Article published in:
Interpreting Research
Edited by Daniel Gile
[Target 7:1] 1995
► pp. 151164


Bühler, Hildegund
1984 “Pragmatic Criteria for the Evaluation of Professional Translation and Evaluation”. Jan den Haese and Jos Nivette, eds. AILA Brussels 84: Proceedings 4. Brussels 1984 1560.Google Scholar
1986 “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-Linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters”. Multilingua 5:4. 231–235.Google Scholar
Carroll, John B.
1978 “Linguistic Abilities in Translators and Interpreters”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 119–130.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cartellieri, Claus
1983 “The Inescapable Dilemma: Quality and/or Quantity”. Babel 29. 209–213.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerver, David and H. Wallace Sinaiko
eds. 1978Language Interpretation and Communication. New York and London: Plenum Press, NATO Conference Series.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1989La communication linguistique en réunion multilingue: Les difficultés de la transmission informationnelle en interprétation simultanée. University of Paris III. [Doctoral Dissertation.]Google Scholar
1990 “L’évaluation de la qualité de l'interprétation par les délégués: une étude de cas”. The Interpreters' Newsletter 3. 66–71.Google Scholar
1995aBasic Concepts and Models in Interpreter and Translator Training. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995bRegards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
Keiser, Walter
1978 “Selection and Training of Conference Interpreters”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 11–24.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kopczyński, Andrzej
1994 “Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1994 189–198.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid
1989 “Conference Interpreting: User Expectations”. ATA—Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference. Medford, New Jersey: Learned Information Inc. 1989 143–148.Google Scholar
1993 “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 5. 13–21.Google Scholar
Lambert, Wallace E.
1978 “Psychological Approaches to Bilingualism, Translation and Interpretation”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 131–144.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989Simultaneous Interpretation as a Factor in Effecting Shifts in the Position of Texts on the Oral-Literate Continuum. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [MA Thesis.]Google Scholar
[ p. 164 ]
Stenzl, Catherine
1983Simultaneous Interpretation: Groundwork Towards a Comprehensive Model. University of London. [MA Thesis.]Google Scholar
Varantola, Christa
1980On Simultaneous Interpretation. Turku: Publications of the Turku Language Institute.Google Scholar
Williams, Sarah
forthcoming. “Observations on Anomalous Stress in Interpreting”. Presented as a poster at the International Conference on Interpreting in Turku, August 1994.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 16 other publications

Aís, Ángela Collados
2009. Experimentación y comportamiento no verbal como instrumento pedagógico en didáctica de la interpretación. Lebende Sprachen 54:1 Crossref logo
Brune, M., F.J. Eiroá-Orosa, J. Fischer-Ortman, B. Delijaj & C. Haasen
2011. Intermediated communication by interpreters in psychotherapy with traumatized refugees. International Journal of Culture and Mental Health 4:2  pp. 144 ff. Crossref logo
Chevalier, Lucille & Daniel Gile
2015. Interpreting Quality. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 13:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo
Han, Chao
2018. A longitudinal quantitative investigation into the concurrent validity of self and peer assessment applied to English-Chinese bi-directional interpretation in an undergraduate interpreting course. Studies in Educational Evaluation 58  pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo
Han, Chao
2018. Latent trait modelling of rater accuracy in formative peer assessment of English-Chinese consecutive interpreting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43:6  pp. 979 ff. Crossref logo
Han, Chao
2021.  In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo
Han, Chao, Rui Xiao & Wei Su
2021. Assessing the fidelity of consecutive interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting Crossref logo
Han, Chao & Xiao Zhao
2020. Accuracy of peer ratings on the quality of spoken-language interpreting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Lee, Sang-Bin
2017. University students’ experience of ‘scale-referenced’ peer assessment for a consecutive interpreting examination. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42:7  pp. 1015 ff. Crossref logo
Lee, Sang-Bin
2019. Scale-referenced, summative peer assessment in undergraduate interpreter training: self-reflection from an action researcher. Educational Action Research 27:2  pp. 152 ff. Crossref logo
Ma, Xingcheng & Andrew K. F. Cheung
2020. Language interference in English-Chinese simultaneous interpreting with and without text. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 66:3  pp. 434 ff. Crossref logo
Postigo Pinazo, Encarnación
2009. Self-Assessment in Teaching Interpreting. TTR 21:1  pp. 173 ff. Crossref logo
Su, Wei
2019. Interpreting quality as evaluated by peer students. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13:2  pp. 177 ff. Crossref logo
Su, Wei
2021. Understanding rubric use in peer assessment of translation. Perspectives  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Van De Walle, Céline, Defrancq Bart, Deveugele Myriam & Van Praet Ellen
2020. Communicative hurdles in multilingual interpreter-mediated consultations: what trainee data teach us. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:3  pp. 322 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 2021. 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.