Corpus studies and other animals

Daniel Gile
Table of contents

In his response to my review in Target 13:1 (177–183), Robin Setton acknowledges some weaknesses and inaccuracies in his book, stresses the importance of his theoretical contribution and defends his methodology. His statement raises epistemological and methodological points.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

[ p. 363 ]References

Gile, Daniel
1987 “Les exercices d’interprétation et la dégradation du français: une étude de cas”. Meta 32:4. 420–428.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990Review of Shlesinger 1989 . The interpreter’s newsletter N.3. 118–119.Google Scholar
2001Review of Setton 1999 . Target 13:1. 177–183.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Gyde
ed. 1999Probing the process in translation: Methods and results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Studies in Language 24.]Google Scholar
Isham, Bill
1997Contribution to the “Methodology” workshop. Yves Gambier, Daniel Gile and Christopher Taylor, eds. Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1997 112–115.Google Scholar
Setton, Robin
1999Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts in the oral-literate continuum. Tel-Aviv University. [M.A. thesis.]Google Scholar