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
* 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 ration 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
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
For
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.