10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
application/pdf
1974-4382
15476
en
Andreas Musolff
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
mediAzioni
Introduction: Updating Discourse/s on Method/s
Text.Serial.Journal
https://mediazioni.unibo.it/
34
Articles
2022-09-22
2022-09-06
2022-09-22
2022-09-22
A1-A12
M
Andreas Musolff
2022/09/22
10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
A1
University of East Anglia
1974-4382
en
A12
Introduction: Updating Discourse/s on Method/s
https://mediazioni.unibo.it/article/download/15476/14679
34
Updating Discourse/s on Method/s                                    mediAzioni 34 (2022)
                                                                          ISSN   1974-4382


INTRODUCTION: UPDATING DISCOURSE/S ON METHOD/S

                 LUCIA ABBAMONTE, FLAVIA CAVALIERE, ANDREAS MUSOLFF
   UNIVERSITY OF CAMPANIA “LUIGI VANVITELLI”, UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II,
                                    UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA

lucia.abbamonte@unicampania.it, fcavalie@unina.it, a.musolff@uea.ac.uk



Citation: Abbamonte, Lucia, Flavia Cavaliere and Andreas Musolff (2022) “Introduction:
Updating Discourse/s on Method/s”, in Lucia Abbamonte and Flavia Cavaliere (eds.),
Updating       Discourse/s      on       Method/s,       mediAzioni 34:       A1-A12,
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476, ISSN 1974-4382.



The focus on the need to define the method of “rightly conducting one’s reason,
and seeking truth in the sciences” (in René Descartes’ superb 1637 formulation)
(Descartes 1965) has repeatedly been foregrounded during the evolution of
English Studies, particularly in Italy. The broad domain of English Studies can
encompass a wide variety of fields, including applied/applicable socio-
linguistics, cultural studies, literature/s in the English language/s, film, gender,
the history of the English language/s, humour, media, terminology and
lexicography, theatre, translation, interpreting and language teaching. This rich
panorama entails variations in methodological approaches that are also made
necessary by the contemporary poly-cross-media environment(s), with its
multifaceted, ever-emerging, technologically driven communicative resources.
    Accordingly, the purpose of this special issue is to reconsider a number of
methods and approaches with their theoretical grounding, functioning, socio-
political implications and potential for cross-fertilization of ideas.
    The contributions explore key contemporary concerns in the domain of
research and language teaching and have been grouped into two main sections,
discourse analysis and translation studies, the latter of which also features a
study dedicated to the impact of blended (or entirely computer-based) teaching
models and social media applications on English Language Teaching.


1. Discourse Analysis

Reconsidering the domain of discourse analysis in the contemporary mediascape,
where communication synergically unfolds through many modes (visual, verbal,
iconic, acoustic, haptic) and channels, ranging from more traditional media to
more recent ones (e.g., Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok), where the boundary
between medium and channel is not always clear-cut, can be a challenging task.


Copyright © 2022
The text in this work is licensed under CC-BY 4. 0.                                    A1
A2                                                    ABBAMONTE, CAVALIERE, MUSOLFF


As the selection of studies included in this volume confirms, discourse analysis
has increasingly become multimodal (MDA) – the verbal level being only one
among multiple available semiotic codes. Accordingly, it can be profitable to use
a multi-layered methodological approach to the texts under analysis that can
encompass both the verbal and other levels.
    In this light, the paper The Need for Integrated Methodology – The
National Museum of African American History and Culture, by Lucia
Abbamonte and Raffaella Antinucci, aims to show how, when dealing with
semiotically complex topics of investigation such as museums, the need for an
integrated analytical approach that enables the researcher to study the
relationship between their different components and their social significance
arises. This investigation required both the resources of MDA and the fine-
grained tools of the Appraisal Framework for the verbal components, together
with insights from museum studies, to effectively show how the
multidimensional communicative domains of the NMAAHC succeeded in
rescuing generations of African Americans from obscurity and demonstrating
both their resourcefulness in the dire condition of slavery as well as their
contributions to American progress in many fields.
    How Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA) shares concerns with ecolinguistics
is shown in the study by Douglas Ponton, Ecolinguistics and Positive
Discourse Analysis: Ecological Farming and Mediating Nature, which
explores an eco-friendly farm in Norfolk, focusing on the long-running BBC
programme ‘The Countryside Hour’. Both ecolinguistics and PDA, as relatively
new disciplines, stand in some need of definition, especially regarding their
relationship with the more consolidated paradigm of Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA), which, in turn, is itself not characterized by a general agreement on
methodological matters (see Martin 2004; Flowerdew 2008; Stibbe 2017).
    Ponton’s study applies some of the notions found in the theoretical
background and practical toolkit of CDA, such as framing, presupposition,
metaphor analysis, pragmatics and relevance theory, and explores their
functioning as heuristic methods in data that is regarded as ecologically
‘positive’. Unlike traditional critical studies of harmful environmental practices,
which position a social actor as occupying a negative position, exposing deviant
discursive practices (Vasta 2005), the starting point of PDA is discourse that
concords with current mediated notions of environmental sustainability. The aim
is not simply to give such contexts, and such discourse, publicity, nor is it to seek
solace in “discourse that inspires, encourages, heartens, discourse we like, that
cheers us along” (Martin 1999: 51–52). Rather, it is to shed light on underlying
processes at the level of ideologies (in the sense of Fairclough 2003: 9) and to
make manifest thoughts, feelings and discourses that are felt to be ‘positive’ in a
mirror image of what occurs in CDA studies.
    In a similar vein, in Lucia Abbamonte’s contribution, Critical Discourse
Analysis and Positive Discourse Analysis: Commonalities and Differences,
an integrated new perspective on the relationship between more traditional
analytical methods and the more recent PDA approach is proposed. Indeed, CDA
typically attempts to unveil the uses of language and semiosis in the service of
power and is best known for its focus on ideologically driven discrimination.
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
INTRODUCTION                                                                    A3


Overall, CDA has not offered productive accounts of alternative forms of social
organization, nor of social subjects, other than by implication.
     A different orientation is provided both by Kress (2000) and by Martin
(2004). Martin’s perspective on language and semiosis aims “to make the world
a better place – which I refer to as Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA), [… and]
is oriented not so much to deconstruction as to constructive social action” (2004:
180–181). Other instantiations of PDA can be found in both Macgilchrist (2007),
who investigated strategies for propelling marginal discourses into the
mainstream news media, and Bartlett (2012), who considered the potential of
linguistic and discourse analysis for facilitating positive intervention in social
issues. Central notions in Bartlett’s vision, as well as in Rogers’ (2017), are to
give voice and access to dominant discourses to less privileged, racialized social
groups and then to re-shape such discourses.
     Largely, Abbamonte highlights how the major difference between CDA and
PDA is found in topic selection: in CDA’s selection of only discriminatory
discourses to be deconstructed, there is no scope for positive critical thinking,
whereas, from a PDA orientation, new transformative meanings can emerge.
     The possible role of Cognitive Linguistics (Wittgenstein 1958; Rosch 1978;
Lakoff 1987; Taylor 1995; Ran and Duimering 1997) is investigated in Stefania
D’Avanzo’s paper, The Role of Cognitive Linguistics in Corporate Narrative
Research: A Methodological Perspective, the focus of which is on its
applicability to business communication and corporate narrative/storytelling
research. In this study, corporate identity claims are related to linguistic
language positioning – positive, negative and neutral positioning along with
movement and interaction processes (Glaser and Strauss 1968; Ran and Duimering
2007) since cognitive categorization can help to better understand promotional
attitudes and corporate identities.
     Corporate storytelling has previously mainly been explored from the
perspective of both marketing studies and corporate communication, with a
focus on the role played by narratives in building corporate identity. The novelty
of D’Avanzo’s study consists in addressing the issues related to the mental
categorization involved in corporate identity narratives, which are developed
through storytelling strategies.
     An example of the cross-contamination of methods and theories apparently
as diverse as Queer Linguistics, Critical Discourse and Corpus-based Studies
unfolds in Serena Santonocito’s Queer Affordances in the Discursive Analysis
of Collective (Mis)Representations. While considering the much-criticized
incorporation of Queer Theory (QT) into linguistics (Wiegman 2012), the study
constitutes a further attempt to question QT’s negative reputation as anti-
identarian nihilism and anti-speciesism. Such criticisms are mitigated in the light
of poststructuralist “plurality, multivocality and non-fixity of all meanings”
(Baxter 2003: 6), with a focus on the socio-cultural and political structures
stabilizing and simultaneously challenging the orders of discourse (Foucault
1980). Hence, QT and its linguistic affordances can function as antiparadigms
for uncovering dominant discourses shaping collective meaning-making and
(mis)understandings.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
A4                                                    ABBAMONTE, CAVALIERE, MUSOLFF


    The applicability of MDA and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) studies to
gender bias is explored in Annarita Taronna and Laura Centonze’s Multimodal
Analysis for Gender-Biased Representations: The Case of Italian and British
TV Advertisements. In this study, semantic asymmetries and discriminating
gender identities are investigated in the light of the most influential
contributions to the study of language and gender (Lakoff 1975; Goffman 1979;
Cameron 1995; Christie 2000; Lazar 2005; Jeffries 2007; Baker 2008; Mills 2008;
Machin, Caldas-Coulthard and Milani 2016). In particular, the comparison
between advertising messages disseminated in regional, national and
international territories allowed the researchers to define the extent to which the
presence of gender stereotypes and the sexualization of the female body are
occurring in regional and national advertising in some European countries.
Reference is thus made to English advertisements in both English-speaking and
non-English-speaking countries. The results of interlinguistic and comparative
research have highlighted useful data for the definition of pragma-linguistic
patterns characterizing ELF in advertising.


2. Translation Studies

Within the plurality of existing approaches and perspectives, contributions to
this section are mainly devoted to reflections on Translation Studies, whose
growth has been described as “a success story of the 1980s” (Bassnett and
Lefevere 1992: xi).
     The most important achievements in Translation Studies took place with the
(ongoing) shift from translation ‘theory’ to translation ‘science’ during the second
half of the 20th century, when an ever-growing community of translation scholars
and an increasing number of congresses and publications gradually led to the
institutionalization of Translation Studies as a relatively autonomous scientific
discipline at a university level.
     Ever since its onset, Translation Studies has used a number of concepts that
appeared in previous epochs, variously approached on the basis of “the dominant
philosophy of the time and/or underlying conceptions of the nature of
translation and how the translated text will be used” (Schaeffner 2001: 5).
Furthermore, both the practice and theory of translation have generally been
aligned with various disciplines, straddling a range of fields, including literature,
rhetoric, grammar, poetics, hermeneutics, linguistics, comparative literature and
anthropology, as well as (apparently) less related ones such as mathematics,
functionalism, cultural studies and cognitive theory. These various connections,
which arise from the complex nature of the translation process, are usually
viewed as a result of the historical acknowledgement of translation as a
utilitarian tool serving a range of purposes, from interpreting biblical texts and
disseminating religion to learning foreign languages and practising grammar. In
the first half of the 20th century, for instance, literary critics mostly regarded
translation as a useful device to both interpret (older) texts and shed light on
dubious, corrupt passages through the comparison of different translations.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
INTRODUCTION                                                                           A5


    Accordingly, theoretical considerations on translation were initially
dominated by philology, then by the philosophy of language. In the 1930s,
however, the extension of international cooperation in scientific, technical,
military and diplomatic fields required that attention be given to problems of
specialized, non-literary translation. In response to various influences and
morphological and syntactical problems coming from outer stimuli (including
machine translation), “a more systematic approach to translation was needed,
and the discipline with the theoretical and language tools necessary to address
the problem was first provided by linguistics” (Gentzler 2001: 67). Despite this
‘golden age’ of the linguistic approach to translation (Fawcett 1997), linguistic
investigation proved inadequate to offer satisfactory answers, as Vermeer says:

      Linguistics alone won’t help us. First, because translating is not merely and
      not even primarily a linguistic process. Secondly, because linguistics has not
      yet formulated the right questions to tackle our problems. So, let’s look
      somewhere else. (Vermeer 1987: 28)

Semantic issues, in particular, required the linguistic approach to be backed up
by extralinguistic information, and the work of the Polysystem group, inspired
by Itamar Even-Zohar (1978), Gideon Toury (1978) and James Holmes (1978),
investigated the role played by translated literature in the wider social system of
culture and set forth the need to broaden the object of study beyond the
immediate frame. Bassnett defined this as “A shift from a more formalist
approach to translation to one that laid greater emphasis on extra-textual
factors” (2007: 13), thus signalling the ‘cultural turn’ in translation, where the
cultural aspect of translation became predominant and “the object of study has
been redefined; what is studied is text embedded within its network of both
source and target cultural signs” (Bassnett and Lefevere 1990: 11–12). Extensive
literature has been devoted to the investigation of various aspects of cultural
manifestation: differences between cultures apparent in various types of
translation and the mutual influence of culture on translation and translation on
culture (among many, see; Nida 1993, 1996; Toury 1995; Bassnett and Lefevere
1998; Gentzler 2001; Bassnett 2005; Hatim and Mason 2005; Katan 2008;
Cranmer 2015). More recent approaches in translation studies include the so-
called ‘anthropocentric turn’ (Dürbeck and Hüpkes 2020) and eco-translation,
which refers to

      all forms of translation thinking and practice that knowingly engage with
      the challenges of human-induced environmental change. […] Food security,
      climate justice, biodiversity loss, water depletion, energy security,
      linguicide, eco-migration, resource conflicts, global monocultures, are only
      some of the issues that will be at the heart of environmental debates in the
      twenty-first century and that will need to be addressed by scholars and
      practitioners of translation alike. (Cronin 2017: 2–3)

The ever-increasing exploitation of technology in the translation process and the
use of translation in creating such products as computer games, mobile


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
A6                                                    ABBAMONTE, CAVALIERE, MUSOLFF


applications, website interfaces, etc. have also resulted in the emergence of new
paradigms in translation theory (Gambier 2008, 2016).

      [N]ew translation technologies such as translation memories, data-based
      machine translation, and collaborative translation management systems, far
      from being merely added tools, are altering the very nature of the
      translator’s cognitive activity, and professional standing. (Pym 2011: 1)

Translation Studies is thus an interdisciplinary, still evolving science which is
made even more intricate owing to the nature of the translation activity as a
whole and to differences among different types of translation: “The development
of Translation Studies must be viewed as spiral movement: at each new cycle
translation scholars embrace new aspects of eternal problems, their approaches
to solving translation problems change, they approach the problems with a fresh
perspective” (Sdobnikov 2019: 299)
     Space constraints prevent a fully-fledged, interpretative account of the state
of the art and an address of the manifold issues that may be of interest to
translation scholars. Nonetheless, the articles in this section aim to sketch an
overview of some of the most recent and meaningful approaches to translation
and discuss issues and new trends in translation related to and/or generated by
the wide use of information technologies and their role in diversifying
Translation Studies. The case studies/examples investigated in this section also
attempt to deal with some of the questions regarding the inclusion of an
empirical approach in Translation Studies and provide a way of validating
theoretical hypotheses. In this perspective, modern Translation Studies can also
serve as a basis for developing the didactics of translation, an increasingly felt
need. In particular, “the audiovisualisation trend must also be felt in the
translation profession and academia, to the extent that we could also talk of a
process of audiovisualisation in translation” (Díaz Cintas 2013: 119).
     Within this perspective, the study by Flavia Cavaliere, Coping with
Untranslatability in AVT, investigates the complexity and difficulties of the
audiovisual translation (AVT) process, which are particularly relevant as
“differences between cultures may cause more severe complications for the
translator than do differences in language structure” (Nida 1964: 157).
Cavaliere’s article presents a detailed examination of translation problems posed
by linguistic and speech units with a cultural component (i.e., realia such as
objects, customs, habits and other cultural and material aspects that have an
impact on shaping a certain language such as puns, idioms, metaphors, etc.)
arising in particular when translating and adapting a text for the screen. The
author analyzes qualitative examples, chosen on the basis of their
untranslatability, of English audio scripts of well-known films/TV series and
their subtitled/dubbed Italian version and illustrates how untranslatability in
AVT may variously result from differences between the linguistic structures,
socio-cultural motivations and “genre expectations/constraints” of the medium
(Cavaliere 2019: 11). The problems inherent in all translations are in fact at their
most evident in AVT because the obstacles posed by the issue of ‘unshared
knowledge’ between SL and TL audiences are made even more challenging by

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
INTRODUCTION                                                                     A7


technical restrictions. The in-built time and space limits imposed by subtitling
necessarily require a “constrained translation” (Titford 1982). Both prevent the
provision of a “thick translation” (Appiah 1993: 399) and impede the audience
from back-tracking in the text in order to retrieve meaning.
    Nonetheless, despite some untranslatability issues, the translation process
remains vital to inform readers about a foreign culture (Levý 2011: 96).
Cavaliere’s study thus highlights how a renewed emphasis on connections among
translation, linguistics, philology, philosophy and socio-cultural issues may offer
students stimulating (cross)curricular initiatives, especially at advanced
undergraduate and graduate levels, by means of striking easy-to-grasp examples
in AVT. Indeed, “Audiovisual exchanges are appealing because they
communicate complex messages in a ludic and entertaining way. It is the
composite, semiotic, audio and visual nature of the material that gives it the edge
over simply written communication […] where sounds and visuals coalesce in a
winning combination over other formats, particularly among younger
generations” (Díaz-Cintas 2013: 119).
    The crucial role of a technology-enhanced learning environment is addressed
in Marco Canani and Tania Zulli’s ELT and Social Media: Integrating TikTok
into Class Practice. Their timely study regards research connectedness and L2
teaching/learning and, in particular, the impact of social media applications on
English Language Teaching and their inclusion in classroom practice. This
survey-based pilot study conducted among 110 students at the “Gabriele
d’Annunzio” University in Chieti aimed to investigate the learning strategies
offered by TikTok accounts, such as those of the Italian TikTokers Davide Patron
and Norma Cerletti, who share videos on English language, pronunciation,
vocabulary and idioms that can also be exploited to target L1 interference on L2
pronunciation. Thanks to the short duration of these videos and their conflation
of sound, text, gesture and body language, a variety of learning/teaching
techniques can be employed, which are investigated both from a linguistic and
a metacognitive perspective. Given the students’ perceptions of the usefulness of
these profiles, the authors foreground the multiple advantages of using self-study
paths and the value of such videos as an innovative and appealing alternative to
the audiovisual materials traditionally employed in Presentation-Practice-
Production coursebooks and classes.
    An example of the cross-fertilization of approaches can be found in Laura
Diamanti’s Eco-translation: Raising Ecolinguistic Awareness in Translation,
where the translation process is reconsidered from the perspective of
ecolinguistics. In this interpretive analysis, the author takes her trajectory from
Arran Stibbe’s influential studies on ecolinguistics, which combine
epistemological knowledge and ethical tenets concerning the relation between
human beings and other species living on Earth (2014: 119–121), wherein
language assumes a crucial role in how it affects and effects this interrelationship
(Stibbe and Alexander 2014: 104). Diamanti accounts for both Philippe Lynes’
claims that eco-translation studies and the field of ecolinguistics are related and
Lynes’ Ecosystemic Translation theory (2012), which involves “the ecology of
translation” in the analysis of languages in their historical and social background.
Lynes also investigates “the translation of ecology” in the linguistic patterns
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
A8                                                    ABBAMONTE, CAVALIERE, MUSOLFF


translated from an ecological perspective, which supports the foreignization of
the source text and contrasts its domestication when translated into the dominant
language as being entirely oriented to the receiving culture (Lynes 2012: 5–6).
Attention is also paid to Peter Mühlhäusler’s ecological theory of language
maintenance, upholding a composite and interconnected system of languages. In
this sense, the relation between languages preserving their ecological and
cultural diversity is functional to their effective coexistence (Mühlhäusler 1996:
322–323). Correspondingly, Michael Cronin’s view of translation is considered
as an ‘interdiscipline’ operating “as craft” that resists a conventional approach of
domestication and protects the identity of languages, becoming a further means
to preserve their subsistence (2017: 134). In light of these views, Diamanti
advocates an ecological interpretation based on cognitive and ethical
assumptions in the process of translation to retain the cultural value of the
source-text language by avoiding the assimilation of its metonymic structures
into the target-text language.
     An innovative integrated methodological approach is utilized in Dora
Renna’s Methodological Challenges in Audiovisual Translation:
Experimenting New Software for Multimodal Corpus-based Analysis. AVT
translation has long struggled to strike a balance between corpus-based analysis
of large amounts of text and the need to systematically integrate multimodality
within its research scope in order to fully acknowledge the complex nature of
the audiovisual product (Gambier 2006; Chiaro 2008). Delivering results able to
combine these two aspects has proven to be a particularly challenging task
(Ramos Pinto and Mubaraki 2020). Renna reports on the ongoing
experimentation at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, with the collaboration
of the University of Mannheim, that utilizes existing software for AVT. The main
aim is to ensure that this software is able to support the researcher in
transcribing, tagging, adding metadata, and managing and querying text, audio
and video files. The software has been used for single-language and multi-
language corpora and has proven its efficacy in fields such as pragmatics,
bilingualism and interpreting, whose corpora share some requirements with
AVT. However, this tool has not yet been used for parallel aligned audiovisual
text. The researcher shows the potential and limits of the tool in the field of
Translation Studies and AVT and discusses the results of the experiment, which
requires linguistic variation and multimodality to be taken into consideration
simultaneously.
     Finally, Luisa Marino’s contribution, Stylistic Approaches to Translation:
An Overview, proposes a reassessment of stylistics in the context of Translation
Studies. At first sight, Stylistics has played a relatively small role in translation
theory (Boase-Beier 2006, 2011). However, the study of style is one of the main
linguistic tools that scholars of Translation Studies employ to understand
“textual-conceptual functions” (Jeffries 2014), recognize them in translation,
and investigate how linguistic resources are used to produce meanings and how
these meanings are recontextualized through translation. From this viewpoint,
Marino’s paper outlines an overview of stylistic approaches to translation, both
exploring the origins of the interaction between Stylistics and Translation Studies
and looking at its current developments. Narrowing the focus to the application
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
INTRODUCTION                                                                     A9


of the stylistic framework to literary translation, the study highlights the need to
reach a greater synergy between Stylistics and Translation Studies, whereby the
latter is seen as both a theoretical discipline and a professional practice. The
study also provides an example of how applying a stylistic framework to literary
translation can help bring to light the social and political implications that are
sometimes concealed or disguised in the creation of a fictional world.


REFERENCES

Appiah, Kwame (1993) “Thick Translation”, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The
       Translation Studies Reader, New York: Routledge, 2nd edition, 389–401.
Baker, Paul (2008) Sexed Texts: Language, Gender and Sexuality, London: Equinox.
Bartlett, Thomas A. M. (2012) Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change:
       Contextualising Positive Discourse Analysis, London & New York: Routledge.
Bassnett, Susan (2005) Translation Studies, London & New York: Routledge, 3rd
       edition.
------ (2007) “Culture and Translation”, in Piotr Kuhiwczak and Karin Littau
       (eds.) The Companion to Translation Studies, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
       13–23.
------ and André Lefevere (1990) Translation, History, and Culture, London: Printer
       Publishers.
------ (1992) “General editors’ preface”, in André Lefevere (ed.)
       Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook, London & New York: Routledge,
       xi–xii.
------ (1998) Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation, Clevedon:
       Multilingual Matters.
Baxter, Judith (2003) Positioning Gender in Discourse: A Feminist Methodology,
       Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boase-Beier, Jean (2006) Stylistic Approaches to Translation, London: Routledge.
------ (2011) “Stylistics and Translation”, in Kirsten Malmkjær and Kevin Windle
       (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, New York: Oxford
       University Press, 61–75.
Cameron, Deborah (1995) “Rethinking language and gender studies: Some issues
       for the 1990s”, in Sarah Mills (ed.) Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary
       Perspectives, London: Longman, 31–44.
Cavaliere, Flavia (2019) “Framing Neapolitan swearwords in contemporary AVT
       scenario – Swearing as a lingua-cultural phenomenon”, Mediazioni 24: 1–
       43.
Chiaro, Delia (2008) “Issues in Audiovisual Translation”, in The Routledge
       Companion to Translation Studies, London: Routledge, 141–165.
Christie, Christine (2000) Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist Pragmatics,
       Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cranmer, Robin (2015) “Introducing Intercultural Communication into the
       Teaching of Translation”, Russian Journal of Linguistics 19(4): 155–174.
Cronin, Michael (2017) Eco-translation, Translation and Ecology in the Age of the
       Anthropocene, London & New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
A10                                                  ABBAMONTE, CAVALIERE, MUSOLFF


Descartes, René (1965) Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason
        and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, translated by Paul J. Olscamp,
        Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
------ (2013) “The technology turn in subtitling”, in Marcel Thelen and Barbara
        Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.) Translation and Meaning: Part 9,
        Maastricht: Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, 119–132.
Dürbeck, Gabriele and Philip Hüpkes (eds.) (2020) The Anthropocenic Turn: The
        Interplay between Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Responses to a New Age,
        New York & London: Routledge.
Even-Zohar, Itamar (1978) “The position of translated literature within the
        literary polysystem”, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies
        Reader, New York: Routledge, 2nd edition, 199–204.
Fairclough, Norman (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social
        Research, London & New York: Routledge.
Fawcett, Peter (1997) Translation and Language: Linguistic Approaches Explained,
        Manchester: St Jerome.
Flowerdew, John (2008) “Critical discourse analysis and strategies of resistance”,
        in Vijay K. Bhatia, John Flowerdew and Rodney H. Jones (eds.) Advances
        in Discourse Studies, Abingdon & New York: Routledge, 195–211.
Foucault, Michel (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,
        1972–1977, New York: Pantheon Books.
Gambier, Yves (2006) “Multimodality and Subtitling”, in Mary Carroll, Heidrun
        Gerzymisch-Arbogast and Sandra Nauert (eds.) Proceedings of the Marie
        Curie Euroconferences MuTra: Audiovisual Translation Scenarios, 1–5 May
        2006, Copenhagen.
------ (2008) “Recent developments and challenges in audiovisual translation
        research”, in Chiara Bucaria, Christine Heiss and Delia Chiaro (eds.)
        Between Text and Image: Updating Research in Screen Translation. Amsterdam
        & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 11–35.
------ (2016) “Rapid and Radical Changes in Translation and Translation Studies”,
        International Journal of Communication 10: 887–906.
Gentzler, Edwin (2001) Contemporary Translation Theories, Clevedon:
        Multilingual Matters, revised 2nd edition.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss (1968) The Discovery of Grounded Theory,
        London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Goffman, Erving (1979) Gender Advertisements, London: Macmillan.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason (2005) The Translator as Communicator, London &
        New York: Routledge.
Holmes, James, José Lambert and Raymond van den Broeck (1978) Literature
and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies: with a Basic Bibliography of
Books on Translation Studies, Leuven : Acco.
Jeffries, Lesley (2007) The Textual Construction of the Female Body: A Critical
        Discourse Analysis Approach, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
------ (2014) “Critical Stylistics”, in Michael Burke (ed.) The Routledge Handbook
        of Stylistics, London: Routledge, 408–420.
Katan, David (2008) Translation as Intercultural Communication, London & New
        York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
INTRODUCTION                                                                     A11


 ------ (2000) “Design and Transformation: New Theories of Meaning”, in Bill
        Cope and Mary Kalantzis (eds.) Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the
        Design of Social Futures, London: Routledge, 153–161.
Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, Chicago: University of
        Chicago Press.
Lakoff, Robin (1975) Language and Woman’s Place, New York: Harper and Row.
Lazar, Michelle M. (ed.) (2005) Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power
        and Ideology in Discourse, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Levý, Jiří (2011) The Art of Translation, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
        Benjamins.
Lynes, Philippe (2012) “Ecologies of Translation, Translations of Ecologies:
        Between Ecolinguistics and Translation Studies”, Language & Ecology (21
        September                   2012),              https://www.ecolinguistics-
        association.org/_files/ugd/ae088a_fb2ec7cb819e489ca30041e24544d2ba.
        pdf.
Macgilchrist, Felicitas (2007) “Positive Discourse Analysis: Contesting Dominant
        Discourses by Reframing the Issues”, CADAAD Journal 1(1): 74–94.
Machin, David, Carmen R. Caldas-Coulthard and Tommaso M. Milani (2016)
        “Doing Critical Multimodality in Research on Gender, Language and
        Discourse”, Gender and Language 10(3): 301–308.
Martin, James R. (1999) “Grace: The logogenesis of freedom”, Discourse Studies
        1(1): 29–56.
------ (2004) “Positive Discourse Analysis: Solidarity and Change”, Revista Canaria
        de Estudios Ingleses 49: 179–200.
Mills, Sara (2008) Language and Sexism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mühlhäusler, Peter (1996) Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic
        Imperialism in the Pacific Region, London & New York: Routledge.
Nida, Eugene (1964) “Principles of Correspondence”, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.)
        (2008) The Translation Studies Reader, London: Routledge, 153–167.
------ (1993) Language, Culture and Translating, Shanghai: Foreign Language
        Education Press.
------ (1996) The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication, Brussels: Éditions
        du Hazard.
Pym, Anthony (2011) “What Technology Does to Translating”, Translation and
        Interpreting 3(1): 1–9.
Ramos Pinto, Sara and Aishah Mubaraki (2020) “Multimodal Corpora Analysis
        of Subtitling: The Case of Non-standard Varieties”, Target: International
        Journal of Translation Studies 32(3): 389–419.
Ran, Bing and P. Robert Duimering (2007) “Imaging the Organization Language
        Use in Organizational Identity Claims”, Journal of Business and Technical
        Communication 21(2): 155–187.
Rogers, Rebecca (2017) Reclaiming Powerful Literacies: New Horizons for Critical
        Discourse Analysis, London: Taylor & Francis.
Rosch, Eleanor (1978) “Principles of categorization”, in Eleanor Rosch and
        Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.) Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
        Erlbaum, 27–48.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
A12                                                 ABBAMONTE, CAVALIERE, MUSOLFF


Sdobnikov, Vadim (2019) "Translation Studies Today: Old Problems and New
Challenges", Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (2): 295-327.
Schaeffner, Christina (2001) Annotated Texts for Translation: English-German:
       Functionalist Approaches Illustrated, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Stibbe, Arran (2014) “An Ecolinguistic Approach to Critical Discourse Studies”,
       Critical Discourse Studies 11(1): 117–128.
------ (2017) “Positive Discourse Analysis: rethinking human ecological
       relationships”, in Alwyn Fill and Hermine Penz (eds.) The Routledge
       Handbook of Ecolinguistics, London: Routledge.
------ and Richard Alexander (2014) “From the analysis of ecological discourse to
       the ecological analysis of discourse”, Language Sciences 41: 104–110.
Taylor, John Robert (1995) Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic
       Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition.
Titford, Christopher (1982) “Sub-titling: constrained translation”, Lebende
       Sprachen 27(3): 113–116.
Toury, Gideon (1995/2012 revised edition) Descriptive Translation Studies and
       Beyond, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vasta, Nicoletta (2005) “‘Profits & Principles: Is There a Choice?’ The multimodal
       construction of Shell’s commitment to social responsibility and the
       environment in and across advertising texts”, in Giuseppina Cortese and
       Anna Duszak (eds.) Identity, Community, Discourse: English in Intercultural
       Settings, Bern: Peter Lang, 429–452.
Vermeer, Hans J. (1987) “What Does It Mean to Translate?”, Indian Journal of
       Applied Linguistics 13: 25–33.
Wiegman, Robyn (2012) Object Lessons, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1958) Philosophical Investigations, translated by G. E. M.
       Anscombe, Oxford: Blackwell & Mott, 3rd edition.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15476
