Pragmatic analysis as a methodology: A reply to Gile’s review of Setton (1999)
Université de Genève
A few years ago I proposed a new ‘cognitive-pragmatic’ approach to understanding simultaneous interpretation (Setton 1999) which has, gratifyingly, been acknowledged in several reviews, including one in these pages (Target 13:1 (2001, 177–183). The editor has kindly let me use it as an opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings, respond to some stimulating challenges, and try to develop some recent ideas on how to operationalise the paradigm.
Daniel Gile’s summary of the book’s content is fair as far as it goes, but disappointing in virtually ignoring the whole pragmatics dimension—specifically the application of Relevance theory (RT) to interpreting. Some other proposals which go unchallenged include (i) the argument that the very fact of translation lends strong support to the language of thought hypothesis; (ii) the discussion of possible evidence from pause patterns for a model of attention allocation (Chapter 7) ; and (iii) the epistemological proposal that everything uttered by the interpreter (or any speaker) must be sourced and accounted for in cognitive and pragmatic terms, thus allowing—a rather important claim, I feel—TL elements formerly marginalised or dismissed as ‘stylistic’, ‘neutral’ or ‘subjective’ (in information-centred accounts) to be integrated in a cognitive and communicative account of the interpreting process.
1987Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Forthcoming. “Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction”. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward eds. Handbook of pragmaticsOxfordBlackwell
Chafe, Wallace L.
1987 “Cognitive constraints on information flow”. Russell S. Tomlin, ed. Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1987 21–51.
Gerver, David and H. Wallace Sinaiko
eds.1978Language interpreting and communication. New York and London: Plenum Press.
1990 “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.
1995Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.
1999 “Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting—Acontribution”. Hermes: Journal of linguistics 23. 153–172.
[ p. 360 ]
2001Review of Setton (1999). Target 13:1. 177–183.
Isham, William P.
1994 “Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization”. Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, eds. Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1994 191–211.
1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
1978 “Simultaneous interpretation: Units of meaning and other features”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 323–332.
1998 “Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment”. Robyn Carston and Uchida Seiji, eds. Relevance theory: Applications and implications. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1998 123–160.
1978 “Simultaneous interpretation: a hypothetical model and its practical application”. Gerver and Snaiko 1978. 353–368.
1998 “Meaning assembly in simultaneous interpretation”. Interpreting 3:2. 163–199.
1999Simultaneous interpretation:A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tommola, Jorma and Pekka Niemi
1986 “Mental load in simultaneous interpreting: An online pilot study”. I. Evensen, ed. Nordic research in text linguistics and discourse analysis. Trondheim: Tapir 1986 171–184.
1978 “Syntactic anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpretation”. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 335–343.