Article published in:
Vol. 20:1 (2018) ► pp. 132


Agresti, A.
(2013) Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Alessandrini, M. S.
(1990) Translating numbers in consecutive interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 3, 77–80.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B.
(1998) On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combination. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–122.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Fagnano, M. & Tanenhaus, M. K.
(2003) Disfluencies signal theee, um, new information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 3, 25–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A. & Ginstrom, R.
(2000) Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bachy, S., Dister, A., Francard, M., Geron, G., Giroul, V., Hambye, P., Simon, A. -C. & Wilmet, R.
(2007) Conventions de transcription régissant les corpus de la banque de données VALIBEL. [Transcription conventions of the corpora included in the VALIBEL Database] www​.uclouvain​.be​/cps​/ucl​/doc​/valibel​/documents​/conventions​_valibel​_2004​.PDF (accessed 1 October 2015).
Baker, M.
(1993) Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barik, H. C.
(1975) Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech 18, 272–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bendazzoli, C.
(2017) Corpus-based interpreting studies: Past, present and future developments of a (wired) cottage industry. In C. Bendazzoli, M. Russo & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making way in corpus-based interpreting studies. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
(1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V.
(2004) If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25, 371–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F. & Brennan, S. E.
(2001) Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech 44, 123–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, D. E.
(1958) Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 25 ]
Cecot, M.
(2001) Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 11, 63–85.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. -H. & Baker, P.
(2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology 14, 30–49.Google Scholar
Chernov, G. V.
(2004) Inference and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, A. & Mazur, I.
(2013) Eye tracking sight translation performed by trainee interpreters. In C. Way, S. Vandepitte, R. Meylaerts & M. Bartłomiejczyk (Eds.), Tracks and treks in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Fox Tree, J. E.
(2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84, 73–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N.
(2008) Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and non-native speakers?. Applied Linguistics 29, 72–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32, 45–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dillinger, M.
(1994) Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t? In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, B.
(2015) Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS. Interpreting 17 (1), 26-45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eyckmans, J.
(2007) Taking SLA research to interpreter-training: Does knowledge of phrases foster fluency? In F. Boers, J. Darquennes & R. Temmerman (Eds.), Multilingualism and applied comparative linguistics, Volume 1: Pedagogical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 89–105.Google Scholar
Faraway, J. J.
(2006) Extending the linear model with R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Flesch, R.
(1948) A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32 (3), 221–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.
(2003) Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8 (15), 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerver, D.
(1969) The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In E. Foulke (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency Controlled Speech. University of Louisville: Centre for Rate-Controlled Recordings, 162–184.Google Scholar
(1975) A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation. Meta 20 (2), 119–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1976) Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and Research. New York: Gardner Press, 165–207.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. R.
(1993) Towards a discourse theory of abstracts and abstracting. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Gile, D.
(1995) Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
[ p. 26 ]
(1997) Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications, 196–214.Google Scholar
(1999) Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – A contribution. Hermes 22, 51–79.Google Scholar
(2008) Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research. Forum 6, 59–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F.
(1967) Sequential temporal patterns and cognitive processes in speech. Language and Speech 10 (3), 122–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., De Rooij, J. & Van den Toorn, M. C.
(1997) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. [General Dutch Grammar] Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Hox, J. J.
(2010) Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Second edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27, 4–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G. & Keenan, J. M.
(1975) Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14, 158–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kurz, I.
(2008) The impact of non-native English on students’ interpreting performance. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–192.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.
(1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14, 41–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mazza, C.
(2001) Numbers in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 11, 87–104.Google Scholar
Mead, P.
(2000) Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 10, 89–102.Google Scholar
Moser, B.
(1978) Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. Proceedings of the NATO symposium, Venice, Italy, September 26-October 1 1977 New York/London: Plenum Press, 353–368.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, N.
(2000) The Spoken Dutch Corpus: Overview and first evaluation. In M. Gravilidou, G. Carayannis, S. Markantonatou, S. Piperidis & G. Stainhaouer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Paris: ELRA, 887–894.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. & Granger, S.
(2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Linguistics 32, 130–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M.
(1994) Toward a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation: The framework. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 9 (3), 319–335.Google Scholar
Pinochi, D.
(2009) Simultaneous interpretation of numbers: Comparing German and English to Italian. An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 14, 33–57.Google Scholar
[ p. 27 ]
Pio, S.
(2003) The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 12, 69–100.Google Scholar
Plevoets, K. & Defrancq, B.
(2016) The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting: A corpus-based regression analysis. Translation and Interpreting Studies 11 (2), 202–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://​www​.R​-project​.org (accessed 1 January 2017).
Riccardi, A.
(1998) Interpreting strategies and creativity. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J. Kralova & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators’ strategies and creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seeber, K.
(2011) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – new models. Interpreting 13 (2), 176–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seeber, K. & Kerzel, D.
(2012) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2), 228–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Setton, R.
(1999) Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, M.
(1989) Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
(1998) Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta 43 (4), 486–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Straniero Sergio, F. & Falbo, C.
(Eds.) (2012) Breaking ground in corpus-based interpreting studies. Bern: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M.
(2007) An example of frequent English phraseology: Distribution, structures and functions. In R. Facchinetti (Ed.), Corpus linguistics 25 years on. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 89–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M.
(1998) Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 485–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tang, W., He, H. & Xin, M. T.
(2012) Applied categorical and count data analysis. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Taylor, C.
(1989) Primary and secondary orality in teaching interpreting technique. In J. M. Dodds (Ed.), Aspects of English: Miscellaneous papers for English teachers and specialists. Udine: Campanotto Editore, 93–102.Google Scholar
Tissi, B.
(2000) Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 10, 103–127.Google Scholar
Tommola, J. & Helevä, M.
(1998) Language direction and source text complexity: Effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson (Eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 177–186.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. & Baayen, R. H.
(2010) Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. London/New York: Continuum, 151–173.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G. & Westbury, C.
(2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61, 569–613. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 28 ]
Underwood, G., Schmitt, N. & Galpin, A.
(2004) The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Kauter, M., Coorman, G., Lefever, E., Desmet, B., Macken, L. & Hoste, V.
(2013) LeTs Preprocess: The multilingual LT3 linguistic preprocessing toolkit. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 3, 103–120.Google Scholar
Van Rietvelde, S., Eyckmans, J. & Bauwens, D.
(2010) As time goes by: Phraseological competence and linguistic anticipation in the interpreting performance. Artesis VT Working Papers in Translation Studies. Antwerp: Artesis.Google Scholar
Voor, J. B. & Miller, J. M.
(1965) The effect of practice on the comprehension of worded speech. Speech Monographs 32, 452–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, M., Hirose, K., Den, Y. & Minematsu, N.
(2008) Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of up-coming phrases for native and non-native listeners. Speech Communication 50, 81–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Welford, A. T.
(1952) The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high speed performance ‒ a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology 43, 2–19.Google Scholar
SDL Trados WinAlign
(2014) SDL Trados WinAlign Tutorial. http://​www​.translationzone​.com​/resources​/downloads​/winalign​-tutorial​.html (accessed 1 October 2015).
Wood, S. N.
(2017) Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
[ p. 29 ]
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Baekelandt, Annelies & Bart Defrancq
2021. Elicitation of particular grammatical structures in speeches for interpreting research: enhancing ecological validity of experimental research in interpreting. Perspectives 29:4  pp. 643 ff. Crossref logo
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
2020. How much noise can you make through an interpreter?. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 22:2  pp. 238 ff. Crossref logo
Dayter, Daria
2020. Strategies in a corpus of simultaneous interpreting. Effects of directionality, phraseological richness, and position in speech event. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 65:3  pp. 594 ff. Crossref logo
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine
2021. The impact of visible lip movements on silent pauses in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2  pp. 168 ff. Crossref logo
Jiang, Xinlei & Yue Jiang
2020. Effect of dependency distance of source text on disfluencies in interpreting. Lingua 243  pp. 102873 ff. Crossref logo
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, Ilmari Ivaska & Adriano Ferraresi
2021. ‘Lost’ in interpreting and ‘found’ in translation: using an intermodal, multidirectional parallel corpus to investigate the rendition of numbers. Perspectives 29:4  pp. 469 ff. Crossref logo
Shao, Zhangminzi & Mingjiong Chai
2020. The effect of cognitive load on simultaneous interpreting performance: an empirical study at the local level. Perspectives  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Shen, Mingxia, Qianxi Lv & Junying Liang
2019. A corpus-driven analysis of uncertainty and uncertainty management in Chinese premier press conference interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 14:1  pp. 135 ff. Crossref logo
Wu, Baimei, Andrew K.F. Cheung & Jie Xing
2021. Learning Chinese political formulaic phraseology from a self-built bilingual united nations security council corpus. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation Crossref logo
胡, 敏霞
2021. Investigating the Cognitive Effects of the Interpreter’s Gestures in Multi-Modal Processing. Modern Linguistics 09:04  pp. 912 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.