Теорія усного перекладу [Interpreting Studies]

переклад

Зміст

Теорія усного перекладу – це наукова дисципліна, яка предметом свого вивчення має усний переклад. І за назвою, і за характером вона тісно пов’язана з перекладознавством, а оскільки усний переклад за своєю суттю вважається видом перекладацької діяльності, то теорію усного перекладу можна розглядати як піддисципліну ширшої галузі перекладознавства. Водночас, еволюція цієї галузі та її міждисциплінарне походження і розгалуження надають теорії усного перекладу власні чіткі характеристики окремої дисципліни, що і відображено у її моделях та методологічних підходах, а також у основоположній професійній орієнтації.

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

Література

AIIC
2002Interpreter Workload Study – Full Report. http://​www​.aiic​.net​/viewpage​.cfm​/page657​.htm [Accessed 1 March 2010].
Angelelli, Claudia V.
2004Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barik, Henri C.
1973 “Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data.” Language and Speech 16 (3): 237–270.Google Scholar
Bühler, Hildegund
1986 “Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters.” Multilingua 5 (4): 231–235.Google Scholar
Chernov, Ghelly V.
2004Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability-Prediction Model. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google 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.Google Scholar
Gerver, David
1971Aspects of Simultaneous Interpretation and Human Information Processing. D Phil thesis, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Gerver, David & Sinaiko, H. Wallace
(eds) 1978Language Interpretation and Communication. New York: Plenum Press.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra B.
2004The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Herbert, Jean
1952The Interpreter’s Handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter. Geneva: Georg.Google 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.Google Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira
2005 “Mediating zones of uncertainty: Interpreter agency, the interpreting habitus and political asylum adjudication.” The Translator 11 (1): 69–85.Google Scholar
Kade, Otto
1968Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Kohn, Kurt & Kalina, Sylvia
1996 “The strategic dimension of interpreting.” Meta 41 (1): 118–138.Google 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.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, Jennifer
1985 “The Kintsch & van Dijk model of discourse comprehension and production applied to the interpretation process.” Meta 30 (1): 37–43.Google 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.Google Scholar
Moser, Peter
1996 “Expectations of users of conference interpretation.” Interpreting 1 (2): 145–178.Google 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
2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B.
2000Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoPGoogle Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie
1993 “The distinctive nature of Interpreting Studies.” Target 5 (2): 149–167.Google Scholar
Sanz, Jesús
1930 “Le travail et les aptitudes des interprètes parlementaires,” Anals d’Orientació Professional 4: 303–318.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica
[1968] 1978Interpreting for International Conferences. (Trans. Stephanie Dailey & E. Norman McMillan). Washington, DC: Pen & Booth.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica & Lederer, Marianne
[1989] 2002 (2nd edition). Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris/Brussels: Didier Érudition/OPOCE.Google Scholar
Setton, Robin
1999Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google 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.Google Scholar
Tommola, Jorma, Laine, Matti J., Sunnari, Marianna & Rinne, Juha O.
2000 “Images of shadowing and interpreting.” Interpreting 5 (2): 147–167.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998Interpreting as Interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar