Interpreting Studies

Franz Pöchhacker
University of Vienna
Table of contents

Interpreting Studies is the academic discipline that has interpreting as its object of study. In name and nature, it is closely related with Translation Studies, and since interpreting is essentially regarded as a form of translational activity, Interpreting Studies can be viewed as a subdiscipline of the wider field of Translation Studies. At the same time, the evolution of the field and its interdisciplinary sources and ramifications give Interpreting Studies a distinct disciplinary profile of its own, as reflected in its models and methodological approaches and its underlying professional orientation.

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

References

AIIC
2002 Interpreter Workload Study – Full Report. http://​www​.aiic​.net​/viewpage​.cfm​/page657​.htm [Accessed 1 March 2010].. DOI logo
Angelelli, Claudia V
2004 Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Barik, Henri C
1973 “Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data.” Language and Speech 16 (3): 237–270.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Hildegund
1986 “Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters.” Multilingua 5 (4): 231–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chernov, Ghelly V
2004 Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability-Prediction Model. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana & Viezzi, Maurizio
2002 “Introduction.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (eds), 1–11. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerver, David
1971 Aspects of Simultaneous Interpretation and Human Information Processing. D Phil thesis, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Gerver, David & Sinaiko, H. Wallace
(eds) 1978 Language Interpretation and Communication. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1994 “Opening up in interpretation studies.” In Translation Studies – an Interdiscipline, M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (eds), 149–158. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
[1997] 2002 “Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds), 163–176. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra B
2004 The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Herbert, Jean
1952 The Interpreter’s Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter. Geneva: Georg.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Holmes, James S
1972/2000 “The name and nature of Translation Studies.” In The Translation Studies Reader, L. Venuti (ed.), 172–185. London/New York: Routledge.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira
2005 “Mediating zones of uncertainty: Interpreter agency, the interpreting habitus and political asylum adjudication.” The Translator 11 (1): 69–85. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Kade, Otto
1968 Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Kohn, Kurt & Kalina, Sylvia
1996 “The strategic dimension of interpreting.” Meta 41 (1): 118–138. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid
1993/2002 “Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (eds), 313–324. London/New York: Routledge.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, Jennifer
1985 “The Kintsch & van Dijk model of discourse comprehension and production applied to the interpretation process.” Meta 30 (1): 37–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Barbara
1978 “Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application.” In Language Interpretation and Communication, D. Gerver & H.W. Sinaiko (eds), 353–368. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Peter
1996 “Expectations of users of conference interpretation.” Interpreting 1 (2): 145–178. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Oléron, Pierre & Nanpon, Hubert
[1965] 2002 “Recherches sur la traduction simultanée.” Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 62 (1): 73–94.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London/New York: Routledge.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B
2000 Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie
1993 “The distinctive nature of Interpreting Studies.” Target 5 (2): 149–167. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Sanz, Jesús
1930 “Le travail et les aptitudes des interprètes parlementaires,” Anals d’Orientació Professional 4: 303–318.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica
[1968] 1978 Interpreting for International Conferences. (Trans. Stephanie Dailey & E. Norman McMillan). Washington, DC: Pen & Booth.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica & Lederer, Marianne
1989/2002 (2nd edition). Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris/Brussels: Didier Érudition/OPOCE.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin
1999 Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
2000 “Interpreting as a cognitive process: How can we know what really happens?” In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, S. Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (eds), 3–15. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Tommola, Jorma, Laine, Matti J., Sunnari, Marianna & Rinne, Juha O
2000 “Images of shadowing and interpreting.” Interpreting 5 (2): 147–167. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998 Interpreting as Interaction. London/New York: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar