Introducing Grounded Theory into translation studies

References

• Angouri J. 2010. Quantitative, qualitative or both? Combining methods in linguistic research. In: Litosseliti L (ed.). Research methods in linguistics. London & New York: Continuum International. pp 29–45.
   Google Scholar
• Baker M. 2011. In other words: a coursebook on translation (2nd edn). London & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brown E. 1982. Russian literature since the revolution. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buckler J. 2013. Victorian literature and Russian culture: translation, reception, influence, affinity. In: Rodensky L (ed.). The Oxford handbook of the Victorian novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 206–226.
   Google Scholar
• Bruwer D. 2005. Die Afrikaanse vertaling van eiename in Harry Potter: konsequensies vir kultuuroordrag. MA thesis, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Catford J. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cencini M, Aston G. 2002. Resurrecting the corp(us/se): towards an encoding standard for interpreting data. In: Garzone G, Viezzi M (eds). Interpreting in the 21st century: challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp 47–62.
   Google Scholar
• Chan S, Pollard D. 2001. An encyclopedia of translation: Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chesterman A. 1997. Memes of translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung M. 2006. An anthology of Chinese discourse on translation. Volume 1: From earliest times to the Buddhist Project. Manchester & Kinderhook: St Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• Cokely D. 1992. Interpretation: a sociolinguistic model. Burtonsville, M.D.: Linstock Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin J, Strauss A. 1990. Grounded Theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin J, Strauss A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• DeafSA. 2012. Deaf Federation of South Africa. Available at http://www.deafsa.co.za [accessed 15 December 2012].
   Google Scholar
• De Vries A. 1994. Zuiwer en onvervalscht? Een beschrijvingsmodel voor bijbelvertalingen, ontwikkeld en gedemonstreerd aan de Petrus Canisius Vertaling. Amsterdam: Free University of the Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Dörnyei Z. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dose S. 2010. Patterns of growing standardisation and interference in interpreted German discourse. MA dissertation, University of South Africa, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Duflou V. 2007. Norm research in conference interpreting: how can the study of documentary sources contribute to a better understanding of norms? In: Gerzymisch-Arbogast H, Budin G. (eds). MuTra 2007 – LSP translation scenarios: conference proceedings. Frankfort-am-Main: Peter Lang, pp 1–11. Available at http://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2007_Proceedings/2007_Duflou_Veerle.pdf [accessed 7 December 2012].
   Google Scholar
• Even-Zohar I. 1978. The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem. Reprinted. In: Venuti L (ed.), (3rd edn). 2012. The translation studies reader. London & New York: Routledge. pp 162–167.
   Google Scholar
• Even-Zohar I. 1990. Polysystem studies. Poetics Today, 11(1), 1–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FBA (Forum of Bible Agencies). 2006. Basic principles and procedure for Bible translation. Available at http://www.forum-intl.org/uploadedFiles/about_ifoba/Translation%20Standards.pdf [accessed 28 January 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Garzone G &Viezzi M (eds). Interpreting in the 21st century: challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Gentzler E. 2001. Contemporary translation theories. London & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gerzymisch-Arbogast H & Budin G (eds). 2007. MuTra 2007 – LSP translation scenarios:conference proceedings. Frankfort-am-Main: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser B, Strauss A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser B. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser B. 1998. Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hale S, Gibbons J. 1999. Varying realities: patterned changes in the interpreter's representation of courtroom and external realities. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 203–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday M. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edn). London, Melbourne & Auckland: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen G, Chesterman A & Gerzymisch-Arbogast H (eds). 2008. Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: a tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Heap M, Morgans H. 2006. Language policy and SASL: interpreters in the public service. In: Watermeyer B, Swartz L, Lorenzo T, Schneider M, Priestley M (eds). Disability and social change: a South African agenda. Cape Town: HSRC Press. pp 134–147.
   Google Scholar
• Hermans T. 1985. The manipulation of literature: studies in literary translation. London: Croom Helm.
   Google Scholar
• Hermans T. 1999a. Translation in systems: descriptive and systemic approaches explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• Hermans T. 1999b. Translation and normativity. In: C Schäffner (ed.). Translation and norms. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. pp 50–71.
   Google Scholar
• Heylen R. 1993. Introduction. Translation, poetics and the stage: six French Hamlets. London & New York: Routledge. pp 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg L. 2012. Funds of knowledge: an examination of theoretical frameworks. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 21, 47–76.
   Google Scholar
• House J. 1977. A model for translation quality assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
   Google Scholar
• House J. 1997. Translation quality assessment: a model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
   Google Scholar
• Hung E. 1996. The introduction of Dickens into China (1906–1960): a case study in target culture reception. Perspectives, 4(1), 29–41.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobson R. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. Reprinted. In: Venuti L (ed.), (3rd edn). 2012. The translation studies reader. London & New York: Routledge. pp 126–30.
   Google Scholar
• Janzen T (ed.). 2005. Topics in signed languages and interpreting: theory and practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kenny D. 2000. Lexis and creativity in translation: a corpus-based study. Manchester: St Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• Kershaw A. 2009. Sociology of literature, sociology of translation: the reception of Irène Némirovsky's Suite français in France and Britain. Translation Studies, 3(1), 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause J. 2010. Translation and the reception and influence of Latin American literature in the United States. PhD thesis, Graduate School of Vanderbilt University, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger A. 2002. Corpus-based translation research: its development and implications for general, literary and Bible translation. Acta Theologica Supplementum, 2, 70–106.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger A, Wallmach K. 1997. Research methodology for the description of a source text and its translation(s) – a South African perspective. South African Journal of African Languages, 17(4), 119–126.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger H. 2012. Postcolonial polysystems: the production and reception of translated children's literature in South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kujamäki P. 2004. What happens to “unique items” in learners’ translations? “Theories” and “concepts” as a challenge for novice's views on “good translation”. In: Mauranen A, P Kujamäki (eds). Translation universals: do they exist?. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp 187–204.
   Google Scholar
• Kurz I. 1993. Conference interpretation: expectations of different user groups, The Interpreters. Newsletter, 5, 13–21.
   Google Scholar
• Lambert J, van Gorp H. 1985. On describing translations. In: Hermans T (ed.). The manipulation of literature: studies in literary translation. London: Croom Helm. pp 42–53.
   Google Scholar
• Larson M. 1998. Meaning-based translation: a guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd edn). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• Laviosa S. 2002. Corpus-based translation studies: theory, findings, applications. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Leeson L. 2005. Vying with variation. Interpreting language contact, gender variation and generational difference. In: Janzen T (ed.). Topics in signed languages and interpreting: theory and practice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp 251–291.
   Google Scholar
• Litosseliti L. 2010. Research methods in linguistics. London & New York: Continuum International.
   Google Scholar
• Lombard S. 2006. The accessibility of a written Bible versus a signed Bible for the deaf-born person with sign language as first language. MA thesis, University of the Free State, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons J. 1981. Language and linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marzocchi C. 2005. On norms and ethics in the discourse on interpreting, The Interpreters. Newsletter, 13, 87–107.
   Google Scholar
• Mauranen A, Kujamäki P (eds). 2004. Translation universals: do they exist?Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Masubelele R. 2004. A corpus-based appraisal of shifts in language use and translation policies in two Zulu translations of the Book of Matthew. Language Matters, 35(1), 201–213.
   Google Scholar
• Mkhize D. 2000. The palm-oil with which Igbo words are eaten: an analysis of the Zulu translation of Igbo idioms in Things Fall Apart. Language Matters, 31(1), 53–71.
   Google Scholar
• Moropa C. 2004. A parallel corpus as a terminology resource for Xhosa: a study of strategies used to translate financial statements. Language Matters, 35(1), 162–178.
   Google Scholar
• Munday J. 2012. Introducing translation studies: theories and applications (3rd edn). London & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Munger S. 1996. Russian New Testaments: a comparative study of selected portions from three Russian New Testament translations in relation to various Greek source texts and to native speaker reaction and comprehension. PhD thesis, Free University of the Netherlands, the Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Napier J, Barker R. 2004. Sign language interpreting: the relationship between metalinguistic awareness and the production of interpreting omissions. Sign Language Studies, 4(4), 369–393.
   Google Scholar
• Naudé J, van der Merwe C (eds). 2002. Introduction: contemporary translation studies and Bible translation: a South African perspective. Acta Theologica Supplement 2: pp 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Ndlovu V. 2009. The accessibility of translated Zulu health texts: an investigation of translation strategies. D. Litt. et. Phil. thesis, University of South Africa, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Newmark P. 1988. A textbook of translation. New York & London: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Nida E. 1960. Message and mission: the communication of the Christian faith. California: William Carey.
   Google Scholar
• Nida E, Taber C. 1974. The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Niranjana T. 1992. Citing translation history: post-structuralism and the colonial context. California: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nord C. 1991. Scopos, loyalty and translation conventions. Target, 3(1), 91–109.
   Google Scholar
• Nord C. 1997. Translating as a purposeful activity: functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• Olohan M. 2004. Introducing corpora in translation studies. London & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• PMG (Parliamentary Monitoring Group). 2007. Recognition of South African Sign Language as Official Language: briefing by Deaf Federation of South Africa. Available at http://www.pmg.org.za/print/8655 [accessed 13 November 2009]..
   Google Scholar
• PMG (Parliamentary Monitoring Group). 2009. Language issues: proposed recognition of South African Sign Language as official language, Sepedi/Sesotho sa Leboa issues: briefings by DeafSA, CRL Commission, Pan South African Language Board. Available at http://www.pmg.org. za//20091113-language-issues-proposed-recognition-south-african-sign-language-official/html [accessed 12 November 2012].
   Google Scholar
• Pöchhacker F. 2000. The community interpreter's task: self-perception and provider views. In: Roberts R, Carr S, Abraham D, Dufour A (eds). The critical link 2: interpreters in the community. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp 49–66.
   Google Scholar
• Rasenyalo N. 2011. Some aspects of the literariness of traditional Sotho dithoko: a Russian Formalist approach. South Africa: MA thesis, University of Johannesburg.
   Google Scholar
• Reagan T. 2008. South African Sign Language and language in education policy in South Africa. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 38, 165–190.
   Google Scholar
• Reiss K, Vermeer H. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts R, Carr S, Abraham D & Dufour A (eds). 2000. The critical link 2: interpreters in the community. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Rodensky L (ed.). The Oxford handbook of the Victorian novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salevsky H. 1991. Theory of Bible translation and general theory of translation. Bible Translator, 42(1), 101–115.
   Google Scholar
• Salevsky H. 1995. Dolmetscherund Übersetzerausbildung gestern, heute und morgen. Berlin: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Sapir E. 1921. Language: an introduction to the study of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schäffner C (ed.). 1999. Translation and norms. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Schleiermacher F. 1813. On the different methods of translating. Reprinted. In: Venuti L (ed.), 2012. The translation studies reader (3rd edn). London & New York: Routledge. pp 43–63.
   Google Scholar
• Setton R. 2002. A methodology for the analysis of interpretation corpora. In: Garzone G, Viezzi M (eds). Interpreting in the 21st century: challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp 29–46.
   Google Scholar
• Shlesinger M. 1998. Corpus-based interpreting as an offshoot of corpus-based Translation Studies. Meta, 43(4), 486–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shlesinger M. 2008. Towards a definition of interpretese: an intermodal, corpus-based study. In: Hansen G, Chesterman A & Gerzymisch-Arbogast H (eds). Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: a tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp 237–253.
   Google Scholar
• Shuttleworth M, Cowie M. 1997. Dictionary of translation studies. Manchester: St Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics). 2012. The typical process of Bible translation. Available at http://www.sil.org/translation/stages.htm [accessed 30 October 2012].
   Google Scholar
• Spivak G. 2000. The politics of translation. In: Venuti L (ed.), 2012. The translation studies reader (3rd edn). London & New York: Routledge. pp 312–30.
   Google Scholar
• Stone C. 2009. Towards a deaf translation norm. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss A, Corbin J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. California, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Swift O. 2012. The role of signed language interpreters in post-secondary education settings in South Africa. South Africa: MA thesis, University of South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Toury G. 1980. In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Toury G. 1995. Descriptive translation studies – and beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Toury G. 1999. A handful of paragraphs on “translation” and “norms”. In: Schäffner C (ed.). Translation and norms. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. pp 9–31.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai F. 2001. Europeanized structure in English-Chinese translation. In: Chan S, Pollard D (eds). An encyclopedia of translation: Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. pp 242–248.
   Google Scholar
• van der Merwe C. 2012. The Bible in Afrikaans: a direct translation – a new type of church Bible. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 68(1), Article #1204. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v68i1.1204 [accessed 7 July 2012].
   Google Scholar
• Venuti L. 1995. The translator's invisibility: a history of translation. London & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Venuti L (ed.). 2012. The translation studies reader. London & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Viljoen L. 2011. Translation and transformation: Antjie Krog's translation of indigenous South African verse into Afrikaans. Scrutiny2: Issues in English Studies in Southern Africa, 11(1), 32–45.
   Google Scholar
• Watermeyer B, Swartz L, Lorenzo T, Schneider M, Priestley M (eds). 2006. Disability and socialchange: a South African agenda. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wehrmeyer J. 2001. A critical investigation of translation norms in Russian Bible translation. South Africa: MA thesis, University of South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Wehrmeyer J. 2013. Deaf comprehension of signed TV news interpretation. D.Litt. et. Phil. thesis. University of South Africa, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Wehrmeyer J. In press. Deaf comprehension of signed TV news interpreters. Interpreting.
   Google Scholar
• Whorf B. 1966. Language, thought and reality. Cambridge, MS: MIT Technology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yeshiva. s.a Introducing qualitative hypothesis-generating research. The Yeshiva University fatherhood project. Available at http://www.nyupress.org/webchapters/0814706940chapt1.pdf [accessed 20 December 2009].
   Google Scholar