Article published in:
FORUM
Vol. 11:2 (2013) ► pp. 175199
References

References

Ahrenberg, L., & Tarvi, L.
(2013) Natural language processing for the translation class. Proceedings of the second workshop on NLP for computer-assisted language learning at NODALIDA 2013 (May 22, Oslo) NEALT Proceedings Series 17/Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 86: 1–10. http://​www​.ep​.liu​.se​/ecp​/086​/001​/ecp13086001​.pdf.
Boyd, B.
(2009) On the Origin of Stories. Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction. Cambridge, Massachusetts – London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A.
(1996) On Similarity. Target, 8 (1) 1996, 159–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Memes of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Translation Data Problems. In J. Lindstead et al. (Eds.) Festshrift in Honour of Professor Arto Mustajoki on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 17–26. Helsinki: Slavica Helsingiensia 35.Google Scholar
Halverson, S.
(1998) Concepts and Categories in Translation Studies. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D.
(1998) To Seek Whence Cometh a Sequence. In Douglas Hofstadter (ed.) Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies, 13–87. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. S.
(1988) Translated! Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Honkela, T.
et al. (2010) GIGA: Grounded Intersubjective Concept Analysis: A Method for Enhancing Mutual Understanding and Participation. Espoo: Aalto University School of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1990) On Language L. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (eds.). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
2003 [1980] Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.
(1989) More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milic, L. T.
(1971) Rhetorical Choice and Stylistic Option: the Conscious and he Unconscious Poles. In S. Chatman (ed.) Literary Style: a Symposium, 77–94. London and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K-U. & Padden, G.
(1999) Introduction. In K-U. Panther & G. Pädden (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought (papers presented at a workshop held June 23-24, 1996, Hamburg University), 1–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pierini, P.
(2007) Simile in English: from description to translation. CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a la Communicacíon (clac) (http://​www​.ucm​.es​/info​/circulo/) 29, 21–43.
Pym, A.
(1998) Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Sovran, T.
(1992) Between Similarity and Sameness. Journal of Pragmatics 18:4, 329–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tarvi, L.
(2004) Comparative Translation assessment: Quantifying Quality. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
(2010) From ‘Haute Couture’ To ‘Prêt-à-Porter’, Or How Theory Can Be ‘Vulgarized”. In Garant, M. (ed.) Helsinki Department of Translation Studies Publications III, “Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Translation Studies, 133–159.Google Scholar
Tymoczko, M.
(1998) “Computerized Corpora and the Future of Translation Studies.” Meta 43 (4), 652–659. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J-P. & Darbelnet, J.
1995 [1958]) Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson. E. O.
(1998) Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Wolff, Michael
2010Ringside at the Web Fight. Vanity Fair, No 542, March 2010, 108–110.Google Scholar