Citation patterns in the T&I didactics literature

Daniel Gile

Université Lyon 2

Published in Forum 3:2.85-103.

Abstract

Citations in a total of 47 papers on translator and interpreter training from recent collective volumes were analyzed. The citations referred to few empirical studies in the interpreter training sample and to virtually no empirical studies in the translator training sample. In both, the predominant language of cited works was English and the most-often cited texts were books rather than papers. In the translator training sample, citations indicated that functional theories were the most popular. In the interpreter training sample, functional theories were virtually absent, and the predominant model referred to was the AIIC model of interpreting.

Résumé

Les citations dans 47 articles sur la formation des interprètes et traducteurs parus dans des volumes collectifs récents ont été analysées. Peu d’études empiriques étaient concernées dans l’échantillon sur la formation des interprètes, et quasiment aucune n’était citée dans l’échantillon sur la formation des traducteurs. Dans l’ensemble des articles, la langue prédominante des textes cités était l’anglais, et les citations les plus nombreuses portaient sur des livres, et non pas des articles. Les citations montrent que les théories fonctionnelles sont les plus populaires dans les articles sur la formation des traducteurs, alors qu’elles sont quasiment absentes des articles sur la formation des interprètes où domine le modèle d’interprétation de l’AIIC.

Keywords/Most-clés

Citation analysis, translator/interpreter training, cited works, most-frequently cited authors

I Introduction

One of the essential features of academic research is its collective nature. When investigating a given topic, researchers are expected to read critically other authors’ publications and get inspiration from them with respect to theories, factual findings and methodology. Such exploration of the literature in all research endeavours has a capital role in the evolution of academic disciplines, both in the “liberal arts paradigm” (LAP – see the research issues pages on www.est-translationstudies.org) which prevails in the humanities and in the “empirical research” paradigm, which prevails in the natural sciences and in some behavioural sciences.

One of the formal norms which help enforce the principle of collective endeavour in science is the requirement that in scientific papers, all works used by their authors to gain inspiration or provide theoretical, methodological and/or factual background be cited in the form of explicit references in the text. This norm is to a large extent followed in the humanities as well, though less rigorously, and provides a convenient indicator, not only about the influence of specific authors in a given discipline, but also about various other aspects of action and interaction in the scientific community. Over the past few years, I have endeavoured to promote its use in analyzing aspects of TS. On one hand, the emerging inter-discipline TS is a fascinating field to observe because it is highly variegated in its foci, paradigms and sociological make-up, and citation analysis is an interesting way to explore it. On the other, citation analysis is a good introductory exercise in empirical research for beginning researchers in this field where little training is given in research methods. While it does not require analysts to assimilate abstract theoretical concepts nor to master complex statistical techniques, it does give them an opportunity to work on a concrete, readily available corpus and tackle fundamental problems associated with empirical research: data preparation (see Dam 2001) and classification issues, missing data, qualitative interpretation of quantitative data, sampling issues, generalizability issues, other types of inferencing. At the same time, it makes them read the literature. Besides suggesting citation-analysis topics for MA theses (Rowbotham 2000 and Erwin 2001 are two examples of completed theses in this paradigm), I have been proposing small-scale citation-analysis exercises to my doctoral students over the past few years. One student from Lyon completed a pre-doctoral thesis on interpreting in this paradigm (Ersöz 2004), one is currently working on a PhD dissertation based on citation analysis, and one other student from Granada has conducted an interesting analysis which I hope she will soon submit to a TS journal.

In a previous study (Gile 2002 - published version in press), I had tried to detect trends with respect to interdisciplinarity in TS. In this paper, citations are used to identify and interpret trends in the way authors who write about translator and interpreter training use the literature.

II Research questions

The citation analysis paradigm is new in Translation Studies. Its power, limitations and methodological issues are still under exploration. The present study is part of this exploratory endeavour. As such, rather than test hypotheses, it seeks to find tentative answers to more general research questions - in the present case, in one important focal point of TS, translator/interpreter training.

One traditional set of questions in citation analysis has to do with the relative influence of individual authors. Assuming that in a given discipline, the most frequently cited authors (MFCAs) are the most influential (this general principle is widely accepted in the scientific community, though the exact strength of the correlation is not clear – see the discussion in Hauffe 1994 and a response in Garfield 1998), citation analysis is a relatively straightforward way to identify such authors and gain an idea about their impact.

In the literature on translator and interpreter training, are there such influential authors? How many? Where do they come from? What schools of thought do they represent? An important caveat is that since the value of citations as an indicator depends strongly on research conventions, citation analysis can say something about the influence of authors on other authors who write about T&I didactics, but little about the influence of (numerous) trainers who publish rarely. This should be kept in mind when attempting to draw inferences on actual training practice from the findings of this study.

Less traditional, but perhaps equally interesting against the background of a discipline in the making such as Translation Studies, are questions about languages in which works are cited most often, and about the form the most frequently cited texts take: papers in journals, papers in collective volumes, monographs, collective volumes, theses, dissertations, unpublished reports etc. In a study on the productivity of researchers in interpreting studies, Pöchhacker (1995: 62) weighted texts and publications using “bibliography points” according to their impact as follows: papers in “unselected” conference proceedings and “rare journals” scored 1 point, articles in other journals, theses and edited volumes on T&I scored 3 points, doctoral dissertations on interpreting, books on T&I and edited volumes on interpreting scored 5 points and books on interpreting scored 10 points. According to this system, the impact of a book on interpreting is twice the impact of an edited volume on interpreting or a doctoral dissertation on interpreting, and the impact of such a doctoral dissertation is 66% more than the impact of a paper in a journal or in an edited volume. Pöchhacker did not explain how these weights were determined. Citation analysis would have been one way. It would be interesting to see to what extent the findings of this study support his weighting schedule.

Less traditional in citation analysis is qualitative processing of citation corpora, perhaps because it is more difficult to automate than quantitative analysis. This is a loss of opportunities, since the way citations are used is indicative of the way research is done in a given discipline. In particular, it can provide information on how interdisciplinary it is (as analyzed in Gile 2002), on the proportion of empirical versus theoretical research in a discipline, on how central conceptual and/or terminological discussions are in the field. In view of the history of TS and the central debates in the TS community about its status as an empirical discipline as suggested by Holmes (1972), and more generally about its scientific aspirations, this study looks inter alia at the relative position of empirical versus non-empirical research in the area of translator and interpreter training.

Another question was prompted by my initial anecdotal impression that in publications about translator and interpreter training, a surprising number of citations referred to texts unrelated to its topic. Could this phenomenon be confirmed in a systematic corpus study?

These questions are investigated separately for translator training and interpreter training, and findings for the two sub-disciplines are compared.

III Method

In an attempt to develop a relatively homogeneous corpus of recent publications with wide representativity, the citations in all papers on translator and/or interpreter training in 6 collective Translation Studies volumes from the year 2000 onwards which were available to me, including one from Germany, one from Spain and two from Italy, were examined. To extend the sample, one further collective volume from 1999 and a special issue of the Canadian translation journal Meta on evaluation (46:2 - 2001) were added to the corpus (see the list at the end of this paper).

In each collective work, all papers related to translator or interpreter training were included, with the proviso that every author could only have a single paper in the sample: whenever a paper by an author who was already in the sample was found in a collective volume, it was excluded from the analysis. The resulting corpus consists of close to 1000 citations from 47 recent papers, including 228 from papers on interpreter training and 766 from papers on translator training (including 7 citations from a paper on both).

In each paper, citations were listed with their references and characterized with respect to the following characteristics whenever I could find the information in the text, in the context or elsewhere (in particular, using search engines on the Internet): is the cited publication on translator and/or interpreter training or not? Is it empirical or not? What is the cited author’s institutional affiliation? What type of publication is cited (monograph, collective volume, paper in a collective volume, paper in a journal, thesis, doctoral dissertation, unpublished report)? In what language is it written? What keywords could be used to describe it?

Citations were operationally defined as references to specific publications by authors in the body of the citing text. References to authors not associated with specific publications (for instance, if an author wrote “Toury introduced the concept of norms into Translation Studies…” without referring to a specific text by Toury to back up this statement) were not included. Such references were rare in the corpus.

The listing and characterization were done using the Excel spreadsheet program. When a feature of a citation could not be documented, the corresponding box in the spreadsheet was left blank. The undocumented fields are taken into account in the analysis. In the tables presented further down, they are represented by question marks. Their proportion was negligible in most features, and small in the empirical vs. non-empirical feature. In a qualitative analysis of citations where the main feature analyzed is the type of citation such as reference to a concept, a discussion, an empirical study, an opinion, a research method, a term, a theory, etc. (see Gile 2002), the proportion of such undocumented fields can be high and pose a serious problem for inferencing.

IV Results

1 Some characteristics of the sample of citing articles

The sample is composed of 47 “citing articles”, including 36 on translator training and 12 on interpreter training (one is counted in both categories since it addresses both). None of the citing articles happens to be empirical. Though the sampling was not random in the statistical sense, the collective volumes covered represent a wide spectrum of publications on translator and interpreter training and include empirical studies on other aspects of translation and interpreting; the absence of any empirical study in the sample may be taken as first indicator of the low proportion of empirical studies in this branch of T&I literature.

In the interpreter training sample, the authors’ breakdown by country of affiliation is as follows, and suggests a rather balanced West-European distribution, though no claims can be made as to its representativity in the statistical meaning of the term.

Country of affiliation of citing authors	Number of authors
United Kingdom	3
France	2
Austria	1
Greece	1
Hungary	1
Italy	1
Spain	1
Sweden	1
UN	1
Total:	12

Table 1: Composition of the citing authors sample in interpreter training by country

In the translator training sample, the authors’ breakdown by country of affiliation is as follows (table 2), and suggests a West-European distribution with a strong Spanish bias. This bias should be taken into account when looking at the findings. It is noteworthy, however, that out of the 12 Spanish citing authors, four are British or American. Linguistically speaking, one might therefore assume an English bias.

Country of affiliation of citing authors	Number of authors
Spain	12
UK	6
Germany	4
Denmark	2
Finland	2
Italy	2
Switzerland	2
Austria	1
Ireland	1
The Netherlands	1
Slovakia	1
Sweden	1
USA	1
Total	36

Table 2: Composition of the citing authors sample in translation training by country

Note in table 3 that in spite of the Spanish bias, the vast majority of papers in the sample are in English, with about 1 in 5 in German, and only 12% in Spanish. This can be taken as a first indication about the dominant role of English in this branch of T&I literature.

Language of citing paper	Number of papers (proportion of total)
English	32 (67%)
German	9 (19%)
Spanish	6 (12%)
French	1 (2%)

Table 3: Breakdown of languages in which the citing papers were written

In such a sample, extrapolation to areas outside Western Europe is risky, if only because there is much literature in Chinese, in Japanese, in Korean and in Russian in the relevant countries, and in these countries, much of the written interaction is domestic rather than international. It should be possible to compare characteristics of the citations as presented further down to the findings of similar studies to be carried out in countries such as former Central and Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America.

2 Cited authors

In previous investigations (in particular in Gile 2002), I had found that in the overall field of Translation Studies, there was no single cluster of frequently-cited authors, perhaps due to the wide range of interests in this highly diversified field. One central question I asked myself was whether in the relatively narrow field of translator and interpreter training, citations patterns were more concentrated around authors who were taken as references for their ideas, training methods and/or findings. The number of authors citing each cited author was counted. Self-citations and citations of editors of collective volumes (as opposed to authors of monographs or papers) were excluded. The following two tables only indicate authors who were cited by at least 20% of the citing authors (1 author in 5). In interpreting, going below that threshold would have meant including authors who were cited only twice, and I considered that potential variability in a sample of 12 citing authors made this information difficult to interpret. Since the main objective of the exercise was to see whether some authors emerged as “central”, not to rank them by popularity and/or impact, I considered the threshold of 20% low enough for translator training as well.

However, beneath this threshold, a striking fact is the very large number of authors cited (123 in the papers on interpreter training and 404 in the papers on translator training), if only once, many of whom are linguists, foreign-language teaching specialists, education specialists, philosophers etc. These authors include Berman, Brown and Yule, Chomsky, De Saussure, Derrida, Diderot, Fodor, Gutt, Hermans, Holmes, Hymes, Jakobson, Krashen, Mounin, Nida, Steiner, Toury and Venuti who have little to do with translator or interpreter training – some have never written on translation-related topics.

In papers on interpreter training, the pattern of cited authors looks as shown in table 4, with no striking feature by country of affiliation or otherwise, except for the fact that all authors are related to conference interpreting and nearly all of them are related to AIIC (see further down). However, the sample is small and might show markedly different patterns if it were larger, especially if it included a higher proportion of papers on the training of court interpreters and other public service interpreters, a branch of the literature which has been developing rapidly over the past few years.

Cited authors	Number of citing authors who cited them
AIIC (international organization)	4 (33%)
Bowen & Bowen (USA)	4 (33%)
Gile (France)	4 (33%)
Falbo (Italy)	3 (25%)
Kurz (Austria)	3 (25%)
Lambert (Canada)	3 (25%)
Pöchhacker (Austria)	3 (25%)
Rozan (Switzerland)	3 (25%)
Seleskovitch (France)	3 (25%)

Table 4: Most frequently cited authors (MFCA) in interpreter training

In papers on translator training, the pattern of cited authors looks as follows (table 5). Here, there is a clear central position of authors from Germany (Nord, Kiraly and Kussmaul) who write in English. Note the presence of only one author from Spain (Australian-born Pym) in the most-often cited group in spite of the Spanish bias in the citing sample. When comparing the patterns for translator and interpreter training, it is striking that in spite of the fact that interpreting is far more focused than translation (with its technical, literary, screen translation, sociological studies, cultural studies and other branches), the MFCAs in translator training are cited proportionally more often than the MFCAs in interpreter training (Nord and Kiraly are cited more often than the first 3 authors in interpreting, and Kussmaul is at the same level).

Cited authors	Number of citing authors who cited them
Nord (Germany)	15 (42%)
Kiraly (Germany)	13 (36%)
Kussmaul (Germany)	12 (33%)
Mason & Hatim (UK)	10 (28%)
Gile (France)	9 (25%)
Pym (Spain)	9 (25%)
Delisle (Canada)	8 (22%)

Table 5: Most frequently cited authors (MFCA) in translator training

3 Types of media cited

The breakdown of citations by types of media is shown in table 6. Two features of the pattern stand out. One is the very high proportion of monographs cited (in this paper, the term “monograph” will be taken to mean any book written by one or two authors without being an edited volume – this applies in particular to books by Hatim and Mason or Seleskovitch and Lederer ), as high as the total proportion of papers. The other is the high proportion of papers in collective volumes, more numerous by 62% than the number of cited journal papers. These findings are discussed further down.

Types of media	Proportion of citations
Monographs	43%
Papers in collective volumes	26%
Papers in journals	16%
Collective volumes	8%
Unpublished doctoral dissertations	1.7%
Unpublished master’s and graduation theses	1.3%

Table 6: Breakdown of types of media of cited texts

With respect to individual works cited, the most frequently cited publications in the translator training sample (with only 12 authors, the interpreter training sample is too small for this type of analysis) are the following. Again, monographs dominate quantitatively as references.

Name of author and year	Type of work	Number of citing authors
Nord 1991	Monograph	11
Kussmaul 1995	Monograph	11
Nord 1997	Monograph	9
Kiraly 1995	Monograph	9
Gile 1995	Monograph	9
Kiraly 2000	Monograph	7

Table 7: Most often cited works in the translator training sample

4 Language of cited texts

The breakdown of cited texts by language is presented in table 8. With about 2/3 of the citations, English is the unchallenged predominant language, in spite of the Spanish bias in the translator-training sample and in spite of the fact that the two most-frequently-cited authors are German.

Language	Translator training (766 citations)	Interpreter training (228 citations)
English	67%	64%
Spanish	12%	3%
German	9%	9%
French	8%	16%
Italian	0%	6%
Total	96%	98%

Table 8: Breakdown of cited texts by language

Note that the 6% of cited texts in Italian in interpreting come from a single citing author. This illustrates the risks taken with small samples (12 texts and 228 citations).

5 Translator/Interpreter training or not?

Table 9 shows the proportion of cited texts which are translator and/or interpreter training texts themselves. The striking feature of this distribution is the large proportion of texts which are not about translator or interpreter training. Many of them have to do with linguistics, with foreign language teaching/learning, with education science, but also with translation theory and with philosophy.

About training?	Translator training sample	Interpreter training sample
Yes	36%	48%
No	63%	51%
?	1%	<1%

Table 9: Proportion of cited texts which are translator and/or interpreter training texts

6 Empirical or not?

The breakdown of empirical versus non-empirical cited texts as presented in table 10 shows that an overwhelming proportion of these texts are not empirical, with a higher (but still low) proportion of empirical texts in interpreting – exactly how much higher is difficult to determine because of the relatively high uncertainty in the analysis of translator training citations in this respect, but the difference is clear enough.

Empirical?	Translator training	Interpreter training
Yes	<1%	16%
No	87%	78%
?	13%	5%

Table 10: Proportion of empirical cited texts

V Discussion

As seen in the tables above, in this sample, a small group of about 10 authors were cited by at least one author in five and up to one author in three in the sample, with close to one author in two for Nord. By formal citation-analysis standards, this could be taken as an indicator of the strong influence or impact of the cited authors on the relevant academic community. In a discipline with a large number of empirical studies and the corresponding citations of findings and research methodology, or even in a discipline where advances in theory are rapid, this interpretation of citation rates makes sense. However, when individual citations in this sample are scrutinized carefully, this inference becomes uncertain. Most citations are fairly general and refer to concepts and ideas shared widely in the trainers' community rather than to specific contributions by the cited authors. This impression is compounded by the large proportion of books among the citations. Generally, in scientific literature, empirical findings are presented in papers, and less often in published theses and dissertations (which, if they are not published as such, tend to be summed up in papers). Theories may be presented in books more often than empirical findings. In this corpus, most citations from the most-frequently-cited authors are books presenting general concepts, and a sizable proportion of cited works date back to the early 1990s or to earlier periods (26% to before 1990, and 48% to before 1995). It seems that the literature on translator and interpreter training is not of the kind that discusses recent findings or ideas on an ongoing basis to help the discipline evolve. Many citations in this sample could even be interpreted as ‘conventional citations’, that is, references made in compliance with the scholarly citation convention rather than as acknowledgements of their authors’ contribution. In fact, on the basis of many conversations on translator and interpreter training with colleagues plus the fact that the majority of citations in this sample are not citations of texts having to do with translator or interpreter training, it may not be unreasonable to hypothesize that in this branch of the TS literature, authors often cite other authors to support their own ideas with the seal of authority, not because the cited authors inspired them initially.

Perhaps in this branch of TS which is action-oriented rather than reflection- and research-oriented, the true sources of ideas and training methods are to be found in the classroom without a corresponding volume of writings - in other words, citations may not be a good indicator of sources of influence for classroom practice. Note however that if this branch is action-oriented, it is not experimental-research oriented. The percentage of empirical studies cited is very small both in the translator-training segment and small in the interpreter-training segment - the major Spanish PACTE project is only mentioned three times in a citation, and Mariana Orozco Jutorán's (2000) thorough and innovative doctoral dissertation on measurement of translation expertise acquisition in translation students is only cited once.

Be it as it may, in the translation training sub-sample, the Nord-Kiraly-Kussmaul top-3 group could be interpreted as suggesting that functional theories are the most popular in the literature on translator training. In the interpreter training sample, the AIIC model is well represented, which is not surprising, since most of the top-ranking authors are AIIC members (only Falbo, Lambert & Pöchhacker are not). The principles around which functional theories were built are as valid for interpreting as they are for translation. Interpreters should be even more aware of the fact than translators, since they see the authors and recipients of their Texts on site at the very moment the communication process takes place, and the stakes are highly ‘visible’ to them. Perhaps the lesser popularity of functional theories in the interpreting literature, at least judging by citations in this sample, could be partially explained precisely by the fact that the importance of the skopos of interpreting is so clear to interpreters that trainers do not feel the need to explicate and theorize it.

Leaving this question aside and returning to the literature per se, the one striking fact about the cited media is the high proportion of books observed. Typically, in empirical science, where theories are tested empirically, papers set the pace in the relevant literature, mostly in journals. In this sample, the proportion of cited papers is small, whereas the proportion of cited books other than edited collective volumes is high. This is particularly conspicuous in the case of the MFCAs and of other influential authors (table 11):

Author	Number of citations	Number and percentage of monographs
Delisle	13	9 (69%)
Gile	20	12 (60%)
Hatim & Mason	11	11 (100%)
Kiraly	18	16 (89%)
Kussmaul	11	11 (100%)
Nord	23	18 (78%)
Seleskovitch	12	5 (42%)

Table 11: Proportion of monographs for frequently-cited authors

When including edited collective volumes (ECV), citations of Delisle amount to 11 book citations out of a total of 13 citations (85%) and citations of Gile amount to 13 book citations out of a total of 20 citations (65%). When including ECV, one might also add three collective volumes by Dollerup and Lindegaard (1992), Dollerup and Loddegaard (1994) and Dollerup and Appel (1996), which make up 14 out of 16 cited references in which Dollerup is one of the authors (87%).

Recalling that papers in collective volumes make up 26% of the citations as opposed to only 16% of papers in journals (table 6), it becomes clear that in this sample, the major sources of citations are books, collective or not, and that journals play a quantitatively unimportant role.

This is an intriguing finding. It is unlikely that the explanation should be sought in the qualitative superiority of books. Some Translation journals have an efficient peer-review system, and yet papers published in them are cited rarely; as to papers in collective volumes, especially in conference proceedings, they may be of less than optimal quality and be incorporated into the volumes for practical reasons such as the need to publish participants' papers so as to allow them to claim travel and registration expenses from their universities (this is a comment I have often heard from editors of conference proceedings). Neither could the predominance of books among the citations be explained by the absence of training-related papers in journals. Many such papers are found in journals, both for translation and interpreting.

The answer may lie in the attitude of authors of training-related papers: they may tend to experiment with their training methods, perhaps inspired by the training they have experienced themselves, and, as already suggested earlier, they may use the literature not so much as a source for further ideas and information, but rather as a conventional source for citations, and referring to well-known ideas in well-known books may be more convenient than taking the trouble to explore the tables of contents of journals and read the relevant papers. It also seems that university libraries tend to buy books rather than subscribe to many TS journals.

Whichever way it may be, if citations are to be considered indicators for a work’s impact, the respective weights allotted to books, papers, theses and dissertations by Pöchhacker (1995) as explained earlier seem quite remote from the evidence, especially with respect to theses and dissertations, which were only rarely cited.

VI Conclusion

In this exploratory study of a sample of recent papers from collective volumes on translator and interpreter training, citation analysis provided some non-trivial findings and raised some questions. Inter alia:

The most frequently cited works turned out to be books rather than papers, with a high proportion of monographs. As regards papers, those published in edited collective volumes were cited far more often than those published in Translation journals. This, together with the very low rate of empirical studies cited, suggests a pattern found in the liberal arts rather than in empirical disciplines, but also raises questions as to why journals are cited so infrequently.

The pattern of MFCAs suggests that functional theories are popular in the translator-training literature. In the interpreter-training sub-sample, not one author who represents these theories is cited. This suggests that the conceptual priorities of translator trainers and interpreter trainers may be different.

Another intriguing finding was the high proportion of citations from fields other than translator or interpreter training in spite of the fact that this activity has its specific environment and issues and that the literature on Translator training is abundant. Perhaps authors are not as interested in finding out what other Translation trainers are doing as one might think, and develop their methods on the basis of their own experience and intuition. If this is so, then perhaps many of the citations found in their texts are conventional only and cannot be used to assess actual impact.

These indications are preliminary and could be investigated further, possibly triangulating with other methods, in particular interviews and questionnaires regarding the way authors go about writing papers on training and the reasons why they cite certain authors and works. Specific groups could also be studied: how have ESIT authors evolved in their reading and citation activity over time (after the University of Geneva, ESIT has been an important pioneer in conference interpreter training), what are specific citation patterns in Italy, in former East-European countries, in Russia, in China, in Korea, in Japan, where there is lively publication activity in the national languages? What exactly is sought by citing authors in individual cited texts? (This would require close scrutiny and qualitative classification of individual citations).

Beyond Translator training, can patterns of influence and activity be identified in other branches of the TS literature on Translation quality, on professional issues, on sociological issues, on interpreting and translation for the media, on literary translation, on localization, on court interpreting etc.? This should give the TS community valuable insights on the structure, flow of influence and internal cohesion within this inter-discipline and on the extent and nature of links with other disciplines.

REFERENCES

Callon, M., Jean-Pierre Courtial, J.P. & Penan, H. (1993). La scientométrie. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.

Dam, H. (2001). The manipulation of data: Reflections on data descriptions based on a product-oriented PhD on interpreting. In Gile, D., Dam, H., Dubslaff, F., Martinsen, B. & Schjoldager, A. (eds). Getting started in interpreting research. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. 163-183.

Ersöz, Hande. (2004). La recherche sur l’interprétation de conférence : une analyse de citations. Mémoire de DEA, Université Lyon 2.

Erwin, K. (2001). Recherche sur les stratégies dans les domaines de l'interprétation et de la traduction: Etude scientométrique. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université Lumière Lyon 2.

Garfield, E. (1998). Response to Hauffe 1994. (http://info.uibk.ac.at/sci-org/voeb/vhau9402.html accessed on 14 November 1999)

Gile, D. (2002). L’interdisciplinarité en traductologie: une optique scientométrique. Paper read at the symposium on Interdisciplinarity in translation organized by Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, 23-25 October 2002.

Hauffe, H. (1994). Is Citation Analysis a Tool for Evaluation of Scientific Contributions? Paper given at the 13^th Winterworkshop on Biochemical and Clinical Aspects of Pteridines, St.Chritsoph/Arlberg, Febr. 25, 1994. (http://info.uibk.ac.at/sci-org/voeb/vhau9402.html accessed on 14 November 1999)

Holmes, J. [1972]/1988. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In Holmes, James (ed). Translated! Papers on literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 67-80.

Orozco Jutorán, M. (2000). Instrumentos de medida de la adquisición de la competencia traductora: construcción y validación. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Pöchhacker, F. (1995). “Those Who Do…”: A Profile of Researcher(s) in Interpreting. Target 7:1.47-64.

Rowbotham, J. (2000). Enseignement en interprétation et traduction: étude scientométrique d'un échantillon de la littérature. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université Lyon 2.

Collective volumes used for the corpus

Desblache, L. (ed). (2001). Aspects of specialised translation. Paris: La maison du dictionnaire.

Garzone, G., Mead, P. & Viezzi, M. (eds). (2002). Perspectives on Interpreting. Bologna: Clueb.

Garzone, G. & Viezzi, M. (eds). (2002). Interpreting in the 21^st Century. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lee-Jahnke, H. (ed). (2001). Meta 46:2. Special issue on evaluation: parameters, methods, pedagogical aspects.

Malkmjær, K. (ed). (2004). Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ortega Arjonilla, E. (ed). (2003). Panorama actual de la investigación en traducción e interpretación. (Volumen I). Granada: Editorial Atrio.

Snell-Hornby, M., König, H., Kußmaul, P., Schmitt, P. (eds). (1999). Handbuch Translation. Zweite, verbesserte Auflage.Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

Tennent, M. (ed). (2005). Training for the New Millenium. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

GILE, Daniel

Daniel Gile, a Professor of translation at Université Lyon 2, is a former scientific and technical translator and an active AIIC conference interpreter. He is the founder of CIRIN (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/daniel.gile) and the current President of EST, the European Society for Translation Studies (www.est-translationstudies.org).

daniel.gile@laposte.net