Review published In: Revue Romane
Vol. 50:2 (2015) ► pp.338–342
Compte rendu
. Interpréter pour traduire (5ème édition). Collection TRADUCTOLOGIQUES.Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2014. 432 p.
Reviewed by
Article language: French
Published online: 10 March 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.50.2.10ryd
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.50.2.10ryd
References (6)
Gile, D. (2003): Justifying the deverbalization approach in the interpreting and translation classroom. Forum 1(2), pp. 47–63.
Jakobsen, A. L. & K. T. H. Jensen. (2008): Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading task, in: Göpferich, S., A. L. Jakobsen & I. M. Mees (eds.): Looking at Eyes. Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen, pp. 103–124.
Pöchhacker, F. (2010): The role of research in interpreter education. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 2(1): 1–10.
Rydning, A. F. & C. M. Lachaud. (2010): The reformulation challenge in translation: Context reduces polysemy during comprehension, but multiplies creativity during production, in: Shreve, G. M. & E. Angelone. (eds.): Translation and Cognition. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 85–108.
Shreve, G. M., I. Lacruz & E. Angelone. (2010): Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption, and visual interference in a sight translation task, in: Shreve, G. M. & E. Angelone. (eds.): Translation and Cognition. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 63–84.