JodyByrne.com

Abstract: While technical translation has enjoyed renewed interest from researchers in recent years it is clear that there is still much to be understood about this area of translation. A number of key challenges for technical translation still remain and it will be shown in this paper that the challenges and their solutions alike are sometimes to be found beyond the traditional confines of translation studies. This paper will discuss existing issues such as the lack of a clear theoretical home for technical translation which remains problematic for researchers, trainers and students alike. Despite the various models of translation and the attempts to expand and improve upon them, the fact still remains that technical translation does not yet seem to fit neatly into a single model. However, in the constantly evolving environment in which technical translation takes place, we see the emergence of other challenges for technical translation. Increasing levels of technology, the convergence of technical translation and technical writing as well as various commercial factors have changed the nature of technical translation and require us to reassess our understanding of it. Furthermore, the increased emphasis on quality in technical documentation, due in no small part to national and EU legislation, places a greater responsibility on technical translators and has changed the very nature and impact of their work. This paper will examine these issues and discuss their implications for those involved in technical translation be they practitioners, researchers or trainers.

1    Introduction

Technical translation has always had something of a chequered history. While on the one hand, its value as a “pollinator of science” (Fischbach 1992) and the contribution it has made to the dissemination and advancement of scientific and technological knowledge and its resultant impact on the development of civilisation as a whole (Delisle & Woodsworth 1995) have been acknowledged throughout history, these have invariably been countered by a general lack of prestige and appreciation of its complexities and the challenges it poses to translators. From Schleiermacher’s infamous description in 1813 of technical translation as a mundane and mechanical task (Schleiermacher 1813 cited in Snell-Hornby 1988:11) to the over-emphasis on the terminological aspects by scholars such as Newmark (1988:152), technical translation’s biggest challenge has always been that its scope, importance and features have not been fully appreciated and many of the issues and strategies involved have largely been neglected.

In recent years, however, technical translation has enjoyed something of a revival. The importance of technical translation, both in purely theoretical terms and also in terms of its relevance to professional translators and the ways in which they are trained, is increasingly recognised and consequently more and more research is being carried out in this area. Such work includes research in areas such as style (Herman 1993), information flow and packaging (Gerzymisch-Arbogast 1993, 1997), content and accuracy, and text typologies (Göpferich 1995) as well the usability and acceptability of technical information (Byrne 2006). Such work notwithstanding, there are still many problems and challenges facing technical translation. Not all of these challenges are obvious. Some are what could be termed “internal” and, like the issues of recognition outlined above, they come from within the Translation Studies (TS) community itself. Such problems relate to the way in which TS has evolved over the decades and the way in which this evolution has not always concerned itself with technical translation. Internal problems also arise from the ways in which researchers in the area and in TS as a whole produce definitions and models as a way of going about their work.

A second category of challenges comes from outside both TS and translation practice. Such external challenges relate to factors, circumstances and constraints which arise in the world in which technical translation takes place but which are not of technical translation itself. They might include various professional and technical challenges posed by changing work practices and technologies and legal issues which govern the environment in which technical translations are produced. There may even be input from other disciplines such as technical communication and psychology which further our understanding of technical translation while at the same time challenge our conceptions of what translators do. In the following sections various challenges, both internal and external, will be discussed and an attempt will be made to outline their implications for technical translation.

2    Internal Challenges

2.1    What’s in a name?

Within TS itself one of the key challenges for technical translation stems from a basic problem of terminology. The concept of “technical translation” while ostensibly quite obvious has proved somewhat problematic due to the fact that there appears to be differing understandings of what constitutes technical translation. This is not entirely surprising given that there are difficulties in agreeing on a uniform definition of such a fundamental concept as “Translation Studies”, i.e. is it a discrete independent field of activity or is it an umbrella term for various activities with their origins in other disciplines but which are somehow aimed at understanding translation?

But in terms of technical translation the problems arise partly from its close association with LSP studies, which rather ironically have proved rather useful in reviving interest in technical translation. A basic definition of LSP translation is that it involves the translation of specialised texts which use specialised language to communicate specialised knowledge. Such texts can include anything from legal texts, business communication, technical texts, medical texts, etc. The problem appears to be that various people somehow confuse “technical” with “specialised” and so technical translation becomes an interchangeable term for specialised translation in the sense of LSP translation. As a result, we see various cases where technical translation is described as including “any specialist field”, such as banking and history (Hervey et al. 1995:154). While in many ways this is actually quite beneficial in that it incorporates technical translation into an active research field, it also results in quite fundamental problems. The reality of the matter is that technical translation is just one type of specialised or LSP translation, not a generic term for all forms of LSP translation. In failing to make this distinction the waters have been muddied somewhat because attempts to examine technical translation have proceeded on the basis that it includes certain types of texts which simply do not belong in this category, e.g. legal texts, economics texts etc. Consequently, when discussing technical translation it is always necessary to ascertain what the other person understands by the word “technical”.

Similar problems also arise with regard to the distinctions between scientific and technical translation. Both terms are invariably used together as if they were two aspects of the same phenomenon but neither this nor using the terms synonymously is helpful quite simply because, in the absence of a clear definition linking the two, it is impossible to assert that the two are the same. It is unfortunate, therefore, that even in one of the seminal publications in this area, Pinchuck’s “Scientific and Technical Translation” (1977), this distinction is not made. In fact, scientific translation, it could be argued, has more to do with literary translation than it has with specialised or even technical translation (see Byrne 2006:9-10). While both scientific and technical translation are concerned with the communication of knowledge which, at some point, originated in a scientific field, their aims and the ways in which they achieve these aims are very different (ibid.). Again, failing to make this distinction can confuse matters for researchers and students alike because observations and generalisations relating to one are not necessarily relevant or applicable to the other.

2.2    Finding a Theoretical Home for Technical Translation

The issues raised above are indicative of a much broader challenge facing technical translation which is that it has not always received the attention it deserves from translation theorists. Of the various established models and theories of translation, none provide a comfortable home for technical translation. Now, while this is not peculiar to technical translation the fact that technical translation has not received the same amount of attention as other types of translation, for example literature, humour, religious texts etc. means that there probably are more “gaps” in current theories where technical translation is concerned. Having said this, however, some theories do cater for technical translation more than others.

Equivalence has long been regarded as the bedrock of translation studies and at its core is the need to maintain unbreakable, and often close, links between the source text and the target text. While the question of whether a translated text can ever truly be free from its source text is one which is too lengthy to be addressed here, it is enough to say that this approach does not take into account the reality that often technical translations are rarely regarded as translations but rather as an original target language text, at least by their readers (Byrne 2006:15).

While the various levels of equivalence (e.g. Catford 1965; Komissarov 1977; Koller 1979) do provide a useful insight into the ways in which translations can be produced, particularly if we consider that ST/TT orientation can take place on both a macro and micro-textual level, we do not have any way of deciding which type of equivalence is most appropriate in any given context. Furthermore, equivalence is generally bound up tightly within linguistic and textual aspects of translation (Byrne 2006:32) and usually neglects the extra-linguistic factors that shape the communicative process, e.g. work practices, communicative aims, technology, time constraints, style preferences, etc. This is particularly problematic for technical translation.

Functionalism avoids the predominantly linguistic orientation of most approaches to equivalence and looks beyond the source text and its linguistic features to include text function, i.e. how the text is supposed to be used, as a key part of the translation process. This was a valuable first step towards acknowledging that translation is a communicative process not solely based within the confines of the source text. Reiss (1971) maintained that an ideal translation needs to achieve optimum equivalence in terms of conceptual content, linguistic form and communicative function. Unfortunately functionalism does not recognise as translations those cases where the function of the text needs to be different between the source text and the target text. House (1981; 1997) regards such translations as overt and says that because their function has changed and because the audience somehow knows that they are reading a translation, the text is not a translation but rather an adaptation. In certain cases, especially in technical translation, it is essential that the function changes in order to achieve acceptability or to ensure that the text conforms to cultural norms and expectations; the text must after all function just like an indigenous text. Functional equivalence, which is central to this theory, is not always appropriate or even desirable in technical translation. To illustrate this point we might consider a user guide written in Chinese where the function might be to instruct, influenced, perhaps by the large power distance  identified in China by Hofstede (see Note 1) in his work on the dimensions of cultural values (1991). If this document is translated into English   where countries such as Ireland, England and Australia have small power distance scores (ibid.)    the instructional function will more than likely need to be changed to one of explanation in order to meet the expectations of the target audience and to avoid alienating them.

Relevance theory as developed by Gutt (1991) is significant in that it overcomes several of the theoretical problems associated with equivalence and functionalism. Gutt’s most important contribution is to regard translation as a communicative activity which is governed by the cognitive capabilities of the human participants. In doing so he undermines the sanctity of the source text which proves problematic for other theories when dealing with technical translation. Successful translation, he argues, requires readers to correctly infer the assumed intended meaning using as few “cognitive resources” as possible. This can be aided by adding certain contextual clues to ensure the first meaning readers get is the correct one. This is an interesting and useful point as it points to the notion of an interlingual/intercultural technical writer as mentioned by Göpferich (1993). While relevance theory would appear to be quite useful for the purposes of technical translation where the aim is to communicate information as clearly and effectively as possible, difficulties unfortunately arise in relation to Gutt’s definitions of what does and does not constitute a translation (see Byrne 2006:37-38) and the difficulty in actually implementing this theory in practice.

Continuing in the same vein as relevance, Vermeer’s Skopos theory (1978; 1996) also regards translation as a communicative process and so avoids the limitations of equivalence and “proper” functionalism such as that presented by Reiss (1971) caused by the importance assigned to the source text. This model reflects the professional and practical reality of translation because it focuses on the intended purpose of the target text and its audience who are, arguably, the most important people in the translation process. Skopos theory emphasises the need for autonomous target texts in the sense that they are determined not by the source text but by the intended purpose as set out in the translation brief. Unlike functionalism, Skopos acknowledges that the function of a text may need to change in translation and as such it is flexible enough to deal with most, if not all, translation scenarios. This is precisely the flexibility technical translation requires because functional changes in technical texts are not drastic or unique like adaptations of texts such as a novel being adapted for the screen, but rather are quite commonplace and normal. It unfortunately, however, lacks a clear definition of purpose (Sunwoo 2008).

It can be argued that only Skopos addresses the various extra-textual factors such as commercial, non-linguistic and non-cultural issues which shape the translation process and ultimately the target text itself. However, if any criticism is to be levelled at Skopos theory it is its reliance on the problematic notion of the translation purpose s its basic concept (cf. Sunwoo 2008) which can be difficult to define and implement in practice. Similarly, Skopos theory does not provide us with concrete guidelines for ensuring the translation is properly produced in accordance with the translation brief. Another issue which may or may not be a problem is that Skopos theory is so general that it does not say how the Skopos should be achieved or which strategies should be used.

From the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that although each of the theories has something which is useful for technical translation, they do not fully account for the various issues involved in this type of translation and none can provide a full theoretical explanation.

3    External Challenges

Beyond the boundaries of Translation Studies and the general academic community there are various external challenges which face translation, challenges which are, perhaps, even more significant. Such challenges arise as a result of technological factors such as the Internet and various publishing tools which have changed the nature of the texts we translate change and blurred the distinctions between text types while commercial and legal issues relating to documentation, liability and work practices have had serious implications for translators. In the current information age, translations are more likely to be judged like original language texts, not as translations and this means that in order to produce appropriate and acceptable translations technical translators to be more like technical writers. There is, therefore, a pronounced convergence between technical translation and technical writing and this can be quite problematic for traditional TS.

3.1    Professional and Technological

The past fifteen or so years have seen an explosion in new technologies, largely as a result of the Internet and many of these technologies have had a significant impact on translation either directly or indirectly (see Byrne 2007b). Changes in the professional environment for technical translation have led to significant changes in the way they work and to the type of work they do. Technologies such as single-source multi-channel publishing whereby texts are published simultaneously in hardcopy and in various online formats have lead to the development of modular documentation (Ament 2003) which has required changes to the way documents are produced in the first place. Such documents are often written without any of the anaphoric or cataphoric referencing typical of traditional texts so as to ensure that individual sentences, paragraphs or sections can function independently on a website or help system for example. This poses obvious challenges for translators who, depending on their language combination and direction, may need such references in order to accurately translate texts.

Technologies such as translation memories (TM) have not only changed the skills profile of technical translators (it is generally technical texts that are most suited to translation with TM technology) but they have changed the way in which many translators work. Merkel (1998) discusses the notion of keyhole translations where translators, in order to gain maximum benefit from TM tools, consciously or unconsciously adapt their translation strategies accordingly, often removing references to previous sentences etc. Consequently, sentences may be translated individually and in isolation rather than as part of a whole text.

But the Internet and TM tools have had other effects on translation which make the technical translator’s lot more challenging. The idea that TM tools can identify repetitions means that many clients expect corresponding discounts from translators for repetitions and fuzzy matches. Similarly, TM tools can also result in demands for faster turnaround of projects. So ultimately, technologies can actually cost translators money while at the same time placing them under even greater pressure as they work (cf. Somers 2003).

3.2    Legal Considerations

In an increasingly litigious society, it is inevitable that translators, like any other professional service provider, face the possibility of legal action as a result of their work. But the nature of the information communicated in technical texts and the purposes for which they are used places technical translators at even greater risk of litigation. Whereas an error in a poem or a recipe may obscure the meaning and limit the reader’s enjoyment of the poem or meal, errors in technical texts can result in damage to property, financial loss, injury or even loss of life. For this reason, technical translators need to be aware that they can be held liable for any damages caused by their translations. For the purposes of this discussion we can define liability as where “one suffers loss or damage through the negligent act of another” in which case “the injured party shall be entitled to damages at law” (Cecil 1984:3).

There are two principle ways in which a technical translator may be found to be liable for translation errors: through breach of contract or by committing a tort. Breach of contract is fairly straight-forward in that the translator undertakes to provide a faithful and accurate translation to a client. If the client can show that this has not happened and that damages have occurred as a direct result of the faulty translation, then the translator can be found liable. A tort, on the other hand, is defined as some act or omission which causes damage to another (Mowat 1998:21) and is regarded as “the neglect of a common law duty of care for the wellbeing of those other people who might suffer as a result of one’s actions” (Cecil 1984:5). This means that the technical translator is not only answerable to the client or author, but to any other person or third party who may be injured or suffer loss as a result of the translation. A more detailed discussion of a translator’s liability is provided in Byrne (2007a).

There are additional legal implications for technical translators which arise from laws and regulations which relate specifically to technical documentation which nowadays includes both single language documents and their technical translations. One of the most significant pieces of legislation is Council of Europe Resolution C411 which states that technical documentation for products must be translated and, crucially, that documentation, regardless of whether it is original language or translated, constitutes an integral part of a product. As such, any problems with the documentation constitutes a problem with the product as a whole with the result that a product, having been defined as defective due to faulty documentation, may be withdrawn from sale in an entire country. In addition to Resolution C411, a range of different directives have been issued which have implications for technical documentation. These include:

• 90/385/EEC – Medical Devices
• 76/768/EEC – Cosmetic products
• 95/16/EC – Lifts
• 88/378/EEC – Safety of Toys
• 90/396/EEC – Appliances burning gaseous fuels

These directives, most of which have been incorporated into national laws within the European Union, have introduced a whole new set of legal requirements which must be met by technical translators in addition to the typical requirements and expectations of a technical translation. Under the various laws, regulations and directives outlined technical translations are subject to the same requirements, constraints and expectations as general technical documentation, i.e. they are treated as if they were autonomous, original target language texts and not as translations. It goes without saying that a text should not be regarded with any more leniency simply because it is a translation and because of this technical translators need to ensure that their translations conform to the highest standards and that they do not simply form another text type of their own. This trend would also indicate that there is a need for the role of translator to incorporate more aspects of a writer’s role. This idea is nothing new; Göpferich highlighted this in 1993 when she refers to “interlingual technical writers” and Herman confirms this when he asserts that a good technical translator needs to be a good technical writer (1993:19) but the trend is becoming even more noticeable now and has acquired a certain urgency.

This convergence of the roles of technical translator and technical writer means that translators inevitably need to become acquainted with and master many of the skills traditionally associated with their writer counterparts. Writers working in the technical communication sector are primarily concerned with ensuring that the information they present is accurate, clear and effective; they are concerned with whether their readers can understand the information easily and that they can use the information with a minimum of effort. This is known as usability and it is an area with which technical translators must become familiar if they are to produce appropriate and effective technical texts.

3.3    Usability

The concept of usability is a key issue in technical communication where writers are not just concerned with presenting the correct information, but also with presenting this information in the correct way to ensure that readers can actually use the information for whatever the intended purpose is. Usability, therefore, also needs to become a key issue in technical translation.

Usability can be defined as a measure of how well certain users can perform particular tasks quickly and effectively in a given context and how satisfied they are with the experience. If we consider that a technical text, like a piece of software is a tool which enables users (or readers) to perform some other task, a usable text will impart just the right amount of information to users to allow them to perform whatever task, be it carrying out some operation or acquiring new knowledge, as efficiently, with as few mistakes and with as little effort as possible. This last point is crucial to understanding usability for even if readers can understand the information presented in a text and can perform tasks effectively and with few mistakes, if the process is unduly taxing or demanding for the audience, the usability of the text will suffer. In order to understand usability and more importantly, how to make texts usable, it is essential that we are familiar with how our readers understand, process and act upon the information presented in texts. The usability of texts can be affected by various factors such as the amount of information presented, font size and type, whether graphics are used, the sequencing of information and even the layout of the page but the most important factor which affects usability is the reader, or more specifically, the reader’s cognitive system.

3.3.1    Human Cognition

Cognitive psychology is central to understanding usability but it is such a vast area that it would be impractical to attempt to cover even a fraction of the issues here. Suffice it to say that the human brain is an information processing system which receives information in the form of sensory input from the outside world, it filters this information and processes it cognitively before producing some form of response, whether this is in the form of a physical response or simply committing information to memory. In very basic terms, human cognition consists of three fundamental components: sensory memory, short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM).

Sensory memory can be thought of as a holding area for the vast amount of information we receive from our senses. The information is stored here in highly detailed, unprocessed form for a short period of time – 0.5 seconds in the case of visual information (Dix et al. 1998:27) – until our STM, also known as “working memory” decides which information is to be selected for cognitive processing. STM is the conscious part of our cognitive system and it is here that we process information and do our thinking. This element of our cognitive system is capable of performing incredibly powerful calculations and solving complex problems. However, it is limited in its capacity and it is unable to retain information for prolonged periods of time. Typically, STM can only contain between 5 and 9 discrete pieces of information at any one time; this is known as the 7±2 rule (Miller 1956). Similarly, information held in STM is quite unstable and unless some form of activity is undertaken to keep information there, e.g. reciting information over and over again, the information will be lost either through decay, typically within 200 ms (Dix et al. 1998:28) or because older information is replaced by newer information arriving in STM. So while we are capable of deciphering and comprehending complex problems in the form of texts, for example, this takes significant cognitive effort on our part and, because of the limited resources of STM, we may not always be successful. Long-term memory, unlike sensory memory and STM is believed to have unlimited capacity (Faulkner 1998:35) and is capable of storing information permanently. Unfortunately for us, the process of getting information into LTM is anything but straight-forward or predictable (as anyone who has ever been a student will testify to). Much of this is to do with the way information is structured and arranged in LTM but the result is that just because we read and understand something, it does not necessarily follow that we will immediately learn it and remember it.

In light of these rather basic facts about human cognition it is clear that in order to ensure texts are usable we need to produce or engineer our texts in such a way that they take advantage of our cognitive strengths while compensating for and taking into account our relative weaknesses. Texts should, therefore, not place excessive demands on assumed readers’ STM nor should they rely too heavily on their ability to solve problems, i.e. untangle clumsily written sentences. Nor, for that matter, should it be assumed that when information has been read once it will automatically be available in a reader’s LTM for later use. There are various linguistic, technical and organisational methods which can be used to achieve this (see, for example, Coe 1996 and Schriver 1997) but unfortunately, as translators, we are limited in what we can do to improve a text’s usability without exceeding our authority as translators. Essentially we are restricted to using textual strategies during text production stage of translation.

Such strategies might include using short, simple and, above all, logical sentence structure, particularly in instructional texts. Other strategies which may reduce the amount of problem-solving include avoiding polysemy in technical texts. However, perhaps the most useful strategy is to actively add Iconic Linkage into technical texts which has been shown to have the potential to make texts easier to use and to allow readers to remember information much more effectively (Byrne 2005).

4    Conclusions

From the preceding paragraphs it is clear that technical translation is far removed from the mundane and mechanical task described by Schleiermacher where all we are concerned about is terminology and ensuring neutral, impersonal style laden with passives and infinitives. Instead, it is clear that, in addition to the various translational phenomena that make technical translation a challenging and intensely rewarding field for translators, there are various factors outside the actual text being translated which present various challenges for technical translation both as a profession and as an area of study. The primary challenges for technical translation as a subject to be researched and taught stem from the lack of a clear definition of what is and what is not included in technical translation and the failure of mainstream theories to address the needs of technical translation. While it may not be possible or even appropriate to try to shoe-horn technical translation to fit the standard models of translation or vice versa, TS would be better served by agreeing on what does and does not constitute technical translation.

The external challenges posed by the various technological, legal and professional factors mean that there is a need to reassess the role of the technical translator and what it is reasonable to expect such a translator to do. If customers want translators to produce texts of a particular standard, i.e. capable of meeting the legal requirements demanded of single language texts, then it essential that translators be given the authority to do this. Realistically, however, right-minded business is going to agree to allow a translator to take such drastic liberties and make such radical interventions in a technical text unless they can be sure that the translator has the requisite skills and expertise. This is where the challenges for technical translation become the challenges for educators and researchers because this affects not just what we teach students but also how we define the role of a translator, technical or otherwise.

5    References

Ament, Kurt (2003) Single Sourcing: Building Modular Documentation. Norwich, N.Y.: William Andrew
Byrne, Jody (2005) Evaluating The Effect Of Iconic Linkage On The Usability Of Software User Guides. The Journal of Technical Writing & Communication. 35:2, pp.155-178
—— (2006) Technical Translation: Usability Strategies for Translating Technical Documentation. Dordrecht: Springer
—— (2007a) Caveat Translator: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Errors in Professional Translation. JoSTrans – The Journal of Specialised Translation, (7), pp.2-24
—— (2007b) Translation and the Internet: Changing the Face of an Industry. In: Ian Kemble (ed.) Translation Technologies & Culture. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth, pp.23-34
Catford, J.C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press
Cecil, Ray (1984) Professional Liability. London: Architectural Press
Coe, Marlana (1996) Human Factors for Technical Communicators. New York: John Wiley and Sons
Council of the European Union (1998) Council Resolution 98/C 411/01 of 17th December 1998 on operating instructions for technical consumer goods. Official Journal of the European Communities, No. C 411, 31/12/1998, pp.1-4.
Delisle, Jean and Judith Woodsworth [eds] (1995) Translators through History. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Directive 88/378/EEC (1988) Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys. Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 187 , 16/07/1988 pp. 0001 – 0013
Directive 90/385/EEC (1990) Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices. Official Journal of the European Communities, No. 189 , 20/07/1990, pp.0017 – 003698/79/EC
Directive 90/396/EEC (1990) Council Directive 90/396/EEC of 29 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to appliances burning gaseous fuels. Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 196 , 26/07/1990, pp.0015 – 0029
Directive 95/16/EC (1995) European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts. Official Journal of the European Communities, No. 213 , 07/09/1995, pp.1-31
Faulkner, Christine (1998) The Essence of Human-Computer Interaction. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall
Fischbach, Henry (1992) Translation, the Great Pollinator of Science. Babel 38:4
Gaddis Rose, Marilyn (ed.) (1987) Translation Excellence: Assessment, Achievement, Maintenance. ATA Scholarly Monograph Series, Vol. I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun (1993) Contrastive Scientific and Technical Register as a Translation Problem. In Wright, Sue Ellen and Leland Wright (eds) Scientific and Technical Translation. American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series VI. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.21-52
—— (1997) “Interculturally Varying Text Norms as a Problem of Translating LSP Texts”. In: Klaudy, K./Kohn, J. [eds] (1997): Transferre Necesse Est: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting. 5-7 September, 1996, Budapest, Hungary. Budapest: Scholastica. 146-153.
Göpferich, Susanne (1993) Die translatorische Behandlung von Textsortenkonventionen in technischen Texten. Lebende Sprachen. No. 2/93, pp.49-52
—— (1995). A Pragmatic Classification of LSP texts in science and Technology. Target 7 (2). pp.305-326.
Gutt, Ernst-August (1991) Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell
Herman, Mark (1993) Technical Translation Style: Clarity, Concision, Correctness. In Wright, Sue Ellen and Leland Wright (eds) Scientific and Technical Translation. American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series VI. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.11-20
Hofstede, Geert (1991) Cultures and Organisations, Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill
House, Juliane (1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment (2nd Edition). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag
—— (1997) Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag
Koller, Werner (1979/89) Equivalence in translation theory (translated by A. Chesterman). In Andrew Chesterman (ed.) Readings in Translation Theory. Helskinki: Finn Lectures, pp.99-104.
Komissarov, V.N. (1977) Zur Theorie der linguistischen Übersetzungsanalyse. In: O. Kade (ed.) Vermittelte Kommunikation, Sprachmittlung, Translation. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie, pp.44-51
Merkel, Magnus (1998) Consistency and Variation in Technical Translations: A Study of Translators’ Attitudes. In Bowker, Lynne, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny and Jennifer Pearson (eds.) Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, pp.137-149.
Montgomery, Scott L. (2000) Science in Translation: Movements of Knowledge Through Cultures and Time. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press
Mowat, Mary (1998) Legal Liability for Information Provision. London: ASLIB
Newmark, Peter (1988) A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall
Pinchuck, Isadore (1977) Scientific and Technical Translation. London: Deutsch
Reiss, Katharina (1971) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. Munich: Hueber
Schriver, Karen (1997) Dynamics in Document Design: Creating Text for Readers. New York: Wiley
Snell-Hornby, Mary (1988). Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Somers, Harold (ed.) (2003) Computers and Translation: A translator’s guide. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Sunwoo, Min (2008) “Operationalizing the Translation Purpose (Skopos)”. In: Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast and Gerhard Budin (eds) (2008) LSP Translation Scenarios. MuTra 2007 Conference Proceedings. Saarbrücken: MuTra
Vermeer, Hans J. (1978) Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie. Lebende Sprachen, 23(1), pp.147-162
—— (1996) A skopos theory of translation (Some arguments for and against). Heidelberg: TexTconTexT