Beyond revisiting the byzantine and seemingly inconclusive debate on translation quality assurance and assessment, this article qualitatively investigates the extent of an across-the-board applicability of existing quality assessment frameworks against a strong backdrop of culture-specificity to the broad translation quality debate. It, first and foremost, exemplifies cultural and literary specificity through linguistically open-ended African creative writing, examines the variegated concept of translation, the volatile concept of translation quality assurance and assessment, outlines constraints to the assurance and assessment of this translation quality, and importantly portrays the preponderant place of metrics, rubrics and models in quality assurance and assessment. Secondly and finally, it then qualitatively demonstrates from existing evidence that quality assurance with its acquiesced formulae will continue to be at the mercy of incontestable contextualised cultural specificity – quality assessment is of necessity a ‘provincialised’ and ‘balkanised’ activity.
Cultural specificity; translation as variegated concept; translation quality; quality assurance and assessment; metrics, rubrics and models; creative writing; translation quality provincialisation/balkanisation.
1. African literary and cultural specificity
In Translation Studies, it is also an inviolate fact that cultural specificity influences how translation quality is constructed. The issue of African cultural and literary specificity has been stated and discussed by scholars both from within and out of African. This is exemplified in African literary works, for instance, in the few outstanding traits bolow:
It is generally agreed that African creative writing in European languages has been greatly influenced by African oral tradition (Obiechina, 1975; Chinweizu et al, 1980; Gérard, 1986; Bandia, 1993).
bestowing, totally unrehearsed, a traditional pattern of imagery and diction on a brand-new subject, showing rather impressively how in African … the acts of composition and performance can take place simultaneously (Okpewho1992:34).
A gifted Ororile creates by deft of allusions and analogy. As the song progresses, metaphors are introduced. Once a metaphorical remark or proverbial allusion is made and explained logically later in the song, then that piece is acclaimed a successful one.
Okpewho buttresses Dara’s idea by stating that:
The principal stylistic tools of this job are metaphor, allusion, analogy, and other kinds of oblique imagery designed to make it reasonably clear who the subjects are even when fake names are used (Okpewho 1992:32).
nonverbal, extraverbal, paraverbal, paratextual, or paralinguistic, in the sense that they occur side by side with the text or the words of the literature…..One of these resources is the histrionics of the performance, that is, movements made with the face, hands, or any other part of the body as a way of dramatically demonstrating an action contained in the text (Okpewho1992:46).
Wordplay is the general name for the various textual phenomena in which structural features of the language(s) used are exploited in order to bring about a communicatively significant confrontation of two (or more) linguistic structures with more or less similar forms and more or less different meanings (Delabastita 1996:128).
Though considered a global phenomenon, unique puns and wordplay abound in African literary art. In Cameroon, for instance, Bjornson (in Newell, 2002:74) and Fofié (2007) point to the abundant use of this creative literary trait.
Africans of all backgrounds use blended languages such as Camfranglais, Pidgin, Moussa and Nouchis as a means of ensuring group solidarity within a community of practice. Creative writers use these mixed varieties to translate the socio-cultural contexts that inform and structure their narratives (Vaktuna (2008: 946).
Gyasi (1999, in Vakunta, 2008: 946), describes them as “a creative translation process that leads to the production …. of an authentic African discourse” (a third hybrid code) that requires non-speakers to refer to the writer’s native language and culture for signification. Evembe (1988) as well as Ndzana (1988:153) further signal an even more complex phenomenon of language assortment/medleying on the continent, which Suh (2005) qualifies as an ambivalent situation of the use of “double language”.
The translation of these traits calls for special attention at a time when the concept of translation itself remains very brain-bugging.
2. Translation: variegated difficult-to-define concept
Conceptualizing translation has been long, ink-spilling, and ostensibly inconclusive. But far beyond the platitude of reciting the entire gamut of scholarly definitions of translation responsible for the difficulty of having a common definition, this article rather attempts to appraise how far varied perspectives contribute to the translation quality assessment debate.
Vinay & Darbelnet (1959:20), Catford (1965:4), Tweney & Hoeman (1976:138), Brislin (1976), Ladmiral (1979:I), Crystal (1987:344), Newmark (1981:7), Hewson & Martin (1991), Steiner (1992:253), and Snell-Hornby (1994:4-5)reveal that the different perceptions about what translation really is have largely been a function of whether scholars perceive it as an art, discipline, process, product or profession. Translation’s complexity is better expressed thus:
Beyond and above all controversies,Ali Darwish (1999/2001:13) thinks the fundamental issue in conceptualising translation remains the quest for quality and the desire to “preserve original meaning” when it is conveyed or converted into the target language’s verbal expression”. Yet, it is still common knowledge that preserving and keeping control of original meaning that ensures the integrity of information is intrinsically difficult given that in the transformations of the translation process, there is inherent loss of information. How then can quality be preserved when the tendency to lose control of original meaning is so real?
3. The issue of translation quality
The immense difficulty in defining translation undoubtedly directly impinges on the task of assuring and assessing quality.ISO 8402 (1994 3.1), amongst many stakeholders, avers that quality is “the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs”. Muzii (2006) also sees quality as “an integration of the features and characteristics that determine the extent to which output satisfies the customer’s needs”. Quality therefore implies the existence of “defects”, defined by ISO (1994, 3.1) as the “non-fulfilment of intended usage requirements”. Defects can be minimised if little attention is paid to the translation process itself.
4. The translation process and translation quality
Whereas Bell (1987) deplores the tendency to ignore the process involved in the act of translating, most translation scholars still erroneously treat the translator’s competence, the translation process and the resultant quality, as disconnected entities. In the same light, Ali Darwish (1999) laments that no study so far has really tackled the issue of process in a more pragmatic fashion. Reason why despite the perplexity and intertwining between aspects of the translation process, Bell again concedes that
If we treat texts merely as a self-contained and self-generating entity, instead of as a decision-making procedure, and an instance of communication between language users, our understanding of the nature of translating will be impaired…(Bell 1987:403-415).
Notwithstanding the important work done on the translation process - which constitutes i) evidence of a transaction, ii) a means of retracing the pathways of the translator’s decision-making, and iii) an instance of communication between language users, the process has unfortunately remained in dire want of delineation (Ali Darwish 2001:8). This, undoubtedly, affects discussions on what quality assurance and assessment ought to be.
5. Translation quality assurance and assessment
After perceiving quality assurance (QA) as “the act of maintaining translation services to ensure conformance to customer requirements or other specifications”, Gerasimov (2005:1) posits thatit is implemented by the translation service provider. He continues that “QC (quality control) is implemented by your customer after the translation is completed and delivered”. According to Muzii (2006), quality control (QC) is “an integration of the features and characteristics that determine the extent to which output satisfies the customer’s needs”.
Because translation quality today remains “marred by impressionistic and often paradoxical judgments based on elusive aesthetics” (Al-Qinai 2000:497), Ali Darwish (2001:2) then clearly cautions that without well-defined assessment and evaluation standards and processes, qualityassessment and assurance “will always be haphazard and subject to the personal preferences and whims of the individual assessor or the interpretive frameworks, bureaucratic perspectives and draconian measures of educators and evaluators alike”. This is true, because translation is a highly constraint-ridden hermeneutic exercise!
6. Constraints to translation quality assurance and assessment
Ali Darwish (1999) asserts that the ultimate goal of any translation strategy is to manage to remove possible general and specific constraints to translatability, and that appreciating not only how these constraints function but equally how they can be managed and ideally removed within a model or framework of constraint management is of benefit to translation quality stakeholders.
all kinds of different criteria come into play during the translation process and all necessarily involve shifts of expression as the translator struggles to combine his own pragmatic reading with the dictates of the TL cultural system (Bassnett 1991:104).
From the perspective of pre-translation quality quest, Hatim & Mason (1994:3-20) outline general theoretical constraints reflected by the following inexhaustive categories that must be seriously metered by the translator (the vital communicative “problem-solver”), if s/he intends to attain acceptable quality. They include the process vs. product (Bell 1987, Hatim & Mason 1994:4); objectivity vs. subjectivity (Reiss 1971/77, House 1976, Wilss 1982); ‘literal’ vs. ‘free’ translation (Hatim & Mason 1994:5, Newmark 1988:68-69); formal vs. dynamic equivalence (Nida 1964:160); form and style vs. content (Meschonnic 1973:349, Hatim & Mason 1994:8, Nida 1964:169); redefining ‘style (Hatim & Mason 1994:9); meaning potential (Halliday 1978:109, Beaugrande 1978); ‘empathy’ and intent; translator’s motivation; translating ‘centre’; and conditions of production ( all in Hatim & Mason 1994).
Upbringing, education, knowledge, sensibilities, predilections and beliefs also contribute to the formation of the individual personality of the translator, limiting, defining, and also facilitating the translation process, from the initial selection of the SL text right the way through to the final release into the world of its TL progeny” [1988:8-9]);
Other scholars add the contextual and socio-cultural (Hatim & Mason 1990:37); textual (Kress 1985:12), Hatim & Mason 1998); linguistic and formal (Hatim & Mason 1990:192, Saussure 1916); and conventional (Bassnett 1991:104).
In the face of all these constraints, metrics, rubrics and models have been fashioned in guise of frameworks to enhance quality attainment.
7. Translation quality assurance frameworks
For Muzii (2006), the best way to assess quality is to measure the number and magnitude of defects whose features and scope must be specified by metrics, rubrics and models.
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science.
In this same vein, and with respect to translation, Muzii (2006:22) opines that
The best way to assess quality remains that of measuring the number and magnitude of defects; and when defects cannot be physically removed, their features and scope must be specified.[... ] The first step, then, is to establish a model of definition of quality, and translate it into a set of metrics that measure each of the elements of quality in it.
Despite the above viewpoints, there has been lack of any serious definition of quality or provision of any real metrics. However, from the early 90s Baker (1992), Zlateva (1993), House (1997) and Schäffner (1998) veritably started talking invariably of components, aspects and factors of quality such as accuracy, precision, correctness, faithfulness, etc. But metrics were certainly judged inadequate, so came the turn of rubrics!
an empirical rubric for translation quality assessment based on objective parameters of textual typology, formal correspondence, thematic coherence, reference cohesion, pragmatic equivalence, and lexico-syntactic properties […and] can serve translation instructors in order to come up with a more objective assessment of students’ translation works. Students majoring in translation can also benefit from the findings of this study too since they would certainly be able to improve their translations if they were aware of the comprehensive criteria used to evaluate their translations.
- House, 1976 - 2001: House is credited with the first effort to examine translation quality in depth through a model, inspired by Nida (1964), Toury (1995), Venuti (1995), Catford (1965), Reiss (1971), Wills (1974), Baker (1992), Hatim & Mason (1997), and Hickey (1998). House’s model (1997) is, properly speaking, Hallidayan systemic-functional theory-based, drawing much from the Praque School, speech act theory, pragmatics, discourse analysis and corpus-based distinction between spoken and written language. House (1997:251) posits that
Translation criticism therefore “has two basic functions, an ideational function and an interpersonal function. These two functions have their counterpart in two different methodological steps. The first and in my estimation, the primary one, refers to linguistic-textual analysis, description explanation, and comparison, and it is based on empirical research and professional knowledge of linguistic structures and norms of language use. The second step refers to value judgements, social, interpersonal and ethical questions of socio-political and socio-psychological relevance, ideological stance or individual persuasion. Without the first, the second is useless… we have to make explicit the grounds for our judgement basing it on a theoretically sound and argued set of intersubjectively verifiable set of procedures.
However, despite the above intense intellectual exercise, House fails to pointedly name the “verifiable sets of procedures”. And she is aware of this when she avers that “it seems unlikely that translation quality assessment can ever be objectified in the manner of natural science”. This is why other models are necessary!
- Ali Darwish, 1999-2001: Ali Darwish considers translation and translation quality as a
rational objective-driven, result-focused process that yields a product meeting a set of specifications, implicit or explicit. If translation is a haphazard activity, it falls outside the scope of quality assurance principles that are based on rationality of process and consciousness of decision-making (Ali Darwish 2001:5).
- Al-Qinai 2000: For his part,Al-Qinai (2000:499) embarked on the search for a model of quality assurance and assessment based on objective parameters of textual typology, formal correspondence, thematic coherence, reference cohesion, pragmatic equivalence and lexico-syntactic properties. This eclectic practical model targets
textual/functional or pragmatic compatibility” (i.e. quality of linguistic conversion) rather than the logistics of management and presentation (i.e. quality of service). After all, the ultimate end-users are interested in the quality of the product and not the means sought to serve its creation (Al-Qinai 2000:499).
If one agrees with Muzii (2006)that “a comprehensive set of metrics must measure quality from several points during the production process regardless of the model”, then the standpoints of House, Ali Darwish and Al-Qinai should be considered as being more complementary than antagonistic. But with all said and done, the applicability of these metrics, rubrics and models to translation quality assessment, especially against the backdrop of culture specificity, remains a matter of immense import to this article.
8. Translation quality and African cultural and literary specificity
A major problem faced by translators is how to deal with cultural specificity, given that translation is generally viewed both as an act of interlingual communication and as a process of cultural transfer (Dayan Liu, 2012:39).The cultural and literary peculiarity of African expression has been investigated and confirmed. Okpewho (1992:367) for instance states that “on the basis of fieldwork done in Liberia…literacy has made no appreciable difference in the modes of oral thinking in a traditional [African] society”.
Mindful of cultural and literary specificity, scholarship has proposed two major approaches to translating them, namely foreignisation and domestication. Whereas, it is known that the West employs both the domestication (target text-oriented) and foreignisation (source text-oriented) macro-strategies (Morávková 1993; Ladouceur 1995; Merino 2000; Aaltonen 1993 & 2000:4; Upton 2000; Kruger 2000; Espasa 2000), justifying what Snell-Hornby (1988:112/1995) for instance calls situation of source text and function of the translation, the African translation ‘province’ has tenaciously opted for a clearly foreignisingmacro-strategy.
African creative writing, characterised by linguistic open-endedness (see Wanchia, 2013) calls for a specific African translation perspective that defeats a blind and generalised application of acquiesced frameworks as testified below:
Translating African creative works is a source-text oriented translation process in which the target language, the European language, is modified to accommodate the African world-view. This process goes far beyond merely substituting linguistic and cultural equivalents. It is a negotiating process in the sense that two divergent sociocultural systems that are in contact attempt to arrive at a happy solution in expressing the African world-view in the European language. This negotiating process is made possible through translation techniques such as calques, semantic and collocational shifts (Bandia 1993:74).
translate African thought literally into European languages, since they understand the significance of the rapport between "sens" and "forme." As noted by Berman (1985, p. 36), "littéralité" is not necessarily "mot à mot," neither is it "calque." Literal translation, as practised by translators of African creative writing, is an example of what Berman means when he asserts that meaning and form are inseparable.
From the above, it is clear that African creative writing has a clear preference for semantic, overt and "literal" translation (foreignisation) in which formal equivalence takes priority over dynamic equivalence (domestication). That is the reason why this article concludes with the pertinent question that follows.
From the above discussion, one is wont to ask the question “whose translation quality then?This is appropriate because both translation and translation quality are first and foremost very volatile concepts. A few scholars can be summoned to back this opinion. House (1976:64), for instance, opines that translation “quality assessment can never be completely objectified in the manner of the results of natural science subjects”. In like manner, Pym (1998) asserts that the scenario will continue to be intriguing given that there is no “perfect” translation or intended purpose (skopos). Finally, Muzii (2006) states that even if “features and scope must be specified”, the attempt to strive for a single “all-encompassing metric is not only troublesome”, but can “also be useless as a simple metric would not reveal all problems”. Hence, the widespread concept of quality assessment will continue to be a relative one (due to cultural specificity) despite the laborious enterprise of having crafted and used metrics, rubrics and models. In other words, there is, and shall continue to be incontestable translation quality assessment provincialisation/balkanisation, mindful of the strong concept of culture-specificity. That makes it germane to make an apologia for a cautious and contextualised application of metrics, rubrics and models to translation quality assessment.
Aaltonen, S. (1993). “Rewriting the Exotic: The Manipulation of Otherness in Translated Drama”. In Catriona P. (ed.), Proceedings of XIII FIT World Congress, 26-33. London, Instituteof Translation and Interpreting.
Aaltonen, S. (2000). Time-sharing on stage: Drama translation in theatre and society. Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Ade Ojo, S. (1986). “The role of the translator of African written literature in intercultural consciousness and relationships”. Facets of literary translation. Meta, XXI, 3. Canada: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
Ali Darwish (1999). Translation Quality Evaluation for the New Millennium , at-turjuman online, 1999. Writescope Publishers. Melbourne.
Ali Darwish. (1999). Towards a theory of constsraints in translation. Draft Version 0.2.
Ali Darwish. (2001). The Translator's Guide. Ali Darwish. Writescope: Melbourne. 450 pp.
Al-Qinai, J. (2000). “Translation quality assessment: strategies, parameters, and procedures”, Meta XLV:3, pp. 497-519.
Antonopoulou, E. (2002). “A cognitive Approach to literary humour Devices: Translating Raymond Chandler”. In Vandaele, J. (ed.), Translating Humour. The Translator, Vol. 8, Number 2 (2002), 149-172. United Kingdom:St. Jerome.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humour. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 4, [MUP], 1972)
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words - A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routlegde.
Bandia, P. (1993). “On Translating Pidgins and Creoles in African Literature. Traduction,Terminologie, Redaction 6-2, 94-114.
Bandia, P. (1993). “Translation as Culture Transfer: Evidence from African Creative Writing,” Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction 6-2, 55-78.
Bassnett, S. (1991). Translating for the theatre: The case against ‘performability’. In TTR, Vol. 1, No 4, 99-111.
Bassnett, S. (1991). Translation studies. London: Routlegde.
Beaugrande, R. de. (1978). Factors in a theory of poetic translating. Assen: van Gorcum.
Beeby, A. (2000). Teaching translation from Spanish to English. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Bell, R. (1987). Translation theory: where are we going? In Meta 32, 4:403-415.
Berman. A. (1985b/2000). Translation and the trials of the foreign, L. Venuti (trans.), ‘La traduction comme épreuve de l’etranger’, Texte (1985):67-81), in L. Venuti (ed.) (2000).
Bjornson, R. (2002). “Writing and popular culture in Cameroon”. In Newell, S. (ed.), Readings in African popular fiction, 71-76. London: The International African Institute.
Boase-Beier, J. & Holman, M. (eds.). (1998). The practices of literary translation: Constraints and creativity. United Kingdom: St. Jerome.
Brislin, R. (ed.). (1976). The Implication of Culture on Translation Theory and Practice. Translation: Applications and research, 47-92. New York: Gardiner Press.
Catford, J. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London, Oxford UP,
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge, England: CUP.
Darah, G. G. (1982). Battles of songs: A case study of satire in the Udje dance-songs of the Urhobo of Nigeria. Ph.D thesis, Department of English, University of Ibadan.
Dayan, L. (2012). Subtitling Cultural Specificity from English to Chinese. American International Journal of Contemporary Research Vol. 2 No.10; October 2012 pg 39. Chongqing Jiaotong University.
Delabastita, D. (ed.). (1996). “Introduction”. Wordplay and translation. The Translator. Vol. 2 Number 2, 1996. United Kingdom: St Jerome.
Espasa, E. (2000). “Performability in translation: Speakability? Playability? Or Saleability?”. In Upton, C-A. (ed.), Moving Target: translation and cultural relocation. Manchester: St Jerome.
Evembe, F. (1988). « L’importance de la sémantique dans la naissance d’une pièce de théâtre ». In Butake, B. & Doho, G. (eds.), Théâtre Camerounais/ Cameroonian Theatre: Actes du colloque de Yaoundé. Yaounde: Cameroon: BET & Co (Pub) Ltd.
Farahzad, F. (1992). Testing achievement in translation classes. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddergard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting (pp. 271-278) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fofié, J. R. (2007). La création linguistique dramatique au Cameroun. Yaoundé Cameroun: Presses Universitaires de Yaoundé.
Frawley, W. (ed.). (1984). “In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation .University of Delaware Press; Associated University Presses.
Gerasimov, A. (2005). My golden rules for quality assurance. Retrieved on March 20, 2015 from: http://fra.proz.com/doc/534.
Goff-Kfouri, C. A. (2005). Testing and evaluation in the translation classroom. Translation Journal, 9(2), 75-99.
Gyasi, K. (1999). “Writing as Translation: AfricanLiterature and the Challenges of Translation”.Research in African Literatures 30-2, 75-87.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Languages as social semiotics: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1994). Discourse and the translator. London and New York: Longman.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. USA and Canada: Oxon.
Hatim, B. (2000). Teaching and Researching Translation, Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate, England.
Hatim, B. (1998/2001). "Discourse analysis and translation" In: Baker M. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
Hewson, L. & Martin, J. (1991). Redefining Translation: the Variational ApproachLondon:Routledge.
Hickey, L. (ed.). (1998). The Pragmatics of Translation. (ed). Clevedon: Philadelphia:Multilingual. Matters, 242 pp.
House, J. (1976/1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Niemeyer, Tübingen House J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
HouseJ. (2012). "Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation". META, XLVI, 2, 2001.
ISO. (1994). ISO 8402:1994 Quality management and quality assurance – Vocabulary International Organization for Standardization.
Khanmohammad , H. & Osanloo, M. (2009). Moving toward Objective Scoring: A Rubric for Translation Assessment.JELS, Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall 2009, 131-153. IAUCTB
Koné, A. (1992). « Le romancier africain devant la langue d’écriture ». Francophonia, 22:75-86.
Koné, A. (1992). « Le romancier africain devant la langue d’écriture ». Francophonia, 22:75-86.
Kourouma, A. (1970). Les soleils des indépendances. Paris:Edition du Seuil, Paris, Laye, C (1953), L’Enfant noir, Plon.
Kress G. (1985). Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Victoria, Deakin University Press.
Kruger, A. (2000). Lexical Cohesion and Register Variation in Translation: “The Merchant of Venice in Afrikaans.
Ladmiral, J. R. (1979). Traduire: théorèmes pour la traduction, Paris: Payot.
Ladouceur, L. (1995). “Normes, Fonctions et Traduction Théâtrale ». Meta, XL, No I, 31-38.
Merino, R. (2000). “Drama translation Strategies: English-Spanish (1950-1990”. Babel, Vol. 46 No. 4, 357-365.
Meschonnic, H. (1973). Pour la Poétique II, Paris, Gallimard.
Morávková A. (1993). «Les problèmes spécifiques de la traduction des drames ». Proceedings of XIII FIT World Congress. Institute of Translation and Interpreting, London, 34-37.
Muzii, L. (2006). Quality assessment and economic sustainability of translation. Gruppo L10N Roma.
Ndzana, M. H. (1988). « Le théâtre populaire camerounais d’aujourd’hui ». In Butake, B. and Doho. G, (eds.), In Cameroonian Theatre/Théâtre Camerounais, Actes du colloque de Yaounde. Yaounde: Cameroon: BET & Co (Pub) Ltd.
Ndzié, O. P. (1985). « Identité culturelle camerounaise et expression théatrale camerounaise », 339-359.
Newmark, P. (1981/1995). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London, Prentice-Hall.
Nida, E. (1964/1977). Toward a Science of Tanslation with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involves in Bible Translating : Leiden : E. J. Brill.
Okara, G. (1973). The Voice. Fontana Modern Novels.
Okpewho, I. (ed.). (1992). “Towards a faithful record: On transcribing and translating the oral narrative performance”. The oral performance in Africa. Ibadan, Oweri, and Kaduna: Spectrum Books Limited.
Okpewho, I. (1992). African oral Literature. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Pym, A. (1998). Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Reiss, K. (1971/1977/1989). “Text types, translation types and translation assessment”, translated by Chesterman A. In Venuti L. (ed.) (2000), 160-171.
Riazi, A. M. (2003). The invisible in translation: The role of text structure in translation. Journal of Translation, 7, 1-8.
Sainz, J. M. (1992). Student-centered correction of translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1916). "Cours de Linguistique Générale (Course in General Linguistics).
Schäffner, C. (ed.) (1998). Translation and Quality, Clevedon/Philadelphia/ Toronto/Sydney/Johannesburg, Multilingual Matters.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988/1995). Translation Studies: An Intergrated Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, P.A.: John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1994). Translation studies, an Interdiscipline. John Benjamins Publishing. 438 pp.
Steiner, G. (1992). After babel. Oxford University Press.
Suh, J. C. (2008). “Drama Translation Principles and Strategies”. Epasa Moto, Vol. 3, No 2. Cameroon: Agwecam.
Suh, J.C, (2005). “The Appropriation of European Languages in Cameroonian Literary Works: Globalisation and the African Experience: Implications for language, Literature and Education”. Limbe, ANUCAM.
Summer-Paulin, C. (1995). « Traduction et Culture: Quelques Proverbes Africains Traduits », 519-719. Meta, Vol.40, No 4. Montreal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
Toury, G. (1978/2000). ‘The nature and role of norms in literary translation’, in L. Venuti (ed.) (2000), 198-211.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies - And Beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tweney , R. & Hoeman, H. (1976). Translation and sign language. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 138-161). New York: Gardner.
Upton, C-A. (ed.). (2000). Moving Target: Theatre Translation and Cultural Relocation. UK:Manchester, St Jerome.
Vakunta. P.W. (2008). “On Translating Camfranglais and Other Camerounismes”. Meta: Vol. 53, No. 4, 942-947.
Vandaele, J. (ed.) (2002). “Introduction: (Re-)constructing humour : meanings and means”. Translating Humour. Translating Humour. The Translator, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2002), 149-172. United Kingdom, St. Jerome.
Venuti, L. (1995). “Translation Authorship, Copyright”, The Translator I (I):1-24.
Venuti, L. (1995a). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Vinay, J-P. & Darbelnet, J. (1958). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.
Vinay, J-P. & Darbelnet, J. (1959/1995). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction. In Vinay, J-P. & Darbelnet, J (trans., 1958 version by Sager J. C. and Marie-Josée H.), Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translation: The question of validity. Meta, 46(2), 311-325.
Wanchia, T. N. (2013). Investigating the latent resistance of African creative popular art to translation. African Journal of Social Sciences. Vol. 4 No.2, Cameroon.
Wilss, W. (1974/82). The science of translation: problems and methods. Jahrestagung Universität Stuttgart. Conference Proceedings.
Wilss, W. (1974/82). The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods, Turbingen: Narr.
Zlateva, P. (ed. and Trans.). (1993). Translation as social action. Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives. Translation Studies Series. London and New York. 132 pp.