The editor’s invisibility

References

1. Abney, Steven P.
   1987 The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alexiadou, Artemis , Gianina Iordăchioaia , and Florian Schäfer
   2011 “Scaling the Variation in Romance and Germanic Nominalisations.” InThe Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic Structure, Variation and Change, edited by Petra Sleeman and Harry Perridon , 25–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.171.04ale
   https://doi.org/10.1075/la.171.04ale [Google Scholar]
3. Alves, Fabio , Adriana Pagano , Stella Neumann , Erich Steiner , and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
   2010 “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-Based Translation Research.” InTranslation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone , 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ata.xv.07alv
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.07alv [Google Scholar]
4. Andújar, Gemma
   2016 “Traducción entregada frente a traducción publicada: Reflexiones sobre la normalización en traducción editorial a partir de un estudio de caso.” Meta61 (2): 396–420. 10.7202/1037765ar
   https://doi.org/10.7202/1037765ar [Google Scholar]
5. 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.10.1075/btl.18.17bak
   https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
6. Bisaillon, Jocelyne
   2007 “Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors.” Written Communication24 (4): 295–322.10.1177/0741088307305977
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307305977 [Google Scholar]
7. Bisiada, Mario
   2016 “‘Lösen Sie Schachtelsätze möglichst auf’: The Impact of Editorial Guidelines on Sentence Splitting in German Business Article Translations.” Applied Linguistics37 (3): 354–376. 10.1093/applin/amu035
   https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu035 [Google Scholar]
8. Bisiada, Mario
   2017 “Translation and Editing: A Study of Editorial Treatment of Nominalisations in Draft Translations.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice26 (1): 24–38. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1290121
   https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1290121 [Google Scholar]
9. Coleman, Edmund B.
   1964 “The Comprehensibility of Several Grammatical Transformations.” Journal of Applied Psychology48 (3): 186–190.10.1037/h0040440
   https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040440 [Google Scholar]
10. Delaere, Isabelle
    2015 Do Translations Walk the Line? Visually Exploring Translated and Non-Translated Texts in Search of Norm Conformity. PhD diss. Universiteit Gent.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Demske, Ulrike
    2000 “Zur Geschichte der ung-Nominalisierung im Deutschen: Ein Wandel morphologischer Produktivität.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur122 (3): 365–411.10.1515/bgsl.2000.122.3.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/bgsl.2000.122.3.365 [Google Scholar]
12. Doherty, Monika
    1991 “Informationelle Holzwege: Ein Problem der Übersetzungswissenschaft.” Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik21 (84): 30–49.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
    1999 “Information Packaging and Translation: Aspects of Translational Sentence Splitting (German – English/Norwegian).” InSprachspezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung, edited by Monika Doherty , 175–214. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fantinuoli, Claudio , and Federico Zanettin
    2015 “Creating and Using Multilingual Corpora in Translation Studies.” InNew Directions in Corpus-Based Translation Studies, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli and Federico Zanettin , 1–10. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_559833
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_559833 [Google Scholar]
15. Göpferich, Susanne
    1995 Textsorten in Naturwissenschafien und Technik: Pragmatische Typologie – Kontrastierung – Translation. Tübingen: Günter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Gouadec, Daniel
    2007 Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.73
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.73 [Google Scholar]
17. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Halliday, Michael A. K. , and James R. Martin
    1993 Writing Science: Literary and Discursive Power. London: Falmer.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Halliday, Michael A. K. , and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    1999 Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Halliday, Michael A. K. , and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed.London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Hansen, Sandra , and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
    2012 “Grammatical Shifts in English-German Noun Phrases.” InCross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, edited by Silvia Hansen-Schirra , Stella Neumann , and Erich Steiner , 133–145. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110260328.133
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328.133 [Google Scholar]
22. Hansen, Silvia
    2003 The Nature of Translated Text: An Interdisciplinary Methodology for the Investigation of the Specific Properties of Translation. PhD diss.Universität des Saarlandes.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia
    2011 “Between Normalization and Shining-Through: Specific Properties of English – German Translations and their Influence on the Target Language.” InMultilingual Discourse Production: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, edited by Svenja Kranich , Viktor Becher , Steffen Höder , and Juliane House , 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.12.07han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.12.07han [Google Scholar]
24. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia , Sandra Hansen , Sascha Wolfer , and Lars Konieczny
    2009 “Fachkommunikation, Popularisierung, Übersetzung: Empirische Vergleiche am Beispiel der Nominalphrase im Englischen und Deutschen.” Linguistik online39 (3): 109–118.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Harvey, Keith
    2003 “‘Events’ and ‘Horizons’: Reading Ideology in the ‘Bindings’ of Translations.” InApropos of Ideology, edited by María Calzada Pérez , 43–69. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Heyvaert, Liesbet
    2003 “Nominalization as Grammatical Metaphor: On the Need for a Radically Systemic and Metafunctional Approach.” InGrammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Anne-Marie Vandenbergen , Miriam Taverniers , and Louise J. Ravelli , 65–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.236.05hey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.236.05hey [Google Scholar]
27. Houston, Ann
    1989 “The English Gerund: Syntactic Change and Discourse Function.” InLanguage Change and Variation, edited by Ralph W. Fasold and Deborah Schiffrin , 173–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.52.10hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.52.10hou [Google Scholar]
28. Jakobsen, Arnt L.
    1999 “Logging Target Text Production with Translog.” InProbing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, edited by Gyde Hansen , 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Ko, Leong
    2011 “Translation Checking: A View from the Translation Market.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology19 (2): 123–134.10.1080/0907676X.2010.514348
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2010.514348 [Google Scholar]
30. Konšalová, Petra
    2007 “Explicitation as a Universal in Syntactic De/condensation.” Across Languages and Cultures8 (1): 17–32.10.1556/Acr.8.2007.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.8.2007.1.2 [Google Scholar]
31. Krein-Kühle, Monika
    2003 Equivalence in Scientific and Technical Translation: A Text-in-Context-Based Study. PhD diss. University of Salford.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kruger, Haidee
    2012 “A Corpus-Based Study of the Mediation Effect in Translated and Edited Language.” Target24 (2): 355–388.10.1075/target.24.2.07kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.24.2.07kru [Google Scholar]
33. Kunz, Kerstin
    2010 Variation in English and German Nominal Coreference: A Study of Political Essays. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Lassen, Inger
    2003 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals: A Survey of Style and Grammatical Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ddcs.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ddcs.4 [Google Scholar]
35. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
    1996 “English Nominalisations in the Layered Model of the Sentence.” InComplex Structures: A Functionalist Perspective, edited by Betty Devriendt , Louis Goossens , and Johan van der Auwera , 325–355. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110815894.325
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110815894.325 [Google Scholar]
36. Marcus, Mitchell P. , Beatrice Santorini , and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz
    1993 “Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank.” Computational Linguistics19 (2): 313–330.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Mossop, Brian
    2014 Revising and Editing for Translators. 3rd ed.Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315767130
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315767130 [Google Scholar]
38. Müller-Feldmeth, Daniel , Uli Held , Peter Auer , Sandra Hansen-Morath , Silvia Hansen-Schirra , Karin Maksymski , Sascha Wolfer , and Lars Konieczny
    2015 “Investigating Comprehensibility of German Popular Science Writing.” InTranslation and Comprehensibility, edited by Karin Maksymski , Silke Gutermuth , and Silvia Hansen-Schirra , 227–261. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2010 “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” InTranslation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone , 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ata.xv.10mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.10mun [Google Scholar]
40. Neef, Martin
    1999 “A Declarative Approach to Conversion into Verbs in German.” InYearbook of Morphology 1998, edited by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle , 199–224. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3720‑3_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3720-3_9 [Google Scholar]
41. Norberg, Ulf
    2003 Übersetzen mit doppeltem Skopos: Eine empirische Prozess- und Produktstudie. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Palumbo, Giuseppe
    2008 Translating Science: An Empirical Investigation of Grammatical Metaphor as a Source of Difficulty for a Group of Translation Trainees in English – Italian Translation. PhD diss. University of Surrey.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Rasmussen, Kirsten Wølch , and Anne Schjoldager
    2011 “Revising Translations: A Survey of Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies.” The Journal of Specialised Translation11: 87–120.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Ravelli, Louise J.
    1988 “Grammatical Metaphor: An Initial Analysis.” InPragmatics, Discourse and Text: Some Systemically Inspired Approaches, edited by Erich Steiner and Robert Veltman , 135–147. London: Frances Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Rumpeltes, Kerstin
    . In preparation. Microanalysis of Translations of -ing-Clauses as Subjects in the Register ESSAY. PhD diss. University of Saarbrücken.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Rüth, Lisa
    2012 Grammatische Metapher und Common Ground. Master’s diss. Johannes-​Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Saldanha, Gabriela , and Sharon O’Brien
    2013 Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Schiller, Anne , Simone Teufel , Christine Stöckert , and Christine Thielen
    1999 Guidelines für das Tagging deutscher Textcorpora mit STTS. www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/resources/stts-1999.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Schmid, Helmut
    1995 “Improvements in Part-of-Speech Tagging with an Application to German.” Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT-Workshop:1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Shin, Soo-Song
    2006 “On the Event Structure of -ung Nominals in German.” Linguistics39 (2): 297–319.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Steiner, Erich
    2001 “Translations English – German: Investigating the Relative Importance of Systemic Contrasts and of the Text-Type ‘Translation’.” SPRIKreports7:1–48.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Steiner, Erich
    2004 “Ideational Grammatical Metaphor: Exploring Some Implications for the Overall Model.” Languages in Contrast4 (1): 137–164.10.1075/lic.4.1.07ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.4.1.07ste [Google Scholar]
53. Taverniers, Miriam
    2003 “Grammatical Metaphor in SFL: A Historiography of the Introduction and Initial Study of the Concept.” InGrammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Anne-Marie Vandenbergen , Miriam Taverniers , and Louise J. Ravelli , 5–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.236.02tav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.236.02tav [Google Scholar]
54. Teich, Elke
    2003 Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
55. Utka, Andrius
    2004 “Phases of Translation Corpus: Compilation and Analysis.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9 (2): 195–224.10.1075/ijcl.9.2.03utk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.2.03utk [Google Scholar]