Part of
Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies): A tribute to Franz Pöchhacker
Edited by Cornelia Zwischenberger, Karin Reithofer and Sylvi Rennert
[Benjamins Translation Library 160] 2023
► pp. 214233
References
Alexieva, Bistra
1997/2002 “A Typology of Interpreter-Mediated Events.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, and Miriam Shlesinger, 219–233. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Angelelli, Claudia V., and Brian James Baer
(eds) 2016Researching Translation and Interpreting. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baigorri Jalón, Jesús
Behr, Martina
2020Dolmetschen: Komplexität, Methodik, Modellierung. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Behr, Martina, and Mandy Willert
2017 “Wenn Didaktik an ihre Grenzen stößt: Feedback im Dolmetschunterricht.” In Education is a Whole-Person Process, ed. by Martina Behr, and Sabine Seubert, 139–169. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Brandner, Marlena
2019 “Systemdynamische Modellierung des Dolmetschens: Submodell Dolmetscher.” Unpublished seminar thesis, University of Innsbruck.
Bühler, Hildegund
1986 “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-Linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpreters and Interpretation.” Multilingua 5 (4): 411–439.Google Scholar
CIRIN, Conference Interpreting Research Information Network
Accessed November 8, 2021. [URL]
Collados Aís, Ángela
1998/2002 “Quality Assessment in Simultaneous Interpreting: The Importance of Nonverbal Communication.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, and Miriam Shlesinger, 327–336. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan
1993 “Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik.” Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 39 (2): 224–238.Google Scholar
DGSD, Deutsche Gesellschaft für System Dynamics
Accessed July 13, 2021. [URL]
DMP, Donella Meadows Project
Academy for Systems Change. Accessed July 13, 2021. [URL]
Donato, Valentina
2003 “Strategies Adopted by Student Interpreters in SI: A Comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian language-pairs.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 12: 101–134.Google Scholar
EST, European Society for Translation Studies
Accessed November 8, 2021. [URL]
Gile, Daniel
1989 “Les flux d’information dans les réunions interlinguistiques et l’interprétation de conférence : premières observations.” Meta 34 (4): 649–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Institutional, Social and Policy Aspects of Research into Conference Interpreting.” In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope, Vol. 1, ed. by Olalla García Becerra, E. Macarena Pradas Macías, and Rafael Barranco-Droege, 9–31. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Grimm, Franc
2017 “Die 10 größten Irrtümer zum Vernetzten Denken.” komplex 1: 54–59.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra, and Jemina Napier
2013Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Halford, Graeme S., Rosemary Baker, Julie E. McCredden, and John D. Bain
2005 “How Many Variables Can Humans Process?Psychological Science 16 (1): 70–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo
1999Translations in Systems. Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kaindl, Klaus
2004Übersetzungswissenschaft im interdisziplinären Dialog. Am Beispiel der Comicübersetzung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Kirchhoff, Hella
1976 “Das dreigliedrige, zweisprachige Kommunikationssystem Dolmetschen.” Le Language et l’Homme 31: 21–27.Google Scholar
Kopp, Birgitta, and Heinz Mandl
2014 “Lerntheoretische Grundlagen von Rückmeldungen.” In Feedback und Rückmeldung. Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Befunde, praktische Anwendungsfehler, ed. by Hartmut Ditton, and Andreas Müller, 29–42. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Liontou, Konstantina
2013Anticipation in German to Greek Simultaneous Interpreting: A Corpus-Based Approach. PhD diss., University of Vienna.
Lonsdale, Deryle
1997 “Modeling Cognition in SI: Methodological Issues.” Interpreting 2 (1/2): 91–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
2017Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mizuno, Akira
2005 “Process Model for Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory.” Meta 50 (2): 739–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morrison, Margaret, and Mary S. Morgan
1999 “Models as Mediating Instruments.” In Models as Mediators. Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, ed. by Mary S. Morgan, and Margaret Morrison, 10–37. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
1994 “Paradigms Gained or the Art of Productive Disagreement.” In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Barbara Moser-Mercer, and Sylvie Lambert, 17–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Identifying and Interpreting Scientific Phenomena.” In Advances in Interpreting Research. Inquiry in Action, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus, and Laurie Swabey, 47–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Barbara
1978 “Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and its Practical Application.” In Language Interpretation and Communication, ed. by David Gerver, and H. Wallace Sinaiko, 353–368. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE
2000 “Acquiring Translation Competence: Hypotheses and Methodological Problems in a Research Project.” In Investigating Translation, ed. by Allison Beeby, Doris Ensinger, and Marisa Presas, 99–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla, Presentación, Teresa M. Bajo, José J. Cañas, and Francisca Padilla
1995 “Cognitive Processes of Memory in Simultaneous Interpretation.” In Topics in Interpreting Research, ed. by Jorma Tommola, 61–71. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
1994Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2000Dolmetschen. Konzeptuelle Grundlagen und deskriptive Untersuchungen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2009 “Broader, Better, Further: Developing Interpreting Studies.” In Translation Research Projects 2, ed. by Anthony Pym, and Alexander Perekrestenko, 41–49. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.Google Scholar
2010 “The Role of Research in Interpreter Education.” In Translation and Interpreting 2 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
2017 “Ganzheitliche Dolmetschlehre: Feedback, Freitagskonferenz und Forschung.” In Education is a Whole-Person Process. Von ganzheitlicher Lehre, Dolmetschforschung und anderen Dingen, ed. by Martina Behr, and Sabine Seubert, 91–117. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Poltermann, Andreas
1992 “Normen des literarischen Übersetzens im System der Literatur.” In Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung, ed. by Harald Kittel, 5–31. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Pradas Macías, E. Macarena
Rennert, Sylvi
2010 “The Impact of Fluency on the Subjective Assessment of Interpreting Quality.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15: 101–115.Google Scholar
Riccardi, Alessandra
2002 “Evaluation in Interpreting. Macrocriteria and Microcriteria.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting, Building Bridges, ed. by Eva Hung, 115–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Mikrokriterien und Makrokriterien und ihre Rolle bei der Evaluierung von Dolmetschleistungen.” In Translationskritik: Modelle und Methoden, ed. by Juliane House, and Nicole Baumgarten, 187–205. Bochum: AKS.Google Scholar
2011 “Neue Entwicklungen im Bereich des Simultandolmetschens.” In Translation – Sprachvariation – Mehrsprachigkeit. Festschrift für Lew Zybatow zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Wolfgang Pöckl, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, and Peter Sandrini, 69–82. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ropohl, Günter
2012Allgemeine Systemtheorie. Einführung in transdisziplinäres Denken. Berlin: edition sigma. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie
1986Probleme des Simultandolmetschens: Eine Studie zur Handlungsspezifik. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie (with Ina Müller
) 2011Translation as Systemic Interaction. A New Perspective and a New Methodology. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica
1986 “Comment: Who should Assess an Interpreter’s Performance?Multilingua 5–4: 236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin
2015 “Models.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 263–268. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siever, Holger
2015Übersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Stachowiak, Herbert
1973Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Wien: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, Wolfgang
1973Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie, Bd. 4, Studienausgabe Teil A. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Thomas, John W., Lorraine Iventosch, and William D. Rohwer
1987 “Relationships among Student Characteristics, Study Activities and Achievement as a Function of Course Characteristics.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 12: 344–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyulenev, Sergey
2012Applying Luhmann to Translation Studies: Translation in Society. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venzo, Tobias
2019 “‚Gute Gesamtdolmetschleistung‘– Modeln mit dem Consideo iModeler.” Unpublished seminar thesis, University of Innsbruck.
Vermeer, Hans J.
2006Versuch einer Intertheorie der Translation. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Vester, Frederic
2011Die Kunst vernetzt zu denken. Ideen und Werkzeuge für einen neuen Umgang mit Komplexität, 8. Auflage. München: dtv.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Barry J.
2002 “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner.” Theory Into Practice 41: 64–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar