Spanisch Colonies

Directionality in Translation Studies

Abstract

Focusing on the influence of the directionality in the processes of translation interlingual, this article aims to introduce the notion of directionality and provide an overview of the literature on the phenomenon of translation related to this issue.

Keywords

The directionality, the processes of translation, translation of L1 and L2 language, another language, the language of limited diffusion.

Introduction

"Directionality" is whether the translation is done in one's "mother tongue (" mother tongue "," first language ") or outside it – in one of "another language" ( "Foreign Language", "second language"). It is also possible that a translator to do his job in the first language in the third or third in the first or second. Although the two terms of contrast "mother tongue" and "other language" are more common in general usage, which can be problematic in some respects, as pointed out by some authors.

Prunc (2003, p. 82) states that the term "mother tongue", usually belonged to the systems that are determined by the ideological characteristics. "A person whose mother tongue" in his view, there is always the person most developed and the dominant language ability. The ties that bind people to their mother tongue is rather "emotional ethical and cultural "(2003, p. 83). Prunc (2000, p. 10) indicates that the language ability of bilingual or multilingual can be expressed as a continuum changes from time to time, and in which the primary site can be held by the mother tongue as often as the second. He also believes that language ability of a individual may be divided between several languages, on the basis of specific sectors, and will vary during the course of the socialization of the individual (Prunc, 2003, p. 83).

In this sense, Pedersen (2000, p. 109) notes that the "first language" is not necessarily chronologically first, but "the language that is more readily available "for a translator. This is especially the case of the translators who have lived most of their lives in a country other than one in which they were born. In these cases, the language which is chronologically the second language becomes their dominant language.

Imagine the children of migrants linguistic environment have grown in other host countries. The language is their "mother tongue" can actually be considered as a second language in terms real level of competence. For example, Iranian second generation migrants to the United States can claim that Persian is their "mother tongue" while English is actually their stronger language ( "First language" in our sense). Your ability to Persian language, could be compromised through years of living outside their L1 and, indeed, confined to national contexts.

One of the problems concerning the expression "another language" is sometimes used in any language a person has learned or is learning after mastering their mother tongue, regardless of skill level. The researchers, however, state that if used in translation studies must relate to a language has been mastered at a high level of competence in a language and the translator is already working in the course of your career / your professional translation.

Whether you choose the terms "mother tongue" against "another language" or "first language" versus "second language", not taken into account all the realities of languages, the multicultural world we live in this article, shall continue to use the terms "mother tongue (L1)" and "second language (L2)" only with all the above in mind.

Traditional view of the directionality

The traditional view among theorists of translation in relation to the directionality probably best reflected in the following statement by Peter Newmark (1988, p. 3): "translat [ing] in their language of habitual use [...] is the only way to translate, naturally, accurately and with maximum efficiency. "Newmark While admitting that in practice, the translators" are translated from their own language, "rule work to call "service" by declaring translation and translators who are dedicated to this "contribute to the hilarity of many people in the process" (ibid.).

In recent decades, translation studies have undergone considerable change in attitudes away from traditional prescriptive represented by Newmark, toward more descriptive, empirically-oriented work. However, when it comes directionality, some rooted in traditional beliefs prescriptivism seem to remain among researchers. The idea that "translates into the native language in general, better yields than the translation of texts out of it" (Marmaridou, 1996, p. 60) it was assumed in a 1996 study, in which the qualities of the pairs of languages in particular cultural environments or types of text were not considered. Marmaridou (1996, p. 59) further asserts, without evidence, that "a professional translator is usually requested and preferred translate into their mother tongue. "For her, the translation into another language that only occurs in the educational field and experimental (ibid.).

Beeby (1998, p. 64) believes that Newmark opinion is "so widespread in Europe that the unmarked direction of translation is in the mother tongue. This is probably true of the main languages adjustments, especially in Western Europe. As Prunc (2003, p. 82) says, "the principle of mother tongue [Translation] as a guarantee of quality of translation is present in all translation studies literature and professional standards in recruitment. "

In fact, the view that the translators only translate into their mother tongue, it still seems to be widely accepted as one of the "golden rules" among scholars who have written articles on "best practices" (eg Carpenter, 1999; Borges, 2005; Neilan, 2006).   Even a quick look at the translation agencies on the web shows that many of them try to make sure that your potential customers that their policy is to use only the mother-tongue translators.

However, this only differs in many other environments. In countries where a "language of limited diffusion" used – a language not widely used outside their primary language community – L2 translation is assumed. If a client needs a translation of, say, Persian to major languages like English or French, the issue is in terms of who should do the translation, but it's okay. Since the number of L1 Persian translators with perfect L2 English is much more than the number of translators with perfect L1 English L2 Persian, customers can use the services of a Persian translator L1, regardless of the direction.

Challenging the traditional view

During the last decade, a growing number of scholars settings involving limited broadcast languages have begun to adopt a critical stance toward the vision traditional directionality. Thus, Campbell (1998, p. 4) the L2 translation is described as "a normal activity, and possibly as widespread as the translation to mother tongue. "According to Snell-Hornby (1997, cited in Kelly et al., 2003b, p. 26)", translated into English-language is not a fact of modern life. " Prunc (2003, p. 82) believes that "the fact that they have no one piece of empirical evidence to confirm the validity of this maxim becomes the principle of language feeding [translation] in an ideological construct. "Stewart (1999, p. 62) also states that" the great variety of resources offered by technology contemporary seems bizarre and anachronistic veto the foreign language translation priori.

In the field of interpretation, traditional views are also changing. Interpretation of scholars and teachers seem to be saying that the job change in L2 "not to do" to seek ways in which interpreters could be trained to do well (eg Minns, 2002; Hönig, 2002, Fernandez, 2003; Donovan 2003, Toulon, 2003, Padilla and April, 2003). Interestingly, a study examining user expectations (Donovan, 2002) has found that customers are "disinterested" whether the performers are working in their mother tongue or outside it, in real, there was no clear correlation between customer satisfaction and directionality.

Campbell (1998, p. 4) states that translation studies have implicitly assumed the existence of a perfect bilingual translator, without paying much attention the translator as "a living being with a role and capabilities that can be described and discussed. Lorenzo (1999, p. 124) also notes that "until recently, the translation theory took a prescriptive approach based on an ideal of building the translation instead of observing the reality of the translator. The point is explained by Hansen et al. (1998, p. 59-60), suggesting that "it is difficult for researchers based in countries with major languages to accept the importance of translation into foreign languages is for a country like Denmark, whose language is almost the only dominated by its own inhabitants (population: 5.5 million). Ahlsvad (1978, cited in Campbell, 1998, p. 27), living in Finland, makes the similar view, saying that "foreigners can not find enough [...] able to work as translators, and in any case, foreigners rarely acquire enough good passive knowledge of Finnish. "McAlester (1992, p. 292) also states that the "volume of work exceeds the number of translators available who speak an indigenous language are elderly." McAlester reaches a conclusion similar to Campbell's, namely that most of the translation of "minor" is inevitably conducted languages by native speakers of languages (ibid.).

Pokorn (2005, p. 37), the Slovenian researcher, agrees that translation into L2 is "especially common in the languages restricted distribution, "but also" in the major language communities that are pushed to a peripheral position because of the distribution global power companies and major language in communication with ethnic minorities. "China and Australia are shown as respective examples. Like Lawrence and others, Pokorn (2005, p. 37) criticizes the traditional approach of ignoring the practice of L2 translation and accept what she describes as "hypothesis predominantly romantic "that translators should work only in L1:

This conviction of the linguistic and cultural inferiority of the inverse translations of an opaque manner ethnocentrically defends the superiority of Western post-Romantic European concepts concerning translation and practice translation, and so therefore the a priori superiority of translators and practice of translation of the main linguistic communities. (Pokorn, 2005, p. 37)

Grossman (2000, p. 23) makes another important point when he says that a translation by a non-native speaker is expected to be

subjected to reading, editing and approval by a native speaker while [...] require anyone to read a speaker of the target language and understanding of the text of origin shall be submitted to a similar test and control by a native speaker of the source text.

She further explains that the reading of a target-speaker language is assumed, although most speakers of the target language of an important language such as English "command is only very limited knowledge and understanding of [less widely distributed] languages. "Then, asks the important questions:

They are native speakers [of an important language in the process of translation from one language becomes less] supposed to afford to do whatever they deem necessary to adapt the translation to the target culture in name only for its smooth running? They are the original intentions of the writer / speaker and the peculiarities of the source of [] in fact the culture of so little importance to deserve more attention? Or perhaps these attitudes reflect the asymmetries in power relations between a wide dissemination and diffusion of less widely spoken languages? (Grossman, 2000, p. 23-4)

Campbell (1998, p. 22) also emphasizes social and political asymmetry language of origin and destination, in relation to "the phenomenon of immigration, colonialism, international trade and geopolitics." According to him, "in virtually any position colonial society in the developing world, where a major European language does not have a foothold, there will be people who regularly write and translate in that language as a second language "(1998, p. 12). This has led him to describe the translation in the second language as" inevitable "for most values (1998, p. 22).

But that's not all. Cronin (2003, p. 144-6) addresses the issue from a different angle when he stresses the dynamic aspect the concept of "minority":

"Minority" is the expression of the relationship, not an essence. [...] The majority status of a language is determined by the political, economic and cultural factors are rarely static. All languages, therefore, are potentially minority languages. [...] The hegemony of English in the fastest growing areas of technological development means that all other languages are converted in this context, minority languages. Major languages have much to learn minority languages.

In this regard, a survey among 100 translators in Spain in 1998 revealed that 84 of them worked outside the L1 "with some regularity" (Roiss, 1998, p. 378, cited in Kelly et al., 2003c, p. 46). Although the sample can be considered small relative to the number of translators in Spain, the survey suggests that the situation may be the same even when it is of languages that are traditionally considered "major" languages. This is supported by the results of another study (Schmitt, 1990, p. 101, cited in Kiraly, 2000b, p. 117-8), conducted in Germany, where respondents felt that doing half of his works in other languages.

Quality L2 translation problems

Is the practice of translation L2, adjustment of the participation in a language of limited diffusion, it means that the quality of translation in a language more important it is compromised? This, of course, is a subject of studies on quality evaluation in the field translation, without which a definitive answer can not be determined. However, personal experience as a translator suggests that this is not necessarily so. According to Gile (2005), the reason why L2 translation may be good enough could be that the direction of translation is not the only variable involved in the translation task. The level of competence of the L2 is undoubtedly the most important factor in the overall picture. In the language setting of minorities, people usually invest effort considerable in learning foreign languages. Examples of translators who have mastered a language important to the skill level of language is-are far from rare. According mentioned by Grossman (2000, p. 23), speakers of one language seldom reach large L1 nearly native or native competence in a language of limited diffusion.

Apart from linguistic competence, Gile (2005) stresses that the motivation and professionalism also play an important role in this case. The type of text or the interpretation of the situation is obviously another variable, such as translators familiarity with the subject. Given the possibilities of documentation quick and specific access to the corpus of the Internet, as Prunc (2003, p. 84) also points out, L2 translators can produce a quality translation if the appropriate training. Gile (2005) also proceeds to enumerate the efficient use of electronic tools for translators between the variables which together contribute to the final quality of the translation.

We might add to the list of common standards in a given culture (when the L2 translation is acceptable between professionals and service users) and training of translators and previous work experience (when including translation into L2). Large corpus monolinguals are also more readily available in major languages, which can facilitate the translation of these languages, even by the translators of level 2. No always clear, however, to what extent professional translators make use of these resources.

Most scholars dealing with the issue of notifies the directionality of the special status that English, as L2, is the lingua franca of the globalized world. According McAlester (1992, p. 292-3), when it comes to English, many texts to be translated "are not oriented toward a specific culture, but are intended for international consumption, to be read by Italians, Japanese and Arabic, as well as by the British and Americans. "In such cases, in their view, the requirement that the translator must be a native speaker competence in the target language "loses its meaning." In his opinion, a translator is not a native English speaker may be in as good or even better position than a native speaker, referring to a public for whom English is a second language also.

The directionality in empirical research in translation processes

Most of the translators, translation teachers and scholars translation, would probably agree with Campbell's statement that "the business resulting in a second language is very different translation in the mother tongue "(1998, p. 57). But how exactly is the difference? Campbell is a summary of the significant difference in as follows:

The two activities are the images in a mirror mode. In the translation of a second language, the main difficulty in the first language resources is in understanding the source text, is probably much easier for a quarterback come up with a natural aspect of the target text. To translate in a second language, understanding the source text is the most easy, the real challenge is to produce a target text in a language that the composition does not come naturally. (Campbell, 1998, p. 57)

This view of real tone, but also poses a series of questions. Is it true for all language pairs and all text types? It presents for all levels of L2 competence and capacity for translation? Do training or previous experience to play any role? Are there other important differences between the two directions of translation? Is it possible to separate the translation process into two distinct parts or phases, comprehension and production? Kussmaul (1997, p. 243), for example, notes that "the traditional notion that in the translation process, we can distinguish two distinct phases, should [...] is replaced by a model that leaves room for overlapping phases.

There are other empirical studies have focused on different features of translation processes regarding directionality. Lorenzo (1999, 2002), for example, noted that "play-IT-safe" instead of "take risk "strategies, focusing his research around the notion of uncertainty in the translation of one of L1 (Danish). The main point of discussion is that, more fundamental difficulty for translators in L2 (where, Spanish), is to assess the acceptability of its products (1999, p. 121). To combat the uncertainty inherent in this situation, the translators use certain coping strategies, she found that most "The objective of setting" or "play-IT-safe 'strategies. The situation, in his view, has much to do with the traditional way in which the translation has been taught in the service foreign language learning (1999, p. 124).

In another study conducted in Denmark, but the question of leadership was not the central concern, but the results seem interesting. To investigate the effects of thinking aloud protocols of translation processes, Jakobsen (2003, p. 72) includes directionality as one of the variables, "it would be interesting to explore whether the verbalization (presumably mostly on L1) affect L2 production target text L1 differently production target text. "He found that translation from L1 to L2 was about 16 percent slower in the two groups subjects (professional and nonprofessional) than vice versa. Text segmentation also differ according to the language direction. Subjects were found to be segmented the target text more often (by source 100 characters of text) where the translation from L1 to L2 when translating into the L1 "(2003, p. 93). Jakobsen speculates that the delay was caused by a "conflict between thinking aloud in L1 and at the same time produce a text in L2" (2003, p. 78).

In a previous study, Krings (1986, quoted in Kiraly, 1995, p. 46) found that "most of the categories of basic strategy was the same language in both directions, but the order of implementation of the strategies depends largely on the language direction.

Hansen (eg 2006), Tirkkonen-Condit (eg 2000) and other scholars have also studied translation of participatory processes the two directions of translation, although without making direct comparisons.

More empirical research on the issue of directionality are certainly necessary if we build more valid theoretical and pedagogical models. As Lawrence (2002, p. 85) notes, lack of recognition that has L2 translation international level is mostly implicit and evident in the fact that the best part of research on translation offers translation into the language. Hansen et al. (1998, p. 59) note that "until more theoretical work dealt with the translation into the language [...] that many researchers have built translation models based on the results of translation studies in the mother tongue, she assumed that these could be generalized to apply to translation to the foreign language too. "Campbell (1998, p. 1), however, states that" the problems that arise when an individual is reflected in a second language not fit easily within the framework established by orthodox translation studies, which tends to assume that all the work of translators in their native language.

Directionality in translator education

One of the scholars who have tried to provide a framework for teaching L2 translation Beeby Lonsdale's (eg 1996). For her, one of the most important aspects of L2 translation (Spanish into English, if any) is "literacy gender in the foreign language "(1996, p. 158). A serious goal of education translator, therefore, to develop the awareness of future translators" of gender and gender distinctions between different cultures. It also highlights the growing importance of the translation into English as international language, with all "hybrid" genres that derive from it, combining "the English language standards, with local strategies for pragmatic" (1996, p. 159).

Rodriguez and Schnell (2003, p. 185) also emphasizes the development of "textual competence," which is defined as "the ability generate coherent, grammatically correct texts that are stylistically and pragmatically appropriate with respect to the purpose of translation and the recipient. "This competition, along with "documentary competition," may "compensate for the deficiencies in linguistic competence and pragmatic-discursive" (2003, p. 180). According to these scholars, the development level of the last two competitions is what constitutes "fundamental difference" between the jurisdiction of translation L1 and L2 translation competence (ibid.). It also makes some suggestions on how textual and documentary skills can be developed, but unfortunately without citing all empirical studies to support their claims.

Neunzig (2003) agrees with the importance of competition in the translation documentary L2 and also makes a case for what he calls "intelligent use of documentary sources. This means that translation students should be warned to use external resources, notably those provided by new technologies, albeit with necessary caution and only after all domestic remedies had been committed. Emphasizes that the competence of L1 (the translator is the strength of L2) should be used for the operation of preparing the source text even before begin the process of translation. This preparation means "anticipation of the transfer phase through a" translation intralingual, 'using translation techniques, procedures and "tricks" (generalization, omission, deletion, paraphrases, etc.) in the language of the ST, for accelerate and ensure the success of the search in the target language, usually a source of errors [in the L2 translation] "(2003, p. 196-7). Neunzig believes that the translation L2 therefore can do as good or better than the L1 translation in the case of the texts in which "the fluidity and beauty of language is secondary" as "administrative, commercial, technical and legal texts" (2003, p. 192). It is recognized, however, basing its "proposals for reflection "on their own experience rather than systematic empirical studies.

Snell-Hornby (2000, p. 37-8) points out that in the case a world lingua franca (L2 English), the target readers can be difficult to define. She believes "you can not always talk about" cultural transfer between two clearly defined and homogeneous linguistic communities, but often in an information or knowledge transfer the framework of a "free culture". In this sense, the class of L2 translation should not be "a kind of language exercise aimed to test the Knowledge of foreign languages [...], but part of training for future professional life, and the texts and teaching methods should reflect this "(2000, p. 37). The text types most likely to be translated into a lingua franca and more convenient for the student, in your opinion, informational texts "highly stylized in both verbal and nonverbal elements – such as instructions, notices or business correspondence "or scientific reports.

Pedersen (2000, p. 113) agrees with the latter view, which advocates the use of authentic, non-literary materials in the classroom, such as catalogs museums, academic articles, textbooks, and so on. "Mackenzie and Vienne (2000) also recommend that students should have realistic tasks, such as related technical documentation, informational texts and promotional material in which they can succeed in producing target texts acceptable. According these authors, the conventional text types so that students can find parallel texts, is especially recommended. The use of parallel texts must take precedence over dictionaries, as the old "give more information on the type of non-native language translator is likely need dictionaries, as placement, context of use, registration, etc. "(2000, p. 126).

Koberski (2000), on the other hand, deals with the L2 translation expressive texts, with special emphasis in the "implicit" in these texts. Reporting on an experiment with students in translation of poems by their respective languages in L2 English, focuses on the question of how to teach students to "use their expertise in the discovery of the implicit in their mother tongue" (2000, p. 108).

Goodwin and McLaren (2003, p. 248-50) to address another important aspect of L2 translator education, namely the evaluation system of translation L2. They argue that the criteria used to evaluate this address can not be the same to those in L1 translation, and propose a system that not only focuses errors in students but also on problems that were successfully treated. Kiraly (2000a, 2000b), on the other hand, suggests a kind of test that the traditional single translation tasks are complemented by a professional translation simulated by the whole group working together. The translations are given to "a external consultant who acts as a client, the assessment on the basis of suitability for publication "(2000b, p. 122).

On the basis of the findings of an empirical study of translation processes par, St. John makes a case for collaboration among students which results in L2 and native informants of that language. However, a major problem in a language-related environments with limited circulation may be the lack of availability of users' L1 major languages, which makes this recommendation difficult to follow.

Conclusion

To conclude this article, We can cite (1998, p. 11-12) Campbell's statement, which makes a case for the education measures in case of future translators, saying "the reality is that they [L1 and L2 translation] are different, and that these students should be taught differently. "This statement gives us a good reason to study the characteristics translation process in both directions more closely and more systematically. In this sense, Lorenzo (2002, p. 88) notes that the characteristics Distinguishing L2 translation are not observable if one considers only the product of translation (the target text), focusing on possible errors in the target language. Instead of, she suggests, research in translation processes as a way to investigate the specific characteristics of the L2 translation, with possible application translator education.

References

Ahlsvad, KJ (1978). It translates into the primary language translator. In Horguelin PA (Ed.), translation, a profession (pp. 183-188). Paris: FIT.

Beeby Lonsdale, A. (1996). Translation of Teaching Spanish to English: Worlds beyond words. Ottawa: Ottawa University Press.

Beeby Lonsdale, A. (1998). Address translation (directionality). In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pages 63 to 67). London and New York: Routledge.

Campbell, S. (1998). Translation in the second language. London and New York: Longman.

Carpenter, MSN (1999). The profession of translator freelance. Lecture given as part of a series of conferences on trades and professions.

Cronin, M. (2003). Translation and Globalization. London and New York: Routledge.

Donovan, C. (2002). Survey expectations of users and their needs. In the teaching of interpretation simultaneously in a language "(pp. 2-11) B '. EMCI workshop proceedings.

Donovan, C. (2003). Teaching interpretation B. Simultaneous In D. Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Fashion (eds.), directionality in translation and interpretation. Theoretical perspectives, professional and teaching (367-380). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Fernandez, IE (2003). Bidirectionality in the formation of Interpretation in Spain: an empirical study. In D. Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Fashion (eds.), directionality in translation and interpretation. Theoretical perspectives, professional and teaching (pp. 347-365). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Gile, D. (2005). Directionality in conference interpreting: A cognitive perspective. In R. Godijns & M. Hindedael (eds.), directionality in interpretation. The "fair" or indigenous? (Pp. 9-26) Ghent: Communication and cognition.

Goodwin, D., and McLaren, C. (2003). The reverse translation: A practical proposal. In D. Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Way, (eds.), directionality in translation and interpretation. Theoretical perspectives, and educational professionals (pp. 235-252). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Grosman, M., Kadric, M., Kovacic, I., & Snell-Hornby, M. (eds.). (2000). No language translation. In professional practice and training. Tübingen: Verlag Stauffenburg.

Hansen, Gyde et al. (1998). The translation process: the source text text destination. In G. Hansen (ed.), LSP texts and the translation process. [Copenhagen Working Papers in LSP 1], Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.

Hansen, G. (2006). Methods of retroactivity in the training of translators and translation research.

Hönig, HG (2002). Target levels of difficulty of the speeches used in the interpretation of training. In the teaching of simultaneous interpretation in a B language (pp. 38-50). EMCI workshop proceedings.

Jakobsen, AL (2003). Effects of thinking about voice high speed of translation, revision and segmentation. In F. Alves (ed.), Perspectives in process RANSLATION Triangulatingt Research Oriented (pp. 69-95). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kelly, D., Nobs, M., Sanchez, D., and Way, C. (2003b). The translation 'invested' in the literature of translation. In D. Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Fashion (eds.), Ladireccionalidad in translation and interpretation. Prospects theoretical, professional and teaching (pp. 21-32). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Kelly, D., Nobs, M., Sanchez, D., & Way, C. (2003c). AB Translation in the professional market. In D. Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Fashion (eds.), directionality in translation and interpretation. Theoretical perspectives, and educational professionals (pp. 43-64). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Kiraly, DC (1995). Pathways to translation: pedagogy and process. Kent: Kent State University Press.

Kiraly, DC (2000a). A social constructivist approach to translator education. Empowering theory to practice. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Kiraly, DC (2000b.) Translation of a language is not: From the collaboration of competition. In M. Grosman, M. Kadric, I. Kovacic & M. Snell-Hornby (eds.), no language translation. In professional practice and training (pp. 117 – 124). Tübingen: Verlag Stauffenburg.

Koberski, E. (2000). Who has the last word? An experiment in teaching translation. In M. Grosman, M. Kadric, I. Kovacic & M. Snell-Hornby (eds.), Translation to non-native language. In professional practice and training (pp. 103-108). Tübingen: Verlag Stauffenburg.

Krings, HP (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced students of French German L2 (). In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 263-276). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Kussmaul, P. (1997). The processes of understanding and translation: a think-aloud protocol study. In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. & Jettmarová Kaindl K. (eds.), Translation of intercultural communication (pp. 239-248). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lorenzo, MP (2002). Reverse translation is possible? Results of the experiment UN professional translation into a foreign language. In G. Hansen (ed.), Translation Studies empirical: Processes and Products (pp. 85-124). [Copenhagen Studies in Language Series 27], Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.

Lorenzo, MP (1999). The security professional translator in the translation into a foreign language. In G. Hansen (ed.), Probing the translation process: methods and results (pp. 121-134). [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24] openhagen: amfundslitteratur.

Mackenzie, R., and Vienne, J. (2000). Resources Research Strategy: A key factor in the teaching of translation in the language is not. In M. Grosman, M. Kadric, I. Kovacic & M. Snell-Hornby (eds.), non-language translation feeding. In professional practice and training (125-131). Tübingen: Verlag Stauffenburg.

Marmaridou, ASS (1996). Directionality in translation. Processes and practices. Target, 8 (1), 49-73.

McAlester, G. (1992). Teaching translation into a foreign language – the location, the scope and objectives. In C. Dollerup Loddegaard & A. (eds.), Translation and Interpretation of education (pp. 91-297). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Minns, P. (2002). The teaching of interpretation in B – Some conclusions gleaned from the training experience to 25 years. Conference Interpretation and Translation 4 (2), 29-40.

Neunzig, W. (2003). Information Technology and specialized translation versa. In D. Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Fashion (eds.), directionality in translation and interpretation. Theoretical perspectives, professional and teaching (pp. 189-206). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York, London and Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Padilla, P., and April, MI (2003). Implications of the Acquisition Directorate EnglishSpanish technique simultaneous interpretation. In D. Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Fashion (eds.), directionality in translation and interpretation. Theoretical perspectives, professional and teaching (pp. 391-406). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Pedersen, VH (2000). L2 translation – in practice and in the classroom. In M. Grosman, M. Kadric, I. Kovacic & M. Snell-Hornby (eds.), Translation by not - mother tongue. In professional practice and training (pp. 109-116). Tübingen: Verlag Stauffenburg.

Pokorn, NK (2005). Challenging the traditional axioms. Nonmother language translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Prunc, E. (2000). Translation in Muttersprache und die Nicht-Translationskultur. In M. Grosman, M. Kadric, I. Kovacic & M. Snell-Hornby (eds.), Translation not the mother tongue. In professional practice and training (pp. 5-20). Tübingen: Verlag Stauffenburg.

Prunc, E. (2003). Optimal, suboptimal, fatal: Reflections on ethnolinguistic democracy in the European culture of translation. In D. Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Fashion (eds.), directionality in translation and interpretation. Theoretical perspectives, professional and teaching (pp. 67-89). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Roiss, S. (1998). Didaktische Überlegungen zur Verbesserung der Methodik in der Hin-Übersetzung Deutsch Englisch AS-ZS. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Salamanca.

Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Fashion (eds.), directionality in translation and interpretation. Theoretical perspectives, and educational professionals (pp. 177-188). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Schmitt, P. (1990). Translate was Übersetzer? Eine Umfrage. Lebende Sprachen, 3, 97 – 108.

Snell-Hornby, M. (1997). Released from the grip of empire: the lingua franca of the target culture. In MA Vega & R. Martin Piper (eds.), The word shed. Research on the translation (pp. 45-56). Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Snell-Hornby, M. (2000). 'McLanguage': The identity of English as a problem in translation today. In M. Grosman, M. Kadric, I. Kovacic & M. Snell-Hornby (eds.), Translation to non-native language. In professional practice and training (pp. 35-44). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Stewart, D. (1999). Foreign language translators: The Charlatans or ROFESSIONAL? Decnica della Rivista Internazionale di traduzione, 4, 41-67.

Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2000). The uncertainty in the translation process. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (eds.) Tapping and mapping of the translation process: Perspectives from Empirical Research (pp. 123-142). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Toulon, SM (2003). The bidirectionality: training and labor markets. In D. Kelly, A. Martin, ML Nobs, D. Sanchez and C. Fashion (eds.), Directionality in translation and interpretation. Theoretical perspectives, professional and teaching (pp. 381-389). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

About the Author

Iman Poostdoozan,
Islamic Azad University,
Fars science and Research University, Shiraz, Iran