Translation: universals or cognition?

References

1. Arnon, Inbal , and Neil Snider
   2010 “More than Words: Frequency Effects for Multi-Word Phrases.” Journal of Memory and Language62 (1): 67–82. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
2. Baayen, Harald
   2008 Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511801686
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
3. Baker, Mona
   1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.” InText and Technology in Honour of John Sinclair, edited by Mona Baker , Gill Francis , and Elena Tognini-Bonelli , 17–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.64.15bak
   https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
4. Baker, Mona
   1996 “Corpus-Based Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” InTerminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering, in Honour of Juan C. Sager, edited by Harold Somers , 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.18.17bak
   https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
5. Barlow, Michael , and Suzanne Kemmer
   eds. 2000 Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bermel, Neil
   1997 Context and the Lexicon in the Development of Russian Aspect. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Błaszczyk-Szabat, Agnieszka
   2005 “The Relationship between Inherent Aspect and Past Tense in the Early and Late Acquisition of L2 Polish.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics40: 91–110.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Burnham, Kenneth P. , and David R. Anderson
   2002 Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoric Approach. 2nd ed.New York: Springer.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bybee, Joan
   2006 “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language82 (4): 711–733. doi:  10.1353/lan.2006.0186
   https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
10. Bybee, Joan
    2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
11. Comrie, Bernard
    1976 Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Dąbrowska, Ewa , and Dagmar Divjak
    eds. 2015 Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110292022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022 [Google Scholar]
13. Dąbrowska, Ewa
    2015 “Individual Differences in Grammatical Knowledge.” In Dąbrowska and Divjak 2015, 650–667.
    [Google Scholar]
14. De Sutter, Gert , Isabelle Delaere , and Koen Plevoets
    2012 “Lexical Lectometry in Corpus-Based Translation Studies. Combining Profile-Based Correspondence Analysis and Logistic Regression Modeling.” InQuantitative Methods in Translation Studies, edited by Michael Oakes and Meng Ji , 326–346. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/scl.51.13sut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.51.13sut [Google Scholar]
15. Dickey, Stephen M.
    2000 Parameters of Slavic Aspect: A Cognitive Approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Divjak, Dagmar
    2004 Degrees of Verb Integration. Conceptualizing and Categorizing Events in Russian. PhD thesis KU Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Divjak, Dagmar
    2006 “Ways of Intending: Delineating and Structuring Near-Synonyms.” InCorpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, edited by Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch , 19–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Divjak, Dagmar
    2011 “Predicting Aspectual Choice in Modal Constructions: A Quest for the Holy Grail?” inSlavic Linguistics in a Cognitive Framework, edited by Marcin Grygiel and Laura Janda , 67–86. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Divjak, Dagmar , and Catherine Caldwell-Harris
    2015 “Frequency and Entrenchment.” In Dąbrowska and Divjak 2015, 53–74.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Divjak, Dagmar , and Stefan Th. Gries
    2006 “Ways of Trying in Russian. Clustering Behavioral Profiles.” Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2 (1): 23–60
    [Google Scholar]
21. Divjak, Dagmar , and Stefan Th. Gries
    2009 “Corpus-Based Cognitive Semantics: A Contrastive Study of Phasal Verbs in English and Russian.” InStudies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics, edited by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Katarzyna Dziwirek , 273–296. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Divjak, Dagmar , Nina Szymor , and Anna Socha-Michalik
    2015 “Less Is More: Possibility and Necessity as Centres of Gravity in a Usage-Based Classification of Core Modals in Polish.” Russian Linguistics39 (3): 327–349. doi:  10.1007/s11185‑015‑9153‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-015-9153-6 [Google Scholar]
23. Faber, Dorrit , and Mette Hjort-Pedersen
    2009 “Manifestations of Inference Processes in Legal Translation.” InBehind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research (Copenhagen Studies in Language 37), edited by Susanne Göpferich , Arnt Lykke Jakobsen , and Inger M. Mees , 107–124. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Frawley, William
    1984 “Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation.” InTranslation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, edited by William Frawley , 159–175. London: Associated University Presses.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Glynn, Dylam
    2014 “Correspondence Analysis: Exploring Data and Identifying Patterns.” InCorpus Methods for Semantics. Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson , 443–486. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
26. Gries, Stefan Th.
    2006 “Corpus-Based Methods and Cognitive Semantics: The Many Senses of to run .” InCorpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, edited by Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch , 57–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110197709.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.57 [Google Scholar]
27. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Naoki Otani
    2010 “Behavioral Profiles: A Corpus-Based Perspective on Synonymy and Antonymy.” ICAME Journal34: 121–150.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Halverson, Sandra
    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]
29. Halverson, Sandra
    2013 “Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for Translation Studies.” InCognitive Linguistics and Translation. Advanced in Some Theoretical Models and Applications, edited by Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano , 33–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110302943.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.33 [Google Scholar]
30. Hansen, Bjorn
    2004 “Modals and the Boundaries of Grammaticalization: The Case of Russian, Polish and Serbo-Croatian.” InWhat Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from its Fringes and its Components, edited by Walter Bisang , Nikolaus Himmelmann , and Björn Wiemer , 245–271. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hosmer, David W. , and Stanely Lemeshow
    2000 Applied Logistic Regression (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. doi:  10.1002/0471722146
    https://doi.org/10.1002/0471722146 [Google Scholar]
32. House, Juliane
    2008 “Beyond Intervention: Universals in Translation?” Trans-Kom1 (1): 6–19.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Janda, Laura A.
    2004 “A Metaphor in Search of a Source Domain: The Categories of Slavic Aspect.” Cognitive Linguistics15 (4): 471–527. doi:  10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.471
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.471 [Google Scholar]
34. Kaleta, Zofia
    1995 Gramatyka Języka Polskiego dla Cudzoziemców. Kraków: Nakł. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1988 “A Usage-Based Model.” InTopics in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn , 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
36. Lanstyák, István , and Pál Heltai
    2012 “Universals in Language Contact and Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (1): 99–121. doi:  10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6 [Google Scholar]
37. Laviosa, Sara
    2002 Corpus-Based Translation Studies. Theory, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
38. National Corpus of Polish
    National Corpus of Polish. Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. nkjp.pl/
39. Nenadic, Oleg , and Michael Greenacre
    2007 “Correspondence Analysis in R, with Two- and Three-Dimensional Graphics: The ca Package.” Journal of Statistical Software20 (3): 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Nowak, Joanna
    2011 Modalność deontyczna w języku prawa na przykładzie polskiego i hiszpańskiego kodeksu cywilnego. PhD thesis Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Olohan, Maeve
    2001 “Spelling Out the Optionals in Translation: A Corpus Study.” UCREL Technical Papers13: 423–432.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Padučeva, Elena
    2006 “Modality, Negation and Aspect: The Case of the Russian možet and dolžen .” Paper presented at the39th Annual Meeting of the SLE, Bremen.
    [Google Scholar]
43. PELCRA English-Polish Parallel Corpora
    PELCRA English-Polish Parallel Corpora. pelcra.pl/res/parallel/pelcra-par-1/
44. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2010 “Does Frequency in Text Really Instantiate Entrenchment in the Cognitive System?” InQuantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches, edited by Dylan Glynn and Kerstin Fischer , 101–133. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110226423.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.101 [Google Scholar]
45. Šmelev, Alexej , and Anna Zaliznjak
    2006 “Aspect, Modality and Closely Related Categories in Russian.” Unpublished paper. Inaugural meeting of the Slavic Linguistic Society in Bloomington, Indiana, 8–10September 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Snider, Neal , and Inbal Arnon
    2012 “A Unified Lexicon and Grammar? Compositional and Non-compositional Phrases in the Lexicon.” InFrequency Effects in Language Representation, edited by Dagmar Divjak and Stefan Th. Gries , 127–164. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110274073.127
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274073.127 [Google Scholar]
47. Szymor, Nina
    2011 Quality Control in Legal Translation: Translation of EU Legislation into Polish. Unpublished MA thesis University of Sheffield.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Szymor, Nina
    2015 “Behavioral Profiling in Translation Studies.” Trans-kom8(2): 483–498.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Teich, Elke
    2003 Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
50. Vandevoorde, Lore , Gert De Sutter , and Koen Plevoets
    2015 “On Semantic Differences between Translated and Non-Translated Dutch. Using Bidirectional Parallel Corpus Data for Measuring and Visualizing Distances between Lexemes in the Semantic Field of Inceptiveness.” InEmpirical Translation Studies. Interdisciplinary Methodologies Explored, edited by Ji Meng , 128–146. Sheffield: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Venables, William N. , and Brian D. Ripley
    2002 Modern Applied Statistics with S. New York: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑0‑387‑21706‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 [Google Scholar]
52. Więcławska, Edyta
    2014 “On Linguistic Features of Legal Discourse.” Studia Anglica Resoviensia11 (85): 105–115.
    [Google Scholar]