![]() Material y método 4.1 Metodología 4.2 Sujetos 4.3 Material 5. Estudios procedentes de otras disciplinas 3. Estado de la cuestión 2.1 Estudios procedentes del ámbito de la Interpretación 2.2. Discussion References Evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea 1. Pilot study 3.1 Material 3.2 Subjects 3.3 Purpose 3.4 Method 3.5 Evaluation of students’ interpreting performance 3.5.1 Results of inter-group comparisons 3.5.2 Results of intra-group comparisons 3.5.3 Analysis of propositions in terms of number of errors 3.6 Evaluation of the questionnaire 3.6.1 Subjective assessment of terminology 3.6.2 Subjective assessment of delivery speed 3.6.3 Subjective assessment of pronunciation 3.7 Evaluation of follow-up interviews 4. Simultaneous interpreting as a complex cognitive activity 2.1 Management of processing capacity in SI 2.2 English – the No.1 conference language 2.3 Non-native accent – an additional burden for interpreters 3. Defining expertise in interpreting References The impact of non-native English on students’ interpreting performance 1. Expert-novice differences in sub-skills of interpreting and cognitive abilities 3.1 Concurrent articulation and articulatory suppression 3.2 Working memory 3.3 Attention 4. Skills in interpreting 2.1 The comprehension process and skill 2.2 The translation process and skill 2.3 The production process and skill 2.4 Output monitoring 3. Conclusion References Empirical studies How do experts interpret? 1. Good ethics is good science – good science is good ethics 8. Surveying quality – some preliminaries 3. Concluding remarks References Linguistic societies Standardization information Web resources: Construct-ing quality 1. Writing communicative abstracts 4.1 Theoretical foundation 4.2 Four dimensions in abstracts or: writing abstracts with Four Tongues and Ears 4.2.1 The factual dimension 4.2.2 The self-indicative dimension 4.2.3 The relationship dimension 4.2.4 The appellative dimension 5. ‘State of the art’ & deficits: resources on abstracts 3.1 International and national standards organizations 3.2 research papers or books on writing abstracts 3.3 Linguistics associations 3.4 Universities 3.5 Other information sources on abstracts 4. Skills requirements for doctoral students 3.1 Research skills and techniques 3.2 Research environment 3.3 Research management 3.4 Personal effectiveness 3.5 Communication skills 3.6 Networking and teamworking 3.7 Career management 4. Introduction: research quality assessment 2. ![]() Postscript: Why Gile’s basic model might apply to written translation Appendix Justification of risk estimations References Research skills Doctoral training programmes 1. What interpreters risk on the tightrope 6. Omission and risk 4.1 Contextualization 4.2 Communication aims 4.3 Communication risks 4.4 Communication strategy 5. Simultaneous interpreting as a separate land 3. ![]() Proposition References On omission in simultaneous interpreting 1. Stratégies en interprétation de conférence 7. Différentes taxinomies de stratégies en traduction 5. Co-errance ou cohérence terminologique? 3. ![]() Conclusion References Stratégies et tactiques en traduction et interprétation 1. Interpretive hypotheses and explanations 5. Conclusion: Our turn References Conceptual analysis The status of interpretive hypotheses 1. Turns, turns… 5.1 The empirical turn 5.2 The social turn 5.3 The qualitative turn 6. Conclusion References The turns of interpreting studies 1. The treasure chest – results of the study 3.1 Lots of offspring – publication analysis 3.2 Lots of topics – content analysis 3.2 Lots of friends – co-author analysis 3.3 Lots of fans – citation analysis 4. Treasure hunting – methods and corpus 2.1 Publication counting and content analysis 2.2 Network analysis 2.3 Citation analysis 2.3.1 Publish or perish 2.3.2 ISI Web of Science vs. ![]() Table of contents : Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research Editorial page Title page LCC data Table of contents Preface Scientomectrics and history An author-centred scientometric analysis of Daniel Gile’s œuvre 1. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |