Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


According to the results of translation-based empirical research within the descriptive paradigm, transfer operations and the shifts that occur as a result of translators’ interventions are governed by norms, which represent general, standard practices built on informal social consensus ( Toury 1995 ). Based on the scientific analysis of norms and general rules, the so-called translation universals were formulated describing the factors and qualities that distinguish translations from source texts and from authentic texts not produced through translation but originally written in the target language ( Baker 1993 ). In the present study, I aim to summarise the theoretical conclusions drawn so far from the description of these observed translational features, as well as the results of the research into linguistic phenomena and laws that characterise translations in general, then I will synthesise and graphically represent the lessons learned in a theoretical model. Hopefully, it will provide help to understand and process the research data gained so far and in the future.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baker, M.
    1993 Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In: Baker, M. , Francis, G. , Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 233–250. doi: 10.1075/z.64.15bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  2. 1996 Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In: Somers, H. (ed.), Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 175–186. doi: 10.1075/btl.18.17bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  3. Bánhegyi, M.
    2011 A fordításközpontú diskurzus – társadalom hatásmodell gyakorlati alkalmazása. [The Application of the Translation-centred Discourse-Society Interface Model] Fordítástudomány14 (1): 69–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumgarten, N.
    2007 Converging Conventions? Macrosyntactic Conjunction with English and and German und . Text and Talk27 (2): 139–170. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2007.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Becher, V.
    2010 Abandoning the notion of “translation-inherent” explicitation. Against a dogma of translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures11 (1): 1–28. doi: 10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2011 When and why translators add connectives?Target23 (1): 26–47. doi: 10.1075/target.23.1.02bec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.23.1.02bec [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, S.
    1986 Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. In: House, J. Blum-Kulka, S. (eds), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication. Discourse and Cognitionin Translation and Second Language Acquisition. Tübingen: Narr. 17–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chesterman, A.
    1993 From ʻIs’ to ʻOught’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies. Target5 (1): 1–20. doi: 10.1075/target.5.1.02che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.5.1.02che [Google Scholar]
  9. 2004 Beyond the Particular. In: Mauranen, A. , Kujamaki, P. (eds), Translation Universals: Do they exist?Amsterdam: Benjamins. 33–49. doi: 10.1075/btl.48.04che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.04che [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 Why Study Translation Universals?In: The Digital Depository of the University of Helsinki. hdl.handle.net/I0138/24319
  11. Dimitrova, E. B.
    2005Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation process. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.64
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.64 [Google Scholar]
  12. Frawley, W.
    1984Translation: literary, linguistic and philosophical perspectives. Delaware: University of Delaware Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Greenberg, J.
    (ed.) 1963Universals of Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Halverson, S.
    2003 The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target15 (2): 197–241. doi: 10.1075/target.15.2.02hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.2.02hal [Google Scholar]
  15. 2007 Investigating gravitational pull in translation: the case of the English progressive construction. In: Jääskeläinen, R. , Puurtinen, T. , Stotesbury, H. (eds.), Texts, process and corpora: research inspired by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit. Joensuu: Publications of the Savonlinna School of Translation Studies 5. 175–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2010 Translation universals or cross-linguistic influence: conceptual and methodological issues. Paper presented at the6th EST Congress Why Translation Studies Matters in Leuven, 3rd September 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Heltai, P.
    2002 The influence of socio-physiological factors on translating ability. In: Dóth J. (szerk.), Szaknyelvoktatás és fordítás. Tanulmányok a Szent István Egyetem Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Tanszékének kutatásaiból. Gödöllő: Szent István Egyetem. 69–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2005 Explicitation, Redundancy, Ellipsis and Translation. In: Károly, K. , Fóris, Á. (eds.), New Trends in Translation Studies. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 45–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2011 Az explicitáció mint kommunikációs univerzálé. [Explicitation as a Communication Universal] In: Navracsics, J. , Lengyel, Zs. (eds), Lexikai folyamatok egy- és kétnyelvű közegben: pszicholingvisztikai tanulmányok II. [Lexical Processes in Mono- and Bilingual Contexts: Studies in Psycholinguistics II.] Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó. 124–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. House, J.
    1997Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2004 Linguistic Aspects of the Translation of Children’s Books. In: Kittel, H. , Frank, A. P. , Greiner, N. , Hermans, T. , Koller, W. , Lambert, J. , House, J. , Schultze, B. (eds), Übersetzung/Translation/Traduction. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 683–697.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008 Beyond Intervention: Universals in Translation?trans-kom1 (No.1): 6–19. www.trans-kom.eu/bd01nr01/trans-kom_01_01_02_House_Beyond_Intervention.20080707.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Károly, K.
    2007Szövegtan és fordítás. [Discourse Studies and Translation] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2012 A referenciális kohézió a fordítási univerzálék tükrében. [Referential Cohesion and Translation Universals] Magyar nyelvőr136 (3): 304–325.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Klaudy K.
    1996 Back Translation as a Tool for Detecting Explicitation Strategies in Translation. In: Klaudy, K. , Lambert, J. and Sohár A. (eds.), Translation Studies in Hungary. Budapest: Scholastica. 99–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Klaudy, K.
    1998 Explicitation. In: Baker, M. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 80–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2000 Explicitation Strategies within Lexical and Grammatical Translational Operations. In: Lendvai E. (ed.), Applied Russian Studies in Hungary. Pécs: Krónika Kiadó. 101–113.
  28. 2002 A fordítási univerzálékról (különös tekintettel az egyszerűsítésre). [On Translation Universals (with Special Regards to Simplification)] In: Fóris Á. et al. (eds), A nyelv nevelő szerepe. [The Pedagogical Role of Language] Pécs: Lingua Franca. 481–486.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2003Languages in Translation. Lectures on the theory, teaching and practice of translation. Budapest: Scholastica.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2004 Az implicitációról. [On Implicitation] In: Navracsics J. , Tóth Sz. (eds), Nyelvészet és interdiszciplinaritás. [Linguistics and Interdisciplinarity] Szeged: Generália. 70–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Klaudy K.
    2009 The Asymmetry Hypothesis in Translation Research. In: Dimitriu, R. & M. Shlesinger (eds), Translators and their readers. In Homage to Eugene A. Nida. Brussels: Les Editions du Hazard. 283–303.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kujamäki, P.
    2004 What happens to “unique items” in learners’ translations?In: Mauranen, A. , Kujamaki, P. (eds.), Translation Universals: Do they exist?Amsterdam: Benjamins. 187–204. doi: 10.1075/btl.48.16kuj
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.16kuj [Google Scholar]
  33. Laviosa, S.
    1998 The English Comparable Corpus: A Resource and a Methodology. In: Bowker, L. , Cronin, M. , Kenny, D. , Pearson, J. (eds.), Unity in Diversity: Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome. 101–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2009 Universals. In: Baker, M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 306–311.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Laviosa-Braithwaite, S.
    1998 Universals of Translation. In: Baker, M. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation. London: Routledge. 288–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Levý, J.
    1965 Will Translation Theory be of Use to Translators?In: Italiaander, R. (ed.), Übersetzen. Vorträge und Beiträge vom Internationalen Kongress literarischer Übersetzer in Hamburg. Frankfurt-am-Main: Athenäum. 77–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Makkos, A. , Robin, E.
    2014 Explicitation and Implicitation in Back-translation. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning5: 151–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Malmkjær, K. S.
    2008 Norms and Nature in Translation Studies. In: Anderman, G. , Rogers, M. (eds), Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 49–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nida, E.
    1964Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Olohan, M. , Baker, M.
    2000 Reporting that in Translated English. Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation. Across Languages and Cultures1 (2): 141–159. doi: 10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Øverås, L.
    1998 In Search of the Third Code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta43 (4): 1–20. doi: 10.7202/003775ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003775ar [Google Scholar]
  42. Pápai, V.
    2004 Explicitation: A universal of translated text?In: Mauranen, A. , Kujamaki, P. (eds), Translation Universals. Do they exist?Amsterdam: Benjamins. 143–164. doi: 10.1075/btl.48.12pap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.12pap [Google Scholar]
  43. Puurtinen, T.
    2004 Explicitation of clausal relations: A corpus-based analysis of clause connectives in translated and non-translated Finnish children’s literature. In: Mauranen, A. , Kujamaki, P. (eds), Translation Universals: Do they exist?Amsterdam: Benjamins. 165–176. doi: 10.1075/btl.48.13puu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.13puu [Google Scholar]
  44. Pym, A.
    2008 On Toury’s laws of how translators translate. In: Pym, A. , Shlesinger, M. , Simeoni, D. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in homage to Gidon Toury. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 311–328. doi: 10.1075/btl.75.24pym
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.75.24pym [Google Scholar]
  45. 2010Exploring Translation Theories. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Robin, E.
    2015 Nyelvi babona a fordításokban. [Language Superstitions in Translations] In: Benő A. , Fazekas E. , Zsemlyei B. (eds), Többnyelvűség és kommunikáció Kelet-Közép-Európában. [Multilingual Contexts and Communication in Central Eastern Europe] Kolozsvár: MANYE. 167–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Saldanha, G.
    2004 Accounting for the Exception to the Norm: a Study of Split Infinitives in Translated English. Language Matters, Studies in the Languages of Africa35 (1): 39–53. doi: 10.1080/10228190408566203
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10228190408566203 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2008 Explicitation Revisited: Bringing the reader into the picture. Trans-kom1 (1): 20–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Seguinot, C.
    1988 Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis. TTR Traduction, Terminologie, Rédactio1 (2): 106–114. doi: 10.7202/037024ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/037024ar [Google Scholar]
  50. Szepesy, Gy
    1986Nyelvi babonák. [Language Superstitions] Budapest: Gondolat.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
    2004 Unique items – over- or under-represented in translated language?In: Mauranen, A. , Kujamaki, P. (eds), Translation Universals: Do they exist?Amsterdam: Benjamins. 177–186. doi: 10.1075/btl.48.14tir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.14tir [Google Scholar]
  52. Toury, G.
    1995Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2004 Probabilistic explanations in translation studies. In: Mauranen, A. , Kujamaki, P. (eds), Translation Universals: Do they exist?Amsterdam: Benjamins. 15–32. doi: 10.1075/btl.48.03tou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.03tou [Google Scholar]
  54. Tymoczko, M.
    1998 Computerized corpora and the future of Translation Studies. Meta43 (4): 653–659. doi: 10.7202/004515ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/004515ar [Google Scholar]
  55. Vanderauwera, R.
    1985Dutch Novels Translated into English. The Transformation of a Minority Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Vinay, J. P. , Darbelnet, J.
    [1958] 1995Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Weissbrod, R.
    1992 Explicitation in Translations of Prose-Fiction from English to Hebrew: a Function of Norms. Multilingua11 (2): 153–171. doi: 10.1515/mult.1992.11.2.153
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1992.11.2.153 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error