Bibliography

Abu-Ssaydeh, A. and Jarad, N. (2016). Complex sentences in English legislative texts: Patterns and translation Strategies. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies 16: 111-129.

Ahn, I.K. (2005). Pedagogical considerations of perspective coherence problems in simultaneous interpreting as a result of linguistic structure, illustrated by German-Korean examples. Meta 50(2): 696-712.

Aho, A., Sethi, R. and Ullman, J. (1986). Compilers: Principles, techniques, and tools. Boston: Addison Wesley.

Ahrens, B. (2017). Interpretation and cognition. In J.W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 445-460). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.

AlBzour, B.A. and AlBzour, N.N. (2015). Syntactic and semantic interface in translating methods and writing techniques. Studies in Literature and Language 10(4): 24-31.

Alexiadou, A. (2010). Nominalizations: A probe into the architecture of grammar. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 496-523.

Al-Rubai’i, A.M.H.A. (2004). The effect of word order differences on English-into-Arabic simultaneous interpreters’ performance. Babel 50(3): 246-266.

Anders, T. and Lilliquist, T.D. (2013). Retrieval time in forward and backward recall. Psychonomic Science 22: 205-206.

Andersson, L.-G. (1975). Form and Function of subordinate clauses. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 1. Göteburg: University of Göteburg Department of Linguistics.

Babyonyshev, M. and Gibson, E. (1999). The complexity of nested structures in Japanese. Language 75(3): 423‑450.

Bach, E., Brown, C. and Marslen-Wilson, W. (1986). Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes 1(4): 249-262.

Baker, M.C. (2003). Lexical categories. Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bangalore, S., Behrens, B., Carl, M., Gankhot, M., Heilmann, A., Nitzke, J., Schaeffer, M. and Sturm, A. (2015). The role of syntactic variation in translation and post-editing. Translation Spaces 4(1): 119-144.

Bangalore, S., Behrens, B., Carl, M., Gankhot, M., Heilmann, A., Nitzke, J., Schaeffer, M. and Sturm, A. (2016). Syntactic variance and priming effects in translation. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore and M. Schaeffer (eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research (pp. 211-238). Cham: Springer International.

Barik, H. C. (1975): Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech 18(3): 272-297.

Becker, R. (1978). Oberflächenstrukturelle Unterschiede zwischen restriktiven and nicht-restriktiven Relativsätzen im Deutschen. Trier: LAUT.

Berg, T. (2009). Structure in language: A dynamic perspective. New York: Routledge.

Bickel, B. (2010). Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage. In I. Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics (pp. 51-101). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Birch, A., Osborne, M. and Koehn, P. (2008). Predicting success in machine translation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 745-754). Honolulu: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1983). Verb complements and sentence complements: Two different types of relation. In L. Tasmowski and D. Willems (eds.), Problems in syntax (pp. 55-84). New York: Plenum Press.

Blüdorn, H. (2008). Subordination and coordination in syntax, semantics, and discourse: Evidence from the study of connectives. In C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text (pp. 59-85). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Brandt, M. (1990). Weiterführende Nebensätze: Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Lunder germanistische Forschungen 57. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

Bril, I. (2010). The syntax and pragmatics of clause linkage and clause hierarchy: Some new perspectives. In I. Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics (pp. 1-21). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Brinton, L. (2008). The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, B. (Dec. 2010). The power of vulnerability. Subtitles translated by I. Loginova (Russian), T. Burbon (Hungarian), S. Çakıl (Turkish), A. Lin (Mandarin), R. Uenishi (Japanese). [Video file].

Cai, Z., Ryu, K. and Matsubara, S. (2018). Statistical Analysis of Missing Translation in Simultaneous Interpretation Using A Large-scale Bilingual Speech Corpus. International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.

Carl, M. and Schaeffer, M. J. (2017). Why translation is difficult: A corpus-based study of non-literality in post-editing and from-scratch translation. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business 56: 43-57.

Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chen, Y., Song, Z. and Wu, C. (2015). Syntactic linearity as a strategy in simultaneous interpreting: A case study on English-Chinese interpretation. T&I Review 5: 29-69.

Chesterman, A. (2000). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Chesterman, A. (2011). Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds.), Methods and strategies of process research integrative approaches to translation studies (pp. 23-35). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Choi, H.-W. (2007). Length and order: A corpus study of (the) Korean dative-accusative construction. Discourse and Cognition 14: 207-227.

Chomsky, N. (1991). Linguistics and adjacent fields: A personal view. In A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan turn (pp. 3‑25). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R.E.A. Martin (ed.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1993). Principles and parameters theory. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Christoffels, I.K. and de Groot, A.M.B. (2005). Simultaneous Interpreting: A Cognitive Perspective. In J.F. Kroll and A.M.B. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 454–479). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cintas, J.D. and Remael, A. (2020). Subtitling: Concepts and practices. London: Routledge.

Cosme, C. (2008). A corpus-based perspective on clause linking patterns in English, French and Dutch. In C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text (pp. 89‑114). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Cresswell, M. (1973). Logics and languages. London: Methuen.

Cristofaro, S. (2003). Subordination. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Cuddy, A. (Oct. 2012). Your body language may shape who you are. Subtitles translated by O. Dmitrochenkova (Russian), O. Szemere (Hungarian), İ.F. Güzelbaba (Turkish), A. Dung (Mandarin), Y. Aoki (Japanese), [Video file].

Culicover, P.W. and Jackendoff, R. (1997). Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 195-218.

Dam, H. (2001) On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting: The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreter’s Newsletter 11: 27-55.

Davidson, P.M. (1992). Segmentation of Japanese source language discourse in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreter’s Newsletter, Special Issue 1: 2‑11.

De Baets, P. and De Sutter, G. (2022). How do translators select among competing (near-)synonyms in translation? A corpus-based approach using random forest modelling. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 35(1): pp. 1-33.

De Sutter, G. and Lefer, M.A. (2020) On the need for a new research agenda for corpus-based translation studies: A multi-methodological, multifactorial and interdisciplinary approach. Perspectives: Studies in translation theory and practice 28(1): pp. 1-23.

Diessel, H. (2001). The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: A typological study. Language 77(3): 433‑455.

Dixon, R.M.W. (2009). The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective. In R.M.W. Dixon and A.Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause linking. Explorations in linguistic typology (pp. 1-55). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Doherty, M. (1999). Position and explicitness – language specific conditions for the use of adverbial clauses in translations between German and English. In M. Doherty (ed.), Sprachspezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung (pp. 112-148). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Donato, V. (2003). Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: A comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian language-pairs. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 12: 101-134.

Donolato, E., Giofrè, D. and Mammarella, I. (2017). Differences in verbal and visuospatial forward and backward order recall: A review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology 8.

Dragsted, B. (2012). Indicators of difficulty in translation: Correlating product and process data. Across Languages and Cultures 13(1): 81-98.

Dryer, M.S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81-138.

Dryer, M.S. (1997). On the Six-Way Word Order Typology. Studies in Language 21(1): 69-103.

Dryer, M.S. (2007). Clause types. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 224‑275). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dryer, M.S. (2013a). Order of Relative Clause and Noun. In M.S. Dryer, S. Matthew and M. Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Dryer, M.S. (2013b). Order of Subject, Object and Verb. In M.S. Dryer, S. Matthew and M. Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Earls, E. (2014) (ed.) Clear English tips for translators. Brussels: European Commission. Available online at: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-06/clear-english-tips-translators_en.pdf.

Egan, T. (2012). Using translation corpora to explore synonymy and polysemy. In S. Oksefjell Ebeling, J. Ebeling and H. Hasselgård (eds.), Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English (Varieng) 12: Aspects of corpus linguistics: compilation, annotation, analysis. University of Oslo.

El-Zawawy, A.M. (2022). Simultaneous interpretation of complex structures from English into Arabic. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada / Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 35(1): 30-64.

Emonds J.E. (1985). A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris.

Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (1st ed., pp. 366-431). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fabricius-Hansen, C. (1999). Information packaging and translation: Aspects of translational sentence splitting (German – English/Norwegian). In M. Doherty (ed.), Sprachspezifische Aspekte der Informations-verteilung (pp. 175‑214). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Fodor, J.A., Bever, T.G. and Garrett, M.F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Foley, W.A. (2010). Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In I. Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics (pp. 27-50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Foley, W.A. and Van Valin, R.D. Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gast, V. and Diessel, H. (2012). Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective: Data-driven approaches to cross-clausal syntax. Trends in Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.

Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, P. Marantz and W. O’Neil (eds.), Image, Language, Brain (pp. 95-112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gibson, E. and Ko, K. (1999). Processing main and embedded clauses. Cambridge, MA: Manuscript, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT.

Gile, D. (2001). Consecutive vs. Simultaneous: Which is more accurate? Tsuuyaku Kenkyuu – Interpreting Studies 1(1): 8–20.

Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gile, D. (2011). Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary findings from a case study. In E. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 201-218). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.

Gile, D. and Lei, V. (2021). Translation, effort and cognition. In F. Alves and A.L. Jakobsen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 263-278). Oxon/New York: Routledge.

Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1(2): 127-140.

Granger, S. and Swallow, H. (1998). False Friends: A Kaleidoscope of Translation Difficulties. Le langage et l’homme 23(2): 108-120.

Greenberg, J.H. (1963). Some universals of language, with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J.H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 73-113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Grimshaw, J. (1992). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Grimshaw, J. and Williams, E. (1993). Nominalization and Predicative Prepositional Phrases. In J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 97-105). Dordrecht: Springer.

Grosz, B., Joshi, A. and Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2): 203-225.

Gumul, E. and Łyda, A. (2007). The time constraint in conference interpreting: Simultaneous vs. consecutive. Research in Language 5: 165-183.

Hale, S. and Campbell, S. (2002). The interaction between text difficulty and translation accuracy. Babel 48(1): 14-33.

Halverson, S. (2021). Multimethod approaches. In F. Alves and A.L. Jakobsen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 195-212). Oxon / New York: Routledge.

Hansen-Schirra, S. and Nitzke, J. (2021). Translation, the process– product interface and cognition. In In F. Alves and A.L. Jakobsen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 415-432). Oxon/New York: Routledge.

Hartsuiker, R.J., Pickering, M.J. and Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science 15(6): 409-414.

Hartsuiker, R.J., Beerts, S., Loncke, M., Desmet, T. and Bernolet, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax. Journal of Memory and Language 90: 14-30.

Hawkins, J.A. (1994). A performance theory of word order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hawkins, J.A. (2000). The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner-place-time. Language Variation and Change 11: 231-266.

Hawkins, J.A. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Herlin, I., Kalliokoski, J. and Visapää, L. (2014). Introduction. In L. Visapää, J. Kalliokoski and H. Sorva (eds.), Contexts of subordination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hooper, J.B. and Thompson, S.A. (1975). On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465-497.

Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hughes, D., McGillivray, L. and Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Research Report no. 3. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Ikbal, M.N., Syed Abdullah, S.N., Jabak, O.O. (2016). Syntactic translation strategies for retaining parallelism in the Arabic translation of Moby Dick. Issues in Language Studies 5(2): 44‑57.

Isham, W. (1994). Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization. In S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer (eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 191-212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Jackendoff, R. (1973). The base rules for prepositional phrases. In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 345-356). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Jacob, G., Katsika, K., Family, N. and Allen, S.E.M. (2016). The role of constituent order and level of embedding in cross-linguistic structural priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(2): 269-282.

Jaszczolt, K.M. (2003). On translating what is said: Tertium comparationis in contrastive semantics and pragmatics. In K.M. Jaszczolt and K. Turner (eds.), Meaning Through Language Contrast, Vol. 2. (pp. 441-462). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Jensen, K.T.H.(2009) Indicators of Text Complexity. In S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen and I. Mees (eds.), Behind the mind: Methods, models and research in translation process research (pp. 61-80). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.

Jörg, U. (1997). Bridging the gap: Verb anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpreting. In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová and K. Kaindl (eds.), Translation as intercultural communication: Selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995 (pp. 217-228). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kaltenböck, G., Keizer, E. and Lohmann, A. (2016). Extra-clausal constituents – An overview. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer and A. Lohmann (eds.), Outside the clause (pp. 1-26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Karlsson, F. (2007). Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics 43(2): 365‑392.

Kintsch, W. (2013). What kind of language statistics must be in long-term memory to make language understanding possible? A computational perspective. In M.A. Britt, S.R. Goldman and J.F. Rouet (eds.), Reading – From words to multiple texts. New York/London: Routledge.

Kirchhoff H. (2002/1976). SI: interdependence of variables in the interpreting process, interpreting models and interpreting strategies. In F. Pöchhacker and M. Shlesinger (eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 112-130). London/New York, Routledge.

Kiss, K. (2002). The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klein, W. and von Stutterheim, C. (1991). Text structure and referential movement. Sprache und Pragmatik 2: 1-31.

Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Landis, J.R. and Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1): 159‑174.

Langacker, R.W. (1987). Nouns and verbs. Language 63: 53-94.

Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R.W. (2014). Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. In L. Visapää, J. Kalliokoski and H. Sorva (eds.), Contexts of Subordination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Larson, M.L. (1984). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Leung, J.H.C. (2019). Shallow equality and symbolic jurisprudence in multilingual legal orders. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, C. (1918). A survey of symbolic logic. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lian, S. (2006). A coursebook on English-Chinese translation. Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Lin, X., Afzaal, M. and Aldayel, H.S. (2023). Syntactic complexity in legal translated texts and the use of plain English: A corpus-based study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10: 1-9.

Liu, Y. and Zheng, B. (2022). Comparability of difficulty levels of translation tasks in CET-6 parallel test forms: evidence from product and process-based data. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 16(4): 428-447.

Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, J. (1977.) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243-281.

Matthews, S. and Yeung, L.Y.Y. (2001). Processing motivations for topicalization in Cantonese. In K. Horie and S. Sato (eds.), Cognitive-functional linguistics in an East Asian context (pp. 81-102). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.

Mel’čuk, I.A. (1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University Press of New York.

Melloni, C. (2011). Event and result nominals: A morpho-semantic approach. Bern: Peter Lang.

Merlo, P. and Esteve Ferrer, E. (2006). The Notion of Argument in Prepositional Phrase Attachment. Computational Linguistics 32: 341-378.

Meuleman, C. and Van Besien, F. (2009). Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 11: 20-34.

Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63: 81-97.

Mizuno, A. (2017). Simultaneous interpreting and cognitive constraints. In Bulletin of Literary Department of Aoyama Gakuin University (pp. 1-28).

Muñoz Martín, R. (2012). Just a matter of scope. Translation Spaces 1(1): 169-188.

Neumann, S. and Serbina, T. (2021). Translation, corpus linguistics and cognition. In F. Alves and A.L. Jakobsen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 188-205). Oxon/New York: Routledge.

Noonan, M. (1985). Complementation. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 2: Complex constructions (pp. 42-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Passonneau, R. and Litman, D. (1996). Empirical analysis of three dimensions of spoken discourse: Segmentation, coherence, and linguistic devices. In E. Hovy and D. Scott (eds.), Computational and conversational discourse. NATO ASI Series (Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences), vol 151. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

Paul, W. (2016). Where “complex” sentences are not complex and “subordinate” clauses not subordinate: the case of Mandarin Chinese. In F. Pratas, S. Pereira and C. Pinto (eds.), Coordination and Subordination: Form and Meaning – Selected Papers from CSI Lisbon 2014 (pp. 185-208). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Philippi, D. (1989). Translation between typologically diverse languages. Meta 34(4): 680-685.

Poesio, M. (2000). The GNOME annotation scheme manual. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Polanyi, L. (1988). A Formal model of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 601-638.

Polanyi, L., Culy, C., van den Berg, M., Thione, G.L. and Ahn, D. (2004). A rule based approach to discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the 5^th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 108-117). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Poon, W.Y.E. (2005). The cultural transfer In legal translation. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 18: 307‑323.

Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Pym, A. (2009). On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.), Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 83-105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Quine, W.V. (1986). Philosophy of logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Ramm, W. (2008). Upgrading of non-restrictive relative clauses in translation: A change in discourse structure? In C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm (eds.), “Subordination” versus “coordination” in sentence and text (pp. 135-159). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ramos, F.P. and Cerutti, G. (2021). Terminology as a source of difficulty in translating international legal discourses: An empirical cross-genre study. International Journal of Legal Discourse 6(2).

Reinhart, T. (1984). Principles of Gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts. Linguistics 22: 779-809.

Riccardi, A. (1999). Interpretazione simultanea: Strategie generali e specifiche. In C. Falbo, M. Russo and F. Straniero Sergio (eds.), Interpretazione simultanea e consecutiva: Problemi teorici e metodologie didattiche (pp. 161-174). Milan: Hoepli.

Robinson, K. (June 2006). Do schools kill creativity? Subtitles translated by D. Neiaglov (Russian), D. Molnár (Hungarian), T. Gezginiş (Turkish), Dxm Online (Mandarin), N. Iguchi (Japanese). [Video file].

Rodríguez-Inés, P. (2017). Corpus‐based insights into cognition. In J.W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 265-289). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.

Ross, D. (2016). Between coordination and subordination: typological, structural and diachronic perspectives on pseudocoordination. In F. Pratas, S. Pereira and C. Pinto (eds.), Coordination and Subordination: Form and Meaning – Selected Papers from CSI Lisbon 2014 (pp. 209-243). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Rozwadowska, B. (2017). Derived nominals. In M. Everaert and H.C. Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, Second edition.

Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Šarčević, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International.

Schaeffer, M. and Carl, M. (2014). Measuring the cognitive effort of literal translation processes. In Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation (pp. 29-37). Gothenburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Schauer, H. (2000). From elementary discourse units to complex ones. In Proceedings of the 1^st SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 46-55). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Schmidtke-Bode, K. and Diessel, H. (2017). Cross-linguistic patterns in the structure, function, and position of (object) complement clauses. Linguistics 55(1): 1-38. 

Schröder, D. (2016). That it should have come to this! The challenging phenomenon of insubordination. In F. Pratas, S. Pereira and C. Pinto (eds.), Coordination and Subordination: Form and Meaning – Selected Papers from CSI Lisbon 2014 (pp. 245-268). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Seeber, K.G. and Kerzel, D. (2012). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(2): 228-242.

Seleskovitch, D. and Lederer, M. (1989). Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier Erudition.

Setton, R. (1993). Is non-intra-IE interpretation different? European Models and Chinese-English Realities. Meta 38(2): 238-256.

Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Setton, R. and Motta, M. (2007). Syntacrobatics: Quality and reformulation in simultaneous-with-text. Interpreting 9(2): 199-230.

Shlesinger, Miriam. (2014). Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting. The Translator 1(2): 193-214.

Sinek, S. (May 2010). How great leaders inspire action. Subtitles translated by I. Ponomarenko (Russian), G. Tóth (Hungarian), A. Baytekin (Turkish), J. Chen (Mandarin), N. Mizutani (Japanese). [Video file].

Solfjeld, K. 2008. Sentence splitting – and strategies to preserve discourse structure in German-Norwegian translations. In C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm (eds.), “Subordination” versus “coordination” in sentence and text (pp. 115-133). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Spronck, S. and Nikitina, T. (2019) Reported speech forms – A dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1): 119-159.

Stassen, L. (1985). Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Stede, M. (2008). RST revisited: Disentangling nuclearity. In C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm (eds.), “Subordination” versus “coordination” in sentence and text (pp. 33-58). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Steiner, E. (2021). Translation, equivalence and cognition. In F. Alves and A.L. Jakobsen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 344-359). Oxon/New York: Routledge.

Sun, S. (2015). Measuring translation difficulty: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Across Languages and Cultures 16(1), pp. 29-54.

Sun, S. and Shreve, G. (2014). Measuring translation difficulty: An empirical study. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 26(1): 98-127.

Taboada, M. and Hadic Zabala, L. (2008). Deciding on units of analysis within centering theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1: 63-108.

Tanguy, N., Van Damme, T., Degand, L. and Simon, A.C. (2012). Projet FRFC « Périphérie gauche des unités de discours » – Protocole de codage syntaxique. Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain.

TED Translate webpage: www.ted.com/participate/translate.

TED Translate Guidelines: www.ted.com/participate/translate/guidelines.

Thomas, J.G., Milner, H.R. and Haberlandt, K.F. (2003). Forward and backward recall: Different response time patterns, same retrieval order. Psychological Science 14(2): 169–174.

Thompson, S.A. (1987). “Subordination” and narrative event structure. In R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 435-454). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Thompson, S.A. (2002). “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125-163. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tomlin, R.S. (1985). Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text 5: 85-122.

Tomlin, R.S. (1986). Basic word order: functional principles. London: Croom Helm.

Torikai, K. (2009). Voices of the invisible presence: Diplomatic interpreters in post-World War II Japan. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin.

Uddén, J., Hultén, A., Schoffelen, J.-M., Lam, N., Harbusch, K., van den Bosch, A., Kempen, G., Petersson, K.M. and Hagoort, P. (2022). Supramodal sentence processing in the human brain: fMRI evidence for the influence of syntactic complexity in more than 200 participants. Neurobiology of Language 3(4): 575-598.

Ueno, M. and Polinsky, M. (2009). Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO-OV contrast. Journal of Linguistics 45(3): 675-710.

Urban, T. (March 2016). Inside the mind of a master procrastinator. Subtitles translated by A. Kotova (Russian), R. Panka (Hungarian), R. Bir (Turkish), A. Lin (Mandarin), Y. Aoki (Japanese). [Video file].

Van Besien, F. (1999). Anticipation in simultaneous interpretation. Meta 44(2): 251‑259.

Vanroy, B. (2021). Syntactic difficulties in translation. PhD thesis: Ghent University.

Vanroy, B., De Clercq, O. and Macken, L. (2019). Correlating process and product data to get an insight into translation difficulty. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 27(6): 924-941.

Vanroy, B., De Clercq, O., Tezcan, A., Daems, J. and Macken, L. (2021). Metrics of Syntactic Equivalence to Assess Translation Difficulty. In Carl, M. (eds.), Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research. Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications 3. Cham: Springer.

Verhagen, A. (2001). Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord and W. Spooren (eds.), Text Representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 337–357). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Verified Market Research. (2024). Global translation services market size and forecast. www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/global-translation-services-market-size-and-forecast.

Verstraete, J.-C. (2005) Two types of coordination in clause combining. Lingua 115(4): 611‑626.

Verstraete, J.-C. (2007). The many faces of subordination, in Germanic and beyond. In M. Miestamo and B. Wälchi (eds.), New Challenges in Typology: Broadening the Horizons and Redefining the Foundations (363-383). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Visapää, L. (2014). On the contextual conceptualization of joka relative clauses in Finnish. In L. Visapää, J. Kalliokoski and H. Sorva (eds.), Contexts of subordination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wang, B. and Gu, Y. (2016). An evidence-based exploration into the effect of language-pair specificity in English-Chinese simultaneous interpreting. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies 3:2, 146-160.

Wilss, W. (1978). Syntactic anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpretation. In D. Gerver and H.W. Sinaiko (eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 343‑352). New York/London: Plenum Press.

Wong, L. (2006). Syntax and translatability. Babel 52: 124-132.

World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) Online: www.wals.info.

Yamashita, H. (2002). Scrambled sentences in Japanese: Linguistic properties and motivation for production. Text 22: 597-633.

Yamashita, H. and Chang, F. (2001). Long before short preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81: B45-B55.

Yamashita, H. and Chang, F. (2006). Sentence production in Japanese. In M. Nakayama, R. Mazuka and Y. Shirai (eds.), Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics, Vol. 2: Japanese (pp. 291-297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, C.S. (2002). Syntactic linearity in simultaneous interpretation – An exploration study of its operation through the use of the minimalist program. Chinese Translators Journal 6: 29-35.

Yang, Y. (2010). Syntactic translation strategies in Finnish-Chinese translation – A case study on the great fairy tales of the Finnish people into Chinese. PhD thesis: University of Tampere.

Yuasa, E. and Sadock, J. (2002). Pseudo-subordination: A mismatch between syntax and semantics. Journal of Linguistics 38(1): 87-111.

Zou, J. (2016). On the translation of long and complex English sentences. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 4(6): 190-197.