Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies

  • Kaibao Hu
Part of the New Frontiers in Translation Studies book series (NFTS)


This chapter, following an overview of the evolution of interpreting studies, focuses on corpus-based interpreting studies, including the compilation of corpora for interpreting studies and the study of features of interpreted texts and interpreting norms. It concludes with case studies which illustrate how corpus-based interpreting studies can be conducted.


Propositional Content Video File English Text Press Conference Past Participle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allerton, D. 1982. Valency and the English verb. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Bendazzoli, C., and A. Sandrelli. 2005. An approach to corpus-based interpreting studies: Developing EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus). In Challenges of Multidimensional Translation, ed. L. Jiang, S. Buhl, S. Bazzanella, and K. Mysak. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, P., and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. In Strategies in social interaction, ed. E. Goody, 56–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cencini, M. 2000. Television Interpreting Corpus (TIC). Proposta di codifica conforme alle norme TEI per trascrizioni di eventi di interpretazione in televisione. Unpublished dissertation. Forlì: SSLMIT.Google Scholar
  5. Channell, J. 2000. Vague language. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
  6. Diriker, E. 1999. Problematizing the discourse on interpreting—A Quest for norms in simultaneous interpreting. Text and Context 132: 73–90.Google Scholar
  7. Dura, E., and Gawronska, B. 2005. Towards automatic translation of support verb constructions: The case of Polish robic/zrobic and Swedish göra. In Proceedings of the 2nd Language & Technology Conference, 450–454.Google Scholar
  8. Fabbro, F., and L. Gran. 1997. Neurolinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation. In Conference interpreting: Current trends in research, ed. Y. Gambier et al., 139–176. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. Fumagalli, D. 1999. Alla ricerca dell’interpretese. Uno studio sull’interpretazione consecutiva attraverso la corpus linguistics. Unpublished dissertation, Advanced School for Translators and Interpreters (SSLMIT), University of Trieste.Google Scholar
  10. Gerver, D. 1975. A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation. Meta 20(2): 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gile, D. 1995. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu, Kaibao, and Tao Qing. 2009. Hanying huiyi kouyi zhong yupian yiyi xianhjua jiqi dongyin yanjiu – yixiang jiyu pingxing yuliaoku de yanjiu [A corpus-based study of explicitation of textual meaning in Chinese-English conference interpreting]. PLA Foreign Studies University Journal 4: 67–73.Google Scholar
  13. Hu, Kaibao, and Tao Qing. 2010. Hanying huiyi kouyi yuliaoku de chuangjian yu yingyong yanjiu [The compilation and use of the Chinese-English Conference Interpreting Corpus]. Chinese Translators Journal 5: 49–56.Google Scholar
  14. Hu, Kaibao, and Tao Qing. 2012. Jizhe zhaodaihui hanying kouyi jufa caozuo guifan yanjiu [A corpus-based study of the syntactic operational norms in Chinese-English conference interpreting]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 5: 738–750.Google Scholar
  15. Hu, Kaibao, Wu Yong, and Tao Qing. 2007. Yuliaoku yu yixue yanjiu: qushi yu wenti—2007 yuliaoku yu yixue yanjiu guoji xueshu yantaohui zongshu [Corpora and translation studies: Trend and problems – A critical review of the international symposium of corpora and translation studies]. Journal of Foreign Languages 5: 64–69.Google Scholar
  16. Jespersen, O. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  17. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 13: 55–59.Google Scholar
  18. Lakoff, G. 1973. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4): 458–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Leech, G., and J. Svartvik. 1975. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Li, Jing, and Li. Dechao. 2010. Jiyu yuliaoku de kouyi yanjiu: huigu yu zhanwang [Corpus-based interpreting studies: The past and the future]. Foreign Languages in China 9: 100–105.Google Scholar
  22. Liefrink, F. 1973. Semantico-syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  23. Lindquist, P.P. 2004. Challenging conventional wisdom: A corpus-based model for interpreter performance evaluation. The ATA Chronicle 38(1).Google Scholar
  24. Live, A. 1973. The take-have phrasal in English. Linguistics 95: 31–50.Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, B. 2008. Interpreting proper names: Different interventions in simultaneous and consecutive interpreting. Trans-kom, 1/1.Google Scholar
  26. Monti, C., C. Bendazzoli, A. Sandrelli, and M. Russo. 2005. Studying directionality in simultaneous interpreting through an electronic corpus: EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus). Meta 50: 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nickel, G. 1968. Complex verbal structures in English. International Review of Applied Linguistics 6: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petite, C. 2005. Evidence of repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus- based analysis. Interpreting 7(1): 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pǒchhacker, F. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Poutsma, H. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  31. Prince, E.F., Frader, J., and Bosk, C. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. Linguistics and the Professions, 83–97.Google Scholar
  32. Schjoldager, A. 1995a. An exploratory study of translational norms in simultaneous interpreting: Methodological reflections. In The interpreting studies reader, ed. Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 300–311. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Schjoldager, A. 1995b. Interpreting research and the ‘Manipulation School’ of translation studies. Target 7(1): 29–45.Google Scholar
  34. Seleskovitch, D., and Marianne Lederer. 1989. Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
  35. Shlesinger, M. 1989. Extending the theory of translation to interpretation: Norms as a case in point. Target 1: 111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shlesinger, M. 1998. Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta 43(4): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shlesinger, M. 2000. Interpreting as a cognitive process: How can we know what really happens? In Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research, ed. S. Tirkkonen-Condit and R. Jääskeläinen, 3–15. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  38. Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tohyama, H. 2006. Influence of pause length on listeners’ impressions in simultaneous interpretation. In Proceedings of 9th international conference on spoken language processing, 893–896.Google Scholar
  40. Tohyama, H. and Matsubara, S. 2006. Collection of simultaneous interpreting patterns by using bilingual spoken monologue corpus. In LREC-2006: Fifth international conference on language resources and evaluation, 2564–2569. Proceedings, Genoa, Italy.Google Scholar
  41. Veerle, Duflou. 2007. Norm research in conference interpreting: How can the study of documentary sources contribute to a better understanding of norms? In MuTra LSP Translation Scenarios: Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
  42. Wang, Binhua, and Ye Liang. 2009. Mianxiang jiaoxue de kouyi yuliaoku jianshe: lilun yu shijian [Constructing a corpus for interpreting teaching: theories and practices]. Foreign Language World 2: 23–32.Google Scholar
  43. Xue, Peiwen. 2007. Jiyu Xiaoxing Yuliaoku de Huiyi Kouyi zhong Xianhua Xianxiang Yanjiu [A minicorpus-based study of explicitation in Chinese-English conference interpreting]. Shanghai Jiao Tong University MA thesis.Google Scholar
  44. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zadeh, L.A. 1972. Fuzzy languages and their relation to human intelligence. In Proceedings of the international conference man and computer, 130–165. Bordeaux: S. Karger.Google Scholar
  46. Zhang, Wei. 2009. Kouyi yuliaoku de kaifa yu jianshe: lilun yu shijian de ruogan wenti [Interpreting corpus: some theoretical and practical issues]. Chinese Translators Journal 3: 54–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press, Shanghai and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kaibao Hu
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Foreign LanguagesShanghai Jiaotong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations