Exploring the Implications of Complexity

Thinking for Translation Studies

Exploring the Implications of Complexity Thinking for Translation Studies con-

siders the new link between translation studies and complexity thinking. Edited by
leading scholars in this emerging field, the collection builds on and expands work
done in complexity thinking in translation studies over the past decade.
In this volume, the contributors address a variety of implications that this new
approach holds for key concepts in Translation Studies such as source vs. target
texts, translational units, authorship, translatorship, for research topics including
translation data, machine translation, communities of practice, and for research
methods such as constraints and the emergence of trajectories. The various
chapters provide valuable information as to how research methods informed by
complexity thinking can be applied in translation studies.
Presenting theoretical and methodological contributions as well as case stu-
dies, this volume is of interest to advanced students, academics, and researchers
in translation and interpreting studies, literary studies, and related areas.

Kobus Marais is professor of translation studies in the Department of Linguistics

and Language practice of University of the Free State, South Africa. He has pub-
lished two monographs, namely Translation Theory and Development Studies: A
Complexity Theory Approach (2014) and A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation:
The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality (2018).

Reine Meylaerts is professor of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies

at KU Leuven where she teaches courses on European Literature, Comparative
Literature and Translation, and Plurilingualism in Literature. Currently she is
vice-rector of research policy (2017–2021). Her current research interests concern
translation policy, intercultural mediation, and transfer in multilingual cultures.
The IATIS Yearbook
Series editor: Sabine Braun

The International Association for Translation and Intercultural Studies (IATIS)

is a worldwide forum designed to enable scholars from different regional and
disciplinary backgrounds to debate issues pertinent to translation and other
forms of intercultural communication.
The series aims to promote and disseminate innovative research, rigorous
scholarship and critical thinking in all areas of translation studies and intercultural
communication.

Authorizing Translation
Edited by Michelle Woods

Human Issues in Translation Technology

Edited by Dorothy Kenny

Interpreting and the Politics of Recognition

Edited by Christopher Stone and Lorraine Leeson

Innovation in Audio Description Research

Edited by Sabine Braun and Kim Starr

Multilingual Mediated Communication and Cognition

Edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín and Sandra L. Halverson

Exploring the Implications of Complexity Thinking for Translation Studies

Edited by Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts

For more information or to order, please go to https://www.routledge.com/

The-IATIS-Yearbook/book-series/IATIS
Exploring the Implications of
Complexity Thinking for
Translation Studies

Edited by
Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts
First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 selection and editorial matter, Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts to be identified as the
authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual
chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-0-367-61308-2 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-61307-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-10511-4 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003105114

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Taylor & Francis Books
Contents

List of illustrations vi
List of contributors viii

1 Exploring the Implications of Complexity Thinking for

Translation Studies: Introduction 1
REINE MEYLAERTS AND KOBUS MARAIS

2 Reconsidering the Binaries in Translation Studies through Triadic

Semiotic Processes 7
KOBUS MARAIS

3 Complexity and the Place of Translation in Digital Humanities:

Post-Disciplinary Communities of Practice in the Translation
Studies Network 30
RALUCA TANASESCU

4 What’s in a Bulletproof Beauty? Transmedial Rewritings of

Baroness Pontalba’s Fabled Destiny 73
AUDREY CANALÈS

5 The Methodological Implications of Complexity Thinking in

Translation Studies 119
KOBUS MARAIS, REINE MEYLAERTS AND SHUANG LI

6 Chasing the Complexity of Threads from the Translation Process

that Hide in Translation Data 143
FÉLIX DO CARMO

Index 170
Illustrations

Figures
2.1 The Peircean triad represented as a triangle 13
2.2 The Peircean triad revolving around a central axis 14
2.3 The meaning of a sign is its translation into another sign 15
2.4 Infinite semiosis 16
2.5 Linear infinite semiosis 17
2.6 The semiotic triangle as process 18
2.7 The translation process without the triad 19
2.8a Infinite semiotic process 20
2.8b Infinite semiosis without the triads 21
2.9 Complex strains of semiosis interacting 22
2.10 Translation modelled as aerodynamics 23
3.1 Word Cloud of the EST2019 Individual Presentations and
Posters 44
3.2 The Semantic Network of the EST2019 Individual Papers and
Posters cf. tf-idf Vector Correlation and Weighted Degree 50
3.3 The Semantic Network of the EST2019 Individual Papers and
Posters cf. Topic Models 51
3.4 Word Cloud of the Whole EST2019 Abstract Corpus 55
3.5 The Semantic Network of the Whole EST2019 Corpus of
Abstracts cf. tf-idf Vector Correlations, Highlighting the Papers
on the Complexity Panel (in Blue) 56
3.6 The Semantic Network of the Whole EST2019 Corpus of
Abstracts cf. Topic Models, Highlighting the Papers on the
Complexity Panel (in Red). 57
4.1 Pontalba Buildings, Chartres St. opp. Jackson Sq., New Orleans,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana (1937–1938). Photograph by
Johnston, Frances Benjamin. LOC. https://www.loc.gov/
resource/csas.01221/ 80
4.2 Detail of Pontalba Balcony, New Orleans (circa 1920) 81
4.3 Château Mont l’Évêque, Early 20th Century 82
4.4 Hotel de Pontalba 83
List of illustrations vii
4.5 Micaela de Pontalba’s portrait by Claude-Marie Dubufe (1841) 84
4.6 Elizabeth McCoy as Micaela de Pontalba in Look Don’t Tell
(Faget Stephens 2018) 89
6.1 The Complexity of Threads in a Convolutional Neural Network 152
6.2 An Illustration of the Sentence Generation by a Beam Search 154
6.3 A Plot that Seemingly Represents the Discovery of an
Interlingua 159

Tables
3.1 The Structure of the EST2019 Congress 43
3.2 The Most Connected Nodes in the EST2019 Individual
Abstract and Poster Network cf. tf-idf Vectors 52
3.3 The Least Connected Nodes in the EST2019 Individual
Abstract and Poster Network 52
3.4 List of Topics in the EST2019 Individual Abstract and Poster
Network 54
3.5 The Highest-ranking Nodes in the tf-idf Network and their
Topic Clustering in the Whole Corpus 57
3.6 Nodes with the Highest Eigenvector in the Whole Corpus
Network 58
3.7 List of Nodes with High Betweenness Centrality in the Overall
Network 58
3.8 Distribution of Topics in the Complexity Panel 59
3.9 List of Nodes with High Betweenness Centrality in the Overall
Network 60
3.10 Abstracts with Strong Correlations (0.90–0.55) to Panel 4 (Big
Translation History) 60
Contributors

Audrey Canalès holds a PhD from the University of Montreal. Apart from
being a sessional lecturer at the University of Montreal, she is researcher,
translator and creator.
Félix do Carmo is a Senior Lecturer in Translation and Natural Language
Processing at the Centre for Translation Studies of the University of Surrey.
He finished his PhD at the University of Porto, where he was a guest lecturer,
after more than 20 years as a translator and a translation company owner in
Portugal. He was then granted a two-year EDGE-MSCA fellowship to work
as a researcher in Dublin City University, Ireland. He has published his work
in international publications, such as Translation Spaces and Machine
Translation. His research covers the translation process, translation
technologies, besides professional workflows and ethics.
Shuang Li holds a PhD in translation studies from KU Leuven. Her research
interests include translation policy and complexity theory. She is the (co-)
author of several articles on these topics. Her doctoral dissertation tested
complexity theory as an approach to translation policy and developed
qualitative explanations for the translation policies of a local court in
China.
Kobus Marais is professor of translation studies in the Department of Linguistics
and Language practice of University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South
Africa. He has published two monographs, namely Translation Theory and
Development Studies: A Complexity Theory Approach (2014) and A (Bio)
Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-cultural Reality
(2018). He has also published two edited volumes, one with Ilse Feinauer,
Translation Studies Beyond the Postcolony (2017), and one with Reine Mey-
laerts, Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies: Methodological Con-
siderations (2018). His research interests are translation theory, complexity
thinking, semiotics/biosemiotics and development studies.
Reine Meylaerts is full professor of Comparative Literature and Translation
Studies at KU Leuven where she teaches courses on European Literature,
Comparative Literature and Translation, and Plurilingualism in Literature.
List of contributors ix
Currently she is vice-rector of research policy (2017–2021). She was direc-
tor of CETRA (Centre for Translation Studies; https://www.arts.kuleuven.
be/cetra) from 2006–2014 and is now board member. Her current research
interests concern translation policy, intercultural mediation, and transfer in
multilingual cultures, past and present. She is the author of numerous
articles and chapters on these topics (https://lirias.kuleuven.be/items-by-a
uthor?author=Meylaerts%2C+Reinhilde%3B+U0031976).
Raluca Tanasescu is a postdoctoral fellow in digital humanities at the University
of Groningen, where she works on mapping continental early modern science
using complex network analysis. She holds a PhD in translation studies from
the University of Ottawa (Canada), with a thesis on agency in non-hegemonic
contexts. Her interests revolve constantly around translation, minority,
complexity, and multilingual digital humanities.
1 Exploring the Implications of
Complexity Thinking for Translation
Studies
Introduction
Reine Meylaerts and Kobus Marais

Complexity theory, complexity philosophy or complexity thinking, whichever

way one wants to look at the development of complexity in scholarly think-
ing, is suggesting a foundational change in ways of doing scholarly work, be
that in the sciences or the humanities. It is both an ontology, arguing that
reality itself is complex in its causality, and an epistemology, arguing that we
can only understand that complex reality through complex epistemological
tools. The scholarship around complexity is itself complex. Some forms of
complexity theory in the natural sciences are at heart reductionist, reducing
complex phenomena to simple laws. In contrast, proponents of complexity
philosophy would draw strong parallels between complexity thinking and
poststructuralist or deconstructivist thought (Cilliers 1998), suggesting that
no, or the least possible amount of reduction, is the ideal.
Whatever form this scholarship takes, it bases itself in non-linear and multiple
causality, in a complex relationship between cause and effect. It bases itself in
sensitivity to initial conditions, meaning that small changes in initial conditions
can have major effects in the ensuing trajectories and that these trajectories are
predictable only in a probabilistic sense. It bases itself on attractors, which means
that the trajectories are not predictable, but are rather of a probabilistic nature,
readily displaying some tendencies rather than others. It bases itself in probable
trajectories rather than linear pathways.
In all fields of study that use complexity theory, philosophy or thinking,
one could find these basic tenets. However, they are differently applied in
different fields of research, and they give rise to different methodologies in
these different fields. One could, for instance, find power laws in physics that
could be described as reductionist complexity, e.g., Per Bak’s (1996) research
on sand avalanches, which states that one could have many small and few
large avalanches, but that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to predict when
a large avalanche will take place. Widely differing fields of study use com-
plexity thinking with widely different amounts of complexity built into it, and
one would probably be able to argue that no thought is possible without some
form of reduction, not least because of limited attention span and memory.
What all practitioners of complexity theory, philosophy or thinking have in
common, though, is an effort to reduce as little as possible and to allow for as
DOI: 10.4324/9781003105114-1
2 Reine Meylaerts and Kobus Marais
much complexity as is practically possible in their epistemologies and their
methodologies, because doing so allows a deeper understanding of reality, in
all its complexities.
Within this wide array of approaches to the problem of complexity stands the
matter of research methods in the humanities. It is not a special case, merely a
case that is of interest to, in this case, translation studies. It is obviously possible
for researchers in translation studies to use the quantitative methods that
emerged from complexity theory, and we support this development whole-
heartedly (Civico 2019a; 2019b). In this volume, Do Carmo and Tanasescu both
use quantitative methods, to a greater or lesser extent. We are, however, of the
view that qualitative research also deserves our attention, if only for the reason
that it is often neglected, and that is why we are delving deeper into the impli-
cations of complexity thinking for qualitative research—not only in the huma-
nities, but wherever it could be useful. If one links complexity thinking to
Peircean semiotics, like Merrell (1998; 2003), for instance, did, one finds that
meaning-making is itself a complex process. Charles S. Peirce distinguishes at
least three classes of meaning-making, namely icons, indexes and symbols. He
expanded this to ten, and later to 66, and later to many more classes, the number
of which is beside the point, except to argue for the complexity of meaning-
making. In addition, Peirce argues that all thought is in signs, even mathematical
and statistical thought. If one starts from these basic Peircean tenets, it means
that all signs, including quantitative ones, need to be interpreted in order to
create meanings. It means that signs, including quantitative ones, do not speak
for themselves. Rather, the meaning of signs is a complex relationship between
representamen, object and interpretant, making hermeneutics a key component
of any meaning-making process. The implication is that no sign system is inher-
ently better than any other—a point well demonstrated by proponents of social
semiotics (Kress 2010). Different sign systems all contribute to meaning-making
by each contributing the affordances that are unique to that system, but all these
systems do so through interpretation. This means that both quantitative and
qualitative research needs to be interpreted and, consequently, each contributes
in a unique way to understanding and communicating the findings in research.
It, furthermore, means that one cannot say that quantitative data give you
meanings that are clearer or “closer to the truth”.
It is because of the richness of the variety of meaning-making resources
that we think qualitative research deserves our attention alongside quantita-
tive research. We acknowledge that much work still needs to be done to
rethink the schism between quantitative and qualitative research, but that is a
topic for another day. In this volume, we explore the implications that com-
plexity thinking holds for doing research in translation studies in both a
qualitative and a quantitative way.
With the above in mind, we organized a panel at the 9th Conference of the
European Society of Translation Studies (EST) in 2019 in order to explore the
implications of complexity thinking for qualitative research in translation
studies further. For this panel, we compiled the following call:
Implications of Complexity Thinking 3
Complexity theory is usually described as a revolutionary break from
reductionism and as a way of seeing the world in terms of instability and
fluctuations. Complexity theory indeed challenges the notions of disjunc-
tion, abstraction and reduction which together constitute the “paradigm
of simplification” (Morin 2008, 3). Reductionism has been the dominant
approach to science since the 16th century (Mitchell 2009, ix) and has
been wrongly associated with the only way to do “good science”. In the
words of Edgar Morin, one of the fathers of complexity theory, reduction
means “the search for elementary, simple units, the decomposition of a
system into its elements, the origination of the complex to the simple”
(Morin 2008, 33). Such a view mutilates reality, which is necessarily
complex, “by imposing a simple conceptualization on a complex rea-
lity” (Marais 2014, 19). Although reduction will remain an important
characteristic of science (Morin 2008, 33; Marais 2014, 15), we need
to supplement it with an epistemology of complexity.

For complexity thinking, the notions of non-linearity, emergence, up- and

downward causation, paradox and non-equilibrium are key. As a result, binary
thinking and linear cause-and-effect relationships are highly questionable. In
sum, “Complexity engages with the methodological foundations of all scientific
practice across all domains and fields” (Byrne and Callaghan 2014, 57).
Translation Theory and Development Studies. A Complexity Theory Approach
(Marais 2014) was the first to introduce complexity theory in translation stu-
dies. This work represents “an epistemological shift from studying substance or
stability to studying relationships, process, or change based on substance or the
complex relationship between them” (Marais 2014, 50).
This panel delves into the deeper implications of complexity theory for
translation studies. It presents theoretical, methodological contributions and
case studies. It tackles, among other, the following topics:

How do nonlinearity and emergence challenge translation studies to

rethink its conceptualization of the relationships between structure and
agency, between habitus and norms?
How do nonlinearity and emergence challenge translation studies to rethink
its conceptualization of the relationships between cause and effect?
How does complexity thinking challenge translation studies’ view on
translators and interpreters as agents of change? On change and evolu-
tion in general?
How does complexity thinking challenge traditional binary oppositions,
which have structured Western thinking: source/target, original/transla-
tion, translation/non-translation, local/global, monolingual/multilingual,
and universal/particular?
How does complexity thinking relate to actor network theory? To
descriptive translation studies? To other paradigms?
4 Reine Meylaerts and Kobus Marais
How does complexity thinking relate to thinking about space and time in
translation studies?
How does the notion of constraints provide us with conceptual tools to
understand trajectories and processes and, thus, change?
How does complexity thinking urge us to a new or better theory of
translation itself ?
How does complexity thinking help us to conceptualize translation in a
radically new way with the potential to change translation studies as a
discipline, including its relationships to other disciplines?
What are the implications of complexity thinking for translator training
and translator practice?

We had 11 presentations in the panel, of which four ended up in this

volume. To strengthen the focus on methodology, we added a chapter that
was not part of the original panel, in which we explore some of the
implications of complexity for research methodology in translation studies.
While the chapters in this volume cover a wide range of topics on com-
plexity in translation studies, we think that they will contribute to a deeper
understanding in translation studies of the complexity of the data with
which the field works.
Do Carmo’s chapter is an original and multidisciplinary attempt to study
the relation between the complexity of translation data and the complexity
of the (human) translation process. It focuses on how neural machine
translation successfully learns to recreate a translation process from trans-
lation data. Complexity thinking’s concepts of multidimensionality, non-
linearity, entropy, emergence and non-reversibility help researchers to
understand the complex processes enacted by neural machine translation.
Neural networks are able to translate from one language to another because
they are complex adaptive systems, i.e., they are autonomous and unpre-
dictable and show adaptability to complex contexts. Moreover, if neural
networks are so good in dealing with complex translation data, it is because
they (partly) resemble the (human) translation process. And it is because of
this replication of the translation process that neural machine translation is
able to produce high quality translations. In sum, Do Carmo’s chapter
illustrates how complexity thinking concepts can give insight in under-
standing why neural machine translation is so efficient, but still unable to
completely unravel the (human) translation process.
Marais’ chapter challenges the linear, reductionist thinking that is omnipre-
sent in Western scholarship in general, and translation studies in particular.
Reductionism induces binarism and limits causes to two, while, in reality,
causes are more often than not multiple. As such, it prevents translation stu-
dies really understanding translation. Marais, instead, turns to Peirce’s triadic
thinking as a way to escape binary thinking in translation studies. He explores
Peirce’s logic to see whether it would be possible to conceptualize the binaries
in translation studies in triads. Marais suggests that a combination of Peirce’s
Implications of Complexity Thinking 5
idea of semiosis as process and his triadic view of sign-action allows one to
think of translation as a process of linked triads, rather than binaries. Indeed,
modeling the translation process triadically shows that the distinction
between source and target is a false binary and, thus, provides an alternative
to binary thinking. A translation process involves a triadic link between three
relata, never two. Similarly, no translation is only foreignizing or domes-
ticating, but rather, every translation is both foreignizing and domesticating.
Tanasescu examines the possibilities of aligning translation studies to the
latest developments in digital humanities, pointing out that translation studies is
vastly underrepresented in digital humanities. She suggests that one considers
translation as “chaosphere” because the very idea of multiple meanings renders
the translation of texts a complex practice, and multiple languages render digital
humanities a complex field of study. She analyzes the full corpus of abstracts
presented at the 2019 EST congress in Stellenbosch by means of computational
semantic analysis and formalizes the relationships between them in a series of
networks that take into account the semantic correlation scores between the
nodes (abstracts). The results question the validity of a dominant discourse in
translation studies, as they speak to very diverse, non-linear research
interests and traditions. In addition, the derived networks reveal a series of
relationships between topics that suggest underexplored communities of
practice, such as involving methodologies specific to computational linguistics
in the study of literary translation. In the process, Tanasescu makes a strong
case for post-disciplinary research, based on complexity thinking and the
findings of digital humanities.
Canales sets out to consider the relationship between complex systems and
narrative universes, arguing that multimodal texts redefine some of transla-
tion studies’ key concepts. She tells the story of Micaela Pontalba and closes
the reconstruction by noting that it was a translation without source text. Her
data demonstrates that the notion of a single source text for a translation
cannot hold. She makes the further point that source texts need not be lin-
gual, e.g. the Pontalba buildings, and are often a complex as well as proces-
sual in nature. Her analysis shows the paradoxical and complex relationships
in transmedial storyverses in her telling of Pontabla’s story. Not least of all,
her analysis is a demonstration of the complexity of modes of representing
transmedial storyverses.
Marais, Meylaerts and Li explore the methodological implications of the
philosophy of complexity, as articulated by Morin and Cilliers, i.e., how
the philosophy of complexity would inform research methods in transla-
tion studies. They then move to recent suggestions, in particular from
sociology, regarding methods that might fit a complexity perspective.
Lastly, their chapter explains and explores a number of key concepts from
complexity theory that might be translated into qualitative methods for
research, namely emergence, constraints, attractors, trajectories and com-
plex causality.
6 Reine Meylaerts and Kobus Marais
References
Bak, Per. 1996. How nature works: The science of self-organised criticality. New York:
Copernicus.
Byrne, David S. and Gill Callaghan (eds.). 2014. Complexity theory and the social sci-
ences: The state of the art. First edition. New York: Routledge, Taylor&Francis Group.
Cilliers, Paul. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems.
London: Routledge.
Civico, Marco. 2019a. “The complexity of knowledge sharing in multilingual cor-
porations: Evidence from agent-based simulations.” Empirica, 46 (6): 767–795.
Civico, Marco. 2019b. “The dynamics of language minorities: Evidence from an
agent-based model of language contact.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social
Simulation, 22 (4): 1–27.
Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. London: Routledge.
Marais, Kobus. 2014. Translation theory and development studies: A complexity theory
approach. New York: Routledge.
Merrell, Floyd. 1998. Simplicity and complexity: Pondering literature, science and
painting. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Merrell, Floyd. 2003. Sensing corporeally. London: Univerity of Toronto Press.
Mitchell, Melanie. 2009. Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Morin, Edgar. 2008. On complexity. Translated by Robin Postel. Cresskill: Hampton
Press.
Exploring the Implications of Complexity Thinking for Translation
Studies
Bak, Per . 1996. How nature works: The science of self-organised criticality. New York:
Copernicus.
Byrne, David S. and Gill Callaghan (eds.). 2014. Complexity theory and the social sciences: The
state of the art. First edition. New York: Routledge, Taylor&Francis Group.
Cilliers, Paul . 1998. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London:
Routledge.
Civico, Marco . 2019a. “The complexity of knowledge sharing in multilingual corporations:
Evidence from agent-based simulations.” Empirica, 46 (6): 767–795.
Civico, Marco . 2019b. “The dynamics of language minorities: Evidence from an agent-based
model of language contact.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 22 (4): 1–27.
Kress, Gunther . 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. London: Routledge.
Marais, Kobus . 2014. Translation theory and development studies: A complexity theory
approach. New York: Routledge.
Merrell, Floyd . 1998. Simplicity and complexity: Pondering literature, science and painting. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Merrell, Floyd . 2003. Sensing corporeally. London: Univerity of Toronto Press.
Mitchell, Melanie . 2009. Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.
Morin, Edgar . 2008. On complexity. Translated by Robin Postel . Cresskill: Hampton Press.

Reconsidering the Binaries in Translation Studies through Triadic

Semiotic Processes
Aguiar, Daniella , and Joao Queiroz . 2013. “Semiosis and intersemiotic translation.” Semiotica
196: 283–292.
Aguiar, Daniella , and Joao Queiroz . 2009. “Towards a model of intersemiotic translation.” The
International Journal of the Arts in Society 4.
Aguiar, Daniella , Pedro Ata , and Joao Queiroz . 2015. “Intersemiotic translation and
transformational creativity.” Punctum 1 (2): 11–21.
Ata, Pedro , and Joao Queiroz . 2016. “Multilevel poetry translation as a problem-solving task.”
Cognitive Semiotics 9 (2): 139–147.
Byrne, David . 2005. “Complexity, configurations and cases.” Theory, Culture and Society 22
(5): 95–111.
Champagne, Marc , and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen . 2019. “Why images cannot be arguments, but
moving ones might.” Argumentation. doi:doi:10.1007/s10503-019-09484-0.
Chesterman, Andrew . 2017. “The name and nature of translator studies.” In Reflections on
translation theory: Selected papers 1993–2014, edited by Andrew Chesterman , 323–329.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Civico, Marco . 2019a. “The complexity of knowledge sharing in multilingual corporations:
Evidence from agent-based simulations.” Empirica: 1–29.
Civico, Marco . 2019b. “The dynamics of language minorities: Evidence from an agent-based
model of language contact.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 22 (4): 1–27.
Clark, Andy . 2008. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Covenye, Peter , and Roger Highfield . 1995. Frontiers of complexity. The search for order in a
chaotic world. New York: Fawcett Columbine.
Deacon, Terrence W. 2013. Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York:
WW Norman & Company.
Deely, John . 2001. Four ages of understanding: The first postmodern survey of philosophy
from ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
DeLanda, Manuel . 2006. A new philosophy of science. London: Continuum.
DeLanda, Manuel . 2016. Assemblage theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles , and Felix Guattari . 1987. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia.
Translated by Brian Massumi . Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
Garcia, Adolfo M. 2019. The neurocognition of translation and interpreting. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Gutt, Ernst A. 2000. Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Manchester: St Jerome.
Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1979. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. A metaphorical
fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll. London: Penguin Books.
House, Juliane . 1997. Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr.
Houser, Nathan . 2014. “The intelligible universe.” In Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the
riddle of life, edited by V. Romanini and E. Fernandez , 9–32. Dordrecht: Springer.
Johnson, Neil F. 2009. Simply complexity. A clear guide to complexity theory. Oxford: One
World.
Kiraly, Don . 2013. “Towards a view of translator competence as an emergent phenomenon:
Thinking outside the box(es) in translator education.” In New prospects and perspectives for
educating language mediators, edited by Don Kirally , Silvia Hansen-Shirra and Karin
Maksymski , 197–223. Tübingen: Narr.
Marais, Kobus . 2014. Translation theory and development studies: A complexity theory
approach. London: Routledge.
Marais, Kobus . 2019. A (bio)semiotic theory of translation: The emergence of social-cultural
reality. New York: Routledge.
Marais, Kobus . 2020. “Translating time: Modelling the (re)processing of emerging meaning.”
Punctum 6 (1): 109–131.
Marais, Kobus , and Carmen Delgado Luchner . 2018. “Motivating the translation-interpreting-
development nexus.” The Translator 24 (4): 295–300.
Marais, Kobus , and Reine Meylaerts . 2019. Complexity thinking in translation studies:
Methodological considerations. New York: Routledge.
Marion, Russ . 1999. The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social
systems. London: SAGE Publications.
Merrell, Floyd . 1997. Peirce, signs and meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Merrell, Floyd . 1998. Sensing semiosis: Toward the possibility of complementary cultural
‘logics’. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Merrell, Floyd . 2000. Change through signs of body, mind and language. Prospect Heights:
Waveland.
Merrell, Floyd . 2003. Sensing corporeally. London: Univerity of Toronto Press.
Mitchell, Melanie . 2009. Complexity. A guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morin, Edgar . 2008. On complexity. Translated by R. Postel . Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Newmark, Peter . 2001. A textbook of translation. Harlow: Longman.
Nicolis, Gregoire , and Catherine Nicholis . 2012. Foundations of complex systems: Emergence,
information and prediction. New Jersey: World Scientific.
Nida, Eugene . 2004. “Principles of correspondence.” In The translation studies reader, edited
by L. Venuti , 153–167. London: Routledge.
Nord, Christiane . 2018. Translating as a purposeful activity. Functionalist approaches
explained. 2. New York: Routledge.
Page, Scott E. 2011. Diversity and complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Peirce, Charles . 1931–1958. Collected papers of Charles Peirce. Edited by C. Hartshorne , P.
Weiss and A. Burks . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pym, Anthony . 2009. “Humanizing translation history.” Hermes: Journal of Language and
Communication Studies 42: 23–48. doi:10.7146/hjlcb.v22i42.96845.
Pym, Anthony . 2012. On translator ethics. Translated by Heike Walker . Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Queiroz, Joao , and Pedro Ata . 2019. “Intersemiotic translation as an abductive cognitive
artifact.” In Complexity and translation: Methodological considerations, edited by Kobus Marais
and Reine Meylaerts , 19–32. New York: Routledge.
Queiroz, Joao , and Pedro Ata . 2020. “Intersemiotic translation as a creative thinking tool: From
Gertrude Stein to dance.” In Transmediations: Communication across media borders, edited by
Niklas Salmose and Lars Ellestrom , 186–215. New York: Routledge.
Robinson, Douglas . 1991. The translator’s turn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Romanini, Vinicius . 2014. “Semeiosis as a living process.” In Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess
at the riddle of life, edited by Vinicius Romanini and Eliseo Fernandez , 215–239. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Sebeok, Thomas A. 2001. “Biosemiotics: Its roots, proliferation and prospects.” Semiotica 134
(1/4): 61–78.
Stjernfelt, Frederik . 2007. Diagrammatology: An investigation on the borderlines of
phenomenoogy, ontology and semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Venuti, Lawrence . 1995. The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. New York:
Routledge.
Whitehead, Alfred N. [1978]1985. Process and reality (Corrected version). New York: The Free
Press.

Complexity and the Place of Translation in Digital Humanities

Angelelli, Claudia . 2019. “Minding the Gaps: Translation and Interpreting Studies Crossing
Interdisciplinary Boundaries.” EST 2019 Abstract Book, 4. https://bit.ly/3kOVimY.
Ashrafi, Nasrin . 2019. “The Complexity of Iran’s Literary Polysystem: An Interdisciplinary
Study.” In Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies. Methodological Considerations, edited by
Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts , 216–237. New York, Routledge.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris . 2013. “Translational Turn.” In Handbook of Translation Studies Vol.
4, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer , 186–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bassnett, Susan and David Johnston . 2019. “The Outward Turn in Translation Studies.” The
Translator 25 (3): 181–188. doi:10.1080/13556509.2019.1701228.
Bizzoni, Yuri , Marianne Reboul and Angelo Del Grosso . 2017. “Diachronic Trends in Homeric
Translations.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 11 (20).
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/11/2/000297/000297.html.
Blakesley, Jacob . 2018. “Reading Distantly Poetry Translation: Modern European Poet-
Translators.” In Sociologies of Poetry Translation, edited by Jacob Blakesley . Bloomsbury
Press.
Burdick, Anna , Johanna Drucker, Peter , Lunenfeld, Todd , Presner , and Jeffrey Schnapp .
2012. Digital_Humanities. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Buzelin, Hélène . 2005. “Unexpected Allies. How Latour’s Network Theory Could Complement
Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies.” Translation Studies 11 (2): 193–218.
Canavese, Paolo . 2019. “LEX.CH.IT: A Corpus for Micro-Diachronic Linguistic Investigations of
Swiss Normative Acts in Italian.” Comparative Legilinguistics 40: 44–65.
doi:10.14746/cl.2019.40.3.
Chesterman, Andrew . 2000. “A Causal Model for Translation Studies.” In Intercultural
Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies 1. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, edited by
Maeve Olohan , 15–27. London: Routledge.
Chesterman, Andrew . 2012. “Models in Translation Studies.” In Handbook of Translation
Studies, vol. 3, edited by Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer , 108–114. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Ciula, Arianna , Øyvind Eide , Cristina Marras , and Patrick Sahle . 2018. “Modelling: Thinking in
Practice; An Introduction.” Historical Social Research, Supplement 31: 7–26.
https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.suppl.31.2018.7-29.
Cronin, Michael . 2013. Translation in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.
Dacos, Marin . 2010. “Manifesto for the Digital Humanities.” Hypotheses 26 August. Academic
blog. https://tcp.hypotheses.org/411.
Demerath, Loren and Dante E. Suarez . 2019. “Teaching Complexity as Transdisciplinarity.” In
Complex Adaptive Systems. Views from the Physical, Natural, and Social Sciences, edited by
Ted Carmichael, Andrew J. , edited by Collins , and Mirsad Hadžikadić , 235–250. New York
City: Springer.
Diestel, Reinhard . 2000. Graph Theory. New York City: Springer-Verlag.
Drucker, Johanna . 2016. “Graphical Approaches to the Digital Humanities.” In The New
Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman , Raymond G. Siemens , and
John Unsworth , 238–250. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Emmeche, Claus . 2004. “At Home in a Complex World: Lessons from the Frontiers of Natural
Science.” In The Significance of Complexity. Approaching a Complex World through Science,
Theology, and the Humanities, edited by Kees van Kooten Niekerk and Hans Buhl , 21–46.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Endres, Bill . 2017. “A Literacy of Building: Making in the Digital Humanities.” In Making Things
and Drawing Boundaries: Experiments in the Digital Humanities, edited by Jentery Sayers ,
44–54. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Epstein, Joshua M. 2008. “Why Model?” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 11
(4): 12. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/4/12.html.
Fiormonte, Domenico . 2012. “Towards a Cultural Critique of the Digital Humanities.” Historical
Social Research 37 (3): 59–76.
Folaron, Deborah and Hélène Buzelin . 2007. “Introduction. Connecting Translation and
Network Studies.” META: Journal des traducteurs 52 (4): 605–642.
Gallitelli, Eleonora . 2016. “Digital Humanities come risorsa per i translation studies” [Digital
Humanities as Resource for Translation Studies]. Status Quaestionis. Language, Text, Culture
10: 53–72.
Gold, Matthew . 2012. “Introduction: The Digital Humanities Moment.” Debates in the Digital
Humanities, edited by Matthew Gold , ix–xvi. University of Minnesota Press.
Göpferich, Susanne . 2011. “From Multidisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity: The Investigation of
Competence Development as a Case in Point.” MikaEL1Kääntämisen ja tulkkauksen
tutkimuksen symposiumin verkkojulkaisu. Electronic Proceedings of the KäTu Symposium on
Translation and Interpreting Studies 5: 1–24.
Handelman, Matthew . 2015. “Digital Humanities as Translation: Visualizing Franz
Rosenzweig’s Archive.” Transit 10 (1): 1–20.
Hayles, Katherine N. 1990. Chaos Bound. Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and
Science. New York: Cornell University Press.
Hübenthal, Ursula 1991. Interdisziplinäres Denken: Versuch einer Bestandsaufnahme und
Systematisierung. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Huggett, Jeremy . 2012. “Core or Periphery? Digital Humanities from an Archaeological
Perspective.” Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung: Controversies around the
Digital Humanities 37 (3): 86–105.
Johnson, Steven . 2001. Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities. New York:
Scribner.
Jørgensen, Finn Arne . 2016. “The Internet of Things.” In The New Companion to Digital
Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman , Raymond G. Siemens and John Unsworth , 42–53.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Kaindl, Klaus 1999. “Interdisziplinarität in der Translationswissenschaft: Theoretische und
methodische Implikationen” [Interdisciplinarity in Translation Studies: Theoretical and
Methodological Implications]. In Modelle der Translation: Grundlagen für Methodik, Bewertung,
Computermodellierung, edited by Alberto Gil , Johann Haller , Erich Steiner and Heidrun
Gerzymisch-Arbogast , 137–155. Frankfurt: Lang.
Kaufman, Micki , Zoe LeBlanc , Matthew Lincoln , Yannick Rochat and Scott B. Weingart .
2017. “Visualizing Futures of Networks in Digital Humanities Research.” DH2017.
Access/Accès, 93–95. Université de Montréal. https://yro.ch/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/DH2017_kaufman_et_al.pdf.
Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. 2013. “What is Digital Humanities and What’s it Doing in English
Departments?” In Defining Digital Humanities: A Reader, edited by Melissa Terras, Julianne ,
edited by Nyhan and Edward Vanhoutte , 195–204. Farnham: Ashgate.
Lavin, Michael J. 2019. “Analyzing Documents with TF-IDF.” The Programming Historian.
https://programminghistorian.org/en/lessons/analyzing-documents-with-tfidf#how-the-algorithm-
works.
Latour, Bruno . 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory.
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno . 1996. “On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications.” Soziale Welt 47:
369–381.
Law, John . 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge.
Liu, Alan . 2020. “Toward a Diversity Stack: Digital Humanities and Diversity as Technical
Problem.” PMLA 135 (1): 130–151. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2020.135.1.130.
Mahony, Simon . 2018. “Cultural Diversity and the Digital Humanities.” Fudan Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences 11: 371–388.
Manning, Christopher D. , Prabhakar Raghavan , and Hinrich Schütze . 2008. Introduction to
Information Retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marais, Kobus . 2014. Translation Theory and Development Studies. A Complexity Theory
Approach. New York: Routledge.
Marais, Kobus and Reine Meylaerts (Eds.). 2018. Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies.
Methodological Considerations. New York: Routledge.
Marecki, Piotr and Nick Montfort , 2017. “Renderings: Translating Literary Works in the Digital
Age.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32 (1): i84–i91.
McCarty, Willard . 2016. “Becoming Interdisciplinary.” In The New Companion to Digital
Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman , Raymond G. Siemens and John Unsworth , 69–83.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Meylaerts, Reine . 2012. “Multilingualism as a Challenge for Translation Studies.” In The
Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Carmen Millán and Francesca Bartrina ,
519–533. New York: Routledge.
Morrison, Margaret and Mary S. Morgan . 1999. “Models as Mediating Instruments.” In Models
as Mediators, edited by Mary S. Morgan and Margaret Morrison , 10–37. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Moretti, Franco . 2000. “Conjectures on World Literature.” New Left Review 1: 54.
Moretti, Franco . 2013. Distant Reading. New York: Verso Books.
Newmann, Mark E. J. 2010. Networks: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicolescu, Basarab . 2014. “Methodology of Transdisciplinarity.” World Futures 70
(3–4):186–199. doi:10.1080/02604027.2014.934631.
O’Hagan, Minako . 2013. “The Impact of New Technologies on Translation Studies. A
Technological Turn?” The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Carmen Millán
and Francesca Bartrina , 503–518. New York: Routledge.
Oldman, Dominic , Martin Doerr and Stefan Gradmann . 2016. “Zen and the Art of Linked Data:
New Strategies for a Semantic Web of Humanist Knowledge.” In The New Companion to Digital
Humanities edited by Susan Schreibman , Raymond G. Siemens and John Unsworth ,
251–273. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Portela, Martin , María Mencía and Søren Pold . 2018. “Creating New Constraints: Toward a
Theory of Writing as Digital Translation.” Electronic Book Review, May 30 .
https://doi.org/10.7273/wa3v-ab22.
Presner, Todd and David Shepard . 2016. “Mapping the Geo-Spatial Turn.” In The New
Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman , Raymond G. Siemens and
John Unsworth , 201–212. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Pym, Anthony . 2007. “Cross-Cultural Networking: Translators in the French-German Network
of Petites Revues at the End of the Nineteenth Century.” META: Journal des traducteurs 52 (4):
744–762.
Pym, Anthony and Grzgorz Chrupała . 2005. “The Quantitative Analysis of Translation Flows in
the Age of an International Language.” In Less Translated Languages, edited by Albert
Branchadell and Lovell Margaret West . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Quillian, M. Ross . 1968. “Semantic Networks.” In Semantic Information Processing, edited by
Marvin L. Minsky . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Robinson, Douglas . 2016. Exorcising Translation. Towards an Intercivilizational Turn. New
York City: Bloomsbury Academic.
Ruecker, Stan . 2016. “Interface as Mediating Actor for Collection Access, Text Analysis, and
Experimentation.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman ,
Raymond G. Siemens and John Unsworth , 397–407. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Rybicki, Jan . 2012. “The Great Mystery of the (Almost) Invisible Translator.” In Quantitative
Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies: A Practical Guide to Descriptive Translation
Research, edited by Michael P. Oakes and Meng Ji , 231–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rybicki, Jan and Magda Heydel . 2013. “The Stylistics and Stylometry of Collaborative
Translation: Woolf’s Night and Day in Polish.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 28 (4):
708–717.
Smith, Martha Nell . 2004. “Electronic Scholarly Editing.” In A Companion to Digital Humanities,
edited by Susan Schreibman , Raymond G. Siemens and John Unsworth , 306–322. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Snell-Hornby, Mary . 2010. “The Turns of Translation Studies.” In Handbook of Translation
Studies, vol. 1, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer , 366–370. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
St. André , James . 2018. “Introduction: Translation Studies and the Digital.” Journal of
Translation Studies 2 (1): 1–4.
Tahir-Gürçağlar, Şehnaz . 2007. “Chaos before Order: Network Maps and Research Design in
DTS.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs, Special Issue, Connecting Translation and Network
Studies 52 (4): 724–743.
Tanasescu, Raluca . 2019. “Chaos out of Order: Translations of American and Canadian
Contemporary Poetry into Romanian before 1989.” Chronotopos 2, 64–94. doi:10.25365/cts-
2019-1-2-5.
Tanasescu, Raluca . 2021. Forthcoming. “Literary Barters: A Network Science Approach to
Agency in Translation.” Journal of Translation Studies 5 (1): 1–29.
Tanasescu, Raluca and Chris Tanasescu . 2019. “Translator Networks of Networks in Digital
Space. The Case of Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies: In Search of a Methodology,
edited by Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts , 128–151. New York: Routledge.
Terras, Melissa . 2012. “Quantifying Digital Humanities.” Infographic. UCL Centre for Digital
Humanities.
Underwood, Ted . 2017. “A Genealogy of Distant Reading.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 11 (2).
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/11/2/000317/000317.html.
Yang, Menghui , Man Wang , Hanlin Wang , Guancan Yang and Hua Liu . 2020. “Exploring the
Transdisciplinary Nature of Digital Humanities.” JCDL ‘20: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint
Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020, 553–554. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383583.3398552.
Youdale, Roy . 2020. Using Computers in the Translation of Literary Style: Challenges and
Opportunities. New York: Routledge.
Wang, Qing . 2018. “Distribution Features and Intellectual Structures of Digital Humanities: A
Bibliometric Analysis.” Journal of Documentation 74 (1): 223–246.
Weaver, Warren . 1948. “Science and Complexity.” American Scientist 36: 536.
www.python.org
https://adho.org/global-outlookdigital-humanities-godh

What's in a Bulletproof Beauty? Transmedial Rewritings of Baroness

Pontalba's Fabled Destiny
Arber, Solange . 2019. “Traduire ‘sous verre’ ou ‘à la vitre’: l’imaginaire de la transparence en
traduction.” Itinéraires 2018(2/3).
Balandier, Georges . 1994. “Ordre et désordre du point de vue anthropologique.” In Les défis de
la complexité. Vers un nouveau paradigme de la connaissance? Autour de Edgar Morin et
Georges Balandier, edited by Denys de Béchillon . Paris: L’Harmattan.
Boulton, Jean G. , Peter M. Allen and Cliff Bowman . 2015. Embracing Complexity Strategic
Perspectives for an Age of Turbulence. Kindle Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canalès, Audrey . 2020. “Transmedia, Translation and Adaptation: Parallel Universes or
Complex System?”. TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, Traduction et adaptation: un
mariage de raison 33 (1): 55–78. https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ttr/2020-v33-n1-
ttr05464/1071148ar/.
Canalès, Audrey . 2021. “Performative translation and Identity. From Poetics to Politics.” In
Translation and Interpreting Practice Revisited: Situatedness and Performativity, edited by
Raquel Pacheco Aguilar and Marie-France Guénette . Antwerp: Leuven University Press.
Dena, Christy . 2011. “Do you have a big stick?” In Hand Made High Tech, edited by S. Groth ,
1–5. https://www.futureofthebook.org.au/news/2011/02/do-you-have-a-big-stick?rq=dena.
Denzin, Norman K. 2009. The Reflexive Interview and a Performative Social Science. In
Qualitative Inquiry Under Fire. Toward a New Paradigm Dialogue. New York: Routledge.
Derbaix, Maud , Dominique Bourgeon-Renault , Elodie Jarrier , & Christine Petr . 2017.
Transmedia Experience and Narrative Transportation. HAL hal-02139818, version 1.
Doll, William E. Jr. 2012. Pragmatism, Post-modernism, and Complexity Theory. In The
“Fascinating Imaginative Realm” of William E. Doll, Jr., edited by Donna Treuit . New
York/London: Routledge.
Even-Zohar, Itamar . 1979. “Polysystem Theory.” Poetics Today Special Issue: Literature,
Interpretation, Communication 1(1/2): 287–310.
Genette, Gérard . 1997. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Translated by Chana
Newman and Claude Doubinsky . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Jakobson, Roman . 1959. “On Linguistics Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, edited by
Achilles Fangs and Reuben A. Brower . Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Henry . 2003. “Transmedia Storytelling”. MIT Technology Review. 15 January.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2003/01/15/234540/transmedia-storytelling/.
Jenkins, Henry . 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York:
New York University Press.
Jenkins, Henry . 2007. “Transmedia Storytelling 101”. Confessions of an ACA-Fan, 21 March.
Blog. http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html.
Jourdren, Marie . 2018. The Horrifically Real Virtuality. Immersive play.
Jourdren, Marie . 2019. “Marie Jourdren: raconter Ed Wood avec le théâtre immersif.”
Interviewée par Rafael. Centre Phi, Montréal. Podcast. https://soundcloud.com/phicentre/marie-
jourdren-raconter-ed.
Intel . n.d. “Virtual Reality vs. Augmented Reality vs. Mixed Reality. Demystifying the Virtual
Reality Landscape.” https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/tech-tips-and-tricks/virtual-reality-
vs-augmented-reality.html.
Koh, Jeffery . n.d. “Module 3: Understanding a Transmedia Audience. Lesson 1: An Introduction
to the Audience.” University of New South Wales. Coursera.
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/transmedia-storytelling/.
Ladmiral, Jean-René . 2014. Sourcier ou cibliste: les profondeurs de la traduction. Paris: Les
Belles Lettres.
Lecheval, Valentin , Clément Sire and Guy Theraulaz . 2018. “La danse organisée des bancs
de poissons.” La Recherche (Les dossiers de La Recherche), Chaos et systèmes complexes.
Leitch, Thomas . 2008. “Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads.” Adaptation 1 (1): 63–77.
Long, Geoffrey . n.d. “The Future of the Term ‘Transmedia’.” University of New South Wales.
Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/lecture/transmedia-storytelling/geoffrey-long-the-future-of-
the-term-transmedia-RhPCM.
Malena, Anne . 2006. “Les Créoles de la Nouvelle-Orléans ou comment jouer son identité par la
traduction.” TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction 19 (2): 67–88.
Malena, Anne . 2014. “The City That Shouldn’t Be: New Orleans.” Translation Studies 7 (2):
203–217.
McKittrick Hotel . n.d. “Regarding Your Stay.” https://mckittrickhotel.com/about.
Morin, Edgar . 2014. “Complex Thinking for a Complex World—About Reductionism, Disjunction
and Systemism.” Systema 2 (1): 14–22.
Radio Canada . 2019. “La réalité virtuelle pour réduire l’anxiété des vaches.” Radio Canada.
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1408551/realite-virtuelle-anxiete-vaches-russie-moscou.
Ricœur, Paul . 2016. “Architecture and Narrativity”. Études Ricœuriennes/Ricœur Studies 7 (2):
31–42.
Ricoeur, Paul . 2000. La Mémoire, l’Histoire, l’Oubli. Paris: Seuil.
Roach, Joseph . 1996. Cities of the Dead: Circum-Atlantic Performance. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Shakespeare, William . 1598–1601. Hamlet. In The Complete Works of William Shakespeare.
MIT. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html
Schechner, Richard . 1985. Between Theater and Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Toury, Gideon . 1984. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Tymoczko, Maria . 1999. Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English
Translation. Abingdon: Routledge.
Tymoczko, Maria . 2003. “Translation, Ideology, and Creativity.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 1 (2):
27–45.
Voigts, Eckart . 2015. “Bastards and Pirates, Remixes and Multitudes: The Politics of Mash-up
Transgression and the Polyprocesses of Cultural Jazz.” In The Politics of Adaptation: Media
Convergence and Ideology, edited by D. Hassler-Forest and P. Nicklas , 82–97. Basington:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Voigts, Eckart & Pascal Nicklas . 2013. “Introduction: Adaptation, Transmedia Storytelling and
Participatory Culture.” Adaptation 6 (2–1):139–142.
Joseph, Robin . 1978. Love’s Fervent Fury. New York: Ballantine.
Faget Stephens, Jeanne . 2018–2019. Look Don’t Tell. Immersive experience. New Orleans:
Belles Fetes.
Faget Stephens, Jeanne . 2019. The Pontalba Experience. Immersive experience. New
Orleans: Belles Fetes.
HNOC [The Historic New Orleans Collection]. 1918. “The New Orleans Drawings of Gaston de
Pontalba, 1848–1851.” The Historic New Orleans Collection.
Holland, Bernard . 2003. “New Orleans Celebrates itself Quite Sensibly.” The New York Times,
October 7. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/arts/critic-s-notebook-new-orleans-celebrates-
itself-quite-sensibly.html.
Holcombe, William Henry . 1892. A Mystery of New Orleans [a novel]. Philadelphia: J.B.
Lippincott Company.
King, Grace . [1895]2017. New Orleans: The Place and the People. MacMillan.
La Bannière (NDP). 1951. Soixante-Quatre Quartiers. Paris: C & F Roux-Devillas.
Louisiana Museum Foundation . 2018. “The Baroness Pontalba and the Rise of Jackson
Square.” The Louisiana Museum Foundation.
Louisiana Museum Foundation, Antenna Gallery & Nancy Sharon Collins . 2019. LETTERS
READ: A Narrative of Baroness de Pontalba. Spotify, October 15. https://anchor.fm/letters-
read/episodes/LETTERS-READ-A-narrative-of-Baroness-de-Pontalba-e7oeeo.
Louisiana Museum Foundation . 2020a. “In this week’s instalment of the #PontalbaDiary, the
Baron recounts the yellow fever epidemic’s persistent and unwavering presence in New
Orleans.” Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/LouisianaMuseumFoundation/photos/a.895843300469125/2902692
499784185/.
Louisiana Museum Foundation . 2020b. “Reflections from the Baron de Pontalba.” Louisiana
Museum Foundation. https://www.thelmf.org/pontalba-diary.
Mead, Frederick . 2013. “John James Audubon interviewed by Baroness Pontalba.” YouTube,
uploaded March 21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LBlmSv4LbI.
Musgrave, Thea . 2003. Pontalba. Opera.
https://www.wisemusicclassical.com/work/13490/Pontalba--Thea-Musgrave/.
Smith, Julie . 2016. The Complete Talba Wallis Series, Vol. 1–4. Kindle Edition.
Shortes, Diana . 2017. The Baroness Undressed. Performance at The Main Gallery at the
Cabildo, New Orleans.
Shortes, Diana E.H. 2020. “Ain’t that some sh.” Facebook comment.
https://www.facebook.com/LouisianaMuseumFoundation/photos/pcb.2990181651035269/29901
81577701943/.
Shortes, Diana E.H. , & Monica McIntyre . 2014. Baroness Pontalba. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoZIZcgK7Kg.
Tallant, Robert . 1950. The Romantic New Orleanians. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co.
Ticknor, Robert . 2020. “The Woman Behind New Orleans’s Famous Pontalba Buildings.” The
Historic New Orleans Collection (HNOC). https://www.hnoc.org/publications/first-draft/woman-
behind-new-orleanss-famous-pontalba-buildings.
Times Picayune. 1995. “Baroness Pontalba: 200th Anniversary of the Birth of the Baroness.”
The Times Picayune November 5 .
Vella, Christina . [1997]2011. Intimate Enemies: The Two Worlds of Baroness de Pontalba.
Kindle Edition. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Vella, Christina . [1984]2010. The Baroness and her Buildings. Video. Know LA-Know
Louisiana. https://vimeo.com/13708195.
Vella, Christina . n.d. “Micaela Almonester, Baroness Pontalba.” 64 Parishes.
https://64parishes.org/entry/micaela-almonester-baroness-pontalba.
Wikipedia . n.d. “Micaela Almonester, Baroness de Pontalba.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micaela_Almonester,_Baroness_de_Pontalba.
Wise Music Classical . 2003. “Thea Musgrave—Pontalba.”
https://www.wisemusicclassical.com/work/13490/Pontalba--Thea-Musgrave/.

The Methodological Implications of Complexity Thinking in Translation

Studies
Anon . 2019. “Aristotle on Causality.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Revised March 7,
2019 , September 21, 2020 . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality
Anselmo, A. 2018. “Edgar Morin: From Vicious Circles to Virtuous Circles.” World Futures 74
(2): 68–83. doi:10.1080/02604027.2017.1357933.
Baker, M. 2006. Translation and Conflict. A Narrative Account. New York: Routledge.
Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of
Matter and Meaning. London: Duke University Press.
Bugbee, J. 2007. “The Consequences of Metaphysics: or, can Charles Peirce’s Continuity
Theory Model Stuart Kauffman’s Biology.” Zygon 42 (1): 203–221.
Byrne, David S. and Gillian Callaghan . 2014. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The
State of the Art. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Chen, Y-Z. 2004.”Edgar Morin’s Paradigm of Complexity and Gödel’s Incompleteness
Theorem.” World Futures 60 (5–6):421–431.
Chesterman, A. 2017. Causes, Translations, Effects. In Reflections on Translation Theory:
Selected Papers 1993–2014, edited by A. Chesterman , 97–121. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cilliers, Paul . 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems.
London: Routledge.
Cilliers, Paul . 2000a. “Rules and Complex Systems.” Emergence 2 (3): 40–50.
Cilliers, Paul . 2000b. “What Can We Learn From a Theory of Complexity?” Emergence 2 (1):
23–33.
Cilliers, Paul . 2000c. “Knowledge, Complexity and Understanding.” Emergence 2 (4): 7–13.
Cilliers, Paul . 2002. “Why We Cannot Know Complex Things Completely.” Emergence 4 (1/2):
77–84.
Cilliers, Paul . 2005a. “Complexity, Deconstruction and Relativism.” Theory, Culture and Society
22 (5): 255–267.
Cilliers, Paul . 2005b. “Knowledge, Limits and Boundaries.” Futures 37: 605–613.
Clark, A. 2008. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action and Cognitive Extension. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cuff, J.M. 2007. “C.S. Peirce, G.W.F. Hegel and Stuart Kauffman’s Complexity Theory: A
Response”. Zygon 42 (1): 249–255.
Deacon, T.W. 2013. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter. New York: WW
Norman & Company.
DeLanda, M. 2005. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London: Continuum.
DeLanda, M. 2006. A New Philosophy of Science. London: Continuum.
DeLanda, M. 2009. “Ecology and Realist Ontology.“In Deleuze/Guattari and Ecology, edited by
B. Herzogenrath , 23–41. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
DeLanda, M. 2011. Philosophy and Simulation: The Emergence of Synthethic Reason. London:
Continuum.
DeLanda, M. 2015. “The New Materiality.” Architectural Design, September : 1–4.
DeLanda, M. 2016. Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Heylighen, F. , P. Cilliers and C. Gesheson . 2007. “Complexity and Philosophy.” In Complexity,
Science and Society, edited by J. Bogg and R. Geyer , 117–134. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing.
Juarrero, A. 1999. Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System. Cambridge
MA: MIT Press.
Kauffman, S.A. 1993. The Origins of Order Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, S.A. 1995. At Home in the Universe. The Search for the Laws of Self-Organisation
and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, S.A. 2000. Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knyazeva, H. 2004. “The Complex Nonlinear Thinking: Edgar Morin’s Demand of a Reform of
Thinking and the Contribution of Synergetics.” World Futures 60 (5–6):389–405.
doi:10.1080/02604020490471867.
Li, Shuang . 2021. “A Complexity Approach to Translation Policy: The Case of courtroom
Interactions in a Multi-Ethnic and Multi-Cultural County in China.” PhD thesis. Catholic
University of Leuven.
Maldonato, M. 2004. “On Edgar Morin.” World Futures 60 (5–6):457–462.
doi:10.1080/02604020490468393.
Marais, Kobus . 2014. Translation Theory and Development Studies: A Complexity Theory
Approach. New York: Routledge.
Marais, Kobus . 2019a. A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-
Cultural Reality. New York: Routledge.
Marais, Kobus . 2019b. “Effects Causing Effects.” In Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies:
Methodological Considerations, edited by K. Marais and R. Meylaerts , 53–72. New York:
Routledge.
Marais, Kobus . 2019c. “Translation Complex Rather Than Translation Turns? Considering the
Complexity of Translation.” Syn-Thèses 9–10:43–55. doi:10.26262/st.v0i9.7626.
Marais, Kobus and R. Meylaerts . 2019. Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies:
Methodological Consideration. New York: Routledge.
Marion, R. 1999. The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social
Systems. London: Sage.
Morin, E. 1992. “From the Concept of System to the Paradigm of Complexity.” Journal of Social
and Evolutionary Systems 15 (4): 371–385. doi:10.1016/1061%2D7361%2892%2990024%2D8.
Morin, E. 1999. “Organization and Complexity.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
879 (1 TEMPOS IN SCI): 115–121. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb10410.x.
Morin, E. 2006. “Restricted Complexity, General Complexity.” Translated from French by Carlos
Gershencson . Intelligence de la complexité: épistémologie et pragmatique, Cerisy-La-Salle,
France, June 26, 2005 .
Moser, K. 2018. “Rethinking the Essence of Human and Other-Than-Human Communication in
the Anthropocene Epoch: A Biosemiotic Interpretation of Edgar Morin’s ‘Complex Thought’.”
Humanities 7 (57): 1–12. doi:10.3390/h7020057.
Osberg, D. , G. Biesta and P. Cilliers . 2008. “From Representation to Emergence: Complexity’s
Challenge to the Epistemology of Schooling.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (1):
213–227.
Richardson, K.A. , P. Cilliers , & M. Lissack . 2001. “Complexity Science: A ‘Gray’ Science for
the ‘Stuff in Between’.” Emergence 3 (2): 6–18.
Sawyer, R. 2005. Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Searle, J.R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.
Searle, J.R. 1998. Mind, Language and Society. New York: Basic Books.
Searle, J.R. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Shannon, C. and W. Weaver . 1964. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Spolsky, B. 2012. “What is Language Policy?” In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy,
edited by B. Spolsky , 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stacey, R.D. 2003. Complexity and Group Processes: A Radically Social Understanding of
Individuals. New York: Routledge.
Stirzaker, R. , H. Biggs , D. Roux and P. Cilliers . 2010. “Requisite Simplicities to Help Negotiate
Complex Problems.” Ambio 39: 600–607.
Taylor, M.C. 2003. The Moment of Complexity: Emerging Network Culture. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Van Uden, J. , K. Richardson and P. Cilliers . 2001. “Postmodernism Revisited?: Complexity
Science and the Study of Organizations.” Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science 1
(3): 53–67.

Chasing the Complexity of Threads from the Translation Process that

Hide in Translation Data
Aggarwal, Charu C. 2018. Neural Networks and Deep Learning - A Textbook. Heidelberg:
Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94463-0.
Albers, Michael . 2015. “Human–Information Interaction with Complex Information for Decision-
Making.” Informatics 2 (2): 4–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics2020004.
Alves, Fábio , and Daniel Couto Vale . 2011. “On Drafting and Revision in Translation: A Corpus
Linguistics Oriented Analysis of Translation Process Data.” Translation: Computation, Corpora,
Cognition 1 (1): 105–122. http://www.mt-archive.info/TC3-2011-Alves.pdf.
Bakker, Mathjis , Cees Koster , and Kitty van Leuven-Zwart . 2011. “Shifts.” In Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha , 269–274.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Baltrušaitis, Tadas , Chaitanya Ahuja , and Louis-Philippe Morency . 2017. “Multimodal Machine
Learning: A Survey and Taxonomy.” ArXiv.Org. cs.LG/1705.09406
Barrault, Loïc , Magdalena Biesialska , Ondrej Bojar , Marta R. Costa-Jussà , Christian
Federmann , Yvette Graham , Roman Grundkiewicz , et al. 2020. “Findings of the 2020
Conference on Machine Translation (WMT20).” In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on
Machine Translation, edited by Loïc Barrault et al., 1–55. Online: Association for Computational
Linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.wmt-1.1.
Bjerva, Johannes , Robert Östling , Maria Han Veiga , Jörg Tiedemann , and Isabelle
Augenstein . 2019. “What Do Language Representations Really Represent?” Computational
Linguistics 45 (2): 381–389.
Brown, Peter F. , John Cocke , Stephen Andrew Della Pietra , Vincent Joseph Della Pietra ,
Fredrick Jelinek , John D. Lafferty , Robert Mercer , and Paul Roossin . 1990. “A Statistical
Approach to Machine Translation.” Computational Linguistics 16 (2): 79–85.
Carl, Michael , ed. 2021. Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research. Heidelberg:
Springer International Publishing.
Carl, Michael , Srinivas Bangalore , and Moritz Schaeffer , eds. 2016. New Directions in
Empirical Translation Process Research. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing
Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4.
Castilho, Sheila , Joss Moorkens , Federico Gaspari , Iacer Calixto , John Tinsley , and Andy
Way . 2017. “Is Neural Machine Translation the New State of the Art?” The Prague Bulletin of
Mathematical Linguistics 108 (1): 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/pralin-2017-0013.
Chiang, David , Kevin Knight , and Wei Wang . 2009. “ 11,001 New Features for Statistical
Machine Translation .” NAACL HLT 2009 – Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual
Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics,
Proceedings of the Conference, June 2009: 218–226.
https://doi.org/10.3115/1620754.1620786.
Chollet, François . 2021. “Nearly Every Branch of Science Will Be a Branch of Computer
Science.” Twitter. https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/1389337090278658052.
do Carmo, Félix . 2018. “Does Machine Translation Really Produce Translations?” In EAMT
2018 – Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine
Translation, edited by Juan Antonio Pérez-Ortiz , Felipe Sánchez-Martínez , Miquel Esplà-
Gomis , Maja Popović , Célia Rico Pérez , André Martins , Joachim Van den Bogaert , and
Mikel L. Forcada , 323. Alicante: EAMT. http://eamt2018.dlsi.ua.es/proceedings-
eamt2018.pdf#page=343.
do Carmo, Félix , and Joss Moorkens . 2020. “Differentiating Editing, Post-Editing and
Revision.” In Translation Revision and Post-Editing: Industry Practices and Cognitive
Processes, edited by Maarit Koponen , Brian Mossop , Isabelle S. Robert , and Giovanna
Scocchera , 35–49. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003096962.
Domingos, Pedro . 2012. “A Few Useful Things to Know about Machine Learning.”
Communications of the ACM 55 (10): 78. https://doi.org/10.1145/2347736.2347755.
Domingos, Pedro . 2015. The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning
Algorithm Will Remake Our World. New York: Basic Books.
Fadaee, Marzieh , and Christof Monz . 2020. “The Unreasonable Volatility of Neural Machine
Translation Models.” In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Neural Generation and
Translation, edited by Alexandra Birch , Andrew Finch , Hiroaki Hayashi , Kenneth Heafield ,
Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt , Ioannis Konstas , Xian Li , Graham Neubig , and Yusuke Oda ,
88–96. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.ngt-
1.10.
Forcada, Mikel L. 2017. “Making Sense of Neural Machine Translation.” Translation Spaces 6
(2): 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.2.06for.
Gentzler, Edwin . 1993. Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge.
Halevy, Alon , Peter Norvig , and Fernando Pereira . 2009. “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of
Data.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 24 (2): 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2009.36.
Holmes, James S. 1988. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke , and Fábio Alves , eds. 2020. The Routledge Handbook of Translation
and Cognition. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315178127.
Johnson, Melvin , Mike Schuster , Quoc V. Le , Maxim Krikun , Yonghui Wu , Zhifeng Chen ,
Nikhil Thorat , et al. 2017. “Google’s Multilingual Neural Machine Translation System: Enabling
Zero-Shot Translation.” Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL) 5:
339–351.
Junczys-Dowmunt, Marcin . 2018. “Dual Conditional Cross-Entropy Filtering of Noisy Parallel
Corpora.” In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Shared Task
Papers, edited by Ondřej Bojar et al., 888–995. Brussels: Association for Computational
Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-6478.
Knight, Kevin . 1999. “Decoding Complexity in Word-Replacement Translation Models.”
Computational Linguistics 25 (4): 607–615.
Knowles, Rebecca , Marina Sanchez-Torron , and Philipp Koehn . 2019. “A User Study of
Neural Interactive Translation Prediction.” Machine Translation 33 (1–2):135–154.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-019-09235-8.
Koehn, Philipp . 2009. Statistical Machine Translation. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815829.
Koehn, Philipp . 2020. Neural Machine Translation. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108608480.
Koehn, Philipp , and Rebecca Knowles . 2017. “Six Challenges for Neural Machine Translation.”
In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation, edited by Thang Luong ,
Alexandra Birch , Graham Neubig , and Andrew Finch , 28–39. Vancouver: Association for
Computational Linguistics.
Krings, Hans P. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-
Editing Processes. Kent, Ohio & London: The Kent State University Press.
Manning, Christopher D. , Kevin Clark , John Hewitt , Urvashi Khandelwal , and Omer Levy .
2020. “Emergent Linguistic Structure in Artificial Neural Networks Trained by Self-Supervision.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (48): 30046–30054.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907367117.
Mitchell, Melanie . 2009. Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.
Mitchell, Melanie . 2019. Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans. London: Pelican
Books.
Moorkens, Joss , and Andy Way . 2016. “Comparing Translator Acceptability of TM and SMT
Outputs.” Baltic Journal of Modern Computing Modern Computing 4 (2): 141–151.
Murray, Kenton , and David Chiang . 2019. “Correcting Length Bias in Neural Machine
Translation.” In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), Volume 1:
Research Papers, 1:212–223. Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics.
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w18-6322.
Peris, Álvaro , Miguel Domingo , and Francisco Casacuberta . 2017. “Interactive Neural
Machine Translation.” Computer Speech and Language 45: 201–220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2016.12.003.
Platanios, Emmanouil Antonios , Mrinmaya Sachan , Graham Neubig , and Tom M. Mitchell .
2018. “Contextual Parameter Generation for Universal Neural Machine Translation.” ArXiv, no.
2016: 425–435.
Poncelas, Alberto , Dimitar Shterionov , Andy Way , Gideon Maillette de Buy Wenniger , and
Peyman Passban . 2018. “Investigating Backtranslation in Neural Machine Translation.” In
Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine
Translation (EAMT 2018), edited by Juan Antonio Pérez-Ortiz , Felipe Sanchez-Martinez ,
Miquel Esplá-Gomis , Maja Popovic , Celia Rico , André Martins , Joachim Van den Bogaert ,
Mikel L. Forcada : 249–258. Alicante, Spain: Universitat d’Alacant.
Pratt-Hartmann, Ian . 2010. “Computational Complexity in Natural Language.” In The Handbook
of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing, edited by Alexander Clark ,
Chris Fox , and Shalom Lappin , 43–73. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444324044.ch2.
Sager, Juan . 1993. Language Engineering and Translation: Consequences of Automation.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Schaeffer, Moritz , Barbara Dragsted , Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund , Laura Winther Balling ,
and Michael Carl . 2016. “Word Translation Entropy: Evidence of Early Target Language
Activation During Reading for Translation.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process
Research, edited by Michael Carl , Srinivas Bangalore , and Moritz Schaeffer , 183–220.
Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing.
Sennrich, Rico , Barry Haddow , and Alexandra Birch . 2016. “Improving Neural Machine
Translation Models with Monolingual Data.” In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the
Association for Computational Linguistics, edited by Katrin Erk and Noah A. and Smith , 86–96.
Association for Computational Linguistics. http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06709.
Shterionov, Dimitar , Félix do Carmo , Joachim Wagner , Murhaf Hossari , Eric Paquin , and
Joss Moorkens . 2020. “A Roadmap to Neural Automatic Post-Editing: An Empirical Approach.”
Machine Translation 34 (2–3):67–96.
Toury, Gideon . 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Vaswani, Ashish , Noam Shazeer , Niki Parmar , Jakob Uszkoreit , Llion Jones , Aidan N.
Gomez , Łukasz Kaiser , and Illia Polosukhin . 2017. “Attention Is All You Need.” In Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems 30, edited by I. Guyon , U.V. Luxburg , S. Bengio , H.
Wallach , R. Fergus , S. Vishwanathan , and R. Garnett , 5998–6008. Red Hook: Curran
Associates, Inc.
Vinay, Jean Paul , and Jean Darbelnet . 1977. Stylistique Comparée du Français et de l’Anglais
– Méthode de Traduction. Nouvelle Édition Revue et Corrigée. Paris:Didier.
Waldrop, M. Mitchell . 1993. The Emergent Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York:
Touchstone (Simon & Schuster).
Wigner, Eugene . 1960. “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural
Sciences.” Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13 (1): 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160130102.
Wuebker, Joern , Spence Green , John DeNero , Sasa Hasan , and Minh-Thang Luong . 2016.
“Models and Inference for Prefix-Constrained Machine Translation.” In Proceedings of the 54th
Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers).
Berlin, Germany, 66–75.