BABEȘ-BOLYAI UNIVERSITY, CLUJ -NAPOCA FACULTY OF LETTERS DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE Dynamics of meaning in specialized… [617069]

BABEȘ-BOLYAI UNIVERSITY, CLUJ -NAPOCA

FACULTY OF LETTERS

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

Dynamics of meaning in specialized translation:
A case study of noun clusters

PhD Thesis

PhD Candidate: Adrian -Paul MOVILEANU

Advi sor: Ștefan OLTEAN, PhD

July 2013

Table of contents

Table of contents …………………………………………………………………………………..1
Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………..5
Tables ………………………………………………………………………………………………6
1. Introduction and organization ………………………………………………… ………………..7
2. Translational notions …………………………………………………………………………..11
2.1. Translation as a general concept …………………………………………………………….11
2.2. Definitions ……………………………………………………………………………………12
2.2.1. Roman Jakobson: interpretation of verbal signs …………………………………………..1 3
2.2.2. Roger Bell: equivalence ……………………………………………………………………13
2.2.3. Eugene Nida and Charles R. Taber: message, meaning and relative equivalence ………..14
2.2.4. Katharina Reiss and Hans Vermeer: purpose and situation ……………………………….15
2.2.5. André Lefevere: ov ertones …………………………………………………………………16
2.3. Theories ………………………………………………………………………………………16
2.3.1. Linguistic theories …………………………………………………………………………17
a. Equivalence ……………………………………………………………………………………17
b. Translation strategies, procedures and shifts ………………………………… ……………….18
2.3.2. Pragmatic theories …………………………………………………………………………19
a. Text analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………19
b. Functionalist and communicative approaches …………………………………………………20
2.3.3. Sociocultural theories ………………………………………………………………………21
a. Poly system theory and Descriptive translation studies (DTS) …………………………………21
b. Invisibility, resistance and postcolonial approaches …………………………………………..23

c. The semiotic approach …………………………………………………………………………24
2.4. Semantic aspects in current translation theor ies…………………………………………….25
2.4.1. Linguistic theories …………………………………………………………………………25
a. Eugene Nida ……………………………………………………………………………………25
b. Peter Newmark …………………………………………………………………………………30
c. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………..35
2.4.2. Pragmatic theor ies………………………………………………………………………… 36
a. Hans Vermeer‟s skopos theory …………………………………………………………………36
b. Katharina Reiss‟s text types ……………………………………………………………………38
c. Terminology and terms ………………………………………………………………………..40
d. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………… …….42
2.4.3. Sociocultural theories ……………………………………………………………………..43
a. Gideon Toury‟s norms …………………………………………………………………………43
b. Itamar Even -Zohar‟s polysystem ………………………………………………………………45
c. Resistance versus invisibility ………………………………………………………………….46
d. Conclusio n…………………………………………………………………………………….46
3. Semantic notions ………………………………………………………………………………48
3.1. Meaning and the semantics of nouns ………………………………………………………..48
3.1.1. Leibniz and the distinction between use and mention …………………………………….49
3.1.2. Mill, direct refere nce, denotation and connotation ………………………………………..49
3.1.3. Frege and the distinction between sense and reference ……………………………………50
3.1.4. Russell and descriptions ……………………………………………………………………51
3.1.5. Kripke and naming …………………………………………………………………………51
3.2. Co mpositionality …………………………………………………………………………….52
3.3. Coherence ……………………………………………………………………………………56

3.4. Use …………………………………………………………………………………………..58
3.5. Research on noun clusters …………………………………………………………………..59
3.5.1. General considerations on complex nominals …… ……………………………………….60
3.5.2. Lexicalized noun phrases ………………………………………………………………….63
3.5.3. A compositional model for deconstructing long noun phrases ……………………………66
3.5.4. Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge ……………………………………………..69
3.5.5. Cognitive aspects o f the use of noun phrases in LSP ……………………………………..71
4. Specialized translation and instruction manuals ………………………………………………74
4.1. Definitions of specialized translation ……………………………………………………….74
4.2. Features of specialized translation …………………………………………………………..75
4.3. Specialized discourse ………………………………………………………………………..75
4.4. Features of specialized discourse ……………………………………………………………77
4.4.1. Linguistic features …………………………………………………………………………77
a. Terminology …………………………………………………………………………………… 78
b. Phraseology …………………………… ………………………………………………………81
c. Style and register ………………………………………………………………………………82
4.4.2. Pragmatic features …………………………………………………………………………83
a. Text type and variety/genre ……………………………………………………………………83
b. Function ……………………………………………………………………………………….84
c. Audience ……… ………………………………………………………………………………84
4.4.3. Sociocultural features ……………………………………………………………………..85
a. Polysystem and norms …………………………………………………………………………85
b. Sociocultural connotations …………………………………………………………………….86
4.5. Instruction manuals …………………………………………………………………… …….87
4.5.1. Text genres as a theoretical notion …………………………………………………………87

4.5.2. Features of instruction manuals ……………………………………………………………89
4.6. The corpus ………………………………………………………………………………….103
5. A case study of English noun clusters and their translation i nto Romania n…………………108
5.1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………108
5.2. Goals ……………………………………………………………………………………….110
5.2.1. Lexical structure ………………………………………………………………………….110
5.2.2. Coherence relations ………………………………………………………………………114
5.2.3. Use and tr anslation ……………………………………………………………………….117
5.3. Results and discussion ……………………………………………………………………..119
5.3.1. Lexical structure …………………………………………………………………………119
5.3.2. Coherence relations ………………………………………………………………………143
5.3.3. Use and translation …………………………………………… ………………………….161
6. Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………..176
6.1. Theoretical conclusions ……………………………………………………………………176
6.2. Practical conclusions ……………………………………………………………………….179
Appendix: List of noun clusters …………………………………………………………………185
References… ……………………………………………………………………………….. …..190

Keywords

translation, specialized translation, specialized text genres, translation theory, specialized
translation theory, instruction manuals, instruction manual translation, noun clusters, complex
noun phrases, large nominal groups, complex nominals, specialized terminology, specialized
collocations, LSP translation, meaning in translation, semantic theory of translation, translation
model

Summary

The purpose of this doctoral thesis is to present and analyze some meaning -related aspects of
translation th eory and practice. It presents some major tran slation theories from the perspective
of the notion of meaning, it then defines and describes specialized translation as a type of
translation, and finally it iden tifies a specialized text genre (English instruction manuals) and,
from this genre, a translation issue (noun clusters), which will be analyzed with the help of some
specific semantic notions.
In writing this thesis I leave from the assumption that semant ics, and linguistics in general, can
be used more systematically in translation studies to advance the understanding of the complex
phenomena involved in any translational process . The fact that semantics and translation can
help each other should be obvio us: both disciplines have to do with texts, both disciplines have
to do with linguistic meaning, both disciplines have to do with the production, interpretation and
comprehension of textual meaning. The similarities go even further. Roman Jakobson, in a
known essay on translation, has shown that, at the most abstract level, semantics and translation
are virtually the same thing, for each of them can be thought of as a three -type transfer:
intralingual (semantics proper), interlingual (translation proper), i ntersemiotic (for instance,
picture to text) (Jakobson 1992: 145). It seems natural under the circumstances to think that
semantics and translation studies should have a lot in common and should help one another.
Unfortunately, this is hardly the case. The re was a time around the middle of the twentieth
century when linguistic theories were in fashion where translation is concerned, but that time has
long since passed, leaving place to other approaches, more culturally or more pragmatically
oriented. This s ituation is presented, and decried a little, by Henry Schogt, who states that “there
is little positive interaction between the two” (Schogt 1992: 193). There is a mutual distrust
between semanticists and linguists, on the one hand, and transla tors on the other: the former
think translation studies is purely empirical, barely worth of being called a scientific discipline,
and the latter think that present day semantics is a bunch of theoretical concepts with no
relevance to actual t ranslation work. It is my opinion that both disciplines would stand to gain
from a closer r elationship.

Although I present and use some semantic and linguistic notions in this paper, the point of view
remains that of the translator. In other words, if I were to name the scientifi c discipline to which
this paper belongs, I would say that is translation studies. This thesis has been written by a
translator and is addressed mainly to translators. Semantic and linguistic notions are introduced
and used only as working instruments, ins ofar as they are considered useful tools for the analysis
of a translational issue. The topic analyzed relates to translation, the field is translation studies,
the perspective is that of the translator.
My work as a translator was essential in the writing of the thesis . I have translated from and to
Romanian, English, and French a number of tex ts in academic and professional environments in
the past ten years. Th is work experience has given me the opportunity to link theory and practice
in two ways. When I learn about a translation issue in a translation theory course or book, I try to
capture it in the actual daily practice of translation. The reverse is also true: when I notice some
recurrent issues in the translations assigned to me, I try to see if thes e have already been
discussed by other authors or, as I have done in this thesis, I try to analyze them myself. This
ensures that the thesis is both novel and relevant.
My experience in the translation of technical documents from English into Romanian has been of
the utmost importance. Most of these technical documents are instruction manuals, which have
provided me with the practical issue of this thesis – noun clusters. The theory of specialized
discourse and translation is clear in this respect: nominal ization is a very important characteristic
of specialized texts (Newmark 1995: 151). As a tr anslator, I felt that noun clusters provide a
good opportunity to put meaning -related linguistic notions to work.
Something should be said of the methodology used in this thesis. Translation is such a complex
phenomenon that you can hardly analyze it without first establishing a theoretical framework for
the analysis. An effective method would be to consider three levels for analysis:
the linguistic level;
The lingu istic level is the level of the text itself, with all connected te xtual operations. Work at
this level requires reading the original, analyzing syntactic and semantic relations, using the
memory of past linguistic events, consulting dictionaries, glossarie s, background and parallel
texts, writing and revising the translation, etc. The linguistic level is the most conspicuous level

in any translational operation and it is also at this level that the translator usually spends m ost of
his time .
the pragmatic level;
The pragmatic level is about the context or situation in which translation takes place. Any text is
born in a certain context, which is why an analysis of translation is bound to consider factors
such a s the identity, background, intentions of the a uthor, background of the original (text type,
function, purpose, adherence to canons and trends), identity, background, intentions of the
translator, economic factors (payment), contractual factors (deadline, stipulatio n of terminology),
etc. Such factors can thus be grouped under the headline pragmatic .
the sociocultural level.
The sociocultural level is present in any translation , and it requires dealing with factors such as
ideology, social, cultural, and political trends, ulterior motives, propaganda, philosophical issues,
etc. T he sociocultural level is about integrating the meaning of the original and that of the
translation in to the global network of meaning that underlies all cultures and societies, that
underlies hi story itself. Analyzing the socio cultural aspe cts of translation requires know ing many
things about the world and being able to make connections between events and knowledge that
seem unconnected.
One remark about this three -level classification is that it is a matter of focus. Some issu es are
more clearly linguistic in nature, others are pragmatic, and yet others are sociocultural. This
doesn‟t mean however that there is a neat separation between the three categories. Linguistic
issues also have some pragmatic traces in them, pragmatic i ssues relate quite naturally to
sociocultural issues. The classification only works in the context of its analytical goal.
Having presented my motive s for writing this thesis, I continue with presenting its organizational
structure. T he introd uctory chapte r is followed by the second chapter, entitled “Transl ational
notions”. This chapter presents translation theory: I first give some definitions of translation,
then I present theories that I consider significant for present day translation studies. In the l ast
section of the chapter, I adopt a semantic perspective towards some of these theories, that is to
say, I look into how they incorporate and deal with the notion of meaning. The goal of the
chapter is to assist the read er in understanding the field of translation studies, in grasping some

basic notions on translation, and in becoming aware of some of the drawbacks that I think
current translation theory has.
The definitions of translation given in this chapter belong to Roman Jakobson, who divides
trans lation into three categories (intralingual, interlingual, intersemiotic), Roger Bell, who
focuses on the notion of equivalence, Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, who emphasize the notion
of meaning as message and speak about relative equivalence, Katharina Re iss and Hans
Vermeer, who are concerned with the purpose of translation and the situation in which
translation takes place, and André Lefever e, who is more interested in “the cultural, ideological
and poetological overtones” (Lefevere 1990: 18) of texts an d their translations.
Based on these definitions, I then present some of the most important translation theories and
notions . In the category of linguistic approaches, I present the notion of equivalence, translation
strategies, procedures, and shifts. In the category of pr agmatic approaches, I present text
analysis, functionalist and communicative approaches. In the category of sociocultural theories, I
present polysystem theory and descriptive translation studies, the binary notions of
invisibility/resist ance and postcolonial approaches, the semiotic approach.
In the last section of this chapter, to further develop the analysis of translation theory, the focus
shifts to its semantic aspects. The aim is to analyze how some scholars use the notion of meaning
in their approaches to translation. The hypothesis is that these approaches use more or less
overtly the notion of meaning, which can be considered the essence of the translation process. I
try to show that a distinction similar to John Stuart Mill ‟s deno tation/connotation or Gottlob
Frege ‟s sense/reference distinction, which will be presented in the next chapter, is present
implicitly or explicitly in what I consider the most representative translation theories.
Linguistic theories are the ones where the use of the notion of meaning is more explicit. Meaning
is fundamentally a linguistic notion. I analyze two well -known linguistic approaches: Eugene
Nida ‟s and Peter Newmark ‟s. The two translation models analyzed here are based on, or at least
imply, a the ory of meaning. Whereas Eugene Nida has a more explicit semantic approach to
translation, Peter Newmark ‟s semantic perspective is rather implicit. Many of the notions they
present can be regarded from the perspective of meaning. They both see two levels in meaning.
They both claim that there is a cognitive, objective component in meaning (the denotational,

referential level), and there is a more personal, subjective component, which Nida and Newmark
call connotations .
In the category of pragmatic theories, the focus is on three pragmatic concepts: Hans Vermeer
skopos , Katharina Reiss ‟s text type , and the notion of terminology and specialized term . My goal
is to show that even such pragmatic notions are based, at a more or less implicit level, on the
notion o f meaning. It is clear that, at least as far as translation is concerned, semantics and
pragmatics cannot be separated. Translation studies has to adopt a unifying perspective, one
which includes the relation between words and things and the relation betw een words and
situations/users. This is possible if we consider that the situation in which meaning is produced
and comprehended is an integral part of meaning.
The theories that focus on the sociocultural aspects of translation can also be analyzed from a
broad semantic perspective. The relationship between language and society/culture has been
quite extensively studied. Where translation is concerned, this relationship can be described as a
mutual influence:
Language helps to build society and culture;
Social and cultural trends affect language.
Something similar has been suggested by many, among which I can quote Edward Sapir: “in the
sense that the vocabulary of a language more or less faithfully reflects the culture whose
purposes it serves it is perf ectly true that the history of language and the history of culture move
along parallel lines” (Sapir 1921). There is undoubtedly a close connection between language,
culture and society. A general approach to translation must take into account the social a nd
cultural aspects of meaning. The sociocultural theories analyzed are Gideon Toury‟s norms ,
Itamar Even -Zohar‟s polysystem , Lawrence Venuti‟s resistance/invisibility dichotomy.
Sociocultural theories of translation deal with the notion of meaning at a mo re general level.
People construct texts based on certain beliefs and assumptions they hold to be correct about the
world. Texts are therefore the deposits and carriers of a community‟s spirit. Translations
inevitably change the configuration of meaning in the target culture, i.e. they change the target
culture itself. The words we hear and read shape our minds and lives.
The third chapter, “Semantic notions”, contains a presentation of the semantic notions which will
be used in the case study in chapter 5 . It is a general presentation mainly addressed to translators.

The notions are presented from a translator‟s point of view. I leave from the assumption that
semantic notions can be used to get a better understanding of translation and that translation
studies only stands to gain from a more meaning -oriented perspective. The semantic notions
which will be used in the case study are: meaning and the semantics of nouns, compositionality,
coherence, use. The choice is not random. I have selected the semantic n otions which I think can
be helpful in the analysis of noun cluster translation. It should be noted that I am going beyond
the territory of what is usually considered, from an academic point of view, semantics. For
instance, I am presenting the notion of u se, which, in a strict classification, is the fundamental
notion in pragmatics. The same goes for coherence, a notion used chiefly in discourse analysis. I
am taking semantics in a broad sense, which allows me to deal with pragmatic, syntactic, and
cultura l issues as well.
The chapter ends with a presentation of some research done on noun clusters and it should
constitute a point of departure in the understanding of noun clusters and the role they play in
specialized discourse. It contains research that I deem particularly relevant to the subject of my
thesis. The authors presented come from various fields and theoretical backgrounds, a fact which
can be easily noticed in their contributions. This is natural, given that noun clusters are a subject
of intere st in many fields ranging from semantics, translation studies, terminology studies,
computational linguistics, to language for specialized purposes (LSP), lexicology, information
retrieval, ontology, artificial intelligence, etc. The authors presented are: Bertha Leiva de
Izquierdo and Dan Bailey, who addresses the issue of complex noun phrases and nominals from
the perspective of teachers and students in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or English as a
Second Language (ESL) programmes, Carol Jean Godby, who addresses in her PhD thesis the
issue of English lexicalized noun phrases , which she defines as “multi -word phrases that can
function as the subject or object of a sentence and have been collected and defined in
dictionaries” (Godby 2002: 1), Ralph Gr ishman, who is interested in “domain modeling for
language analysis” (Grishman 1988: 1), Greg Myers, who is concerned with how lexical
cohesion contributes greatly to the formation of specialized discourse and knowledge, Henrik
Høeg Müller, who adopts a cognitive point of view in a study of how nominal constructions are
used in languages for specific purposes (LSP) .

The fourth chapter, entitled “Specialized translation and instruction manuals”, narrows the scope
of the research . It takes a closer view at a kind of translation, specialized translation, and a
particular text genre, instruction manuals, and thus prepares the ground for the practical chapter
and the application it contains: a semantic analysis of English noun clusters and their translation
into Romanian.
Because noun clusters occur in specialized discourse, something has to be said of the kind of
translation that deals with specialized texts – specialized translation. A particularly fruitful way
of analysing and classifying translation is by sou rce text topic (or domain or field).
Consequently, specialized translation is the translation of texts belonging to “specialist subject
fields falling under non -literary translation, the best known of which include science and
technology, economics, market ing, law, politics, medicine and mass media” (Gotti & Šarčević
2006: 9). Specialized translation may also be encountered under the name of technical
translation , which is defined by Sue Ellen and Leland Wright as “the translation of special
language texts, i.e., texts written using Languages for Special Purposes (LSP)” (1993: 1).
Specialized translation can be “distinguished from other forms of translation by terminology”
(Newmark 1995: 151), by grammatical features – “for English, passives, nominalisations , third
persons, empty verbs, present tenses” (p. 151) – by characteristic formats such as technical
reports, instruction manuals, notices, publicity, etc., and by its typical lack of “emotive language,
connotations, sound -effects and original metaphor” (p . 151). It can be asserted that specialized
translation is a form of translation whose main characteristics are given by the specialized nature
of the texts to be translated.
Because the specificity of specialized translation lies in the specialized charac ter of the texts to
be translated, presenting the features of specialized translation is equivalent to presenting the
features of specialized discourse. These features are linguistic: terminology, phraseology, style,
register; pragmatic: text type and vari ety, text function, audience; sociocultural: polysystem,
norms, sociocultural assumptions.
Because all the examples of noun clusters come from the text genre called instruction manuals ,
something should be said of it as well. One of the most frequent speci alized text genres of today
is instruction manuals , a term into whose sphere I include any kind of technical or user
documentation, from the smallest to the largest. I give a short presentation of the role text genres

play in specialized communication and then I analyze instruction manuals based on Anthony
Pym‟s framework of genre analysis, which looks at seven features of a ny genre:
a. a communicative function, often indicated by the operative verbs, giving the text a “rhetorical
purpose”
b. a common len gth
c. a macrostructure (functions and sub -functions)
d. a similar discursive mode of developing the macrostructure (narrative, descriptive, imperative,
optative), often indicated by the use of personal pronouns
e. a common lexical and syntactic arrange ment of the material and a common set of functional
units and formal features, e.g. in statutes and other legislative texts, the abundant use of
indefinite pronouns, passives and impersonal forms of the verb
f. common socio -pragmatic conventions, e.g. the hierarchical structure of forms of address
g. common lexical items. (Pym)
This chapter ends with a presentation of the corpus used for this thesis, which is bilingual –
English and Romanian – and contains English instruction manuals together with their R omanian
translations. I had access to these translations because I use a piece of translation software called
translation memory , which is a sort of database in which translations are memorized on a
segment by segment basis. From a quantitative perspective , I used 20 such bilingual tra nslation
memories, totalizing 3381 845 words/tokens, including repetitions and numbe rs, for the English
text, and 3472 770, including repetitions and numbers, for the Romanian text. Given that these
numbers include repetitions a nd numbers, the actual number is much smaller. The English part of
the corpus has a type -token ratio of 0.008 (0.8%), while the Romanian corpus has a type -token
ratio of 0.011 (1.1%). The extremely low type -token ratios are typical for specialized discours e,
and show how standardized and repetitive these documents are. Although the corpus contains
lots of occurrences in both English and Romanian, the distinct lexical items that are used are
actually very few. For the case study, I also used a concordancer, which is a “a piece of software,
either installed on a computer or accessed through a website, which can be used to search, access

and analyze language from a corpus. They can be particularly useful in exploring the
relationships between words and can give us very accurate information about the way language
is authentically used” (Peachey 2005). I used AntConc, a concordancer that can be downloaded
free of charge from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html and is the work of
Laurence Anthony, prof essor at Waseda University of Japan.
Finally, the fifth chapter, entitled “A case study of English noun clusters and their translation
into Romanian”, deals with a practical issue from the translation of instruction manuals from
English into Romanian – noun clusters – which it analyzes with the help of the semantic notions
proposed in chapter 3. The purpose of this chapter is to use several semantic notions in the
analysis of a translation issue and to show that such semantic notions are relevant to the pra ctice
and theory of translation. I selected an issue worthy of investigation from the translation of
English instruction manuals, and then I identified several semantic notions which can be used to
get a better understanding of this translation issue. The issue is the Romanian translation of
English large nominal groups, referred to as noun clusters . The semantic notions that I used are
compositionality , specialized terminology and collocations , coherence relations , context of use . I
used these notions in a n analysis of noun clusters to cast light on their structure, on how they are
formed, on how they are used and translated. The case study is divided into 3 sections: goals,
results and discussions, conclusions.
The structure of noun clusters is a matter of compositionality . Because of their specialized
character, the elements forming noun clusters can be analyzed through notions like specialized
terms and collocations . The meaning of a noun cluster can be thought of as a coherent
combination of the meanings of its constituents. In other words, one must look for a pattern of
coherence or a coherence relation between the elements of that noun cluster. Also, from a more
pragmatic perspective, the use of noun clusters is connected to certain contexts and their
translation displays certai n characteristics.
The general objective of this case study was to show that noun clusters are a specific case of
linguistic compositionality – a specialized type of compositionality – in that their meaning can be
derived from th e meaning of their constituents, many of which are specialized formations like
terms and field -specific collocations, and also a particular type of abbreviation – a specialized
type of abbreviation – in that their surface structure contains in a compact nominal form the

meaning that, at a more fundamental level, is contained in a clausal form. These are significant
characteristics with regard to translation. To reach this overall objective, I divided it into three
categories of goals, having to do with:
lexical structure
coherence relations
use and translation.
In the last chapter of the thesis, entitled “Conclusions”, I draw the necessary conclusions, which
can be divided into two categories – theoretical and practical. Theoretical conclusions concern
translation theory, with a focus on specialized translation. They also bear on the relationship
between translation studies and linguistics, semantics in particular. Practical conclusions are
concerned with issues, methods, and strategies in the translation of instruction manuals from
English into Romanian, and particularly in the translation of noun clusters.

References

“Compositionality”. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compositionality/ >.
“Seat belt pretensioner ”. <http://trucks.about.com/od/glossarys/g/pretensioner.htm >.
“Translation of manuals”. < http://www.scriba.ee/translation -agency/translation -of-
manuals.html >.
Aaronson, Steve (1977). “Style in Scientific Writing”. In Essays of an Information Scientist . Vol.
3, pp. 4 -13. < http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p004y1977 -78.pdf >.
Abdullah, Nabil and Richard A. Frost (2005). “Adjectives: A Uniform Semantic Approach”. In
B. Kégl and G. Lapalme (eds.). AI. 330 -341.
<http://cs.uwindsor.ca/~richard/PUBLI CATIONS/AI_05.pdf >.
Acronym Finder . < http://www.acronymfinder.com/ >.
Allan, Keith (2007). “The Pragmatics of Connotation”. In Journal of Pragmatics , 39, pp. 1047 –
1057 . <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Angelone, Erik (2007). Theory of Translation and Interpreting : Week 5 . Lecture at Kent State
University.
Angelone, Erik (2007). Theory of Translation and Interpreting : Week 3 . Lecture at Kent State
University.
Angelone, Erik (2007). Theory of Translation and Interpreting : Week 6 . Lecture at Kent State
University.
Anthony, Lawrence (2012). AntConc . < http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html >.
Austin, John L. (1975). How To Do Things with Words . 2nd ed. Cambridge (MA): Harvard
University Press.
Bach, Kent. “Ambiguity”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
< http://online.sfsu.edu/kbach/ambguity.html >.

Bell, Roger T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice . London and New
York: Longman.
Best, Steve. “The „Culture Turn‟ in Marxist Theory ”.
<http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/TheCulturalTurnInM arxist.htm>.
Brownlie, Siobhan (2003). “Berman and Toury: The Translating and Translatability of Research
Frameworks”. In TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction , vol. 16, no. 1, p. 93 -120.
Cabré, Maria Teresa (1999 [1992]). Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications . Juan C.
Sager (ed.). Janet Ann DeCesaris (trans.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary . Personal software.
Căpățână, Cecilia (2007). Elemente de frazeologie . Craiova: Edi tura Universitaria.
Chalmers, David J. (2002). “On Sense and Intension”. In J. Tomberlin (ed.). Philosophical
Perspectives 16: Language and Mind , Blackwell, pp. 135 -82.
<http://consc.net/papers/intension.html >.
Chandler, Daniel (2002). Semiotics: The Basi cs. London: Routledge.
Chapman, Siobhan (2000). Philosophy for Linguists: An Introduction . London and New York:
Routledge.
Chierchia, Gennaro, and Sally McConnell -Ginet (1990). Meaning and grammar: An Introduction
to semantics . Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.
Cordonnier, Jean -Louis (1995). Traduction et culture . Didier.
De Beaugrande, Robert -Alain and Wolfgang Dressler (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics .
London: Longman.
Delisle, Jean, Hannelore Lee -Jahnke, Monique C. Cormier (eds.) (1999). Terminologie de la
traduction . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company .
Downing, Pamela (1977). “On the creation and use of English compound nouns”. In Language .
53, pp. 810 -842.
Dummett, Michael (1991). Frege and Other Philosophers . Oxf ord: Clarendon Press.

Eco, Umbert o and Siri Nergaard (2001 [1998] ). “Semiotic Approaches”. In Mona Baker (ed.).
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies . London and New York: Routledge.
Even -Zohar, Itamar (2010). “The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary
Polysystem ”. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader . New York and
London: Routledge.
Fischbach, Henry (1993). “Translation, the Great Pollinator of Science: A Brief Flashback on
Medical Translation”. In Sue Ellen Wrig ht and Leland D. Wright Jr. (eds.). Scientific and
Technical Translation . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company .
Forăscu, Narcisa (2002). “Articol”. < http://ebooks.unibuc.ro/filologie/NForascu –
DGLR/articol.htm >.
Foucault, Michel (1 969). L'archéologie du savoir . Paris: Gallimard.
Frege, G. (1892). “ Über Sinn und Bedeutung ”. In Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische
Kritik , 100, 25-50. < http://www.gavagai.de/HHP31.htm >.
Frege, Gottlob (1993). “On sense and reference ” (Max Blac k, trans.). In A.W. Moore (e d.),
Meaning and Reference (pp. 23 -42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted from
Peter Geach and Max Black (e ds.). Translations from the Philosophical Writings of
Gottlob Frege , 1952, Oxford: Blackwell , 56-78.
Gerzymisch -Arbogast , Heidrun (1993). “ Contrastive Scientific and Technical Register as a
Translation Problem ”. In Sue Ellen Wright and Leland D. Wright Jr. (eds.). Scientific and
Technical Translation . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company .
Gledhill, C hristopher J. (2000). Collocations in Science Writing . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Godby, Carol Jean (2002). A computational study of lexicalized noun phrases in English .
Doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University.
<http://linguistics.osu. edu/files/linguistics/dissertations/Godby2002.pdf >.
Google. <www.google.ro>.

Gotti, Maurizio and Susan Šarčević (2006). Insights into Specialized Translation . Bern: Peter
Lang.
Grishman, Ralph (1988). “Domain modeling for language analysis”. Prepared for t he 1988
Duisburg Symposium “Linguistic Approaches to Artificial Intelligence”, Universitat
Duisburg, March 23-26, 1988 . < http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a203444.pdf >.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean . London: Arnold.
Hallid ay, M. A . K., and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976 ). Cohesion in English . London: Longman.
Hatim, Basil and Jeremy Munday (2004). Translation: An Advanced Resource Book . London and
New York: Routledge.
Herman, Mark (1993). “ Technical Translation Style: Clarity, Concision, Corr ectness ”. In Sue
Ellen Wright and Leland D. Wright Jr. (eds.). Scientific and Technical Translation .
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company .
Heuboeck , Alois (2009 ). “Some Aspects of Coherence, Genre and Rhetorical Structure – and
Their Integration in a Generic Model of Text”.
< http://www.reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ll/app_ling/internal/Heuboeck_(revised2).pdf >.
Ionescu, Emil (2001). Manual de lingvistică generală , Ed. 3. Bucure ști: Bic All.
ISO 704:2000 (E). Terminology Work: Principles and Methods .
Izquierdo, Bertha Leiva de and Dan Bailey (1998). “Complex noun phrases and complex
nominals: Some practical considerations”. In TESL Reporter 31,1, pp. 19 -29.
<https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/TESL/article/viewFile/3626/3400 >.
Jakobson, Roman (1992 [1959]). “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”. In Rainer Schulte and
John Biguenet (eds.). Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from D ryden to
Derrida . Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Ladmiral, Jean -René (1994). Traduire: théorèmes pour la traduction . Paris: Gallimard.
“Learning Instrumentation and Control Engineering ”. <
http://instrumenttoolbox.blogspot.ro/2011/06/ how-pressure -switch -works.html >.

Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations . IJAL Publication 12, Indiana
University, Bloomington, Ind., and The Hague: Mouton.
Lefevere, André (1990). “Translation: Its Genealogy in the West”. In Susan Bassn ett and André
Lefevere (eds.). Translation, History and Culture . London and New York: Pinter
Publishers.
Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals . New York: Academic Press.
Limaye, M. and R. Pompian (1991). “Brevity versus clarity: The comprehensibility of nominal
compounds in business and technical prose”. In Journal of Business Communications , 28
(1).
Macmillan Dictionary . <http://www.macmillandictionary.com>.
Marchand, Hans (1969). Categories and Types of Present -day English Wo rd Formation .
Munich: C.H. Beck‟sche Verlagsbuchhandllung.
Matthews, Janice R. and Robert W. Matthews (2007). Successful Scientific Writing: A Step -by-
Step Guide for the Biological and Medical Sciences . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Movileanu, Pau l (2011). “Issues of Voice for the CAT -Assisted Translator”. In International
Review of Studies in Applied Modern Languages , 4, Cluj -Napoca, pp. 155 -167. <
http://lett.ubbcluj.ro/rielma/RIELMA_no4_2011.pdf >.
Movileanu, Paul (2012). “The Translation of Inst ruction Manuals as Sociocultural Change”. In
International Review of Studies in Applied Modern Languages , 5, Cluj -Napoca, pp. 70 -80.
<http://lett.ubbcluj.ro/rielma/RIELMA_no5_2012.pdf >.
Müller, Henrik Høeg (2000). “Noun phrases in specialized communication . The cognitive
processing of the Danish s -genitive construction”. In Language, text, and knowledge:
mental models of expert communication , Lundquist, Lita and Robert J. Jarvella (eds.).
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. < http://books.google.ro >.
Munteanu, Sonia Carmen (2011). English for Science and Technology: Technical texts for
academic purposes . PhD thesis. Babes -Bolyai University, Faculty of Letters, Cluj -Napoca.

Murphy, Gregory (1988). “Comprehending complex concepts”. In Cognitive Science . 12, pp.
529-562.
Myers, Greg (1991). “Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular
science texts”. In Discourse Processes , 14, pp. 1 -26.
<http://staff.washington.edu/junxu/ENGL_281B/documents/91_Lexical%20Cohesion%20
and%20Specialized.pdf >.
Neubert, Albrecht and Gregory M. Shreve (1992). Translation as Text . Kent (Ohio) and London:
The Kent State University Press.
Newmark, Peter (1995 [1988]). A Textbook of Translation . Hemel Hempstead (UK): Phoenix
ELT.
Nguyen, Mai Linh (2010). Noun -Noun Combinations in Technical English . MA Thesis.
< http://sutir.sut.ac.th:8080/sutir/bitstream/123456789/3713/2/Fulltext.pdf >.
Nida, Eugene A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating . Leiden (NL): E.J. Brill.
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber (1982 [1969] ). The Theory and Practice of Translation .
Leiden (NL): E.J. Brill.
Online Etymology Dictionary . < http://www.etymonline.com/ >.
Oxford Dictionaries . <http://oxforddictionaries.com/ >.
Pagin, Peter and Westerståhl, Dag (2008). Compositionality .
<http://peopl e.su.se/~ppagin/papers/DWPP7.pdf >.
Partee, Barbara H., Alice G. B. ter Meulen and Robert E. Wall (1990). Mathematical Methods in
Linguistics . Dordrecht (NL): Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Paz, Octavio (1992 [1971]). “Translation: Literature and Letters”. Irene del Corral (trans.) . In
Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet (eds.). Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays
from Dryden to Derrida . Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Peachey, Nik (2005). “Concordancers in ELT”.
<http://www.teachi ngenglish.org.uk/articles/concordancers -elt>.

Peirce, Charles Sanders (1931). The collected papers vol. I: Principles of philosophy .
<http://www.textlog.de/peirce_principles.html >.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (1998). The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophica l Writings . Vol. 2.
The Peirce Edition Project (ed.). Bloomington (USA): Indiana University Press.
Price, Bruce D. (1974). “Noun overuse phenomenon article”. The Language Quarterly , 2(4).
Pym, Anthony . “Text Genres in English”.
<http://isg.urv.es/socioling uistics/genres/textandgenre.doc >.
Reiss , Katharina (2010). “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in
Translation ”. Trans. Susan Kitron. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies
Reader . New York and London: Routledge.
Ricœur, Paul (2004). Sur la traduction . Paris: Bayard.
Robinson, Douglas (1997). Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theories Explained .
Manchester (UK): St. Jerome.
Sapir, Edward (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt,
Brace. < www.bartleby.com/186/ >.
Schäffner, Christina (2001 [1998]). “Action (Theory of „Translatorial Action‟)”. In Mona Baker
(ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies . London and New York: Routledge.
Schäffner, Christina (2001 [1998]). “Skopos Theory”. In Mona Baker (ed.). Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies . London and New York: Routledge.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1992 [1938]). “On the Different Methods of Translating”. Waltraud
Bartscht (trans.) . In Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet (eds.). Theories of Translation: An
Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida . Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Schmitz, Klaus -Dirk and Sue Ellen Wright (forthcoming). Computer Assisted Terminology
Management .
Schogt, Henry (1992). “Semantic theory and translation theory”. In Rainer Schulte and John
Biguenet (eds.). Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida .
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Searle, John R. (1975). “Indirect speech acts”. In Syntax and semantics , 3, 59 -82,
<http://computerscience.nl/docs/vakken/musy/searle_indirect.pdf >.
Shreve, Gregory (2000). “Translation at the Millennium: Prospects for the E volution of a
Profession. In Peter A. Schmitt (ed.). Paradigmenwechsel in der Translati on. Festschrift
für Albrecht Neubert zum 70 Geburtstag . Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 217 -234.
Shuttleworth, Mark (2001 [1998]). “Polysystem Theory”. In Mona Baker (ed.). Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies . London and New York: Routledge.
Simon, Sher ry (2000). Changing the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era . Sherry Simon
and Paul St -Pierre (eds.). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Smadja, Frank (1993). “Retrieving collocations from text: Xtract”. In Computational Linguistics ,
19, pp. 143 -177.
Steiner, George (1998). After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation . 3rd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, Deborah. (1 987). “Repetition in conversation as spontaneous formulaicity”. In Text, 7,
pp. 215-245.
Toury, Gideon (2010 ). “The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation”. In Lawrence Venuti
(ed.), The Translation Studies Reader . New York and London: Routledge.
Tredinni ck, Mark (2008). Writing Well: The Essential Guide . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tymoczko, Maria and Edwin Gentzler (2002). Translation and Power . Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Van Dijk, T. A., and W. Kintsch (1983 ). Strategies of d iscourse comprehension . New York:
Academic Press.
<http://www.discourses.org/OldBooks/Teun%20A%20van%20Dijk%20%26%20Walter%
20Kintsch%20 -%20Strategies%20of%20Discourse%20Comprehension.pdf >.

Van Dijk, Teun A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the sem antics and pragmatics of
discourse . Longman: London and New York.
<http://www.discourses.org/OldBooks/Teun%20A%20van%20Dijk%20 –
%20Text%20and%20Context.pdf >.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1980). Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in
Disco urse, Interaction, and Cognition . Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
<http://www.discourses.org/OldBooks/Teun%20A%20van%20Dijk%20 –
%20Macrostructures.pdf >.
Venuti, Lawrence (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation . New York:
Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence (1999 [1998]). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference .
London and New York: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence (2005). “Translation, History, Narrative”. In Meta , L, 3, 800 -816.
Venuti, Lawrence (2010 [2004]). The Translation Studies Reader . New York and London:
Routledge.
Vermeer, Hans J. (2010). “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action ”. Trans. Andrew
Chesterman. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader . New York and
London: Routledge.
Vienne, Jean (2000). “Which Competences Should We Teach to Future Translators, and How?”
In Christina Schäffner and Beverly Adab (eds.). Developing Translation Competence .
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company .
Vinay, Jean -Paul and J ean Darbelnet (1958). Stylistique Comparée du Français et de l'Anglais .
Paris: Didier -Harrap.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2009). Philosophical Investigations , Rev. 4th ed. P. M. S. Hacker and
Joachim Schulte (eds.). Wiley -Blackwell.
Wright, Sue Ellen and Leland D. Wright Jr. (1993). “Preface”. In Sue Ellen Wright and Leland
D. Wright Jr. (eds.). Scientific and Technical Translation . Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company .