Article published in:
Interpreting
Vol. 19:2 (2017) ► pp. 159185
References

References

AIIC
(2005) Budding interpreter FAQ. Available at: https://​aiic​.net​/page​/1669​/budding​-interpreter​-faq​/lang​/1 (accessed 5 March 2017).
Angelelli, C. V.
(2004) Revisiting the interpreter’s role: A study of conference, court and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beaton, M.
(2007) Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament. Translator 13 (2), 271–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bendazzoli, C., Sandrelli, A. & Russo, M.
(2011) Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based analysis. In A. Kruger, K. Wallmach & J. Munday (Eds.), Corpus-based translation studies: Research and applications. London/New York: Continuum, 282–306.Google Scholar
Biel, Ł.
(2006) Translation of multilingual EU legislation as a sub-genre of legal translation. In D. Kierzkowska (Ed.), Court interpreting and legal translation in the Enlarged Europe. Warszawa: Translegis, 144–163.Google Scholar
Bot, H.
(2005) Dialogue interpreting as a specific case of reported speech. Interpreting 7 (2), 237–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V. & Clarke, V.
(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 77–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cosmidou, O.
(2013) The European Parliament: A temple of multilingualism, a pioneer in interpreting ‘exploits’. Gramma 19, 129–132.Google Scholar
Dam, H. V & Zethsen, K. K.
(2013) Conference interpreters – the stars of the translation profession? A study of the occupational status of Danish EU interpreters as compared to Danish EU translators. Interpreting 15 (2), 229–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diriker, E.
(2004) De-/Re-contextualising simultaneous interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duflou, V.
(2012) The ‘first person norm’ in conference interpreting (CI) – some reflections on findings from the field. In M. A. Jimenez Ivars & M. J. Blasco Mayor (Eds.), Interpreting Brian Harris: Recent developments in translatology. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 145–160.Google Scholar
(2016) Be(com)ing a conference interpreter: An ethnography of EU interpreters as a professional community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emmerich, K. R.
(2013) Visibility (and invisibility). In Y. Gambier & L. Van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies, Vol. 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 200–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
European Parliament
(2013) Towards more efficient and cost effective interpretation in the European Parliament. Available at: http://​www​.europarl​.europa​.eu​/sides​/getDoc​.do​?pubRef​=-/​/EP/​/TEXT+REPORT+A7​-2013​-0233+0+DOC+XML+V0/​/EN (accessed 4 January 2015).Google Scholar
Gerver, D.
(1969/2002) The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 53–66.Google Scholar
Gile, D.
(2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Revised ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, S. & Napier, J.
(2013) Research methods in interpreting. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Jones, R.
(1998) Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, M.
(2013) Idiosyncratic features of interpreting style. New Voices in Translation Studies 9, 38–52.Google Scholar
Katan, D. & Straniero Sergio, F.
(2001) ‘Look who’s talking’: The ethics of entertainment and talk show interpreting. Translator 7 (2), 213–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. J.
(2009) A discourse of danger and loss: Interpreters on interpreting for the European Parliament. In L. Stern, U. Ozolins & S. B. Hale (Eds.), The Critical Link 5: Quality in interpreting: A shared responsibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 55–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Interpreting. Doctoral thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Kopczyński, A. (B. Moser-Mercer)
(1994) Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In S. Lambert & (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, M.
(1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Monacelli, C.
(2009) Self-preservation in simultaneous interpreting: Surviving the role. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monti, C., Bendazzoli, C., Sandrelli, A. & Russo, M.
(2005) Studying directionality in simultaneous interpreting through an electronic corpus: EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus). Meta 50 (4). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mossop, B.
(1990) Translating institutions and “idiomatic” translation. Meta 35 (2), 342–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ozolins, U.
(2016) The myth of the myth of invisibility? Interpreting 18 (2), 273–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F.
(2004) Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2011) Conference interpreting: Surveying the profession. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and status in the translational professions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pym, A.
(2011) Translation research terms: A tentative glossary for moments of perplexity and dispute. In A. Pym (Ed.), Translation research projects 3. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 75–110.Google Scholar
Silverman, D.
(2006) Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Straniero Sergio, F.
(1999) The interpreter on the (talk) show: Interaction and participation frameworks. Translator 5 (2), 303–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van De Mieroop, D., Bevilacqua, G. & Van Hove, L.
(2012) Negotiating discursive norms: Community interpreting in a Belgian rest home. Interpreting 14 (2), 23–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Venuti, L.
(1995) The translator’s invisibility. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vuorikoski, A.-R.
(2004) A voice of its citizens or a modern Tower of Babel? The quality of interpreting as a function of political rhetoric in the European Parliament. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C.
(1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
(2008) In and off the show: Co-constructing “invisibility” in an interpreter-mediated talk-show interview. Meta 53 (1), 184–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(2003) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwischenberger, C.
(2011) Conference interpreters and their self-representation: A worldwide web-based survey. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and status in the translational professions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 119–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.  In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 61 ff. Crossref logo
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
2020. How much noise can you make through an interpreter?. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 october 2020. 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.