Discussion published In: Target
Vol. 13:2 (2001) ► pp.339–343
Discussion
Do we need a shared ground?
Published online: 13 June 2002
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.13.2.10tir
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.13.2.10tir
Article outline
- 1.What is translation?
- 2.Why is translation like this?
- 3.What consequences do translations have?
References
References (7)
Chesterman, Andrew and Rosemary Arrojo. 2000. “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12:1: 151–160.
De Groot, Annette. 1997. “The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael McBeath, eds. Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1997. 25–56.
Halverson, Sandra. 1998. Concepts and categories in Translation Studies. Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of English. [Ph.D. dissertation]
. 1998a. “Translation Studies and representative corpora: Establishing links between translation corpora, theoretical/descriptive categories and a conception of the object of study”. Meta 41: 494–514.
. 2000. “The fault line in our common ground”. Target 12:2: 356–362.
Mandelblit, Nili. 1996. “The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory”. Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcel Thelen, eds. Translation and meaning, Part 3. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press, 1996. 482–495.
Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet. 2000. “The suspended potential of culture research in TS”. Target 12:2. 345–355.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Arrojo, Rosemary
2002. Lessons learned from Babel. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 14:1 ► pp. 137 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.