1. Adachi, R. (2012). A Study of Japanese Animation as Translation.

A
Descriptive Analysis of Hayao Miyazaki and Other Anime Dubbed into
English.
2. Aiwei, S. (2005). Translatability and Poetic Translation.
3. Alcaraz, E. (1996). Translation and pragmatics. R. Alvarez and M. C. A.
Vidal (eds). Translation, Power, Subversion. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 99-115.
4. Baker. M In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation. London:
Routledge, 1992.
5. Barxudarov L. S. Yazikiperevod, IMO, 1975.
6. Bastin, Georges L. 2000. Evaluating Beginner’s Re-Expression and
Creativity: A Positive Approach. In The Translator, 2000, vo. 6, no. 2, pp.
231-245.
7. Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice.
London: Longman.
8. BOASE-BEIER, J HOLMAN. M (eds.). The Practices of Literary
Translation: Constraints and Creativity. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1999, pp.
123-132.
9. Byun, Gilja, Wonbo KIM. 2014. The importance of Nida (1964)’s
theory in translation. In Journal of Linguistic Studies, 2014, vol. 19, no. 1,
pp. 107-126.
10. Catford, John C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London:
Oxford University Press, 1965.
11.Catford. J. C. A linguistic theory of translation: An essay on applied
linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
12. Constantinecu, Adrian. 2010. Nida’s Theory of Dynamic Equivalence.
In Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 2010, vol. 9, pp. 284-289.
13.Cornwell, J. (2011). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Encouraging Higher Cognitive
Thinking in Primary School Classrooms.
14. Delisle, Jean. 1980. L’analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction:
Initiation á la traduction Française de textes pragmatiques anglais, théorie et
pratique. Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 1980.
15. Dimitriu, Rodica. 2009. Translator’s preface as documentary sources
for translation studies. In Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 2010,
vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 193-206.
16. Dukāte, A. (2009). Translation, manipulation and interpreting. Retrieved
September 8 2014
17. Edwin. G ‘‘Contemporary Translation Theories.’’ PhD dissertation,
University of Vanderbilt, USA, 1990.
18. Fawcett, Peter. 1997. Translation and Language, Manchester: St. Jerome,
1997.
19. Friedman-Rhodes. (2010). Teaching Medical Students to work with
Interpreters.
20.Globalization Partners International. (2001). What’s the difference between
Translation Agency, Localisation Services and LSP
21. Google. (2014). Google Translate.
22. Google. (2014c). Google Translate.
23. Guangqian, Z. (1987). Gian Complete Works. Vol. III, Anhui Education
Press. House, J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment.
Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
24. Holman, Michael, Jean BOASE-BEIR. 1999. Introduction: Writing,
rewriting, and translation.
25. House, Juliane. 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1997.
26. House. J Translation Quality Assessment: Past and present. Lonon and
New York: Routledge, 2015.
27. Jakobson. R On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, Achilles Fang et al.
On Translation, 232–239. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
1959.
28. Kemppanen, H., & Jӓnis, M. (2012). Domestication and foreignization in
translation studies.
29. Kusfajarini, R. (2013). An Analysis of Students’ Ability on Applying
Transposition and Modulation Procedure in Translation.
30. Kussmaul, Paul. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995.
31. Leonardi. V The Role of Pedagogical Translation in Second Language
Acquisition. Bern: Peter Lang, 2010.
32. Meschonic, Henri. 1986. Alors la traduction chantera In Revue
d’esthétique, 1986, vol. 12, pp. 75-90.
33.Munday. J Introducing Translation Studies Theories and Applicaions
(2nd ed). London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
34.Munday. J Introducing Translation Studies Theories and Applicaions (4th
ed). London and New York: Routledge, 2016.
35. Musaev. Q. Fundamentals of translation theory. Tashkent: Fan, 2005
36. Newmark, P. (1988). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Oxford University Press. (2014). Literal.
37.Newmark. P Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York: Pergamon
Press, 1981.
38.Nida Eugene. and C.R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969.
39. Nida, Eugene A, Charles R. TABER. 1969. The Theory and Practice of
Translation.
40. Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating.
41. Nida, Eugene A. 2003. Fascinated by Languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 2003.
42. Nida, Eugene A. 2006. Theories of Translation In Pliegos de Yuste, 2006,
vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 11-14.
43.Nida. Eugene. Towards a Science of Translating.
44. Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation. Theory,
Methodology, and Didactic Applications of a Model for Translation-
Oriented Text Analysis.
45.Ochilov. E, Theory and practice of translation. - T., 2012
46. Odilova G, Mahmudova U., Uzbek translators and literary translations. - T.,
2012
47. Palumbo, G. (2009). Key Terms in Translation Studies. London:
Continuum. period. (n.d.) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition. (2003).
48. Pinheiro, M. R. (2013). Ethical Codes for Translators and Interpreters.
49. Pinheiro, M. R. (2014). Translation: Techniques and technicalities.
50. Pym. (2007, December). ‘‘Natural and Directional Equivalence in Theories
of Translation’’.
51. Pym. A Exploring Translation Theories. London and New York: Routledge,
2010.
52.Shakernia. S ‘‘Study of Nida’s (formal and dynamic equivalence) and
Newmark’s (semantic and communicative translation) Translating Theories
on Two Short Stories’’. Merit Research Journal of Education and Review,
Vol. 2(1), pp. 01-07. 2013.
53. Shreve, Gregory. 2000. Translation at the Millennium: prospects for the
evolution of a profession. In Peter Schmitt (ed.). Paradigmenwechsel in der
Translation. Festschrift für Albrecht Neubert zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen:
Stauffenburg, 2000, pp. 217-234.
54.Shuttleworth M & Cowie. M Dictionary of Translation Studies.
Manchester: St Jerome. 1997.
55. Shuxin, C. (2000). English-style translation course. Peking University
Press, Beijing.
56. Stine, Philip C. 2004. Dynamic Equivalence Reconsidered. In The
Translator, 2004, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 129-135.
57. Thomson Reuters. (2014). Accuracy.
58. Tyulenev S.V. «Teoriyaperevoda». M., 2004.
59.Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of
Translation. London: Routledge, 1995.
60.Venuti, Lawrence. 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London:
Routledge, 2000.
61.Vinay J P and Darbelnet. J Stylistique Comparée du Francais et de l'
Anglais: Méthode de Traduction. Paris: Didier. (Transl. and ed. by
Sager, J.C. and Hamel, M.J. (1995) as Comparative Stylistics of French
and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam and
Philadephia: John Benjamins. 1958.
62. Visual Paradigm. (2014). Data Flow Diagram (DFD) Tutorial.
63. Wilss, W. (2001). The Science of Translation – Problems and Methods.
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
64. Xiang, Yinhua. 2012. Validity of the Principle of Dynamic Equivalence.
In Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2012, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 200-
204.
65. В. Абдуллаев. Узбек адабиёти тарихи. Т., 1976.
66. Н. Каримов. Узбек адабиёти тарихи. Т., 1977.