THE CIRIN BULLETIN
Conference
Interpreting Research
Information Network
An independent network for the
dissemination of information on
conference interpreting
research (CIR)
__________________________________________________________________
BULLETIN n°37
December 2008
Editor: Daniel Gile
Contributors to
this issue:
Dörte
Andres (DA), CAI Xiaohong (CXH), Ivana Čeňková (IC), Colette Storms
(CS)
Editorial address:
D. Gile, 46, rue d'Alembert,
92190 Meudon,
tel/fax +33 1 45 34 83 84
e-mail: daniel.gile@yahoo.com
Web site: http://www.cirinandgile.com
This Bulletin aims at
contributing to the dissemination of information on conference interpreting
research (CIR) and at providing useful information to members of the CIR
community worldwide. It is intended to achieve maximum coverage of research
into this sub-field of interpreting, and only occasionally refers to research and
publications in other sub-fields. The Bulletin is published twice a
year, in December and June. For further information and electronic or paper
copies of early issues (the last issue is available on the Web site at any
time), please contact D. Gile.
Note:
the mini-abstracts are followed by the initials of the contributors who sent in
the information, but the text may also be written or adapted from the original
text by D.Gile, who takes responsibility for the comments and for potential
errors introduced by him.
* *
*
A non-technical point, for a change: while there are
‘professional’ interpreting instructors in our community (and in the TS
community at large), those whose main source of income is training, there are few
‘professional researchers’ who depend on research for their livelihood or for
their academic position, among us. Research thus becomes to a large extent a
matter of personal motivation. Part of it is intellectual curiosity, the
pleasure of exploring, of theorizing, of finding something new. Part of it is
the pleasure of giving one’s time and one’s attention to others who ask for
help, and perhaps the pleasure of being rewarded by their awareness of the
attention they are being given. Personal ambition may be part of it, but
probably not as important a part as some may assume. I am thinking in
particular of those instructors in ‘doctoral schools’ who give hours and hours
of tutorials and personal guidance, face-to-face or by email, to individual
students, and who get no official recognition of any kind for it when these
students are not ‘their’ doctoral students. This generous tradition was started
by José Lambert of KUL in the late 1980s in the framework of the then CERA
programme and has proved sustainable over the past twenty years. Over this
period, I have met a number of colleagues with this type of generosity,
including Andrew Chesterman, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast and Gyde Hansen to
whom I am particularly grateful for personal reasons they know, but also Ángela
Collados
Aís, Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger to name just a
few from the community of researchers who focus on interpreting. I believe that
they make a difference in TS as much by virtue of their personality as by
virtue of their work as scholars. Of course, there is a price to pay for such
generosity and the friendships that crystallize in such a small community as
ours makes technical criticism of each other’s work more difficult to engage
in, though it is necessary for optimum progress.
During
recent visits to China and Korea, I was also touched by (and grateful for) the
warmth of the colleagues’ welcome and hope the same warmth flows in relations
between them as in at least several teams at the University of Granada, Spain, between
instructors and between instructors and students. If so, this could be a strong
engine for dynamic research in the relevant interpreting and translation research
communities. I wonder whether any study has been carried out by sociologists
and/or psychologists on this factor in the evolution of research in academic
communities.
On
the cognitive front, Minhua LIU’s and Šárka
Timarova’s papers are thought-provoking. Both of them have been following
developments in cognitive psychology closely, and from their texts, and in
particular Minhua LIU’s text, it appears that we are still very far from
understanding the mechanisms of simultaneous interpreting, probably to the
extent that all models developed so far can only be considered speculative with
little hope of validating them experimentally at this point. This raises the
question whether research has made us significantly
wiser with respect to the interpreting. What does seem stable in the cognitive paradigm(s) is the idea that limited
processing capacity is a strong constraint which accounts for many problems and
could explain many phenomena, but what is the nature of working memory, what is
the exact interaction of various component processes in SI under the putative
control of the central executive construct and what are the exact changes which
occur over time in the interpreters’ skills and mental operations when
interpreting?
Daniel Gile
Al Zahran, Aladdin. (The University of
* An electronic questionnaire generated 295 responses.
87% of them belong to AIIC. The author considers that their answers provide him
with a case for intercultural mediation in conference interpreting.
Albl-Mikaka, Michaela. (
* Applying cognitive theories of text and language
processing, note-taking is seen not only as a memory-supporting technique but as
the reception and production of a notation text. Based on an empirical study of
consecutive interpreting between English and German by five trainee
interpreters. The students are found to operate relatively closely along
micropropositional lines when processing the source text, the notation and the
target text, and the explicature regularly has the same propositional form as
the corresponding proposition in the source text.
Cai, Xiaohong (
Cai, Xiaohong. (
Abstract: Most studies of interpreting teaching up to now have been exchanges of experience or merely discussions of the syllabus. A comprehensive interpreting teaching methodology set in IT context has yet to be formed, nor has there been any study of the performance of interpreting training. Without the support of relevant research, the strength of methodology cannot be achieved or recognized, posing a barrier to the promotion of discussions on modernized teaching methodologies. Faced with this situation, we have boldly carried out reform in teaching methodology and have created an interactive teaching methodology for interpreting in IT context, which aims at teaching students effective ways of competence development. Such a methodology makes full use of the Internet and multimedia technologies and by means of an interpreting training and learning website, integrates the web teaching platform to foster a diverse foreign language learning environment, open up more channels for teaching and intensify interpreting practice. Meanwhile, we have used a scientific assessment system to improve the performance of interpreting training and have constantly carried out research in performance in the process of reform to find out the merits and demerits of this teaching methodology to make timely adjustments in the steps of training, optimize teacher-student collaboration to overcome the deficiencies and bring the potential advantages of this advanced methodology into full swing.
Key Words: interpreting training; interactive methodology; performance study
Čeňková, Ivana. (Charles University, Prague). 2008.
Retour et relais – un défi et une réalité quotidienne pour les interprètes de
conference au sein des institutions européennes. Forum
6 :2.1-21.
* Working
into one’s non-native language, as well as working from another interpreter’s
output as opposed to interpreting the speaker directly, have become commonplace
in European institutions. The author reports on the findings of questionnaires
distributed to interpreters in 2003 and 2006 regarding their feelings about
retour and relay interpreting. In 2006, questionnaires were also sent to
members of the European Parliament on quality perception with respect to
interpreting into one’s native vs. foreign language. In the 64 responses
received, the author highlights some preference for listening to interpreters
working into their A languages.
Cheung,
Andrew. (
* Numbers
are a well known problem trigger in interpreting. 42 students of interpreting who
had had 7 weeks of training in simultaneous interpreting received 15 minutes of
training in English-into-Chinese interpreting of numbers in isolation. Half of
them (the experimental group) also received 15 minutes of training in
English-into-Chinese interpreting of numbers in context (from Nolan, James.
2005. Interpretation: Techniques and exercises. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
An English speech containing numbers requiring syntactic conversion was
interpreted by the two groups into Chinese. The experimental group outperformed
the control group in the interpreting of the numbers.
Choi,
Jungwha. (
* A
survey among Korean interpreters on their language acquisition history,
difficult topic areas for interpreting into B languages, directionality and
reasons for continuing to work as interpreters.
Collados Aís, Ángela
(University of Granada). 2008. Evaluación de la calidad en interpretación
simultánea. Contrastes de exposición e inferencias emocionales. Evaluación de
la evaluación. In
Hansen et al (eds). 193-214.
* A
follow-up to Collados Aís’s previous studies on the effect of monotonous
intonation on quality perception. In this paper, she adds to her previous
analyses the results of discussion groups and focused interviews. These add
insights insofar as beyond ticking on pre-categorized boxes, users can express
their feelings in their own words. What is particularly interesting in this
paper are the author’s speculations about the psychology of users which is
perhaps reflected in their assessments of interpreting quality, including their
expectations based on their knowledge of the difficulty of interpreting and
their previous models of what interpreting should sound like.
Eraslan Gercek, Seyda. 2008.
“Cultural Mediator” or “Scrupulous Translator”? Revisiting Role, Context and
Culture in Consecutive Conference Interpreting. In
* A
questionnaire-based study of Turkish users’ expectations from conference interpreters,
including expectations about their role. Interesting findings include the idea
that many users expect interpreters to go beyond “just translating” into
explaining, and that interpreters actually take a more active role than that of
a neutral conduit.
Gambier, Yves. (
* A terminological and conceptual discussion of terms
around the terms ‘strategies’ and ‘tactics’ as used in TS. Gambier argues in
favour of a more stable common metalanguage of TS.
Gile,
Daniel. 2008. Local Cognitive Load in Simultaneous
Interpreting and its implications for Empirical Research. Forum 6:2.
59-77.
* An
Effort Models -based analysis of local cognitive load (at sentence level and
below). It is argued that local parameters, including information density at
the beginning and at the end of sentences as well as pauses, may be significant
factors in interpreting performance. Implications in terms of research design
are discussed.
Grbić,
Nadja. (
* A
theoretical discussion of concepts of interpreting quality and its dimensions.
Grbić,
Nadja
& Sonja Pöllabauer (
* An overview of analyses which can be performed on
citations using data bases and software, illustrated with a case study. This
paper opens attractive horizons for sociological and other explorations of TS
and IS when scientometric tools are used to find answers to research questions.
It also raises methodological questions. One issue relates to qualitative
aspects of such investigations. For instance, what criteria should be used for
including publications in the analysis? Another has to do with the coverage of
the data bases used to collect the raw data: in TS, they probably do not
include unpublished theses and dissertations which, at least quantitatively but
perhaps also qualitatively, are rather important when assessing the impact of
authors and publications, and they may not cover publications in Chinese,
Japanese, Korean, and perhaps some East-European languages. If the data is
incomplete, could it be biased? If so, how reliable are the results? My view is
that present scientometric work, and especially thorough exploratory work such
as valiantly conducted by Grbić
& Pöllabauer is both commendable and valuable, but that in TS, a mix of
such work and ‘manual’ work which include careful consideration of qualitative
aspects of the phenomena under study is required to provide the best answers to
research questions.
Kurz, Ingrid.
* A
summary of major findings of a study by Kodrnja (see the theses section for the
full reference). An English text was read by a native speaker of English and a
non-native speaker of English and simultaneously interpreted by 10 interpreting
students. Propositional accuracy was considerably higher in renderings of the
native speaker’s speech. In a follow-up questionnaire component of the study,
it also turned out that students assessed terminology as “fairly easy” to cope
with in the native speaker’s speech and
“manageable” in the non-native speaker’s, and that delivery speed of each was
subjectively perceived as “fairly easy” to cope with and “manageable”
respectively, though the actual delivery speed of the non-native speaker was
less than 1.5% higher than the native speaker’s in the first part of the speech
and 4.4% lower in the second part. The importance of accents as problem
triggers in students’ interpreting is thus corroborated, as are the findings of
Collados Aís’s team’s extensive studies on quality perception parameters, which
show consistently that a difference in one objective parameter in a speech (in
their case, a target speech) spills over and affects the perception of other
parameters (see the books section in Bulletin n°35 as well as Collados Aís 2008
as reported above).
Lee, Jieun. 2008. Rating Scales for Interpreting Performance
Assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2:2.165-84
* This paper explores the use of rating scales as a tool for assessing interpreting performance. Drawing on common quality criteria in the interpreting
literature, the researcher’s intuitive understanding of
different levels of interpreting quality, as well as the rating scales used in
second language assessment, a rating scale with three criteria was developed a priori and trialled by a group of
raters. Two groups of raters – experienced professional interpreters and novice interpreters – rated five interpreting
students’ consecutive interpreting
performance using these scales and provided their feedback on the rating scales. The
raters’ feedback suggests
that this type of rating scale might be useful in multiple interpreting
performance assessment, particularly as a means to enhance rating consistency.
However, the marks produced by raters yielded
mixed results. In both groups of raters, the
single measure intra-class coefficient was high in accuracy assessment ,
but not in TL quality and delivery assessment. Further research is required before meaningful conclusions
about the reliability of rating scale-based assessment can be drawn.
Liu, Minhua. (Fu Jen University, Taiwan). How do experts interpret? Implications from research
in Interpreting Studies and cognitive science. In Hansen et al (eds). 159-177.
* The title is self-explanatory.
A very interesting overview of existing studies and ideas and speculations
about the interpreting process which highlight the complexity of mental
operations associated with interpreting and the difficulty involved in
pinpointing the nature and role of each component. Food for thought, and
perhaps a reason to prefer holistic and very simple models for use in the
classroom to guide students.
Lim, Hyang Ok. 2008. The Art of Public Speaking and the Art of
Interpretation. Forum 6:2. 125-142.
* A general discussion of the topic.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. (ETI,
* Methodological advice on
surveys.
Padilla Benitez, Presentación, Pedro Macizo Soria
& Maria Teresa Bajo Molina. (Univerrsity
of Granada). 2007. Procesamiento de la información en tareas de comprensión
oral: cuando la interpretación marca la diferencia. Sendebar
18. 191-207.
* An interesting experimental study on memory load
related to interpreting.
Pöchhacker, Franz. (
* An evaluative socio-historical overview of the
history of interpreting studies. One interesting point Pöchhacker raises is
that of the contribution of information dissemination and of networking (p.34).
I agree, and feel that perhaps one personality in TS has not received enough
recognition for his contribution: José Lambert of KUL, Leuven, father of
CE(T)RA and grandfather of so many other operations which took inspiration from
CE(T)RA, including some devoted to interpreting.
Pym, Anthony.
(Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona). 2008. On
omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. In
Hansen et al (eds). 63-105.
* Pym
(mis-)interprets the Effort Models as models which disregard the social context
and re-analyses findings from an experiment by Gile on the basis of a
risk-taking approach. A surprising misrepresentation of Gile’s views on many
points which neglects evidence from the very book Pym is quoting (Basic
Concepts and Models…). While the Effort Models focus on the cognitive side,
Gile has extensively discussed context (see for instance chapters 1 and 3 on
communication intentions and a paper on information flows in various types of
conferences in
Setton, Robin. 2008. Progression in SI
Training. Forum 6:2. 173-193.
* General progression and exercises in SI Training.
Shlesinger, Miriam. (
* The same English source text was rendered in
simultaneous and in written form into Hebrew by the same interpreters (the
written translation was done more than three years after the interpreting
task), and transcripts of the simultaneous interpretations as well as the
translations were analyzed using specialized software. The ratio of type to
token, indicating linguistic richness, was slightly higher in the written texts
than in the interpretations. Verb patterns showed large difference, with the
more complex forms far more numerous in the written translations than in the
interpretations. Similarly, a more literal form of definite article was found
in the written texts, other markers of written-line phenomena were found to be
more frequent in the written renderings than in the oral renderings, and
lexically, phonological adaptations of English words were more frequent in
interpretations and corresponding Hebrew words were more numerous in
translations. This paper shows that with the help of corpus technology and
methodology, actual differences between what receivers will be offered in
translation vs. interpreting can be shown and measured, which can be relevant
for users who want to know what they ‘buy’ when recruiting interpreters. It
also opens other avenues, such as the use of such software to identify and
measure indicators of cognitive activity. For instance, while some Translation
choices could be ascribed to written vs. oral language preferences, some
phenomena which simplify the processing, and in particular lexical transcoding,
can be seen as indicators of coping tactics when facing high cognitive
pressure, which could be inferred from high lexical-density in the source
speech, fast delivery, strong accents etc. In Andrew Dawrant’s 1996 MA thesis
(see Bulletin n°13), where the analysis was manual, interpreting and
translation were also compared to see whether word order differences, which
were hypothesized to induce higher cognitive load, were reflected by changes in
the output (it turned out they were).
Takeda, Kayoko.
(Monterey Institute of International Studies). 2008. Interpreting at the
* A summary of Takeda’s 2007 doctoral dissertation.
Arrangements at the
Timarova, Šárka. 2008.
Working Memory and Simultaneous Interpreting. In
* An interesting overview of working memory models
and the way working memory has been integrated into theoretical models of
simultaneous interpreting.
Will, Martin. 2008.
Knowledge Management for Simultaneous Interpreters in LSP conferences. MuTra
Journal, Vol. 2 (LSP Translation Scenarios): 65-99.
* A theoretical discussion of how relevant specialized
knowledge is acquired during the conference interpreter’s preparation for
specialized conferences.
M.A. AND GRADUATION THESES
Biedka,
Agnieszka. 2007. Das Gedächtnis und die Gedächtnisprozesse beim
Dolmetschen. Diplomarbeit. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz,
Fachbereich Angewandte Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft Germersheim.
Hopp,
Stephanie. 2008. Qualität im Dolmetschprozess – Konsekutiv vs.
Simultan. Diplomarbeit. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Fachbereich
Angewandte Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft Germersheim.
Kodrnja, Dominika.
2001. Akzent und Dolmetschen. Informationsverlust beim Dolmetschen eines
non-native speaker’s. Unpublished MA thesis,
* See Kurz
Neuper,
Julia. 2008. Ungarische Dolmetscher in Memoiren, Fiktion,
Wirklichkeit. Diplomarbeit. Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Institut für
Angewandte und Theoretische Translationswissenschaft.
Renner,
Jakub. 2008. Comparison of Students’ Performance at the
Beginning and upon Completion of their Simultaneous Interpretation Training Course.
Diploma thesis, Charles University of Prague,
*
An experiment was conducted on a sample of 9 subjects to investigate working
memory capacity through a memory span test and the ability to interpret
features of modality through the simultaneous interpretation of an English text
with numerous modality features. From the findings, the author concludes that
the two may be related.
Salmon, Ine. ( 2008. L’interaction entre
interprètes en cabine. Master’s thesis, HUB (Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel,
ex-VLEKHO).
*A case study in which a team of two interpreters was
observed over a period of 5 days for different clients. They were audio- and
vide-recorded, and the material was organized and structured for processing
purposes. The focus was on interaction between the two interpreters in an
‘ordinary’ socializing function, affective support for each other and
practical, technical cooperation in the booth. The work also established a
methodological protocol to facilitate the processing of visual and auditory
data for further analyses.
French
abstract:
Les recherches sur le travail de l’interprète
n’ont accordé que peu d’attention à certains aspects sociaux de ce métier. En
particulier, l’interaction entre interprètes partageant l’espace d’une cabine
et accomplissant en alternance une mission d’interprétation simultanée, n’a été
que fort peu étudiée.
Ce mémoire de master est une étude de cas, basée sur
l’observation d’une équipe de deux interprètes, pendant 5 journées de travail
pour différents clients. L’auteur a pris place dans la cabine avec les
interprètes et, munie de matériel d’enregistrement de son et d’images, a
observé et collecté scrupuleusement tout signal auditif (paroles, bruits) et
visuel (actions, gestes, mimiques, postures, échange de regards…) indiquant une
interaction entre les interprètes. Les
données ont été soigneusement organisées, sériées et structurées en vue de leur
interprétation.
L’analyse des données est orientée par trois
paramètres relevant d’une part d’une sociabilité « ordinaire »
(interaction lors de l’échange de saluts, conversation privée, accords sur le
tour de rôle, etc…), du soutien mutuel en cours de travail (approuver, valider,
rassurer, relativiser grâce à l’humour, commenter et critiquer les orateurs…)
et de la collaboration concrète en vue d’une meilleure qualité de travail
(notation de chiffres, de terminologie, désignation sur un document,…). Cette
analyse s’appuie entre autres sur les travaux de sociologues et de linguistes
et sur les acquis de l’analyse conversationnelle. Les interactions montrent que former une
équipe n’est en rien une évidence, et qu’il faut beaucoup de doigté pour que
s’instaure une relation de confiance qui permette à chacun des interprètes de
donner le meilleur de lui-même.
Ces constatations conduisent dès lors aussi à des
propositions didactiques, qui donneraient à de jeunes interprètes en formation
l’occasion de s’initier à ce travail en équipe, à cet art de la collaboration
qui soutient sans vexer ou insécuriser l’autre et qui prévient le risque d’une
relation peu harmonieuse, voire virant à la rivalité.
Ce travail
tente aussi de mettre au point un véritable protocole pour la présentation des
données, qui permette au lecteur d’avoir accès facilement aux observations
directes (descriptions, dessins, photos, fragments vidéo, transcriptions des
conversations) et de les mettre en relation avec l’analyse elle-même. (CS)
Voijta,
Marisa. 2008. Die Liminalität des Dolmetschers als
literarischer Topos. Diplomarbeit. Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Institut
für Angewandte und Theoretische Translationswissenschaft.
Willner,
Sonja. 2008. Eine Analyse der Verstehensprozesse beim
Simultandolmetschen unter besonderer Einbeziehung der Theorie der neuronalen
Netze. Diplomarbeit. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Fachbereich
Angewandte Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft Germersheim.
DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS
BOOKS
Ahrens, Barbara. 2005. Prosodie
beim Simultandolmetschen. Frankfurt: Lang.
Hansen, Gyde, Andrew Chesterman & Heidrun
Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds). 2008. Efforts and Models in
Interpreting and Translation Research.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
* An
interesting book in the range of papers it offers, which cover both translation
and interpreting. Its sections include scientometrics and history, conceptual
analysis, research skills and empirical studies. Most of the papers are briefly
reviewed here. The rest are listed and will be reviewed in the Recent
Publications section of the EST website at www.est-translationstudies.org.
Nolan,
James. 2005. Interpretation:
Techniques and exercises. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Takeda, Kayoko. 2008. Toukyou saiban ni okeru
Tsuuyakyu. (Interpreting at the
* The published version of Takeda’s 2007 doctoral
dissertation (Bulletin n.35).
Present Nodes
Nodes are local institutional or individual members who represent CIRIN in their
respective geographical area. Members volunteer to become Nodes; they
cease to operate as such at any time after notifying headquarters in
For Argentina: Silvia Veronica Lang, Coletta 373 2804,
Campana, Provincia de Buenos Aires
For Australia: JC Lloyd-Southwell, Department of Language and
International Studies, Faculty of Language, Education and Community Services,
RMIT University, Melbourne - Telephone (03) 9527- 4160 or mobile 0414-614-022
For
For
For
For China (Shanghai): Ailing (Irene) Zhang, Graduate School of
Interpretation and Translation, Shanghai International Studies University, 550
Dalian Road (W), Shanghai 200083, P.R.China - e-mail: azhang@shisu.edu.cn
For Costa Rica: Priscila Siu, Apartado 846-2350, San Francisco
de Dos Rios San Jose, Costa Rica - e-mail: prissiu@sol.racsa.co.cr
For Cuba: Lourdes Arencibia, 17 No.357 (altos) esquina a G.
Vedado.
For the
tel 42 02 216 195 13 fax
42 02 216 195 28 - e-mail: IVANA.CENKOVA@ff.cuni.cz
For
Denmark: Helle Dam, Handelshojskolen i Aarhus, Fuglesangs Allé 4,
DK-8210 Arhus V - e-mail: HD@asb.dk
For
Egypt: Sania Sharawi-Lanfranchi
4, El-Saleh Ayoub, Zamalek 11 2 11, Cairo shara11@hotmail.com
For
Estonia: Margus Puusepp, Vallikraavi12-15, 51003 Tartu, Estonia.
mpuusepp@hot.ee
For
Finland: Yves Gambier, University of Turku - Centre for Translation and
Interpreting, Koskenniemenkatu 4 - 20500 TURKU, Finland - yves.gambier@utu.fi
For France: Daniel
Gile, 46, rue d'Alembert, 92190 Meudon - e-mail: daniel.gile@yahoo.com
For
Germany: Sylvia Kalina,
Fachhochschule Köln, Fachbereich Sprachen, Mainzerstr. 5, 50678 Köln
- e-mail: Sylvia.Kalina@fh-koeln.de
For
Greece: Anastasia Parianou, Ionian University, Megaro Kapodistria, 49100
Corfu - e-mail: papik1@otenet.gr
For China (Hong Kong): Andrew Cheung, Department of
Chinese and Bilingual Studies, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong
Kong - e-mail: ctandrew@polyu.edu.hk
For Hungary: Krisztina Bohak Szabari, Eötvös Lorand University
Budapest, Zsalya u. 3, H-1141 Budapest, bohak@mail.inext.hu
For
For
For
Israel: Miriam Shlesinger, Bar Ilan University, 12 Recanati Street,
69494 Ramat-Aviv, Shlesm@mail.biu.ac.il
For
Italy: Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori,
Universita degli Studi di Trieste, Via Filzi 14, 34132 Trieste - e-mail: laurag@sslmit.univ.trieste.it
For
Japan: Masaomi Kondo, Daito Bunka University, Dept. of Economics, 1-9-1 Takashimadaira, Itabashi-ku,
Tokyo, Phone: 935 1111 - e-mail: mkondo@ic.daito.ac.jp
For
Mexico: CESLAA (Dra Georganne Weller), Tlaxcala 78-501, Col. Roma Sur,
México, D.F. 06760 - e-mail:
georgann@avantel.net
For
Peru: ASPTI - Asociación de Profesionales en Traducción e Interpretación
de
For the
For
For
Portugal: Manuel Santiago Ribeiro, Rua Correia Teles, 32-2º PT -
1350-100 Lisboa, tel/fax: + 351.21.386.9429 - e-mail: msr@aiic.net
For
Rumania: Doina Motas, 3, Nicolaie Iorga Str., Bucarest 1, 71117
For
Russia: Elena Alikin, Perm State Technical University elena_alikina@ecology.perm.ru
For
For Spain: John MATTHEWS, Facultad de Traduccion e
Interpretacion, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Edifici M, 08193 Bellaterra,
Cerdanyala, Barcelona, tel/fax +34 3 580 65 45 - e-mail: jmatthews@grn.es
For
For
For the
For
Uruguay: Maria Julia Sainz, Facultad de Derecho/Traductorado,
Universidad de
11.300
Montevideo, Uruguay tel/fax (598 2) 711 54 56 - e-mail: mjsainz@adinet.com.uy
For the
To become a CIRIN Member, please write to D.Gile and ask for your name
or the name of your organization to be added to the list. Membership entails no
financial or administrative commitments, but indicates willingness to share CIR
information, in particular through the Bulletin. Please report any
relevant IR information (bibliographical items, research activities, etc.) to
your Regional Node or directly to
ITS VALUE DEPENDS ON MEMBERS'
CONTRIBUTIONS.