Working Paper
Reference
Defining the Notion of "Corpora" in Translation: Addressing the Gap between Scholars' and Translators' Points of View (Working Paper)
PICTON, Aurélie, FONTANET, Mathilde, PULITANO, Donatella
Abstract
Our aim in this document (working paper) is to further research into the gap between the potential that corpora have for translation and the way professional translators actually use corpora. In our Switzerland-based survey, we questioned translators about their use of corpora and concordancers, and asked them to give their own definition of the notion of
"corpus". Our preliminary results can be interpreted to show that the gap can in part be explained by the fact that scholars and translators do not agree on how the term should be defined.
PICTON, Aurélie, FONTANET, Mathilde, PULITANO, Donatella. Defining the Notion of
"Corpora" in Translation: Addressing the Gap between Scholars' and Translators' Points of View (Working Paper). 2015, 15 p.
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:135687
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
Defining the Notion of "Corpora" in Translation: Addressing the Gap between Scholars’
and Translators’ Points of View
Aurélie Picton, Mathilde Fontanet, Mélanie Maradan, Donatella Pulitano Faculty of Translation and Interpreting, University of Geneva
Our aim in this article is to further research into the gap between the potential that corpora have for translation and the way professional translators actually use corpora. In our Switzerland-based survey, we questioned translators about their use of corpora and concordancers, and asked them to give their own definition of the notion of "corpus". Our preliminary results can be interpreted to show that the gap can in part be explained by the fact that scholars and translators do not agree on how the term should be defined.
Keywords: translators, corpora, survey, definition of “corpus”, Switzerland
1. Introduction
Over the past two decades, there has been broad agreement among researchers about the interest and added value of corpora in the field of translation (e.g. Bowker 1998, Laviosa 2002, Loock 2015, Zanettin 2012). This can be seen in the way that both seminars and modules on corpora (e.g. Gavioli & Zanettin 1997, Bowker & Marshman, 2009, Zanettin et al. 2014) and books about the uses of corpora (e.g. Bowker & Pearson 2002) have been progressively integrated within the field of translation studies. However, the working habits of professional translators have hardly changed since Bowker described them back in 2004: ten years later, translators make sparing use of corpora, the exception being translation memories.
Our team, which brings together specialists in corpora, terminology, translation and translation didactics, has set out to explore the gaping discrepancy between the potential of corpora and their actual use by professional translators. Using the results of a survey we conducted in Switzerland on professional translators' use of corpora and concordancers, we explore the difficulties of defining the notion of "corpus" and the impact that this may have on surveys of translators. We begin by giving the general context of our study (section 2), then we give an overview of research into the usefulness of corpora in translation and the reasons why professional translators seem less enthusiastic than scholars (section 3). We then describe our survey protocol (section 4), which sets out both to evaluate the use of corpora and concordancers by translators and to gain insight into translators' own definitions of the notion of "corpus". We use our first results (section 5) to describe how corpora are actually used and to examine how respondents define what a corpus is. The results show that there is no overall agreement on the definition of the term, which complicates the way in which surveys of translators are interpreted (section 6).
2. General Context
speaks German, 22.5% French, 8.1% Italian and 0.5% Romansh.i Translation plays a key role in the management of plurilingualism, particularly for the large number of international organizations in Switzerland (UN, ICRC, WIPO, etc.).
At present, there are two translator training programs in Switzerland:
- the program at the Zurich University of Applied Science's (ZHAW) School of Applied Linguistics
- the Master in Translation at the University of Geneva's Faculty of Translation and Interpreting (FTI).
The FTI, where we all teach and do research, offers a variety of MA courses on tools for translators, including corpora, and specialized training in translation technologies. For several years now, we have been running continuing education courses on these topics. However, as far as we are aware, up to now no studies have been conducted in Switzerland on translators' use of tools and corpora such as would allow us to evaluate the impact that our seminars on corpora may have on the training of students and future practitioners. This is the rationale behind our current survey.
When preparing the survey, our preliminary discussions led us to identify a fundamental issue for designing the questions and interviews: this was a divergence of opinion on the definition of
"corpus". According to the perspective one adopts, corpora are primarily collections of (electronic) texts, online resources such as Linguee, or translation memories (Zanettin 2002). For some of us, concordancers – which allow one to explore texts (such as AntConcii ou SketchEngineiii) – are the most important tools.
Our work on understanding and measuring translators' use of corpora was guided by an important factor - the differing definitions of the term corpus that, not unexpectedly, we encountered (section 3). In order to ensure that the many studies on corpora that are commissioned world- wide continue to give tangible results that help define future directions for training in corpora, at least two questions need to be answered:
1. Do translators, terminologists and revisers mean the same thing when they speak of corpora? If not, how do they conceive of corpora?
2. If definitions do indeed differ, what impact do the various definitions have on the statistics measuring translators' use of corpora?
3. Overview of research
Many academic studies have shown the enormous potential of corpora for translation. Corpora bring added value to least three domains:
1. translation studies (e.g. Baker 1999, Olohan 2004),
2. translator training (e.g. Aston 1999, Beeby et al. 2009, Bowker 1998, Fantinuoli 2013, Frérot 2010, Kübler, 2011),
3. translation practice (e.g. Duran-Muñoz 2012, Kübler & Aston 2010, Varantola 2003, Zanettin 2012).
However, as Bowker (2004) has pointed out, the enthusiasm shown by translators is but a fraction of that of the academic world, as can be clearly seen in translators' reviews and blogs, where corpora are given a favorable albeit cautious welcome. Whereas the majority of scholars stress the advantages of corpora for the profession, translators themselves spend more time in weighing up their pros and cons and trying to determine when it is appropriate to use or not to use them (e.g. Karsch 2012, Lacroix 2013). Many reasons appear to lie behind this disparity. While underlining their usefulness for teaching and research, Bowker (2004) notes that for translators to be able to use them professionally, they need to invest too much time. Kübler (2014) fine-tunes this idea by identifying two groups of factors lying behind the difference:
- external factors: using corpora is time-consuming, they are not available for certain languages and fields, they do not always meet translators' needs, the tools used to explore them may not be ergonomic or easy to use, etc.;
- internal factors: even the most exemplary of corpora may not always meet a translator's needs.
Fantinuoli (2015) also examines external factors and airs several ideas about the limits of the tools used to explore corpora. He notes that concordancers are complex tools developed for linguists rather than translators, who find that many of their functions are not clear. He believes that it should be possible to use one and the same search function to create corpora, extract terms and explore collocations.
A large number of studies have also been conducted to establish whether professional translators actually use corpora in their work. The majority of the results show that overall, a little less that 50% of translators use corpora (e.g. MeLLANGE 2006, Gallego-Hernández 2015, Gough 2013).
The MeLLANGE survey is a model of its kind with more than 1,000 respondents throughout Europe. It shows that 41.8% of translators reported that at the time of the survey they indeed used corpora. Other studies find a comparable proportion of translators using corpora, in particular the one authored by Gallego-Hernández. Published at a later date and surveying translators in Spain, it found that 48% of respondents say they use corpora to translate sometimes, often or very often.
However, in our view, the various studies to date do not allow one to have a clear picture of translators' use of corpora. The main reason is that according to our research, the majority of surveys tend to simplify the definition of "corpus" and pay little or no attention to the complex nature of corpora - which are simultaneously textual resources serving translators' needs and searchable resources using IT tools. Generally speaking, the studies concentrate on the use of tools, whatever their nature, from translation memories to online search engines. There is nothing incoherent about such an approach, but it is a limited one and in particular does not allow one to develop a fine-grained picture of corpora-dedicated concordancers, nor to understand why translators use texts rather than other resources. We thus believe it is important to shed light on these two aspects in order to build up a clearer picture of translators' use of corpora.
To this end we have designed a questionnaire that enables us to distinguish between corpora as texts collections that are either used as a translation resource or are searched by dedicated IT tools (concordancers). Four different angles are covered:
1. texts used as a translation resource, 2. tools used to explore these texts, 3. respondents' definition of "corpus",
4. respondents' declared use of concordancers.
4. Methodology
An online LimeSurvey questionnaire was used, divided into two parts. The first dealt with the texts and tools used to translate and the second prompted translators to define "corpus" and to describe their professional occupation and initial training.
It was sent to professional associations of translators in Switzerland between 15 December 2014 and 25 February 2015.
In addition, eight respondents took part in semi-structured interviews.
5. First results
The first results show how hard it is to gauge translators' differing points of view on the notion of corpus, and the impact that this has on the interpretation of field surveys.
5.1. Overview of respondents
270 people took part in the survey, but we decided only to include the answers given by the 182 respondents who completed and submitted the survey (see below).
Figure 1 shows that the majority of the respondents are translators, but also revisers, terminologists and/or interpreters. Participants usually reported that they worked in at least two of the fields.
Figure 1 –Participants' work experience They work principally on technical and legal texts (Figure 2).
Figure 2 – Types of texts translated in the previous six months 87% of the respondents are salaried (Figure 3).
16 59 77 86
139 154
LITERATURE
LOCALISATION
PUBLICITY/MARKETING
OTHER
TECHNICAL (INSTRUCTIONS, PATENTS...)
LEGAL (JUDGEMENTS, DEEDS, CONTRACTS...)
Figure 3 – Status of the participants 5.2. Using texts as resources vs. using corpora
Table 1 shows that roughly 40% of respondents say that they often or very often use corpora in their translation work. If one adds those who sometimes use them, the rate moves up to 64%. The percentages thus match (and in fact are slightly higher than) those reported in previous surveys (section 2) - translators in Switzerland clearly use corpora.
Answer Respondents %
Never 27 14.84%
Rarely 24 13.19%
Sometimes 44 24.18%
Often 33 18.13%
Very often 40 21.98%
Table 1 – In the last six months, in your professional work, how often have you used corpora as a resource to translate?
We also asked respondents how often they had used texts as a resource to translate in the previous 6 months in their professional work. Table 2 shows that when compared with corpora, many more respondents reported that they used electronic or digitized texts as a resource.
Roughly 92% said that they use them often or very often, and 97% sometimes, often or very often.
Answer Respondents %
Never 2 1.10%
Rarely 3 1.65%
Sometimes 9 4.95%
Often 35 19.23%
Very often 133 73.07%
Table 2 - In the last six months, in your professional work, how often have you used electronic or digitized texts as resources to translate?
3 37
162
OTHER FREE-LANCE SALARIED
In addition, very few participants reported that they used texts in paper form often or very often (Table 3).
Answer Respondents %
Never 20 10.99%
Rarely 75 41.21%
Sometimes 58 31.87%
Often 15 8.24%
Very often 14 7.69%
Table 3 - In the last six months, in your professional work, how often have you used texts in paper form as resources to translate?
The simple fact of using texts clearly does not necessarily mean using corpora. However, the wide gap between the percentages in Tables 1 and 2 led us to question how respondents define
"corpus". It would indeed seem that translators and designers of surveys are not always referring to the same thing.
An additional factor is that when respondents say why they use texts, they mention the possibilities offered by corpora. Table 3 shows that they use texts to find or check equivalents, help understand the source text and check collocations.
Answers Respondents
To find equivalents 175 96.15%
To check equivalents 166 91.21%
To help understand the source text 151 82.97%
To check formulations (ex. collocations) 130 71.43%
To help understand the field 125 68.68%
To find idiomatic formulations (collocations) 124 68.13%
Table 4 – Why have you used texts as resources to translate?
These first results confirm our hypothesis that there is a certain amount of confusion surrounding the definition of corpora - texts seem to be actually used as corpora, but their use is more frequent than that identified by translators when using the term "corpus".
5.3. Use of tools
To have a clearer picture of how translators actually use corpora, we also questioned them about
memories more often than concordancers. 82% of respondents report that they sometimes, often or very often use translation memories, but only 67% say they use concordancers (Tables 4 and 5).
Answer Respondents %
Never 27 14.84%
Rarely 5 2.75%
Sometimes 7 3.85%
Often 12 6.59%
Very often 131 71.97%
Table 5 – In the last six months, in your professional work, how often have you used a translation memory system?
Answer Respondents %
Never 40 21.98%
Rarely 11 6.04%
Sometimes 21 11.54%
Often 34 18.68%
Very often 69 37.91%
Table 6 - In the last six months, in your professional work, how often have you used a concordancer?
Moreover, when we asked respondents to give examples of the translation memories and concordancers that they use, we found considerable divergences in the answers (Table 6). It clearly transpires that respondents are more conversant with translation memory systems than concordancers - leaving aside the reply given on line m ("Microsoft Word as a glossary"), the examples they give of memories are both valid and varied. But this is not the case with concordancers, where the replies are more varied, with several being incorrect. 11 respondents mention translation memories (line b) and 9 terminology databases, dictionaries (c) or compilations of documents (f). A high proportion cite Linguee as an example of a concordancer (a).
Concordancers used in the previous
six months Translation memory systems used in the previous six months
Examples Number of
replies
Examples Number of
replies
a Linguee 117 Multitrans/Multicorpora/M
ultitransPrism
82 b Trados, Transit, Multitrans 11 SDL Studio/SDL Trados 42
c EAER and SERI
databanks iv , IATE, Lexilogos, Blab.la, Reverso, Termdat
9 Star/Star James/Star Transit/Transit NXT
24
d EuroParl 5 Wordfast 12
e MyCat 5 MemoQ 2
f Classified compilation of Swiss law, Sedoc, Eur-Lex
4 Memsource 2
g Homemade tool 4 Ontram 2
h AntConc 2 TStream 2
i webcorp.ac.uk 1 Across 1
j WordSmith Tools 1 eLuna 1
k BNC 1 Linguee 1
l DTSearch 1 OmegaT 1
m Frantext 1 Microsoft Word as a
glossary 1
Table 7 – Examples of concordancers and translation memories used
5.4. How translators define corpora
As one of our aims was to establish how professional translators define corpora, we did not define the term from the outset. Instead, we asked the respondents to give us their own definition of the term at the beginning of the second part of the survey.
In total, only 1% of the respondents had what we can consider to be a wrong understanding of the termv. In addition, 7% indicated that they had no notion of what a corpus was. In all other cases, the respondents defined a corpus as being a collection of texts. The definitions they gave can be classified as followsvi:
A corpus is a collection of texts
… in a specific field (42%)
… in two or more languages (15%)
… used for reference (9%)
… in different languages and in a specific field (8%)
… [with no further details] (8%)
… gathered according to a defined [but not specified] criterion (7%)
… in a specific field for linguistic purposes (4%)
… which were processed / structured / classified (3%)
… to be used with a computing tool (3%)
… from a single source (2%)
Table 8 – Definitions of corpora given by respondents
Many of the respondents have probably not had any exposure to the term. A fair proportion of them associate corpora with texts gathered using the criterion of field (42%). Some translators (15%) mention languages, thinking possibly of parallel corpora. What we found interesting – and what could possibly be related to the limited use of corpora – is the fact that only few translators (3%) mentioned the possibility of using a computing tool: up to 97% of them may have no idea that computing tools can be used. The approach adopted in published surveys, whose questionnaires highlight the tools aspect of corpora (section 3) thus does not really fit the definitions put forward by translators, who rarely mention this aspect in their definitions of corpora.
5.5. Looking afresh at surveys of translators
For the reasons stated above, we are led to conclude that it is no easy task to interpret the results of surveys on translators' use of corpora and concordancers. In our survey and in several other surveys mentioned above (section 3), for instance, respondents provided information on how they use concordancers' search functions (for collocations, frequencies, the KWIC sort function, etc.).
The information provided was not only disparate, but also relatively contradictory and unclear - on the one hand 70% of respondents report that they are useful features, on the other hand, less than 35% who reported using corpora and concordancers said they used them sometimes, often or very often. It should also be pointed out that the most cited concordancer in our survey, Linguee, has none of these features. So it is very difficult to know whether translators really find these features useful or simply are not familiar with them. Given that it is not clear whether researchers and respondents are actually speaking about the same thing when corpora or concordancers are mentioned, the surveys should be interpreted with the greatest possible caution.
5.6. Obstacles to using of corpora – differences between salaried and free- lance translatorsvii
During the eight semi-structured interviews we explained to translators all the possibilities offered by corpora and asked both salaried and free-lance translators what, in their view, were the major obstacles to using corpora.
The free-lancers mentioned ergonomics (using corpora demands a more complex installation of the work station, with possibly two screens and more computing capacity). They added that an obstacle for building their own corpus was the fact that it was time-consuming and that they were generally obliged to adopt a short-term perspective and were not pro-active enough. As to using acquired corpora, they mentioned that they were wary of clients having incompatible demands, of the possible lack of reliability of corpora (in terms of quality and relevance) and of seeing the range of translation choices limited (because of mandatory solutions that they might disagree with).
The in-house translators complained that decisions are sometimes made too high up in the management hierarchy to account for their real needs, that the management's priority was short- term cost-effectiveness – and hence machine translation – and that they were limited by very short deadlines. Some translators working in international organizations added that there was sometimes too much dependence on tools already acquired to consider any change.
According to the interviews, translators would welcome opportunities for training and a good way of reaching independent translators would be to inform them of possibilities through associations and professional publications, whereas in-house translators could probably better be contacted through their management.
6. Discussion
Our study has a certain methodological bias which is bound up with the aim of our work and is difficult to avoid. In particular, as mentioned above, asking translators about their use of corpora is clearly not the same thing as asking them about their use of texts (which are not all corpora but databases of texts, etc.). Moreover, asking questions about corpora while trying to clarify their view of the notion implies that one cannot totally control the degree of comprehension that respondents have of the questions, and necessitates fine-tuning the questions, which must neither be too specific nor too general.
In spite of all this, we have obtained several clear-cut results. First of all and generally speaking, the data collected in Switzerland tends to show that professional translators - who are frequent users of texts - do use corpora, but the way they use them is still rudimentary. To date, and despite one rare exception among the free-lance translators who took part, respondents apparently use Linguee, Internet as a "mega-corpus", translation memories and text editors as corpora. They seem to have little knowledge of concordancers such as AntConc or SketchEngine. Moreover, corpora are often used simply to understand terms and to check phrase structures. One can
Moreover, our results confirm that for this type of study, part of the gap observed between corpora's potential and the way translators use them can be traced back to the difficulty of agreement about a precise definition of the term, not only among scholars but also between scholars and translators. It is thus important to bear this parameter in mind when designing and analyzing surveys. One can also envisage fostering discussion with translators about the nature of corpora, their potential and the tools available, without neglecting how they use texts as resources. Two means can be envisaged. The first is to offer and promote continuing education courses on the use of corpora for practicing translators. Table 8 shows that more than 80% of respondents have followed a course on translation memories, whereas only 15% have taken courses on the use of corpora.
Yes No
Text corpora 15,93% 82,42%
Translation Memories 82,42% 17,03%
Table 9 – Training in text corpora vs. translation memories
It would also be possible to scotch the prevalent idea that using corpora is time-consuming - an idea held both by translators and a handful of academics. Translators often have the "raw material" of corpora, i.e. texts they have stored for a specific need (Table 10) and invest time in collecting such data (Table 11). They thus need to be trained to use the appropriate search and storage tools, and need to be shown how this can help optimize the time spent on many tasks they already do.
Respondents %
These resources were my own previous translations 138 75.82%
These resources were my colleagues’ translations 139 76.37%
These resources were external translations (≠ my employer or
work provider) 141 77.47%
These resources were written by specialists in the field 153 84.07%
These resources were official texts 177 97.25%
I don’t know who wrote these texts 42 23.08%
Table 10 – Who were the authors of the texts used during the previous six months?
Respondents %
I collected these resources myself 150 82.42%
They were provided by my colleagues 80 43.96%
They were provided by a central service 71 39.01%
They were provided by the work provider 93 51.10%
Don’t know 24 13.19%
Table 11 – How did you collect these texts?
7. Concluding remarks and perspectives
On the basis of these – encouraging – preliminary results, and among possible perspectives, we first aim to pursue our analysis, while optimizing the formulation of questions regarding discrepancies in the definition of "corpus" in order to correct any methodological bias. At the same time we will look at ways of providing more information about training opportunities in corpora use, and of improving the courses on offer by taking into account the feedback from continuing education courses.
8. Aknowledgments
We would like to thank Lance Hewson for translating this paper into English.
i Figures provided by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 2013:
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/05/blank/key/sprachen.html (lastaccessed 25 June 2015).
ii http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html, (last accessed on 7 July 2015).
iiihttp://www.sketchengine.co.uk/, (last accessed on 7 July 2015).
ivhttps://www.wbf.admin.ch/en/the-eaer/the-eaer/, and http://www.sbfi.admin.ch/index.html?lang=en (last accessed on 15 July 2015).
vIn particular, the idea that corpora are any passage of a text.
viSome of the definitions appear in different categories.
viiThe interviewees had work experience at CERN, ITU, UN, WTO and WMO and/or in the Swiss private sector. As in the survey, the salaried population was over-represented, since about 50% of the Swiss translator population are free-lancers.
9. Bibliography
Aston, G. (1999). Corpus use and learning to translate. Textus, 12, 289-313.
Baker, M. (1999). The role of corpora in investigating the linguistic behaviour of translators.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4, 281-298.
Beeby, A., Rodriguez Inés, P., & Sánchez-Gijon, P. (Eds.). (2009). Corpus Use and Translating.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bowker, L. (1998). Using Specialized Monolingual Native-Language Corpora as a Translation Resource: a Pilot Study. Meta, 43(4), 631-651.
Bowker, L. (2004). Corpus Resources for Translators: Academic Luxury or Professional Necessity? TradTerm, 10, 213-247.
Bowker, L., & Pearson, J. (2002). Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora. London/New York: Routledge.
Bowker, L. & Marshman, E. (2009). Better Integration for Better Preparation: Bringing Terminology and Technology more fully into Translator Training using the CERTT
Duran-Munõz, I. (2012). Meeting Translators’ Needs : Translation-oriented Terminological management and applications. Journal of Specialised Translation, 18, 77-92.
Fantinuoli, C. (2013). Einbindung von Korpora im Übersetzungsunterricht als Schlüssel zur Professionalisierung, FTSK In A. Hansen-Schirra & D. Kiraly (Eds.), Projekte und Projektionen in der translatorischen Kompetenzentwicklung: Publikationen des Fachbereichs Translations-, Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft der Johannes Gutenberg- Universität Mainz in Germersheim - Band 61.
Fantinuoli, C. (2015). Revisiting corpus creation and analysis tools for translation tasks. Paper presented at the conference “Corpus use and learning to translate (CULT)”, Alicante, Spain.
Frérot, C. (2010). Outils d’aide à la traduction : pour une meilleure intégration des corpus et des outils d’analyse de corpus dans l’enseignement de la traduction et la formation des traducteurs. Cahiers du GEPE, 2.
Gallego-Hernández, D. (2015). The use of corpora as translation resources. A study based on a survey of professional translators. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 23, 1-7.
Gavioli, L., & Zanettin, F. (1997). Comparable Corpora and Translation: A Pedagogic Perspective. Paper presented at the Corpus Use and Learning to Translate (CULT), Bertinoro, Italy.
Gough, J. (2013). Web-based tools and resources for translation professionals”. Paper presented at the University of Surrey, London, Infotech Seminar, online http://www.academia.edu/3710380/Web-
based_tools_and_resources_for_translation_professionals
Karsch, B. I. (2012). Bilingual corpora and target terminology research. BIK Terminology – Solving terminology puzzle – one posting at a time (online http://bikterminology.com/2012/10/24/bilingual-corpora-and-target-terminology-research/
).
Kübler, N. (2011). Working with different corpora in translation teaching. In A. Frankenberg- Garcia, L. Flowerdew & G. Aston (Eds.), New Trends in Corpora and Language Learning. (pp. 62-80). London: Continuum.
Kübler, N. (2014). Traduction pragmatique, linguistique de corpus, traducteur : un ménage à trois explosif ? Paper presented at the Tralogy, Stuttgart, Germany.
Kübler, N., & Aston, G. (2010). Using Corpora in Translation. In M. Mc Carthy & A. O'Keefe (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp. 505-515). London:
Routledge.
Lacroix, K. (2012). L’utilisation des corpus en traduction. L'actualité langagière, 9(4), http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/chroniq/index-
fra.html?lang=fra&lettr=indx_autr8Oz22dTiL13Y&page=29uIheYlS_VgU.html.
Laviosa, S. (2002). Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications.
Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Loock, R. (2015). L’utilisation des corpus électroniques chez le futur traducteur professionnel : quand ? comment ? pour quoi faire ? Paper presented at the Traducteurs à l’œuvre,
Approches ergonomiques des pratiques professionnelles et des formations de traducteurs, Grenoble, France.
Lüdi, G., Werlen, I., Colombo, S., Lüdi, P., Mader, M., Schmidt, K., et al. (2005). Le paysage linguistique en Suisse, recensement fédéral de la population 2000. Office fédéral de la statistique, Neuchâtel.
MeLLANGE. (2006). Corpora & E-learning Survey Results. online http://www.iti.org.uk/uploadedFiles/surveys/Mellange_Survey_Updated(05-06). Last consultation 10 September 2014.
Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
Stelmaszak, M., Slobodzian-Taylor, K. E., & Gough, J. (2013). Web-based tools and resources for translators. Managing Information 20(5/6), 91-95.
Varantola, K. (2003). Translators and Disposable Corpora. In F. Zanettin, B. S. & S. D. (Eds.), Corpora in Translator Education (pp. 55-70). Manchester: St Jerome.
Zanettin, F. (2012). Translation-Driven Corpora, Corpus Resources for Descriptive and Applied Translation Studies: St Jerome.
Zanettin, F., Bernardini, S., & Stewart, D. (Eds.). (2014). Corpora in translator education.
London: Routledge.
