Konsekutiivitulkkaus [Consecutive interpreting]

Helle V. Dam
Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University
Käännös Oskari Koski
Sisällysluettelo

Tulkkausta voidaan luokitella ja jakaa lajeihin, menetelmiin ja tyyppeihin erilaisten kriteerien perusteella. Työskentelyn menetelmä on yksi tärkeimmistä kriteereistä. Kun tulkkausta luokitellaan menetelmän perusteella, voidaan havaita kaksi pääasiallista menetelmää: simultaaninen ja konsekutiivinen tulkkaus. Konsekutiivisessa tulkkauksessa tulkki alkaa tuottamaan kohdekielistä versiota sen jälkeen, kun puhuja on lakannut puhumasta: tulkki puhuu siis peräkkäisesti eli konsekutiivisesti puhujaan nähden, mistä nimitys tuleekin.

Full-text access to translations is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

Lähteet

Albl-Mikasa, Michaela
2007 Notationssprache und Notizentext: Ein kognitiv-linguistisches Modell für das Konsekutivdolmetschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Andres, Dörte
2002 Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. TSBGoogle Scholar
Cardoen, Hanne
2013 “The effect of note-taking on target-text fluency”. In Emerging Research in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Summer School 2012, Gabriel González Núñez, Yasmine Khaled & Tanya Voinova (eds). Leuven: KULeuven. http://​www​.arts​.kuleuven​.be​/cetra​/papers​/files​/cardoen [Accessed on 9 September 2014]. TSB
Chmiel, Agnieszka
2010 “How effective is teaching note-taking to trainee interpreters?” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 4 (2): 233–250. DOI logo TSBGoogle Scholar
Dam, Helle V.
2004a ”Interpreters’ notes: on the choice of form and language”. In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær & Daniel Gile (eds), 251–261. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2004b “Interpreters’ notes: on the choice of language.” Interpreting 6 (1): 3–17. DOI logo BoPGoogle Scholar
2007 ”What makes interpreters’ notes efficient? Features of (non-)efficiency in interpreters’ notes for consecutive.” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger & Radegundis Stolze (eds), 183–197. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eraslan, Seyda
2011 International Knowledge Transfer in Turkey: The Consecutive Interpreter’s Role in Context. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Available at http://​www​.tdx​.cat​/handle​/10803​/37342 [Accessed on 9 September 2014].
Gile, Daniel
2001 “Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate?” Tsuuyakukenkyuu – Interpreting Studies 1 (1): 8–20. DOI logo TSBGoogle Scholar
2009 2nd edition. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo BoPGoogle Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia & Ahrens, Barbara
2010 “Consecutive – an outdated skill or a mode with a new profile? Implications for teaching.” In Les Pratiques de l’Interprétation et l’Oralité dans la Communication Interculturelle, 143–158. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme.Google Scholar
Lambert, Sylvie
1989 “Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis.” In The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation, Laura Gran & John Dodds (eds), 83–91. Udine: Campanotto. TSBGoogle Scholar
Matyssek, Heinz
1989 Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher. Ein Weg zur Sprachunabhängigen Notation Vol. I–II. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Rozan, Jean-François
1956 La Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive. Geneva: Georg. TSBGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica
1975 Langage, Langue et Mémoire. Étude de la Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.Google Scholar
Szabo, Csilla
2006 “Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting.” Interpreting 8 (2): 129–147. DOI logo BoPGoogle Scholar

Lisää aiheesta

Gillies, Andrew
2005 Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting – A Short Course. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. TSBGoogle Scholar
Ilg, Gérard & Lambert, Sylvie
1996 “Teaching consecutive interpreting.” Interpreting 1 (1): 69–99. DOI logo TSBGoogle Scholar
Mead, Peter
2002 “Exploring hesitation in consecutive interpreting: An empirical study.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century, Guiliana Garzone & Maurizio Viezzi (eds), 73–82. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo TSBGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London & New York: Routledge. BoPGoogle Scholar