Since the early 1990s, with the advance of computerized corpora, translation scholars have been using corpus-based methodologies to look into the possible existence of overriding patterns (tentatively described as universals or as laws) in translated texts. The application of such methodologies to interpreted texts has been much slower in developing than in the case of translated ones, but significant progress has been made in recent years. After presenting the fundamental methodological hurdles—and advantages—of working on machine-readable (transcribed) oral corpora, we present and discuss several recent studies using cross-modal comparisons, and examine the viability of using interpreted outputs to explore the features that set simultaneous interpreting apart from other forms of translation. We then set out to test the hypothesis that modality may exert a stronger effect than ontology—i.e. that being oral (vs. written) is a more powerful influence than being translated (vs. original).
2004 “The treatment of variation in corpus-based translation studies.” Language matters—Studies in the languages of Africa. Special issue—corpus-based translation studies: Research and applications. 35:1. 28–38.
Bendazzoli, Claudio and Annalisa Sandrelli
2005 “An approach to corpus-based interpreting studies: Developing EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” Proceedings of MuTra—Multidimensional translation: Challenges of Multidimentional translation. [URL] (accessed April 20, 2010)
Cencini, Marco
2002 “On the importance of an encoding standard for corpus-based interpreting studies.” CULT2K (2002) 5.
1985 “Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing.” David R. Olson, Nancy Torrance and Angela Hildyard, eds. Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequence of reading and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chesterman, Andrew
2004a “Paradigm problems?” Christina Schäffner, ed. Translation research and interpreting research: traditions, gaps and synergies. 52–56. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Chesterman, Andrew
2004b “Beyond the particular.” Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 33–50.
2000 “Synthetic and analytic possessive pronouns related to nouns in spoken Hebrew.” Hebrew linguistics 471. 21–26. [Hebrew]
Halliday, Michael A. K.
2004 “The spoken language corpus: A foundation for grammatical theory.” K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg, eds. Advances in corpus linguistics: Papers from the 23rd international international conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23). Göteborg 22–26 May 2002 Amsterdam: Rodopi. 11–38.
Kenny, Dorothy
1998 “Creatures of habit?” What translators usually do with words.” Meta 43:4. 515–523.
Laviosa, Sara
1998 “Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose.” Meta 43:4. 557–570.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
1997 “Investigating simplification in an English comparable corpus of newspaper articles.” Kinga Klaudy and János Kohn, eds. Transferre necesse est: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on current trends in studies of translation and interpreting. 5–7 September 1996, Budapest, Hungary. Budapest: Scholastic. 531–540.
Malmkjær, Kirsten
1998 “Love they neighbour: Will parallel corpora endear linguists to translators?” Meta 43:4. 534–541.
Meyer, Bernd
2008 “Interpreting proper names: Different interventions in simultaneous and consecutive interpreting.” Trans-kom 1:1. 105–122.
Meyer, Bernd and Schmidt, Thomas
2008 “CoSi—A corpus of consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.” Unpublished.
Monti, Cristina, Claudio Bendazzoli, Annalisa Sandrelli and Mariachiara Russo
2005 “Studying directionality in simultaneous interpreting through an electronic corpus: EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” Meta 50:4. [URL] (accessed April 20, 2010)
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 “I in TS: On partnership in Translation Studies.” Christina Schäffner, ed. Translation research and interpreting research: traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon / Buffalo / Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 104–115.
Pöchhacker, Franz
2007 “Coping with culture in media interpreting.” Perspectives 15:2. 123–142.
Pym, Anthony
2007 “On Shlesinger’s proposed equalizing universal for interpreting.” Franz Pöchhacker, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Inger Mees, eds. Interpreting studies and beyond: A tribute to Miriam Shlesinger. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press. 175–190.
Pym, Anthony
2008 “On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort.” Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrum Gerzymisch-Arbogast, eds. Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 83–105.
Sandrelli, Annalisa and Claudio Bendazzoli
2005 “Lexical patterns in simultaneous interpreting a preliminary investigation of EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” Proceedings from corpus linguistics. Birmingham.
2011 “Corpus-based interpretation studies (CIS): overview and prospects”. Alet Kruger, Kim Wallmach and Jeremy Munday, eds. Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications. London and New York: Continuum International, 33–75.
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts in the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis. Tel Aviv University.
Shlesinger, Miriam
1998 “Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies”. Meta 43:4. 486–493.
Shlesinger, Miriam
2008 “Towards a definition of Interpretese: an intermodal, corpus-based study.” Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrum Gerzymisch-Arbogast, eds. Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research. 237–253. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shlesinger, Yitzhak
2000 “The language of [the] literary section in daily newspapers.” Helkat Lashon: Studies in theoretical and applied linguistics. Tel Aviv: Levinsky College. 176–196. [In Hebrew]
Tannen, Deborah
1980 “Implications of the oral-literate continuum for cross-cultural communication.” James E. Alatis, ed. Current issues in bilingual education. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 326–347.
Timarová, Šarká
2005 “Corpus linguistics methods in interpreting research: A case study.” The interpreters’ newsletter 131. 65–70.
1987 “On comments made by shifts in translation.” Gideon Toury, ed. Indian journal of applied linguistics 13:2. 75–90.
Ziv, Yael
2000 “Discourse markers in colloquial Hebrew: The case of pashut (“simple”).” Helkat Lashon: Studies in theoretical and applied linguistics. Tel Aviv: Levinsky College. 17–29. [In Hebrew]
2015. Connective Items in Interpreting and Translation: Where Do They Come From?. In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015 [Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, 3], ► pp. 195 ff.
Ferraresi, Adriano, Silvia Bernardini, Maja Miličević Petrović & Marie-Aude Lefer
2019. Simplified or not Simplified? The Different Guises of Mediated English at the European Parliament. Meta 63:3 ► pp. 717 ff.
Fox, Neil, Bencie Woll & Kearsy Cormier
2023. Best practices for sign language technology research. Universal Access in the Information Society
Fu, Rongbo & Kefei Wang
2022. Hedging in interpreted and spontaneous speeches: a comparative study of Chinese and American political press briefings. Text & Talk 42:2 ► pp. 153 ff.
Gast, Volker & Robert Borges
2023. Nouns, Verbs and Other Parts of Speech in Translation and Interpreting: Evidence from English Speeches Made in the European Parliament and Their German Translations and Interpretations. Languages 8:1 ► pp. 39 ff.
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta
2018. Interpretese vs. Non-native Language Use: The Case of Optional That. In Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 97 ff.
2020. A Multivariate Approach to Lexical Diversity in Constrained Language. Across Languages and Cultures 21:2 ► pp. 169 ff.
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.
2021. Probing a Two-Way Parallel T&I Corpus for the Lexical Choices of Translators and Interpreters. In New Perspectives on Corpus Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 101 ff.
Li, Xin
2018. Previous Literature on Interpreting and Modality. In The Reconstruction of Modality in Chinese-English Government Press Conference Interpreting [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 1], ► pp. 11 ff.
2023. Syntactic complexity of interpreted, L2 and L1 speech: A constrained language perspective. Lingua 286 ► pp. 103509 ff.
Lv, Qianxi & Junying Liang
2019. Is consecutive interpreting easier than simultaneous interpreting? – a corpus-based study of lexical simplification in interpretation. Perspectives 27:1 ► pp. 91 ff.
Robin, Edina, Andrea Götz, Éva Pataky & Henriette Szegh
2017. Translation Studies and Corpus Linguistics: Introducing the Pannonia Corpus. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica 9:3 ► pp. 99 ff.
Schäffner, Christina
2013. Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-Making. Translation Studies 6:3 ► pp. 355 ff.
Sheng, Dandan & Xin Li
2024. A multi-dimensional analysis of interpreted and non-interpreted English discourses at Chinese and American government press conferences. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1
Ustaszewski, Michael
2021. Towards a machine learning approach to the analysis of indirect translation. Translation Studies 14:3 ► pp. 313 ff.
Wu, Yinyin
2023. Phrasal verbs in European Parliament conference English: a corpus-based pedagogical list. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 17:2 ► pp. 301 ff.
2023. Syntactic simplification in interpreted English: Dependency distance and direction measures. Lingua 294 ► pp. 103607 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 april 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.