Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting Research
Edited by Daniel Gile
[Target 7:1] 1995
► pp. 29–45

Interpreting Research and the ‘Manipulation School’ of Translation Studies

 | The Århus School of Business
With a special view to applying it to interpreting research, this article examines, explains and puts into perspective what others have dubbed the 'Manipulation School'. This group of scholars see themselves as working within descriptive translation studies (DTS), as defined by James S Holmes, and their main methodological tool is a search for translational norms, first proposed by Gideon Toury. The article then looks at interpreting research—especially Daniel Gile 's work—and explores how the ideas of the 'Manipulation School ' relate to current research in this particular field.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Manipulation School and the Concept of Norms
  • 3.Interpreting Research in a Historical Perspective
  • 4.Interpreting Research in a Contemporary Perspective
    • 4.1.The Liberal Arts Community
    • 4.2.The Natural Sciences Community
    • 4.3.A Call for Interdisciplinary Studies
  • 5.Interpreting Research and the Manipulation School
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 January 1995
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.1.04sch
References (42)
References
Aarup, Hanne. 1993. “Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Interpreting”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. 21. 167–174.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baaring, Inge. 1984. Om omsætningsprocessen ved simultantolkning med tysk som udgangssproget. [= ARK, 21.]Google Scholar
Barik, Henri Charles. 1969. A Study of Simultaneous Interpretation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. [PhD Dissertation.]Google Scholar
. 1972. “Interpreters Talk a Lot, Among Other Things”. Babel 18:1. 3–10.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déjean Le Féal, Karla. 1990. “Some Thoughts on the Evaluation of Simultaneous Interpretation”. David Bowen and Margareta Bowen, eds. Interpreting—Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Binghamton: SUNY (State University of New York), 1990. 154–160. [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, IV.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. “A False Opposition in Translation Studies: Theoretical versus/ and Historical Approaches”. Target 3:2. 137–152.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denissenko, Jurij. 1989. “Communicative and Interpretative Linguistics”. Gran and Dodds 1989 : 155–157.Google Scholar
Dillinger, Michael L. 1989. Component Processes of Simultaneous Interpreting. Montreal: McGill University. [PhD Dissertation.]Google Scholar
1990. “Comprehension during Interpreting: What Do Interpreters Know that Bilinguals Don’t?”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 31. 41–58.Google Scholar
Dodds, John M. 1989. “Linguistic Theory Construction as a Premise to a Methodology of Teaching Interpretation”. Gran and Dodds 1989 : 17–20.Google Scholar
Dubslaff, Friedel. 1993. “Die Funktionen anaphorischer Proformen beim Simultan-dolmetschen aus dem Deutschen”. Hermes 111. 107–115.Google Scholar
Gerver, David. 1976. “Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation: A Review and a Model”. Richard W. Brislin, ed. Translation: Applications and Research. New York: Gardner Press, 1976. 165–207.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1988. “An Overview of Conference Interpretation Research and Theory”. Deanna L. Hammond, ed. Languages at Crossroads: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the American Translators’ Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 1988. 363–371.Google Scholar
. 1990a. Basic Concepts and Models for Conference Interpretation Training—First Version. Paris: INALCO & CEEI (ISIT).Google Scholar
. 1990b. “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
. 1991a. “Methodological Aspects of Interpretation (and Translation) Research”. Target 3:2. 153–174.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991b. “The Processing Capacity Issue in Conference Interpretation”. Babel 37:1. 15–27.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. “Opening Up in Interpretation Studies”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1994. 149–158.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gran, Laura and John Dodds, eds. 1989. The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto.Google Scholar
Haas, W. 1968. “The Theory of Translation”. G.H.R. Parkinson, ed. The Theory of Meaning. Oxford University Press, 1968. 86–108.Google Scholar
Harris, Brian. 1990. “Norms in Interpretation”. Target 2:1. 115–119.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbert, Jean. 1952. The Interpreters Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter. Genève: Libraire de l’université, Georg & Cie S.A.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo, ed. 1985. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Translational Norms and Correct Translations”. van Leuven-Zwart and Naaijkens 1991 : 155–169.Google Scholar
Holmes, James S. 1975. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”. [mimeo.] rep. in Holmes 1988 : 67–80.Google Scholar
1988. Translated!: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [Approaches to Translation Studies, 7.]Google Scholar
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty van and Ton Naaijkens, eds. 1991. Translational Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. [Approaches to Translation Studies, 9.]Google Scholar
Moser, Barbara. 1978. “Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and Its Practical Application”. David Gerver and H. Wallace Sinaiko, eds. Language Interpretation and Communication. New York, London: Plenum Press, 1978. 353–368.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1991a. “Neue Einsichten zur Verstehensphase beim Simultan-dolmetschen” [Review of Dillinger 1989 ]. FEM (Fremdsprachen Eurokommunikation/Management) 11. 43–44.Google Scholar
. 1991b. “Research Committee Paradigms Gained, or the Art of Productive Disagreement”. AIIC Bulletin XIX:2. 11–15.Google Scholar
Schjoldager, Anne. 1994. “Interpreting Research and the ‘Manipulation School’ of Translation Studies”. Hermes 121. 65–89.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica. 1975. Langage, langues et mémoire. Paris: Minard.Google Scholar
. 1978. Interpreting for International Conferences. Washington D.C.: Pen and Booth.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1989. “Extending the Theory of Translation to Interpretation: Norms as a Case in Point”. Target 1:1. 111–115.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1978. “The Nature and Role of Norms in Literary Translation”. rep. in Toury 1980a : 51–62.Google Scholar
. 1980a. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University. [Meaning & Art, 2.]Google Scholar
. 1980b. “The Translator as a Nonconformist-To-Be, or: How to Train Translators So As to Violate Translational Norms”. Sven-Olaf Poulsen and Wolfram Wilss, eds. Angewandte Übersetzungswissenschaft: Internationales übersetzungs-wissenschaftliches Kolloquium an der Wirtschaftsuniversität Århus, Dänemark, 19.-21. Juni 1980. Århus, 1980. 180–195.Google Scholar
. 1985. “A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies”. Hermans 1985 : 16–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. “What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions?”. van Leuven-Zwart and Naaijkens 1991 : 179–192.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gile, Daniel
1998. Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 10:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.