Discussion published In:
TargetVol. 14:2 (2002) ► pp.353–360
Discussion
Pragmatic analysis as a methodology
A reply to Gile’s review of Setton (1999)
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
References
Anderson, Linda
1979 Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects. Montreal: Concordia University. [Unpublished master’s thesis.]
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, Robyn
Forthcoming. “Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction”. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward eds. Handbook of pragmatics Oxford Blackwell 
Chafe, Wallace L.
1987 “Cognitive constraints on information flow”. Russell S. Tomlin, ed. Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1987 21–51.
Gerver, David and H. Wallace Sinaiko
eds. 1978 Language interpreting and communication. New York and London: Plenum Press.
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.
1995 Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.
1999 “Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting—Acontribution”. Hermes: Journal of linguistics 231. 153–172.
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.
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lederer, Marianne
1978 “Simultaneous interpretation: Units of meaning and other features”.
Gerver and Sinaiko 1978
: 323–332.
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.
Moser, Barbara
1978 “Simultaneous interpretation: a hypothetical model and its practical application”.
Gerver and Snaiko 1978
. 353–368.
Setton, Robin
1999 Simultaneous interpretation:A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Wilss, Wolfram
1978 “Syntactic anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpretation”.
Gerver and Sinaiko 1978
: 335–343.
Cited by
Cited by 2 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. 
Zhu, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2022. A Synthetic Review of Cognitive Load in Distance Interpreting: Toward an Explanatory Model. Frontiers in Psychology 13
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 june 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.