Järeltõlge [Consecutive interpreting]

Helle V. Dam
Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University
tõlkinud Deelia Talur
Sisukord

Tõlkimist saab kategoriseerida, määratleda ja liigitada eri kriteeriumide alusel, millest üks olulisemaid on tööviis. Selle järgi kategoriseerides eristatakse kahte peamist suulise tõlke liiki: sünkroon- ja järeltõlget. Järeltõlke korral alustab tõlk sihtkeelse versiooni esitamist pärast seda, kui kõneleja on rääkimise lõpetanud – tõlk räägib kõneleja järel, sellest ka tõlke nimi.

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

Kasutatud allikad

Albl-Mikasa, Michaela
2007 Notationssprache und Notizentext: Ein kognitiv-linguistisches Modell für das Konsekutivdolmetschen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andres, Dörte
2002 Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.  TSBGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardoen, Hanne
2013 “The effect of note-taking on target-text fluency”. In Emerging Research in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Summer School 2012, Gabriel González Núñez, Yasmine Khaled & Tanya Voinova (eds). Leuven: KULeuven. http://​www​.arts​.kuleuven​.be​/cetra​/papers​/files​/cardoen [Kasutatud 9. september 2014].  TSB
Chmiel, Agnieszka
2010 “How effective is teaching note-taking to trainee interpreters?” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 4 (2): 233–250.  TSBGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dam, Helle V.
2004a ”Interpreters’ notes: on the choice of form and language”. In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær & Daniel Gile (eds), 251–261. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004b “Interpreters’ notes: on the choice of language.” Interpreting 6 (1): 3–17.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007 ”What makes interpreters’ notes efficient? Features of (non-)efficiency in interpreters’ notes for consecutive.” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger & Radegundis Stolze (eds), 183197. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eraslan, Seyda
2011 International Knowledge Transfer in Turkey: The Consecutive Interpreter’s Role in Context. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Available at http://​www​.tdx​.cat​/handle​/10803​/37342 [Kasutatud 9. september 2014].
Gile, Daniel
2001 “Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate?” Tsuuyakukenkyuu – Interpreting Studies 1 (1): 8–20.  TSBGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009 2nd edition. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia & Ahrens, Barbara
2010 “Consecutive – an outdated skill or a mode with a new profile? Implications for teaching.” In Les Pratiques de l’Interprétation et l’Oralité dans la Communication Interculturelle, 143–158. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambert, Sylvie
1989 “Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis.” In The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation, Laura Gran & John Dodds (eds), 83–91. Udine: Campanotto.  TSBGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matyssek, Heinz
1989 Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher. Ein Weg zur Sprachunabhängigen Notation Vol. I–II. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rozan, Jean-François
1956 La Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive. Geneva: Georg.  TSBGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica
1975 Langage, Langue et Mémoire. Étude de la Prise de Notes en Interprétation Consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szabo, Csilla
2006 “Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting.” Interpreting 8 (2): 129–147.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar

Lisalugemist

Gillies, Andrew
2005 Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting – A Short Course. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.  TSBGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilg, Gérard & Lambert, Sylvie
1996 “Teaching consecutive interpreting.” Interpreting 1 (1): 69–99.  TSBGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mead, Peter
2002 “Exploring hesitation in consecutive interpreting: An empirical study.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century, Guiliana Garzone & Maurizio Viezzi (eds), 73–82. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  TSBGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London & New York: Routledge.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
 
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue