessible MT engines. According to
Seljan (2011, 283), roughly a third of such texts are “professional texts.”
12 Not to be confused with Google Translate. Whereas the latter is a free online service
to receive instant translations in a very simplified interface, the Toolkit is accessible
only for registered users. It still is free to use and has advanced features, such as
 the option of uploading translation memories, as well as more sophisticated editing
functionalities.
13 A comparison of statements/assessments as regards both the CAT tools and ma-
chine translation is given in Appendix 8.2. It has been elaborated based on avail-
able literature and the author’s own input, with aspects grouped into four thematic
groups: the systemic level, the process, the product, and the user’s view.
14 Available from: www.proz.com/software-comparison-tool (retrieved 24 October
2018); Pro-Z is the world’s largest translator directory and freelance translation
portal.
15 A much more reduced number of comparison categories can be found at the
Wikipedia page on CAT (available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-
assisted_translation, retrieved 24 October 2018). Some of the Website’s language
versions include the price feature in the comparison as well.
16 NB: The suggested prices and fuzzy match bands are presented by way of example
here.
17 PEMT is said to yield as much as 30% to 80% productivity gains on the part of the
translator (see Král 2012, 193).
18 For further information, Chris Durban’s (2011) mini-guide is a valuable source.
19 For further considerations on future development of the translation profession, see
Palumbo’s chapter, this volume, and Svoboda 2017.
1 Interestingly, Singh and Pereira found no “culturally customized Websites” in their
2005 survey of 307 US multinationals, but a replication of the survey may give dif-
ferent results today.
2 Online help, which was originally stored entirely on an individual machine, is usu-
ally available today in the software producer’s website.
3 For example, almost all mobile phones have today morphed into smartphones, and
most of these already act as multimedia platforms.
4 The term “TM” is sometimes used to refer to the program that exploits or manages
the database—or what we might call a “translation memory system” or “manager.”
5 An overview of the notion of controlled language, with several examples, is given
in O’Brien (this volume); O’Brien discusses how professional communicators can
write keeping in mind the needs of translators and machine translation systems.
6 For studying the comprehensibility of such texts, usability testing would probably
be more appropriate than readability scores.
7 In the last few decades, translation studies scholars have strived to construct models
of quality taking into account equivalence at text level and, in some cases, giving
translators the role of text (re)designers in the TL. By contrast, the use of translation
tools in industry has reaffirmed the primacy of equivalence at sentence or even at
word level.
8 OPTIMALE was an EU-funded project (2010–2013) aimed at enhancing the vis-
ibility and relevance of professional translator education and training in Europe.
Further information on the project can be found at www.translator-training.eu

references
“Academic Competence Framework, The.” n.d. TecCOMFRame. www.teccom-frame.
eu/competence-framework/overview/
Agrwal, A. J. 2017. “Ten Reasons Why Businesses Are Going Global.” The Huffing-
ton Post. August 14, 2016. www.huffingtonpost.com/aj-agrawal/ten-reasons-why-
businesse_b_11512636.html
Batova, Tatiana. 2010. “Writing for the Participants of International Clinical Trials:
Law, Ethics, and Culture.” Technical Communication 57, no. 3: 266–281.
“Body of Knowledge.” 2017. Society for Technical Communication. www.tcbok.org/wiki/
about-tc/value-proposition/
Brewer, Pam Estes. 2016. “Teaching and Training with a Flexible Module for Global
Virtual Teams.” In Teaching and Training for Global Engineering: Perspectives on
Culture and Professional Communication Practices, edited by Kirk St.Amant and
Madelyn Flammia, 173–197. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-IEEE Press.
Center for Environmental Excellence. 2014. Preparing High-Quality NEPA Documents
for Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: Center for Environmental Excellence.
www.environment.transportation.org/pdf/programs/pg15-1.pdf
“Changing Patterns in U.S. Immigration and Population: Immigrants Slow Popula-
tion Decline in Many Counties. 2014. Pew Charitable Trust. www.pewtrusts.org/en/
research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2014/12/changing-patterns-in-us-immigration-
and-population
“China’s E-Commerce Market: Untapped Potential for Global Companies.” 2016. Nielsen.
http://sites.nielsen.com/newscenter/chinas-e-commerce-market-untapped-potential-
for-global-companies/
“Choosing the USA.” 2017. International Student. www.internationalstudent.com/
study_usa/choosing-the-usa/
Cleary, Yvonne, Madelyn Flammia, Patricia Minacori, and Darina M. Slattery. 2015.
“Global Virtual Teams Create and Translate Technical Documentation: Commu-
nication Strategies, Challenges and Recommendations.” In Proceedings of the 2015
IEEE Professional Communication Conference, Limerick, Ireland, July 12–15, 1–10.
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Dalal, Mihir. 2016. “So, What’s the State of India’s Online Retail Market Anyway?” Live
Mint. www.livemint.com/Companies/Ig34ixeE1nJZAjMSl5Wg0O/So-what-is-the-
state-of-Indias-online-retail-market-anyway.html
Driskill, Linda. 1996. “Collaborating Across National and Cultural Borders.” In Inter-
national Dimensions of Technical Communication, edited by Deborah C. Andrews,
23–44. Alexandria, VA: Society for Technical Communication.
Flint, Patricia, Melanie Lord van Slyke, Doreen Stärke-Meyerring, and Aimee Thomp-
son. 1999. “Going Online: Helping Technical Communicators Help Translators.”
Technical Communication 46, no. 2: 238–248.
Getto, Guiseppe, and Kirk St.Amant. 2014. “Designing Globally, Working Locally: Us-
ing Personas to Develop Online Communication Products for International Users.”
Communication Design Quarterly 3, no. 1: 24–46.
Giammona, Barbara. 2004. “The Future of Technical Communication: How Innova-
tion, Technology, Information Management, and Other Forces Are Shaping the Fu-
ture of the Profession.” Technical Communication 51, no. 3: 349–366.
GALA (Globalization and Localization Association). 2017a. “Translation and
Localization Industry Facts and Data.” GALA. www.gala-global.org/industry/
industry-facts-and-data
———. 2017b. “What Is Translation?” GALA. www.gala-global.org/industry/
intro-language-industry/what-translation
Gonzales, Laura. 2018. Sites of Translation: What Multilinguals Can Teach Us About
Digital Writing and Rhetoric. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
———. 2017. “But Is That Relevant Here? A Pedagogical Model for Embedding Trans-
lation Training Within Technical Communication Courses in the US.” connexions:
 International Professional Communication Journal 5, no. 1: 75–108. https://connex-
ionsj.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/gonzales2.pdf
Gonzales, Laura, and Rebecca Zantjer. 2015. “Translation as a User-Localization Prac-
tice.” Technical Communication 62, no. 4: 271–284.
Heifferon, Barbara A. 2005. Writing in the Health Professions. New York: Allyn &
Bacon.
Hunter, Mike. 2016. “The Role of Translation When Entering International Mar-
kets.” Open to Export. http://opentoexport.com/article/the-role-of-translation-
when-entering-international-markets/
“Internet Growth Statistics. 2017. Internet World Stats. www.internetworldstats.com/
emarketing.htm
“Internet Usage Statistics.” 2018. Internet World Stats. www.internetworldstats.com/
stats.htm
“Internet World Users by Language.” 2017. Internet World Stats. www.internetworldstats.
com/stats7.htm
Irons, Jeannie. 2016. “Crossing the Border: Why Refugees Flee Their Homes.” Chil-
dren International. November 8, 2016. www.children.org/stories/2016/november/
why-refugees-flee-their-homes
Kamath, G. R. 2000. “The India Paradox.” Intercom, May, 10–11.
Knight, Warren. 2017. “How to Create a Social Media Marketing Content Plan in 7
Steps.” Social Media Examiner. April 27, 2017. www.socialmediaexaminer.com/
how-to-create-social-media-marketing-content-plan-in-7-steps/
Kostelnick, Charles. 1995. “Cultural Adaptation and Information Design: Two Contrast-
ing Views.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 38, no. 4: 182–196.
Lannon, John M., and Laura J. Gurak. 2017. Technical Communication. 14th ed. New
York: Pearson.
Maheshwari, Richa. 2016. “Indian Ecommerce Market to Grow Fastest Over 3 Years.”
The Economic Times. February 18, 2016. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
industry/services/retail/indian-ecommerce-market-to-grow-fastest-globally-over-
3-years-morgan-stanley/articleshow/51031652.cms
Maylath, Bruce. 1997. “Teaching the Technical Writing Student to Prepare Documents
for Translation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 11, no. 3: 339–352.
Maylath, Bruce, Ricardo Muñoz Martín, and Marta Pacheco Pinto. 2015. “Translation
and International Professional Communication: Building Bridges and Strengthen-
ing Skills.” connexions: International Professional Communication Journal 3, no. 2:
3–9. https://connexionsj.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/maylath-munoz-pinto.pdf
Merino, Miguel Bernal. 2006. “On the Translation of Video Games.” The Journal of Spe-
cialized Translation 6: 22–36. www.jostrans.org/issue06/art_bernal.php
Mikelonis, Victoria M. 2000. “Message Sent Versus Message Received: Implications
for Designing Training Materials for Central and Eastern Europeans.” In Manag-
ing Global Communication in Science and Technology, edited by Peter J. Hager and
H. J. Scheiber, 203–231. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Milanovic, Branko. 2013. “The Economic Causes of Migration.” The Globalist. October
22, 2013. www.theglobalist.com/economic-causes-migration/
Munday, Jeremy. 2016. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. 4th
ed. New York: Routledge.
Norman, Don. 2012. “Does Culture Matter for Product Design? Core 77. January 9,
2012. www.core77.com/posts/21455/Does-Culture-Matter-for-Product-Design
Pacey, Arnold. 1996. The Culture of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pedersen, Daniel. 2014. “Exploring the Concept of Transcreation: Transcreation as
‘More Than Translation’?” Cultus: The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Com-
munication, 7: 57–71.
Press Trust of India. “India’s E-Commerce Industry Likely to Touch $38 Billion
Mark in 2016.” 2016. YourStory. January 2, 2016. https://yourstory.com/2016/01/
indias-e-commerce-assocham/
Puchleitner, Thomas, and Otto Petrovic. 2014. “From Manuals Towards Product Em-
bedded Interactive Learning Environments.” In 2014 Global Engineering Education
Conference (EDUCON), Istanbul, Turkey, April 3–5, 243–248. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Rolink, Jacek. 2017. “American Companies Expanding Overseas: Trend or Ne-
cessity.” Blueback Global. May 22, 2017. https://bluebackglobal.com/business/
american-companies-expanding-overseas/
Romero, S. 2017. Spanish Thrives in the U.S. Despite an English-Only Drive. The New
York Times Online Edition. August 23, 2017. www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/us/span-
ish-language-united-states.html?emc=eta1
Rude, Carolyn D., and Angela Eaton. 2010. Technical Editing. 5th ed. New York: Allyn &
Bacon.
Sherwin, Katie. 2016. “Cultural Nuances Impact User Experience: Why We Test with
International Audiences.” Nielsen Norman Group. June 26, 2016. www.nngroup.
com/articles/cultural-nuances/
Slattery, Darina M., and Yvonne Cleary. 2016. “E‐Learning and Technical Communica-
tion for International Audiences.” In Teaching and Training for Global Engineering:
Perspectives on Culture and Professional Communication Practices, edited by Kirk
St.Amant and Madelyn Flammia, 149–172. Piscataway, NJ: Wiley-IEEE Press.
St.Amant, Kirk. 2005. “A Prototype Theory Approach to International Web Site Analy-
sis and Design.” Technical Communication Quarterly 14, no. 1: 73–91.
———. 2006. “Globalizing Rhetoric: Using Rhetorical Concepts to Identify and Analyze
Cultural Expectations Related to Genres.” Hermes: Journal of Language and Com-
munication Studies 37: 47–66.
———. 2015. “Cultural Considerations for Communication Design: Integrating Ideas of
Culture, Communication, and Context into User Experience Design.” Communica-
tion Design Quarterly 4, no. 1: 6–22.
———. 2017a. “The Cultural Context of Care in International Communication Design:
A Heuristic for Addressing Usability in International Health and Medical Commu-
nication.” Communication Design Quarterly 5, no. 2: 62–70.
———. 2017b. “Of Friction Points and Infrastructures: Re-Thinking the Dynamics of
Offering Online Education in Technical Communication in Global Contexts.” Tech-
nical Communication Quarterly 26, no. 3: 1–19.
St.Amant, Kirk, and Lisa Melonçon. 2016. “Reflections on Research: Examining Practi-
tioner Perspectives on the State of Research in Technical Communication.” Techni-
cal Communication 63, no. 4: 346–363.
St.Amant, Kirk, and Rich Rice. 2015. “Online Writing in Global Contexts: Rethinking
the Nature of Connections and Communication in the Age of International Online
Media.” Computers and Composition, 38(B): v–x.
St. Germaine-McDaniel, Nicole. 2010. “Technical Communication in the Health Fields:
Executive Order 13166 and Its Impact on Translation and Localization.” Technical
Communication 57, no. 3: 251–265.
Sun, Huatong. 2012. Cross-Cultural Technology Design: Creating Culture-Sensitive
Technology for Local Users. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sun, Huatong, and Guiseppe Getto. 2017. “Localizing User Experience: Strategies, Prac-
tices, and Techniques for Culturally Sensitive Design.” Technical Communication 64,
no. 2: 89–94.
Tebeaux, Elizabeth. 1999. “Designing Written Business Communication Along the
Shifting Cultural Continuum: The New Face of Mexico.” Journal of Business and
Technical Communication 13: 49–85.
Tong, Frank. 2016. “China’s Online Retail Sales Grow a Third to $589 Billion in 2015.”
Internet Retailer. January 27, 2016. www.digitalcommerce360.com/2016/01/27/
chinas-online-retail-sales-grow-third-589-billion-2015/
“Top Ten Languages of the Internet, Today and Tomorrow.” 2015. Unbabel. June 10,
2015. https://unbabel.com/blog/top-languages-of-the-internet/
Ulijn, Jan M. 1996. “Translating the Culture of Technical Documents: Some Experimen-
tal Evidence.” In International Dimensions of Technical Communication, edited by
Deborah C. Andrews, 69–86. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication.
Ulijn, Jan M., and Judith B. Strother. 1995. Communicating in Business and Technology:
From Psycholinguistic Theory to International Practice. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Walmer, Daphne. 1999. “One Company’s Efforts to Improve Translation and Localiza-
tion.” Technical Communication 46, no. 2: 230–237.
Woolever, Kristin R. 2001. “Doing Global Business in the Information Age: Rhetori-
cal Contrasts in the Business and Technical Professions.” In Contrastive Rhetoric
Revisited and Redefined, edited by Clayann Gilliam Panetta, 47–64. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhu, Pinfan, and Kirk St.Amant. 2007. “Taking Traditional Chinese Medicine Inter-
national and Online: An Examination of the Cultural Rhetorical Factors Affecting
American Perceptions of Chinese-Created Web Sites.” Technical Communication 54,
no. 2: 171–186.
Zong, Jie, Jeanne Batalova, and Jeffrey Hallock. 2018. “Frequently Requested Sta-
tistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States.” Migration Policy
Institute. February 8, 2018. www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-
statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states
Baker, Mona. 2011. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. 2nd ed. Abingdon,
UK/New York: Routledge.
Bellos, David. 2011. Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Every-
thing. London: Particular Books.
Byrne, Jody. 2006. Technical Translation: Usability Strategies for Translating Technical
Documentation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Corbolante, Licia. 2010. “La terminologia nella localizzazione.” Presented for Ph.D. stu-
dents, Trieste, Italy, May 13.
Durban, Chris. 2011. “Translation—Getting It Right: A Guide to Buying Translation.”
American Translators Association. www.atanet.org/publications/getting_it_right_
trans.php.
Esselink, Bert. 2000. A Practical Guide to Localization. rev. ed. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Gnecchi, Marusca, Bruce Maylath, Birthe Mousten, Federica Scarpa, and Sonia
Vandepitte. 2008. “Professional Communication and Translation in Convergence.”
In  Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference,
13–16 July 2008, Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, edited by Brian Still, 191–
205. New York: IEEE.
———. 2011. “Field Convergence between Technical Writers and Technical Translators:
Consequences for Training Institutions.” IEEE-Transactions on Professional Com-
munication 54, no. 2: 168–184.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. “On the Grammar of Scientific English.” In The Language
of Science, edited by Jonathan J. Webster, 181–198. London/New York: Continuum.
Hatim, Basil, and Jeremy Munday. 2004. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book.
London/New York: Routledge.
Kastberg, Peter. 2007. “Cultural Issues Facing the Technical Translator.” The Journal of
Specialised Translation, no. 8: 104–109.
Kelly, Dorothy, and Anne Martin. 2009. “Training and Education.” In Routledge En-
cyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd ed., edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Sal-
danha, 294–300. London/New York: Routledge.
LTC (Language Technology Center). 2016. Expectations and Concerns of the European
Language Industry. https://ec.europa.eu/info/language-industry-facts-and-figures-
lind-web_en.
Malmkjær, Kristen. 1998. Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and
Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Mossop, Brian. 2014. Revising and Editing for Translators. 3rd ed. London/New York:
Routledge.
Olohan, Maeve. 2016. Scientific and Technical Translation. London/New York: Routledge.
Palumbo, Giuseppe. 2009. Key Terms in Translation Studies. London: Continuum.
Pym, Anthony. 2001. “Translator-Training Institutions.” In Routledge Encyclopaedia of Trans-
lation Studies, 1st ed., edited by Mona Baker, 280–285. London/New York: Routledge.
———. 2003. “What Localization Models Can Learn from Translation Theory.” The
LISA Newsletter Globalization Insider 12 2/4, May. www.translationdirectory.com/
article449.htm.
———. 2004. “Propositions on Cross-Cultural Communication and Translation.”
Target 16, no. 1: 1–28.
Robinson, Douglas. 2003. Becoming a Translator: An Introduction to the Theory and
Practice of Translation. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge.
Samuelsson-Brown, Geoffrey. 2010. A Practical Guide for Translators. 5th ed. Bristol/
Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Scarpa, Federica. 1990. “Trasposizioni stilistiche nella traduzione in italiano dall’ing-
lese di software e documentazione tecnica.” In Studi sulla traduzione tecnica e letter-
aria, 35–48. Trieste: Lint.
———. 2002. “‘Closer and Closer Apart’? Specialized Translation in a Cognitive Per-
spective.” In Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, edited by
Alessandra Riccardi, 133–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2008. La traduzione specializzata: Un approccio didattico professionale. 2nd ed.
Milano: Hoepli.
Wolpert, Lewis. 2002. “Is Science Dangerous?” Journal of Molecular Biology 319, no. 4:
969–972.
Andréani, Jean-Claude, Françoise Conchon, Jean-Louis Moulin, and Grégoir De
Vaissière. 2008. “La Communication de Diversité en Marketing: approche ex-
ploratoire.” Management & Avenir 1, no. 15: 156–173. www.cairn.info/revue-
management-et-avenir-2008-1-page-156.htm.
Ballard, Michel. 1999. “Claude-Gaspar Bachet of Mériziac.” Circuit 65: 20–21.
Ballard, Michel. 2007. De Cicéron à Benjamin, Traducteurs, Traductions, Réflexions. Vil-
leneuve d’Ascq, France: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
Becker, Rachel. 2014. “Water Repellent Coating Could Make Power Plants Greener.” MIT
Technology Review. November 24, 2014. www.technologyreview.com/news/532756/
water-repellent-coating-could-make-power-plants-greener/
Boulanger, Pier Pascale. 2004. “Traduction éthique et société.” TTR: traduction, termi-
nologie, rédaction 17, no. 2: 57–66.
“Commission statistiques et étude du marché.” 2010. SFT Enquête Tarifs 2009. Paris: Syn-
dicat national des traducteurs professionnel. www.sft.fr/clients/sft/telechargements/
file_front/4c45ab788dee5.pdf
Coirier, Pierre, Daniel Gaonac’h, and Jean-Michel Passerault. 1996. Psycholinguistique
textuelle. Paris: Armand Colin.
Concise Oxford Dictionary. 2005. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Durban, Chris. 2011. Translation: Getting It Right. Alexandria, VA: American Transla-
tors Association.
European Commission. 2015. “Translation: Multilingualism in the European Union.”
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/translating/multilingualism/index_en.htm
Gambier, Yves. 2009. “Competences for Professional Translators, Experts in Multi-
lingual and Multimedia Communication.” http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/
programmes/emt/key_documents/emt_competences_translators_en.pdf
Gile, Daniel. 1992. “Les fautes de traduction, une analyse pédagogique.” Meta 37, no. 2:
251–262.
Gouadec, Daniel. 1989. Le traducteur, la traduction et l’entreprise. Paris: AFNOR.
Kintsch, Walter. 1974. The Representation of Meaning in Memory. New York: Wiley and
Sons.
Levý, Jery. 1967. “Translation as a Decision Process.” In To Honor Roman Jakobson:
Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday 2, 1171–1182. The Hague and Paris:
Mouton.
Martinez Melis, Nicole, and Amparo Hurtado Albir. 2001. “Assessment in Translation
Studies: Research Needs.” Meta 46, no. 2: 272–287.
Maylath, Bruce. 2013. “Current Trends in Translation.” Communication and Language
at Work 1, no. 2: 41–50.
Minacori, Patricia. 2010. “Translation Assessment at University: The Creation of a Com-
puter Interface, Part 1.” In Reconceptualizing LSP: Online Proceedings of the XVII Eu-
ropean Language for Specific Purposes Symposium 2009, edited by Carmen Heine and
Jan Engberg. Århus, Denmark. www.asb.dk/fileadmin/www.asb.dk/isek/vibert.pdf
Minacori, Patricia. 2011. “Communicateurs et traducteurs techniques, la logique des
échanges.” Presentation at the International Conference Echanges, Université
Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris 3, November, 18–19.
Minacori, Patricia, and Lucy Veisblat. 2010. “Technical Translation and Communica-
tion: Chicken or Egg?” Meta 55, no. 4: 752–768. DOI: 10.7202/045689ar.
PACTE (Procés d’Adquisició de la Competència Traductora i Avaluació). 2003. “Build-
ing a Translation Competence Model.” In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives
in Process Oriented Research, edited by Fabio Alves, 43–66. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Palumbo, Giuseppe. 2016. “Reviewing Translators’ Work.” Paper presented at Converg-
ing Fields: 1st Conference of the Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Project, Fargo, North
Dakota, July 18–20.
Quillard, Geneviève. 1999. “Publicité, traduction et reproduction de la culture.” Babel
45, no. 1: 39–52. DOI: 10.1075/babel.45.1.04gen
Spilka, Irène, Arlette Thomas, and Jacques Flamand. 1984. Analyse de traduction: l’uni-
versitaire et le praticien. Ottawa: Editions de l’Université.
Spiro, Rand. 1977. “Remembering Information from Text: The ‘State of Schema’
Approach.” In Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, edited by Mark Ander-
son, Rand Spiro, and William Montague, 137–177. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Dijk, Teun, and Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New
York: Academic Press.
Adriaens, Geert. 1994. “Simplified English Grammar and Style Correction in an MT
Framework: The LRE SECC Project.” Paper presented at the Translating and the
Computer 16 Conference, London, November 10–11.
Adriaens, Geert, Jeffrey Allen, Arendse Bernth, Kurt Godden, Teruko Mitamura, Eric
Nyberg, Rick Wojcik, and Remi Zajac, eds. 2000. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Workshop on Controlled Language Applications. Seattle, WA.
Adriaens, Geert, Roger Havenith, Rick Wojcik, and Bruno Tersago, eds. 1996. Proceed-
ings of the 1st International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications. Leuven,
Belgium: Centre for Computational Linguistics.
Almqvist, Ingrid, and Anna Sågvall Hein. 1996. “Defining Scania Swedish: A Con-
trolled Language for Truck Maintenance.” Paper presented at the 1st International
Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, Centre for Computational Lin-
guistics, Leuven, Belgium, March 26–27.
Atwater, Kathleen. 1998. Nortel Standard English as a Quality and Reliability Tool: Dis-
tributed Report. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Public Carrier Networks Information Devel-
opment, Nortel.
Barthe, Kathy. 1998. “GIFAS Rationalised French: Designing One Controlled Language
to Match Another.” Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Con-
trolled Language Applications, Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA, May 21–22.
Bernth, Arendse. 1997. “EasyEnglish: A Tool for Improving Document Quality.” Paper
presented at the 5th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Washing-
ton, DC, March 31–April 3.
———. 1998a. “EasyEnglish: Addressing Structural Ambiguity.” Paper presented at the
3rd Conference of the Association of Machine Translation in the Americas, Lang-
horne, PA, October 28–31.
———. 1998b. “EasyEnglish: Preprocessing for MT.” Paper presented at the 2nd Inter-
national Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, Language Technologies
Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May 21–22.
———. 1999a. “Controlling Input and Output of MT for Greater User Acceptance.” Pa-
per presented at the Translating and the Computer Conference 21, London, Novem-
ber 10–11.
———. 1999b. “EasyEnglish: A Confidence Index for MT.” Paper presented at the 8th
International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine
Translation, Chester College, England, August 23–25.
———. 2000. “EasyEnglish: Grammar Checking for Non-Native Speakers.” Paper pre-
sented at the 3rd International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, Se-
attle, WA, April 29–30.
Byrne, Jody. 2004. “Textual Cognetics and the Role of Iconic Linkage in Software User
Guides.” Ph.D. diss., Dublin City University.
Cascales Ruiz, Remedios, and Richard Sutcliffe. 2003. “A Specification and Validating
Parser for Simplified Technical Spanish.” Paper presented at the Joint Conference
Combining the 8th International Workshop of the European Association for Ma-
chine Translation and the 4th International Workshop on Controlled Language Ap-
plications, Dublin City University, Ireland, May 15–17.
Cremers, Lou. 2001. “Towards an Automated Translation Workflow at Océ Technolo-
gies.” International Journal for Language and Documentation 9: 24–25.
Doherty, Stephen. 2012. “Investigating the Effects of Controlled Language on the
Reading and Comprehension of Machine Translated Texts: A Mixed-Methods Ap-
proach.” Ph.D. diss., Dublin City University.
Douglas, Shona, and Matthew Hurst. 1996. “Controlled Language Support for Perkins
Approved Clear English (PACE).” Paper presented at the 1st International Workshop
on Controlled Language Applications, Centre for Computational Linguistics, Leu-
ven, Belgium, March 26–27.
EAMT (European Association for Machine Translation) and CLAW (Controlled Lan-
guage Applications Workshop). 2003. Controlled Language Translation: Proceedings
of the Joint Conference Combining the 8th International Workshop of the European
Association for Machine Translation and the 4th International Workshop on Con-
trolled Language Applications. www.mt-archive.info/00/CLT-2003-TOC.htm
Fuchs, Norbert, and Rolf Schwitter. 1995. “Attempto Controlled Natural Language for
Requirements Specifications.” Paper presented at the 7th IIPS 95 Workshop on Logic
Programming Environments, Portland, OR, January 13–16.
Fuchs, Norbert, and Rolf Schwitter. 1996. “Attempto Controlled English (ACE).” Paper
presented at the 1st International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications,
Centre for Computational Linguistics, Leuven, Belgium, March 26–27.
Fuchs, Norbert, Uta Schwertel, and Rolf Schwitter. 1999. Attempto Controlled English
Language Manual Version 3.0. Geneva, Switzerland: Institut für Informatik der Uni-
versität Zürich.
Gerlach, Johanna, Victoria Porro, Pierrette Bouillon, and Sabine Lehmann. 2013.
“Combining Pre-Editing and Post-Editing to Improve SMT of User-Generated Out-
put.” Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Post-Editing Technologies and Prac-
tice, 14th Machine Translation Summit, Nice, France, September 2–6.
Godden, Kurt. 1998. “Controlling the Business Environment for Controlled Language.”
Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Controlled Language Appli-
cations, Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
PA, May 21–22.
———. 2000. “The Evolution of CASL Controlled Authoring at General Motors.” Paper
presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications,
Seattle, WA, April 29–30.
Haller, Johann. 2000. “MULTIDOC: Authoring Aids for Multilingual Technical
Documentation.” Paper presented as the 1st Congress of Specialized Translation,
Barcelona, March 2–4.
Huijsen, Willem-Olaf. 1998. “Controlled Language: An Introduction.” Paper presented
at the 2nd International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, Language
Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May 21–22.
Janssen, Gerd, Gerhard Mark, and Bernd Dobbert. 1996. “Simplified German:
A  Practical Approach to Documentation and Translation.” Paper presented at the
1st International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, Centre for Com-
putational Linguistics, Leuven, Belgium, March 26–27.
Kamprath, Christine, Eric Adolphson, Teruko Mitamura, and Eric Nyberg. 1998. “Con-
trolled Language for Multilingual Document Production: Experience with Cater-
pillar Technical English.” Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on
Controlled Language Applications, Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mel-
lon University, Pittsburgh, May 21–22.
Koehn, Philipp. 2010. Statistical Machine Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Lentz, Leo, and Jacqueline Hulst. 2000. “Babel in Document Design: The Evaluation of
Multilingual Texts.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 43, no. 3:
313–322.
Mitamura, Teruko, Eric Nyberg, Geert Adriaens, Linda Schmandt, Rick Wojcik, and
Remi Zajac, eds. 1998. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Controlled
Language Applications. Pittsburgh, PA: Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie
Mellon University.
Means, Linda, and Kurt Godden. 1996. “The Controlled Automotive Service Language
(CASL) Project.” Paper presented at the 1st International Workshop on Controlled
Language Applications, Centre for Computational Linguistics, Leuven, Belgium,
March 26–27.
Newton, John. 1992. “The Perkins Experience.” In Computers and Translation: A Prac-
tical Appraisal, edited by John Newton, 46–57. London and New York: Routledge.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2003. “Controlling Controlled English: An Analysis of Several Con-
trolled Language Rule Sets.” Paper presented at the Joint Conference combining the
8th International Workshop of the European Association for Machine Translation
and the 4th International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, Dublin
City University, Ireland, May 15–17.
———. 2006. “Machine-Translatability and Post-Editing Effort: An Empirical Study
Using Translog and Choice Network Analysis.” Ph.D. diss, Dublin City University.
———. 2010. “Controlled Language and Readability.” In Translation and Cognition.
American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, edited by Greg-
ory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 143–165.. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
O’Brien, Sharon, and Johann Roturier. 2007. “How Portable Are Controlled Language
Rules? A Comparison of Two Empirical MT Studies.” Paper presented at the 11th
Machine Translation Summit, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, September
10–14.
Reuther, Ursula. 1998. “Controlling Language in an Industrial Application.” Paper pre-
sented at the 2nd International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications
Workshop, Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pitts-
burgh, PA, May 21–22.
Sågvall Hein, Anna. 1997. “Language Control and Machine Translation.” Paper pre-
sented at the 7th International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues
in MT, Santa Fe, NM, July 23–25.
Sågvall Hein, Anna, and Ingrid Almqvist. 2000. “A Language Checker of Controlled
Language and Its Integration into a Documentation and Translation Workflow.”
Paper presented at the Translating and the Computer 22 Conference, London, No-
vember 16–17.
Sågvall Hein, Anna, Ingrid Almqvist, and Per Starbäck. 1997. “ScaniaSwedish: A Basis
for Multilingual Machine Translation.” Paper presented at the Translating and the
Computer 19 Conference, London, November 13–14.
Schachtl, Stefanie. 1996. “Requirements for Controlled German in Industrial Applica-
tions.” Paper presented at the 1st International Workshop on Controlled Language
Applications, Centre for Computational Linguistics, Leuven, Belgium, March
26–27.
Schmidt-Wigger, Antje. 1998. “Grammar and Style Checking for German.” Paper pre-
sented at the 2nd International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications,
Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May
21–22.
Schreurs, Dirk, and Geert Adriaens. 1992. “From COGRAM to ALCOGRAM: Toward
a Controlled English Grammar Checker.” Paper presented at the 14th International
Conference on Computational Linguistics, Nantes, France, August 23–28.
Schwertel, Uta. 2000. Controlling Plural Ambiguities in Attempto Controlled English
(ACE).” Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Controlled Language
Applications, Seattle, WA, April 29–30.
Schwitter, Rolf, and Norbert Fuchs. 1996. “Attempto: From Specifications in Con-
trolled Natural Language Towards Executable Specifications.” Paper presented at
the EMISA Workshop Natürlicher Entwurf von Informationssystemen, Akademie
Tutzing, Germany, May 28–30.
Sullivan, Patricia. 1989. “Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing.” IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication 32, no. 4: 256–264.
White, E. N. 1980. “Using Controlled Languages for Effective Communication.” Paper
presented at the 27th International Technical Communication Conference, Society
for Technical Communication, Washington, DC, May 14–17.
Wojcik, Rick, and Heather Holmback. 1996. “Getting a Controlled Language off the
Ground at Boeing.” Paper presented at the 1st International Workshop on Con-
trolled Language Applications, Centre for Computational Linguistics, Leuven,
Belgium, March 26–27.
Wojcik, Rick, Heather Holmback, and James Hoard. 1998. “Boeing Technical English:
An Extension of AECMA SE beyond the Aircraft Maintenance Domain.” Paper pre-
sented at the 2nd International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications,
Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May
21–22.
Woyde, Rick. 2001. “Introduction to the SAE J2450 Translation Quality Metric.” Lan-
guage International, April, 37–39.
Adab, Beverly. 2000. “Towards a More Systematic Approach to the Translation of Ad-
vertising Texts.” In Investigating Translation, edited by Allison Beeby, Doris Esinger,
and Marisa Presas, 223–234. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
ASTM. 2006. Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation. ASTM F2575–06.
www.astm.org/Standards/F2575.htm.
Bass, Scott. 2013. “Why ISO Certification (Still) Matters.” TranslationDirectory.com.
www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1260.htm.
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London/New
York: Longman.
Bielsa, Esperança, and Susan Bassnett. 2009. Translation in Global News. Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Byrne, Jody. 2012. Scientific and Technical Translation Explained. Manchester:
St. Jerome.
CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation). 2006. Translation Services: Service Require-
ments, 1st ed. EN 15038:2006. Brussels: European Commission for Standardization.
Chiaro, Delia. 2004. “Translational and Marketing Communication: A Comparison of
Print and Web Advertising of Italian Agro-Food Products.” The Translator 10, no.
2: 313–328.
Council of Europe. 2001. “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching and Assessment.” Council of Europe Portal. www.coe.int/t/dg4/
linguistic/Source/Framework_en.pdf.
De Mooij, Marieke. 2004. “Translating Advertising: Painting the Tip of an Iceberg.” The
Translator 10, no. 2: 179–198.
Drugan, Joanna. 2013. Quality in Professional Translation. London/New York:
Bloomsbury.
Durban Chris. 2006. Translation: Getting it Right. Institute of Translation and Inter-
preting (ITI). www.iti.org.uk/attachments/category/54/GIR_english.pdf. American
version: http://atanet.org/publications/Getting_it_right.pdf.
Durban, Chris, and Alan Melby. 2007. Translation: Buying a Non-Commodity: How
Translation Standards Can Help Buyers and Sellers. Institute of Translation and
Interpreting (ITI). www.iti.org.uk/attachments/category/54/TranslationNon-
commodity.pdf.
European Commission. 2015. How to Write Clearly. Luxembourg: Publications Office
of the European Union. https://publications.europa.eu/lastedition/725b7eb0-
d92e-11e5-8fea-01aa75ed71a1.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2006. Directive 2006/42/
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17th May 2006 on Machin-
ery, and Amending Directive 95/16/EC (Recast). Official Journal of the European
Union, L 157, 9.6.2006: 24–86. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:2006:157:0024:0086:EN:PDF
Gouadec, Daniel. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Hall, Edward T. 1959. The Silent Language. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Holmes, James S. 1994. “Describing Literary Translations: Models and Methods.” In
Translated, edited by James S. Holmes, 81–91. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
Huijsen, Willem-Olaf. 1998. “Controlled Language: An Introduction.” Paper pre-
sented at the 2nd International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications,
Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May
21–22.
IKEA ITALIA. 2010. Catalogo IKEA. www.youblisher.com/p/2151-IKEA-Catalogo-
2010/
IKEA UK. 2010. IKEA Catalogue. http://static.onlinecatalogue.IKEA.com/2010/IKEA_
catalogue/GB.
IKEA US. 2010. IKEA Catalog. http://onlinecatalog.IKEA-usa.com/2010/IKEA_
catalog/US.
Katan, David. 1999/2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Inter-
preters and Mediators. 2nd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Katan, David. 2009a. “Culture.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies,
2nd ed., edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 70–73. London/New York:
Routledge.
———. 2009b. “Translation as Intercultural Communication.” In The Routledge Com-
panion to Translation Studies, edited by Jeremy Munday, 74–92. Abingdon/Oxon,
UK/New York: Routledge.
LISA (The Localization Industry Standards Association). 2003. The Localization Indus-
try Primer. 2nd ed. Féchy, Switzerland: The Local Industry Standards Association.
www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/LISA/L030625P.pdf.
Mocellin, Enrico. 2010–2011. “A Linguistic Analysis of Marketing Strategies in IKEA
Catalogues.” Graduate thesis, Università di Padova.
Monbiot, George. 2011a. “Why Fukushima Made Me Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear
Power.” The Guardian. March 21, 2011. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/
mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima.
———. 2011b. “Environment: Fukushima, the Best Ad for Atomic Power.” VoxEurop.
March 22, 2011. www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/564301-fukushima-
best-ad-atomic-power.
———. 2011c. “Energia nucleare: Come Fukushima ha reso l’atomo simpatico,” trans-
lated by Anna Bissanti. VoxEurop. 22 marzo. www.presseurop.eu/it/content/
article/564761-come-fukushima-ha-reso-l-atomo-simpatico.
———. 2011d. “Umwelt: Fukushima, Werbung für die Atomkraft,” translated
by Patricia Lux-Martel. VoxEurop. 22 März. www.presseurop.eu/de/content/
article/564971-fukushima-werbung-fuer-die-atomkraft.
———. 2011e. “In difesa del nucleare.” Internazionale, 25 marzo: 44–45.
Mossop, Brian. 2014. Revising and Editing for Translators. 3rd ed. London/New York:
Routledge.
Musacchio, Maria Teresa. 2006. “Quality in Published Specialized Translations.” In
Insights into Specialized Translation, edited by Maurizio Gotti and Susan Sarcevic,
173–192. Bern/New York: Peter Lang.
Piehl, Aino, Inkaliisa Vihonen, Kotimaisten Kielten, and Ehrenberg-Sundin, Bar-
bro. 2010. Writing for Translation. Regeringskansliet, Translation Centre for
the Bodies of the European Union. http://cdt.europa.eu/en/documentation/
writing-translation.
Pym, Anthony. 2004. The Moving Text: Localization, Translation, and Distribution.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pym, Anthony, François Grin, Claudio Sfreddo, and Andy L. J. Chan. 2012. “The Status
of the Translation Profession in the European Union.” Studies on Translation and
Multilingualism 7. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/publications/studies/transla-
tion profession_en.pdf.
Rinsche, Adriane, and Nadia Portera-Zanotti. 2009. Study on the Size of the Language
Industry in the EU. London: The Language Technology Centre Ltd. http://ec.europa.
eu/languages/news/pdf/language-industry-study_en.pdf.
Sager, Juan C. 1994. Language Engineering and Translation: Consequences of
Automation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
UNI. 1996. Definizione dei servizi e delle attività delle imprese di traduzione e interpre-
tariato, UNI 10574. Roma: Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione.
Wheeler, David R. 2011. “Google Doesn’t Laugh: Saving Witty Headlines in the Age of
SEO.” The Atlantic. May 11, 2011. www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/
google-doesnt-laugh-saving-witty-headlines-in-the-age-of-seo/238656/.
Wright, Sue Ellen. 1993. “The Inappropriateness of the Merely Correct: Stylistic Consid-
erations in Scientific and Technical Writing.” In Scientific and Technical Translation,
edited by Sue Ellen Wright and Leland Wright, 69–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Argondizzo, Peter. 2011. “Managing Variable Text in Translation.” Multilingual 22, no.
6: 46–48.
Asnes, Adam. 2010. “The Business Why and How of Simship.” Multilingual 21, no. 5:
22–23.
Beninatto, Roberto S. 2013. “Localization Trends for 2013. No News, Good
News?” Moravia. January 15, 2013. http://info.moravia.com/blog/bid/259158/
Localization-trends-for-2013-No-news-good-news
Braster, Berry. 2009. “Controlled Language in Technical Writing.” Multilingual 20, no.
1: 50–52.
Brooks, David. 2000. “What Price Globalization? Managing Costs at Microsoft.”
In Translating into Success, edited by Robert C. Sprung, 43–57. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
DePalma, Donald A. 2007. “Moving Beyond the ad hocracy of Localization.”
Multilingual—Getting Started Guide, October/November, 6–8.
DePalma, Donald A., Vijayalaxmi Hegde, and Robert G. Stewart. 2014. Can’t
Read, Won’t Buy: How Translation Affects the Web Customer Experience and
E-Commerce Growth. Cambridge: CSA.
Dietz, Frank. 2006. “Issues in Localizing Computer Games.” In Perspectives on
Localization, edited by Keiran J. Dunne, 121–134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
DiFranco, Carla. 2006. “Localization Cost.” In Perspectives on Localization, edited by
Keiran J. Dunne, 47–66. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dunne, Keiran J. 2006. “A Copernican Revolution.” In Perspectives on Localization, ed-
ited by Keiran J. Dunne, 1–11. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Duque, García M. 2000. Manual de estilo. El arte de escribir in inglés cientifico-técnico.
Madrid: Paraninfo.
Edwards, Kate. 2011. “Levels of Game Culturalization.” Multilingual 22, no. 6: 18–19.
Esselink, Bert. 2000. A Practical Guide to Software Localization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
———. 2006. “The Evolution of Localization.” In Translation Technology and Its Teach-
ing, edited by Anthony Pym, Alexander Perekrestenko, and Bram Starink, 21–29.
Tarragona: ISG, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
Filip, David. 2012a. “Localization for the Long Tail: Part 1.” Multilingual 23, no. 7: 51–55.
———. 2012b. “Localization for the Long Tail: Part 2.” Multilingual 23, no. 8: 39–44.
Hellstern, Alfred, Katerina Gasova, and Libor Safar. 2013. “Bringing a New Tone to CEE
Product Localization.” Multilingual 24, no. 2: 36–39.
Jiménez Crespo, Miguel A. 2008. “El proceso de localización web: estudio contrastivo
de un corpus comparable del género ‘sitio web corporativo’.” Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versidad de Granada.
———. 2010. “Localization and Writing for a New Medium: A Review of Digital Style
Guides.” Revista Tradumàtica—Traducció i Tecnologies de la Informació i la Comu-
nicació 8: 1–9.
Keller, Nicole. 2011. “Creating Translation-Oriented Source Documents.” Multilingual
22, no. 7: 43–45.
Monti, Johanna. 2007. “Localizzazione: il ruolo e i saperi della traduzione.” In I saperi
del tradurre. Analogie, affinità, confronti, edited by Clara Montella and Giancarlo
Marchesini, 173–197. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Musale, Shailendra. 2013. “Touchscreen Devices in the Localization Industry.” Multi-
lingual 24, no. 1: 33–36.
Scarpa, Federica. 2008. La traduzione specializzata. Un approccio didattico professio-
nale. 2nd ed. Milano: Hoepli.
Sichel, Barb. 2009. “Planning and Writing for Translation.” Multilingual—Getting
Started Guide, July/August, 3–4.
Sikes, Richard. 2012. “Localization: The Global Pyramid Capstone.” Multilingual 23,
no. 7: 43–49.
Wittner, Janaina, and Daniel Goldschmidt. 2007. “Technical Challenges and Localiza-
tion Tools.” Multilingual—Getting Started Guide, October/November, 10–14.
Collins English Dictionary. n.d. “streetsmart.” Accessed December 30, 2014, and July 27,
2018. www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english.
Cremer, Marjolein, Daphne Dingshoff, Meike de Beer, and Rob Schonen. 2011. “Do
Word Associations Assess Word Knowledge? A Comparison of L1 and L2, Child
and Adult Word Associations.” The International Journal of Bilingualism 15, no. 2:
187–204.
Dalsgaard, Marianne (2015). “Modeshow på museum er sooooo last season.” [Fashion
show at museum is sooooo last season.] Historie, Nr. 1. Copenhagen: Bonnier Pub-
lications A/S: 6.
Dansk Sprognaevn. n.d. Retskrivningsordbogen. www.dsn.dk
Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels, Erik Hansen, and Pia Jarvad, eds. 1999. Engelsk eller ikke en-
gelsk. That is the question. Engelsk indflydelse på dansk. [English or not English. That
is the question. English influence on Danish.] Dansk Sprognævns Skrifter, Nr. 28.
Den Danske Ordbog. n.d. Accessed August 23, 2013 and July 29, 2018. http://ordnet.dk/
Ejsing, Jens. 2009. “Flertal sikrer forskning på dansk.” Berlingske Tidende (Copenhagen),
January 19.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 1992. “Linguistic Hegemony and Minority Resistance,” Jour-
nal of Peace Research 29, no. 3: 313–332.
Fernández, Rosa M. 1990. “Actitudes hacia los cambios de códigos en Nuevo Mexico:
Reacciones de an sujeto a ejemplos de su habla.” In Spanish in the United States:
Sociolinguistic Issues, edited by J. J. Bergen, 49–58. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Filipovic, Rudolf. 1996. “English as a Word Donor to Other Languages of Europe.” In
The English Language in Europe, edited by Reinhard R. K. Hartmann, 37–46. Ox-
ford: Intellect.
Haberland, Hartmut. 2005. “Domains and Domain Loss.” In The Consequences of Mo-
bility, edited by Bent Preisler, Anne Fabricius, Hartmut Haberland, Susanne Kjær-
beck, and Karen Risager, 227–237. Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University.
Heidemann Andersen, Margrethe. 2002. “Engelsk i dansk: Sprogholdninger i
Danmark. Helt vildt sjovt eller wannabeagtigt og ejendomsmæglerkækt?” Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Copenhagen.
Higginbotham, George, 2010. “Individual Learner Profiles from Word Association
Tests: The Effect of Word Frequency.” System 38, no. 3: 379–390.
Holberg, Ludvig. 1723. Jean de France. http://wayback-01.kb.dk/wayback/20101103142713/
http://www2.kb.dk/elib/lit//dan/holberg/komedier/jean.dkl/a3.htm
Holberg, Ludvig. n.d. “Jean de France eller Hans Frandsen.” Ludvig Holberg Skrifter.
Accessed December, 10, 2014. http://holbergsskrifter.dk/
Jarvad, Pia. 1999. “Nye ord—Ordbog over nye ord i dansk 1955–1998.” Gyldendal, 1.
udgave.
Laurén, Christer, Johan Myking, and Heribert Picht. 2002. “Language and Domains: A
Proposal for a Domain Dynamics Taxonomy.” LSP and Professional Communication
2, no. 2: 23–30.
Lønsmann, Dorte. 2009. “From Sub-Culture to Mainstream: The Spread of English in
Denmark.” Journal of Pragmatics 41, no. 6: 1139–1151.
Matus-Mendoza, Mariadelaluz. 2002. “The English Lexical Loan: A Class Marker.”
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 1, no. 4: 329–337.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. n.d. “loanword.” Accessed December 8, 2014, and July 27,
2018. www.merriam-webster.com.
Nissen, Henriette Bagger, and Henriksen, Birgit. 2006. “Word Class Influence on Word
Association Test Results.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16, no. 3:
389–408.
Oxford English Dictionary. n.d. “boardshorts.” Accessed December, 30, 2014, and July
27, 2018. www.oed.com.
Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. n.d. “loanword.” Accessed December, 30, 2014, and July 27,
2018. www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/loanword.
Preisler, Bent, 2003. “English in Danish and the Danes’ English.” International Journal
of Society and Language 159: 109–126.
Rasmussen, Iben Lehmann. 2008. “Domænetab: engelske låneord i Würth Danmark
A/S produktbog. Hvad betyder de egentlig?” Graduate thesis, Handelshøjskolen i
Århus [Aarhus School of Business].
Rathje, Marianne. 2012. “Luder og laban. De grimmeste ord i to generationer.” Nyt fra
Sprognævnet, 2. juni.
Selsøe-Sørensen, Henrik. 2004. “Ord for det, men ikke på dansk.” Politiken, 5. august.
Svane, Christina, 2010. Engelsk i dansk og risikoen for domænetab. Master’s thesis, Co-
penhagen Business School.
Zareva, Alla. 2007. “Structure of the Second Language Mental Lexicon: How Does It
Compare to Native Speakers’ Lexical Organization?” Second Language Research 23:
123–153.
Anawati, Danielle, and Annemieke Craig. 2006. “Behavioral Adaptation Within
Cross-Cultural Virtual Teams.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
49, no. 1: 44–56.
Becher, Viktor. 2011. “Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation: A Corpus-Based
Study of English-German and German-English Translations of Business Texts.”
Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Hamburg. http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/
2011/5321/pdf/Dissertation.pdf.
Breedveld, Hella. 2002. “Writing and Revising Processes in Professional Translation.”
Across Languages and Cultures 3, no. 1: 91–100.
Brunette, Louise, Chantal Gagnon, and Jonathan Hine. 2005. “The Grevis Project: Re-
vise or Court Calamity.” Across Languages and Cultures 6, no. 1: 35–36.
CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation). 2006a. Translation Services: Service Require-
ments, 1st ed. EN 15038:2006. Brussels: European Commission for Standardization.
———. 2006b. Oversættelsesvirksomhed: Kvalitetskrav, 1. udgave. DS/EN 15038:2006.
Brussels: European Commission for Standardization.
———. 2015. Translation Services: Requirements for Translation Services, 2nd ed. EN
ISO 17100:2015. Brussels: European Commission for Standardization.
Chesterman, Andrew. 2016. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation
Theory. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cismas, Suzana Carmen. 2010. “Risk Assessment and Mitigation in Drafting Translation
Contracts.” Proceedings of the International Conference of Risk Management, Assess-
ment and Mitigation (RIMA ’10), edited by Mircea Grigoriu, Valeri Mladenov, Cornelia
Aida Bulucea, Olga Martin, and Nikos Mastorakis. 491–495. N.p.: WSEAS Press.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen. 2014. “Challenges of Translation Process Research
at the Workplace,” ed. R. Muñoz, Minding Translation, MonTI Special Issue 1:
355–383.
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2006. Directive 2006/42/
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17th May 2006 on Machin-
ery, and Amending Directive 95/16/EC (Recast). Official Journal of the European
Union, L 157, 9.6.2006: 24–86. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:2006:157:0024:0086:EN:PDF
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2017. Directive 2006/42/EG
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17th May 2006 on Machinery, and
Amending Directive 2006/42/EC.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 2000. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Manches-
ter/Boston: St. Jerome Publishing.
Hayes, John R. 2004. “What Triggers Revision?” In Revision: Cognitive and instruc-
tional Processes, edited by L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, and P. Largy, 9–20. Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Herrington, TyAnna. 2008. “The Global Classroom Project: Multiple Relationships in
Global Partnering.” In Designing Globally Networked Learning Environments: Vi-
sionary Partnerships, Policies, and Pedagogies, edited by Doreen Stärke-Meyerring
and Melanie Wilson, 37–51. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Suomal-
aisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ. Hel-
sinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
House, Juliane, and Jens Loenhoff. 2016. “Communication Studies and Translation Stud-
ies.” In Border Crossings: Translation Studies and Other Disciplines, edited by Yves
Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 97–116. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Huc-Hepher, Saskia, and Barros Elsa H. 2016. “Up-Skilling through E-Collaboration.”
In Employability for Languages: A Handbook, edited by E.  Corradini, K. Borth-
wick, and A. Gallagher-Brett, 139–148. Dublin/Voillans, France: Research-pub-
lishing.net.
Humbley, John, Bruce Maylath, Birthe Mousten, Sonia Vandepitte, and Lucy Veisblat.
2005. “Learning Localization through Trans-Atlantic Collaboration.” In IEEE In-
ternational Professional Communication Conference Proceedings, edited by George
F. Hayhoe, 578–595. New York: IEEE.
Jakobsen, A. L. 2006. “Research Methods in Translation: Translog.” In Computer Key-
stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, edited by E. Lindgren and
K. P. H. Sullivan, 95–105. Oxford: Elsevier.
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1999. Tapping the Process: An Exploratory Study of the Cognitive
and Affective Factors Involved in Translating. University of Joensuu Publications in
the Humanities 22. Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu Press.
Katan, David. 2009. “Translation Theory and Professional Practice: A Global Survey
of the Great Divide.” Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication Studies 42:
111–153.
Maylath, Bruce, Sonia Vandepitte, and Birthe Mousten. 2008. “Growing Grassroots
Partnerships: Trans-Atlantic Collaboration between American Instructions and
Students of Technical Writing and European Instructors and Students of Trans-
lation.” In Designing Globally Networked Learning Environments: Visionary Part-
nerships, Policies, and Pedagogies, edited by Doreen Stärke-Meyerring and Melanie
Wilson, 52–66. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Melton, James. 2008. “Beyond Standard English.” In Designing Globally Networked
Learning Environments: Visionary Partnerships, Policies, and Pedagogies, edited
by Doreen Stärke-Meyerring and Melanie Wilson, 158–189. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Metzger, Michael. 2011. “The Year of Standards? AKA Language Standards after
LISA.” Op-Ed. www.ata-divisions.org/LTD/documents/permanent/2011_October_
Interoperability.pdf.
Milbank, Dana. 2018. “The GOP Is Buying the House. Literally.” The Washington
Post. September 26, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wasnt-trumps-gop-
supposed-to-represent-the-little-guy-oops/2018/09/26/8a432f70-c1cd-11e8-a1f0-
a4051b6ad114_story.html?utm_term=.fcbb129ae3ad
Mossop, Brian. 2014. Revising and Editing for Translators. 3rd ed. London/New York:
Routledge.
Mousten, Birthe. 2008. “Globalisation and Localisation Influences on Web Site Text
Distribution: A Case Study of Text Travel between Two VELUX Web Sites.” Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Copenhagen.
Reiss, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 2014. Towards a General Theory of Translational
Action: Skopos Theory Explained. London/New York: Routledge.
Risku, Hanna. 1998. Translatorische Kompetenz: Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens
als Expertentätigkeit. Tübigen, Germany: Stauffenberg Verlag.
Robin, Edina. 2016. “The Translator as Reviser.” In The Modern Translator and Inter-
preter, edited by Ildikó Horváth, 45–56. Budapest: Eötvös University Press.
Schjoldager, Anne, Kirsten Wølch-Rasmussen, and Christa Thomsen. 2008.
“Précis-Writing, Revision and Editing: Piloting the European Master in Translation.
Meta 53, no. 4: 798–813.
Schrijver, Iris. 2014. The Translator as a Text Producer: The Effects of Writing Train-
ing on Transediting and Translation Performance. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Antwerp.
Selby, Jenn. 2013. “David Cameron Explains Selfie with Obama and Helle
Thorning-Schmidt at Mandela Memorial.” The Independent. December 11, 2013.
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/david-cameron-explains-selfie-with-
obama-and-helle-thorningschmidt-at-mandela-memorial-8998090.html.
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
2nd ed. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Stärke-Meyerring, Doreen, and Melanie Wilson, eds. 2008. Designing Globally Net-
worked Learning Environments: Visionary Partnerships, Policies, and Pedagogies.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Alcina, Amparo. 2008. Translation Technologies: Scope, Tools and Resources. Target:
International Journal of Translation Studies 20, no. 1: 79–102.
Baker, Mona, and Gabriela Saldanha. 2009. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Stud-
ies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Durban, Chris. 2011. Translation: Getting It Right. Alexandria, VA: American Transla-
tors Association.
Hutchins, W. John, and Harold L. Somers. 1992. An Introduction to Machine Transla-
tion. London: Academic Press.
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2009. “The Effect of Translation Memory Tools in Trans-
lated Web Texts: Evidence from a Comparative Product-Based Study.” In Evaluation
of Translation Technology 8, edited by Walter Daelemans and Véronique Hoste, 213–
232. Antwerp: Artesis Hogeschool Antwerpen, Departement Vertalers en Tolken.
Král, Pavel. 2012. “The Role of Technology in Translation Studies.” In Teaching Trans-
lation and Interpreting Skills in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the International
Conference Translation and Interpreting Forum Olomouc 2011, Organized by Depart-
ment of English and American Studies, Philosophical Faculty, Palacký University in
Olomouc, Czech Republic, November 11–12, 2011: TIFO 2011, 189–205. Olomouc,
Czechia: Palacký University.
Levý, Jiří. 2011. The Art of Translation. Translated by Patrick Corness. Amsterdam/Phil-
adelphia: John Benjamins.
Mačura, M. 2012. “Limitations of CAT and MT Technology.” In Teaching Translation
and Interpreting Skills in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence Translation and Interpreting Forum Olomouc 2011, Organized by Department of
English and American Studies, Philosophical Faculty, Palacký University in Olomouc,
Czech Republic, November 11–12, 2011: TIFO 2011, 207–219. Olomouc, Czechia:
Palacký University.
Melby, Alan K. 1998. “Eight Types of Translation Technology.” Paper presented at the
39th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association (ATA), Hilton
Head Island, SC, November 4–9.
Olvera-Lobo, Maria Dolores, Maria Rosa Castro-Prieto, Enrique Quero-Gervilla, Ri-
cardo Muñoz-Martín, Eva Muñoz-Raya, Miguel Murillo-Melero, Bryan Robinson,
José Antonio Senso-Ruiz, Benjamín Vargas-Quesada, and Cristina Domínguez
López. 2005. “Translator Training and Modern Market Demands.” Perspectives:
Studies in Translatology 13, no. 2: 132–142.
Seljan, Sanja. 2011. “Translation Technology as Challenge in Education and Business.”
Informatol 44, no. 4: 279–286.
Svoboda, Tomáš. 2017. “No Linguistic Borders Ahead? Looking Beyond the Knocked-
Down Language Barrier.” TranscUlturAl: A Journal of Translation and Cultural Stud-
ies 9, no. 2, 86–108.
Beninatto, Renato S., and Donald A. DePalma. 2007. Collaborative Translation: The End
of Localization Taylorism and the Beginning of Postmodern Translation. Lowell, MA:
Common Sense Advisory.
Biau Gil, José Ramón, and Anthony Pym. 2006. “Technology and Translation (A Peda-
gogical Overview).” In Translation Technology and Its Teaching, edited by Anthony
Pym, Alexander Perekrestenko, and Bram Starink, 5–19. Tarragona: Intercultural
Studies Group.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation
Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
———. 2001. “Proposal for a Hyeronimic Oath.” The Translator 7, no. 2: 139–154.
DePalma, Donald A., and Nataly Kelly. 2011. “Project Management for Crowdsourced
Translation: How User-Translated Content Projects Work in Real-Life.” In Transla-
tion and Localization Project Management: The Art of the Possible, edited by Keiran.
J. Dunne and Elena. S. Dunne, 379–408. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dunne, Keiran. J. 2012. The Industrialization of Translation: Causes, Consequences and
Challenges.” Translation Spaces 1, no. 1: 143–168.
Esselink, Bert. 2000. A Practical Guide to Localization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Folaron, Deborah. 2006. “A Discipline Coming of Age in the Digital Age: Perspectives
on Localization.” In Perspectives on Localization, edited by Keiran. J. Dunne, 195–
222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Garcia, Ignacio. 2009. “Beyond Translation Memory: Computers and the Professional
Translator.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 12. www.jostrans.org/
issue12/art_garcia.php
Garcia, Ignacio. 2012. “Machines, Translations and Memories: Language Transfer in
the Web Browser.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 20, no. 4: 451–461.
Gouadec, Daniel. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
House, Juliane. 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.
———. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. 2013. Translation and Web Localization. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Kohl, John R. 2008. The Global English Style Guide: Writing Clear, Translatable Docu-
mentation for a Global Market. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Mesipuu, Marit. 2012. “Translation Crowdsourcing and User-Translator Motivation at
Facebook and Skype.” Translation Spaces 1, no. 1: 33–53.
Nyberg, Eric, Teruko Mitamura, and Willem-Olaf Huijsen. 2003. “Controlled Language
for Authoring and Translation.” In Computers and Translation: A Translator’s Guide,
edited by Harold Somers, 245–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2003. “Controlling Controlled English: An Analysis of Several Con-
trolled Language Rule Sets.” Paper presented at the Joint Conference combining the
8th International Workshop of the European Association for Machine Translation
and the 4th International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications, Dublin
City University, Ireland, May 15–17.
———. 2006. “Machine-Translatability and Post-Editing Effort: An Empirical Study
Using Translog and Choice Network Analysis.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dublin City
University.
———. 2010. “Controlled Language and Readability.” In Translation and Cognition:
ATA Scholarly Monograph XV Series, edited by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone,
143–165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
———. 2012. “Towards a Dynamic Quality Evaluation Model for Translation.” JoSTrans:
The Journal of Specialised Translation 17. www.jostrans.org/issue17/art_obrien.pdf
O’Hagan, Minako. 2009. “Evolution of User-Generated Translation: Fansubs, Transla-
tion Hacking and Crowdsourcing.” Journal of Internationalization and Localization
1: 94–121.
 ———. ed. 2011. “Community Translation 2.0.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series:
Themes in Translation Studies 10.
———. 2012. “The Impact of New Technologies on Translation Studies: A Technological
Turn?” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Carmen Millán
and Francesca Bartrina, 503–518. Abingdon: Routledge.
OPTIMALE. 2011. The OPTIMALE Employer Survey and Consultation. www.ressources.
univ-rennes2.fr/service-relations-internationales/optimale/attachments/article/52/
WP4_Synthesis_report.pdf
Pokorn, Nike K. 2005. Challenging the Traditional Axioms: Translation into a Non-
Mother Tongue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pym, Anthony. 2011. “What Technology Does to Translating.” Translation & Interpret-
ing 3, no. 1: 1–9.
———. 2014. Exploring Translation Theories. 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Quah, Chiew Kin. 2006. Translation and Technology. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ray, Rebecca, and Nataly Kelly. 2011. Crowdsourced Translation: Best Practices for Im-
plementation. Lowell, MA: Common Sense Advisory.
Roturier, Johann. 2006. “An Investigation into the Impact of Controlled English Rules
on the Comprehensibility, Usefulness and Acceptability of Machine-Translated
Technical Documentation for French and German Users.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dub-
lin City University.
Shreve, Gregory. 2000. “Translation at the Millennium: Prospects for the Evolution of
a Profession.” In Paradigmenwechsel in der Translation. Festschrift für Albrecht Neu-
bert zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Peter A. Schmitt, 217–234. Tübingen: Stauffen-
berg Verlag.
Singh, Nitish, and Arun Pereira. 2005. The Culturally Customized Web Site. Burlington,
MA: Elsevier.
TAUS. 2013. Translation Technology Landscape Report. De Rijp, the Netherlands: TAUS.
Thicke, Lori. 2011. “Improving MT results.” Multilingual, January/February, 37–41.
Wu, Yonghui, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V. Le, Mohammad Norouzi Wolfgang
Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, Jeff Klingner,
Apurva Shah, Melvin Johnson, Xiaobing Liu, Łukasz Kaiser, Stephan Gouws,
Yoshikiyo Kato, Taku Kudo, Hideto Kazawa, Keith Stevens, George Kurian, Nishant
Patil, Wei Wang, Cliff Young, Jason Smith, Jason Riesa, Alex Rudnick, Oriol Vinyals,
Greg Corrado, Macduff Hughes, and Jeffrey Dean. 2016. “Google’s Neural Machine
Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translation.”
https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.08144

View publication stats