Discussion published in:
Target
Vol. 14:2 (2002) ► pp. 353–360

Pragmatic analysis as a methodology

A reply to Gile’s review of Setton (1999)

| Université de Genève image/svg+xml
A few years ago I proposed a new ‘cognitive-pragmatic’ approach to understanding simultaneous interpretation (Setton 1999) which has, gratifyingly, been acknowledged in several reviews, including one in these pages (Target 13:1 (2001, 177–183). The editor has kindly let me use it as an opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings, respond to some stimulating challenges, and try to develop some recent ideas on how to operationalise the paradigm.
Published online: 19 June 2003
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.14.2.08set
References

References

Anderson, Linda
1979 Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects. Montreal: Concordia University. [Unpublished master’s thesis.]Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
. Forthcoming. “Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction”. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward eds. Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.   Crossref
Chafe, Wallace L.
1987 “Cognitive constraints on information flow”. Russell S. Tomlin, ed. Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1987 21–51.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerver, David and H. Wallace Sinaiko
eds. 1978 Language interpreting and communication. New York and London: Plenum Press.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
① ② ③
Gile, Daniel
1990 “Scientific research vs. personal theories in the investigation of interpretation”. Laura Gran and Christopher Taylor, eds. Aspects of applied and experimental research on conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto 1990 28–41.Google Scholar
1995 Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
1999 “Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting—Acontribution”. Hermes: Journal of linguistics 23. 153–172.Google Scholar
[ p. 360 ]
2001 Review of . Target 13:1. 177–183.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Isham, William P.
1994 “Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization”. Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, eds. Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1994 191–211.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lederer, Marianne
1978 “Simultaneous interpretation: Units of meaning and other features”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 323–332.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsui, Tomoko
1998 “Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment”. Robyn Carston and Uchida Seiji, eds. Relevance theory: Applications and implications. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1998 123–160.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moser, Barbara
1978 “Simultaneous interpretation: a hypothetical model and its practical application”. Gerver and Snaiko 1978. 353–368.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin
1998 “Meaning assembly in simultaneous interpretation”. Interpreting 3:2. 163–199.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Simultaneous interpretation:A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
①
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tommola, Jorma and Pekka Niemi
1986 “Mental load in simultaneous interpreting: An online pilot study”. I. Evensen, ed. Nordic research in text linguistics and discourse analysis. Trondheim: Tapir 1986 171–184.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram
1978 “Syntactic anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpretation”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 335–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan, Hui Wu & Ying Wang
2013. Mapping interpreting studies: The state of the field based on a database of nine major translation and interpreting journals (2000–2010). Perspectives 21:3 ► pp. 446 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 02 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.