Cover not available
Discussion published In:
Target
Vol. 14:2 (2002) ► pp.353–360
Discussion

Pragmatic analysis as a methodology

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

| Université de Genève
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.
Article outline
  • Presentation of the literature
  • Epistemological issues
  • ‘Operationalising’ the cognitive-pragmatic analysis
  • The importance of pragmatics
  • References
Published online: 19 June 2003
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.14.2.08set
References (19)
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 [Unpublished master’s thesis.]Google Scholar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.   DOI logo
Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. “Cognitive constraints on information flow”. Russell S. Tomlin, ed. Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987. 21–51.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerver, David and H. Wallace Sinaiko, eds. 1978. Language interpreting and communication. New York and London: Plenum Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 231. 153–172.Google Scholar
. 2001. Review of Setton (1999) . Target 13:1. 177–183.   DOI logoGoogle 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.   DOI logoGoogle 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.   DOI logoGoogle 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.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Barbara. 1978. “Simultaneous interpretation: a hypothetical model and its practical application”. Gerver and Snaiko 1978 . 353–368.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin. 1998. “Meaning assembly in simultaneous interpretation”. Interpreting 3:2. 163–199.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Simultaneous interpretation:A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zhu, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2022. A Synthetic Review of Cognitive Load in Distance Interpreting: Toward an Explanatory Model. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. 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.