口译动态RDA模型研究
|
摘要
口译研究自20世纪50年代发轫以来，经历了起始与奠基、思考与探索、质疑与调整等几个明显的发展阶段，目前已进入了迅速发展的跨学科时期。口译活动在语言信息处理、心理认知机制、社会文化属性等方面的复杂性和多变性，对口译现象的描述和解释，无论是战略意义上，还是战术应用上，在其研究主题和研究方法领域，“跨学科”这一概念越来越受到人们的关注。不过大部分研究还是多趋于思辨规约的视角，对于口译活动自身的思维规律、心理机制、制约因素及其认知知识和能力的发展还没有较系统的论述。为从整体上系统梳理口译的过程运用程序，蔡小红（2001）曾将口译的研究模式分类为描写性模式和解释性模式。但是笔者认为，以释意派的三角模型为代表的描写性模式和以Gile的认知负荷模型为代表的解释性模式，在当今口译跨学科多视角的发展趋势下都存在缺陷。释意派的三角模型只描述了口译这一过程，却未指出译员应如何去有效地实施这一过程；而Gile的认知负荷模型虽指出了口译过程中译员认知的负荷，却未指明译员该如何做才能减轻或化解口译过程中不应有的负荷。
为此，本研究在借鉴当今口译跨学科多视角研究现状的基础，从语言哲学、体验哲学、语言心理学、认知语用学及跨文化交际理论等跨学科视角对口译的认知过程进行探索研究。本研究从哲学的视角对口译研究进行思考，认为口译活动具有以下几点哲学特征：语言世界观的立交桥——口译研究的跨文化交际学思考；语言游戏的关联性——口译研究的语用学思考；体验哲学的经典体现——口译研究的认知学思考；并对口译活动提出揭示其独特属性的定义，即：口译活动是以话语为依托，语用为策略，认知为手段和途径，促进有效交流为目的的跨文化、跨语言的交际过程。这应是口译跨学科多视角研究的又一体现，丰富了口译研究的理论基础。对于口译活动的过程体系，本研究借用认知语用学的关联（Relevance）、顺应(Adaptation)理论及口译的释意理论（Deverbalization），将口译研究过程模式的分类，由蔡小红的描写性模式（释意派的三角模型为代表）和解释性模式（Gile的认知负荷模型为代表），拓展出以突出口译技能研究为核心的“综合性模式”，即口译动态RDA模型。
在该模型的构建中，运用语用学的关联理论和顺应理论从不同的角度对口译这种特殊的跨语言、跨文化交际活动进行有效的解释和指导。关联理论从认知的角度解释口译的交际特征，指出口译过程中译员对源语的听辨理解是一种“明示——推理行为”。口译场景中的认知语境为译员的语用推理提供了手段和方法，而推理是以关联原则和最佳关联假设为基础的，因此对口译场景中的在场和不在场语境的把握和分析以及译员自身的知识图式的运用就显得极为重要。而顺应理论认为语言使用的过程就是选择的过程，是各种关系相互顺应的过程。Verschueren认为语境是交际语境和语言语境的总和，是顺应的主要内容。口译中，译员对口译场景中交际语境和语言语境的认知和顺应是实现译语顺应、达到口译目的的重要策略和手段。因此，关联理论和顺应理论在口译过程中的运用对于源语的听辨理解和译语表达是比较完美的结合。而口译中听辨理解的对象和译语表达的目的都是说话人通过源语所欲阐述的意义和交际意图，这样，释意理论的核心内容“脱离源语语言外壳的意义”就自然成了关联听辨理解追求的目标和译语顺应表达服务的对象。口译中，译员所承载的记忆及其方法和技巧就应在尊重口译即时、即席场景的情况下，围绕“脱离源语语言外壳的意义”这一对象进行。
因此，口译动态RDA模型是从交际、语用和认知的视角对口译过程提出的一个综合性的认知、阐释模式。该模式可直接运用于指导口译教学和实践，它不仅是理论上的认知模式，同时也是可运用于实践的规定性模式，即，既是descriptive,同时又是prescriptive。对于实践性特别强的口译研究来说，口译理论研究的目的，主要还应在于指导口译实践和教学。
在此宏观规划的基础上，本研究然后对口译活动具体过程的“听辨”、“记忆”和“表达”这三个阶段展开具体的微观研究。在口译动态RDA模型之关联听辨（Relevance）阶段，本研究将图式理论与关联语用推理理论综合应用到口译的听辨理解过程中，创造性地指出关联理论的双重语境概念只是为口译的关联听辨理解指明了方向和路径，而译员大脑中的知识图式则为关联听辨理解提供了可资借鉴的内容。同时笔者又提出口译关联听辨理解的认知连通原则，认为可通过概念呼唤、情感协商和意义传承等认知方式，将口译中的各类语境与译员相关的知识图式相互连通互动起来，即可达到高质量的口译听辨理解，又可为口译的记忆和译语表述打良好的基础和铺垫。在口译动态RDA模型之脱离源语语言外壳的意义记忆（Deverblization）阶段，本研究将口译释意理论的“脱离源语语言外壳”假说进一步拓展深化，探讨记忆机制、口译记忆中的语义表征和“脱离源语语言外壳”在口译记忆中的发生机制；然后，再着重从口译记忆特点的视角研究短期记忆容量理论与口译中的记忆单位、短期记忆遗忘曲线与口译笔记，并提出：口译笔记的技巧及其认知理据。解决了“口译动态RDA模型之脱离源语语言外壳意义记忆”阶段的理论基础和实际应用的主要问题。在口译动态RDA模型之译语顺应表达（Adaptation）阶段，本研究就译语表达阶段译员该“怎么说”的问题展开探讨，通过讨论顺应理论与口译研究的关系，提出口译中译语表达的动态顺应策略。在语境和语言结构之间动态的选择状态下，译员为取得较佳的口译效果该如何调整自己的意识状态以顺应译语的表达?为此，笔者从译语语境的动态顺应和译语受众心理的动态顺应，以及译语文化的动态顺应来探讨口译中译语表达的动态顺应。在这三者之间，本研究认为，动态顺应是主旋律，译语语境是译员可资利用的空间舞台，译语受众心理和译语文化则是译员动态调试自己译语表达顺应过程中意识程度的空间资源。在此基础上对语言所作出的选择才能更有效地顺应译语的语境和语言结构，进而成功地实施口译所肩负的跨语言、跨文化的交际任务。
口译动态RDA模型既具描述性，又具规定性的特点，决定它不仅是理论上的认知解释性模式，同时也是可用于指导实践的规定性模式。因此，本研究最后还对口译动态RDA模型之实践运用展开探讨。在对口译动态RDA模型理论研究的基础上，通过对口译教育培训及其在我国发展的认识，梳理出口译技能的认知发展模式，并结合本研究的理论研究成果，将口译动态RDA模型的教育培训的指导原则归纳为：跨学科理论原则、实践体验性原则和技能发展性原则。本研究还对口译过程诸阶段的实践运用进行了较为详细的分解论证和说明，并辅以相应的案例分析，以期为指导口译的教学培训和实际工作开辟新的视野和思路。
在口译研究进入跨学科多视角的发展时期，我们更应该强调口译研究策略和方法的综合性，有学者提出我们要合理把握和评定定量研究在口译研究中的应用、对象及效果，甚至呼吁口译研究方法的定性“转向”，以强调口译活动的经验性与社会性对口译研究和教学的启示意义，特别明确了口译研究主题应回归口译活动本体的重要性。本研究“口译动态RDA模型研究：理论与实践运用”权当是关注口译活动本体研究的一次尝试，希望广大专家学者、口译工作者、口译教师及学员等社会各界相关人士关注这一领域，使其蓬勃发展，更好地服务于国际交流日益频繁的当今世界，促进国际社会的和谐发展。
Interpreting studies now enter an era of interdisciplinary evolution after havinggone through several obvious development phases, such as “initiation andpreparation”,“speculation and exploration” and “question and adjustment” since itscommencement in1950s. The complexity and variability of interpreting activity interms of language information processing, psychological cognitive mechanism andsocio-cultural property, highlights increasingly the concept of interdisciplinarity onthe fields of studies theme and methodology, as far as the description and theexplanation of the interpreting phenomenon are concerned, both strategically andtactically. However, most of the studies still focused on the perspectives of reflectiveregulation, there haven’t appeared systematic discussion regarding the thinking rules,psychological mechanism, restrictive elements, cognitive knowledge and itscompetence evolution of interpreting in itself. In order to comb the processingprogram of interpreting systematically as a whole, Cai Xiaohong (2001) oncecategorized the studies models of interpreting into Descriptive Models represented byParis School’s Triangular Model of Interpretive Theory, and Explanative Modelsrepresented by Gile’s Effort Models. The author nevertheless argues that both of themare defective in some way from the perspectives of current interdisciplinary studies ofinterpreting. Paris School’s Triangular Model of Interpretive Theory just describes theprocedures of interpreting activity, without telling interpreter how to carry out;however, Gile’s Effort Models points out the cognitive efforts of interpreters duringinterpreting, without presenting the instruction for interpreters to mitigate and copewith the unnecessary efforts.
Therefore, the dissertation attempts to explore and analyze the cognitive processof interpreting from the perspectives of interdisciplinarity concerning languagephilosophy, embodied philosophy, language psychology, cognitive pragmatics andintercultural communication theories, based on the current interdisciplinary studies ofinterpreting. The dissertation, after speculation of interpreting studies from the perspective of philosophy, concludes that interpreting activities possess the followingattributes: the intersection of Language World-views——from the perspective ofCross-culture Communication; the relevance of Language Game——from theperspective of Pragmatics; the classical embodiment of Embodied Philosophy——from the perspective of Cognitive Science, and achieves a new definition ofinterpreting to reveal its special attribute as follows: Interpreting is a kind of particularcommunicative process, which aims to promote fluent cross-culture andcross-language communication through spoken language, highlighting pragmatics asits strategy, cognition as its methods and means. Which is another presentation ofinterdisciplinary researches of interpreting, enriching the theory basis of interpretingstudies. As for the procedure system of interpreting activities, based on the RelevanceTheory and Adaptation Theory of Cognitive Pragmatics and the Deverbalization ofInterpretive Theory, this dissertation develops a “comprehensive model” focusing onthe interpreting skills studies——Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model. This model isboth descriptive and prescriptive, so it can be applied to the instruction forinterpreting teaching and practices.
In this model, the dissertation applies the Relevance Theory and AdaptationTheory of Pragmatics to illustrate and instruct the cross-language and cross-culturecommunication of interpreting. The Relevance Theory points out that the listeningcomprehension of interpreting actually is a kind of “ostensive-inferential” processbecause of the communicative attributes of interpreting from the perspective ofcognition. The cognitive contexts at interpreting setting provide tools and methods forinterpreter’s pragmatic inference, which is based on the relevance principle andoptimal relevance hypotheses. So it is vital for interpreters to get to know and analyzethe “present” and “absent” contexts and to stimulate and apply interpreters oneself“knowledge schemata”. Adaptation Theory, however, regards language use as aprocess of linguistic choices, which is reflected in four aspects: contextual correlatesadaptability, structural objects adaptability, dynamics adaptability, and salience ofadaptation processes. Verschueren regards context is the integration of communicativecontexts and language contexts, which is the focus of adaptation. The acknowledge and adaptation of the communicative contexts and language contexts at theinterpreting setting are the crucial strategies and means to achieve target-languageadaptation and interpreting end. In a nutshell, the application of both RelevanceTheory and Adaptation Theory in the processes of listening comprehension andtarget-language expression of interpreting is a perfect integration. Since the target oflistening comprehension and the end of target-language expression in interpreting arethe messages and its communicative intention of the source-language speakers, themeaning of Deverbalization hence becomes the aim which relevance listening seeksfor as well as the end served by target-language adaptation expressing. Therefore, allthe memory activities and its techniques and skills of interpreting should be based onthe only object of the meaning of Deverbalization, considering the features ofon-the-spot, instantaneousness and interactivity of interpreting.
Based on the above-mentioned macro overall speculation of interpreting studies,the dissertation then undertakes micro researches for the three successive phases of“listening”,“memory” and “expressing” of interpreting process. During the phase ofRelevance Listening of Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model, the dissertationcombines Schema Theory with Relevance Pragmatic Inference Theory to analyze thelistening comprehension, revealing that the dual-contexts concept of RelevanceTheory shows the direction and guideline for listening comprehension of interpreters,meanwhile the knowledge schemata within the mind of interpreters provide accessiblecontents for the listening comprehension of interpreters. At the same time, the authoralso proposes cognitive connection principle of the relevance listening comprehensionof interpreting, which connects all kinds of contexts with the relevant knowledgeschemata of interpreters by means of cognitive mechanisms, such as conceptcorrespondence, affection negotiation and meaning inheritance, so as to achievequality listening comprehension of interpreting. During the phase of DeverbalizationMemory of Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model, the dissertation explores further thehypothesis of “Deverbalization”, discusses memory mechanism, semanticorganization of interpreting memory, and the way “Deverbalization” takes shape ininterpreting memory; and then researches short-term memory capacity theory and memory unit in interpreting, fading curve of short-term memory and note-taking ininterpreting, finally proposing interpreting note-taking skills with respective cognitivemotivation. During the phase of Target-Language Adaptation Expression ofInterpreting Dynamic RDA Model, the dissertation, as far as how to express intarget-language is concerned, proposes dynamic adaptation strategy in target-languageexpression after discussing the relationship between Adaptation Theory andinterpreting studies. Under the dynamic choices of contexts and language structures,in order to achieve better interpreting effects, how can the interpreters adjust his or herawareness to adapt to target-language expression? To this end, the author exploresdynamic adaptation in target-language from the perspectives of target-languagecontexts dynamic adaptation, target-language receptors mentality dynamic adaptation,target-language culture dynamic adaptation. Among the above three aspects, thedissertation holds that dynamic adaptation is the theme, target-language contextsbeing the platform, target-language receptors mentality and target-language culturebeing the available resources for interpreters dynamically adjusting his or herawareness to adapt to target-language expression. Therefore, the language choiceswill surely better adapt to the contexts and language structures of the target-language,fulfilling successfully the cross-language and cross-culture communication ofinterpreting.
The attributes of description and prescription of Interpreting Dynamic RDAModel make it a descriptive cognitive model theoretically, and a prescriptive modelfor practices as well. Therefore, the dissertation comes to explore the practice andapplication of Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model. Based on the above-mentionedtheoretical discussions and by way of description of the interpreting education andtraining and its development in China, the dissertation formulates a cognitiveevolution model of interpreting skills, and concludes the following principles foreducation: principle of interdisciplinary theories; principle of practice and experience;principle of skill cognitive evolution. And then discusses the detailed practices andapplication in each phase of the interpreting process, so as to broaden the vision andhorizon for the interpreting education and training and its practice.
Since interpreting studies enter an interdisciplinary development era, we shouldemphasize the synthesis of interpreting studies strategies and methods, some scholarsproposed the application, objects and effects of quantitative method studies should bereevaluated properly in the interpreting studies, even appealed a quality method “turn”back to interpreting studies, so as to emphasize the significance of embodiment andsociality of interpreting studies upon the researches and teaching, proposing that thetheme of interpreting studies should return back to interpreting in itself. Thisdissertation of Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model: Theory and Its Application is justan attempt concerning the interpreting itself studies, with the hope that the broadmasses of scholars and experts, interpreting practitioners and teachers and students,and interested people from all walks of life will pay their attention to this area,making it grows vigorously to serve better for the increasingly frequent internationalcommunication promoting the harmonious relationship among the internationalcommunity.
为此，本研究在借鉴当今口译跨学科多视角研究现状的基础，从语言哲学、体验哲学、语言心理学、认知语用学及跨文化交际理论等跨学科视角对口译的认知过程进行探索研究。本研究从哲学的视角对口译研究进行思考，认为口译活动具有以下几点哲学特征：语言世界观的立交桥——口译研究的跨文化交际学思考；语言游戏的关联性——口译研究的语用学思考；体验哲学的经典体现——口译研究的认知学思考；并对口译活动提出揭示其独特属性的定义，即：口译活动是以话语为依托，语用为策略，认知为手段和途径，促进有效交流为目的的跨文化、跨语言的交际过程。这应是口译跨学科多视角研究的又一体现，丰富了口译研究的理论基础。对于口译活动的过程体系，本研究借用认知语用学的关联（Relevance）、顺应(Adaptation)理论及口译的释意理论（Deverbalization），将口译研究过程模式的分类，由蔡小红的描写性模式（释意派的三角模型为代表）和解释性模式（Gile的认知负荷模型为代表），拓展出以突出口译技能研究为核心的“综合性模式”，即口译动态RDA模型。
在该模型的构建中，运用语用学的关联理论和顺应理论从不同的角度对口译这种特殊的跨语言、跨文化交际活动进行有效的解释和指导。关联理论从认知的角度解释口译的交际特征，指出口译过程中译员对源语的听辨理解是一种“明示——推理行为”。口译场景中的认知语境为译员的语用推理提供了手段和方法，而推理是以关联原则和最佳关联假设为基础的，因此对口译场景中的在场和不在场语境的把握和分析以及译员自身的知识图式的运用就显得极为重要。而顺应理论认为语言使用的过程就是选择的过程，是各种关系相互顺应的过程。Verschueren认为语境是交际语境和语言语境的总和，是顺应的主要内容。口译中，译员对口译场景中交际语境和语言语境的认知和顺应是实现译语顺应、达到口译目的的重要策略和手段。因此，关联理论和顺应理论在口译过程中的运用对于源语的听辨理解和译语表达是比较完美的结合。而口译中听辨理解的对象和译语表达的目的都是说话人通过源语所欲阐述的意义和交际意图，这样，释意理论的核心内容“脱离源语语言外壳的意义”就自然成了关联听辨理解追求的目标和译语顺应表达服务的对象。口译中，译员所承载的记忆及其方法和技巧就应在尊重口译即时、即席场景的情况下，围绕“脱离源语语言外壳的意义”这一对象进行。
因此，口译动态RDA模型是从交际、语用和认知的视角对口译过程提出的一个综合性的认知、阐释模式。该模式可直接运用于指导口译教学和实践，它不仅是理论上的认知模式，同时也是可运用于实践的规定性模式，即，既是descriptive,同时又是prescriptive。对于实践性特别强的口译研究来说，口译理论研究的目的，主要还应在于指导口译实践和教学。
在此宏观规划的基础上，本研究然后对口译活动具体过程的“听辨”、“记忆”和“表达”这三个阶段展开具体的微观研究。在口译动态RDA模型之关联听辨（Relevance）阶段，本研究将图式理论与关联语用推理理论综合应用到口译的听辨理解过程中，创造性地指出关联理论的双重语境概念只是为口译的关联听辨理解指明了方向和路径，而译员大脑中的知识图式则为关联听辨理解提供了可资借鉴的内容。同时笔者又提出口译关联听辨理解的认知连通原则，认为可通过概念呼唤、情感协商和意义传承等认知方式，将口译中的各类语境与译员相关的知识图式相互连通互动起来，即可达到高质量的口译听辨理解，又可为口译的记忆和译语表述打良好的基础和铺垫。在口译动态RDA模型之脱离源语语言外壳的意义记忆（Deverblization）阶段，本研究将口译释意理论的“脱离源语语言外壳”假说进一步拓展深化，探讨记忆机制、口译记忆中的语义表征和“脱离源语语言外壳”在口译记忆中的发生机制；然后，再着重从口译记忆特点的视角研究短期记忆容量理论与口译中的记忆单位、短期记忆遗忘曲线与口译笔记，并提出：口译笔记的技巧及其认知理据。解决了“口译动态RDA模型之脱离源语语言外壳意义记忆”阶段的理论基础和实际应用的主要问题。在口译动态RDA模型之译语顺应表达（Adaptation）阶段，本研究就译语表达阶段译员该“怎么说”的问题展开探讨，通过讨论顺应理论与口译研究的关系，提出口译中译语表达的动态顺应策略。在语境和语言结构之间动态的选择状态下，译员为取得较佳的口译效果该如何调整自己的意识状态以顺应译语的表达?为此，笔者从译语语境的动态顺应和译语受众心理的动态顺应，以及译语文化的动态顺应来探讨口译中译语表达的动态顺应。在这三者之间，本研究认为，动态顺应是主旋律，译语语境是译员可资利用的空间舞台，译语受众心理和译语文化则是译员动态调试自己译语表达顺应过程中意识程度的空间资源。在此基础上对语言所作出的选择才能更有效地顺应译语的语境和语言结构，进而成功地实施口译所肩负的跨语言、跨文化的交际任务。
口译动态RDA模型既具描述性，又具规定性的特点，决定它不仅是理论上的认知解释性模式，同时也是可用于指导实践的规定性模式。因此，本研究最后还对口译动态RDA模型之实践运用展开探讨。在对口译动态RDA模型理论研究的基础上，通过对口译教育培训及其在我国发展的认识，梳理出口译技能的认知发展模式，并结合本研究的理论研究成果，将口译动态RDA模型的教育培训的指导原则归纳为：跨学科理论原则、实践体验性原则和技能发展性原则。本研究还对口译过程诸阶段的实践运用进行了较为详细的分解论证和说明，并辅以相应的案例分析，以期为指导口译的教学培训和实际工作开辟新的视野和思路。
在口译研究进入跨学科多视角的发展时期，我们更应该强调口译研究策略和方法的综合性，有学者提出我们要合理把握和评定定量研究在口译研究中的应用、对象及效果，甚至呼吁口译研究方法的定性“转向”，以强调口译活动的经验性与社会性对口译研究和教学的启示意义，特别明确了口译研究主题应回归口译活动本体的重要性。本研究“口译动态RDA模型研究：理论与实践运用”权当是关注口译活动本体研究的一次尝试，希望广大专家学者、口译工作者、口译教师及学员等社会各界相关人士关注这一领域，使其蓬勃发展，更好地服务于国际交流日益频繁的当今世界，促进国际社会的和谐发展。
Interpreting studies now enter an era of interdisciplinary evolution after havinggone through several obvious development phases, such as “initiation andpreparation”,“speculation and exploration” and “question and adjustment” since itscommencement in1950s. The complexity and variability of interpreting activity interms of language information processing, psychological cognitive mechanism andsocio-cultural property, highlights increasingly the concept of interdisciplinarity onthe fields of studies theme and methodology, as far as the description and theexplanation of the interpreting phenomenon are concerned, both strategically andtactically. However, most of the studies still focused on the perspectives of reflectiveregulation, there haven’t appeared systematic discussion regarding the thinking rules,psychological mechanism, restrictive elements, cognitive knowledge and itscompetence evolution of interpreting in itself. In order to comb the processingprogram of interpreting systematically as a whole, Cai Xiaohong (2001) oncecategorized the studies models of interpreting into Descriptive Models represented byParis School’s Triangular Model of Interpretive Theory, and Explanative Modelsrepresented by Gile’s Effort Models. The author nevertheless argues that both of themare defective in some way from the perspectives of current interdisciplinary studies ofinterpreting. Paris School’s Triangular Model of Interpretive Theory just describes theprocedures of interpreting activity, without telling interpreter how to carry out;however, Gile’s Effort Models points out the cognitive efforts of interpreters duringinterpreting, without presenting the instruction for interpreters to mitigate and copewith the unnecessary efforts.
Therefore, the dissertation attempts to explore and analyze the cognitive processof interpreting from the perspectives of interdisciplinarity concerning languagephilosophy, embodied philosophy, language psychology, cognitive pragmatics andintercultural communication theories, based on the current interdisciplinary studies ofinterpreting. The dissertation, after speculation of interpreting studies from the perspective of philosophy, concludes that interpreting activities possess the followingattributes: the intersection of Language World-views——from the perspective ofCross-culture Communication; the relevance of Language Game——from theperspective of Pragmatics; the classical embodiment of Embodied Philosophy——from the perspective of Cognitive Science, and achieves a new definition ofinterpreting to reveal its special attribute as follows: Interpreting is a kind of particularcommunicative process, which aims to promote fluent cross-culture andcross-language communication through spoken language, highlighting pragmatics asits strategy, cognition as its methods and means. Which is another presentation ofinterdisciplinary researches of interpreting, enriching the theory basis of interpretingstudies. As for the procedure system of interpreting activities, based on the RelevanceTheory and Adaptation Theory of Cognitive Pragmatics and the Deverbalization ofInterpretive Theory, this dissertation develops a “comprehensive model” focusing onthe interpreting skills studies——Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model. This model isboth descriptive and prescriptive, so it can be applied to the instruction forinterpreting teaching and practices.
In this model, the dissertation applies the Relevance Theory and AdaptationTheory of Pragmatics to illustrate and instruct the cross-language and cross-culturecommunication of interpreting. The Relevance Theory points out that the listeningcomprehension of interpreting actually is a kind of “ostensive-inferential” processbecause of the communicative attributes of interpreting from the perspective ofcognition. The cognitive contexts at interpreting setting provide tools and methods forinterpreter’s pragmatic inference, which is based on the relevance principle andoptimal relevance hypotheses. So it is vital for interpreters to get to know and analyzethe “present” and “absent” contexts and to stimulate and apply interpreters oneself“knowledge schemata”. Adaptation Theory, however, regards language use as aprocess of linguistic choices, which is reflected in four aspects: contextual correlatesadaptability, structural objects adaptability, dynamics adaptability, and salience ofadaptation processes. Verschueren regards context is the integration of communicativecontexts and language contexts, which is the focus of adaptation. The acknowledge and adaptation of the communicative contexts and language contexts at theinterpreting setting are the crucial strategies and means to achieve target-languageadaptation and interpreting end. In a nutshell, the application of both RelevanceTheory and Adaptation Theory in the processes of listening comprehension andtarget-language expression of interpreting is a perfect integration. Since the target oflistening comprehension and the end of target-language expression in interpreting arethe messages and its communicative intention of the source-language speakers, themeaning of Deverbalization hence becomes the aim which relevance listening seeksfor as well as the end served by target-language adaptation expressing. Therefore, allthe memory activities and its techniques and skills of interpreting should be based onthe only object of the meaning of Deverbalization, considering the features ofon-the-spot, instantaneousness and interactivity of interpreting.
Based on the above-mentioned macro overall speculation of interpreting studies,the dissertation then undertakes micro researches for the three successive phases of“listening”,“memory” and “expressing” of interpreting process. During the phase ofRelevance Listening of Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model, the dissertationcombines Schema Theory with Relevance Pragmatic Inference Theory to analyze thelistening comprehension, revealing that the dual-contexts concept of RelevanceTheory shows the direction and guideline for listening comprehension of interpreters,meanwhile the knowledge schemata within the mind of interpreters provide accessiblecontents for the listening comprehension of interpreters. At the same time, the authoralso proposes cognitive connection principle of the relevance listening comprehensionof interpreting, which connects all kinds of contexts with the relevant knowledgeschemata of interpreters by means of cognitive mechanisms, such as conceptcorrespondence, affection negotiation and meaning inheritance, so as to achievequality listening comprehension of interpreting. During the phase of DeverbalizationMemory of Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model, the dissertation explores further thehypothesis of “Deverbalization”, discusses memory mechanism, semanticorganization of interpreting memory, and the way “Deverbalization” takes shape ininterpreting memory; and then researches short-term memory capacity theory and memory unit in interpreting, fading curve of short-term memory and note-taking ininterpreting, finally proposing interpreting note-taking skills with respective cognitivemotivation. During the phase of Target-Language Adaptation Expression ofInterpreting Dynamic RDA Model, the dissertation, as far as how to express intarget-language is concerned, proposes dynamic adaptation strategy in target-languageexpression after discussing the relationship between Adaptation Theory andinterpreting studies. Under the dynamic choices of contexts and language structures,in order to achieve better interpreting effects, how can the interpreters adjust his or herawareness to adapt to target-language expression? To this end, the author exploresdynamic adaptation in target-language from the perspectives of target-languagecontexts dynamic adaptation, target-language receptors mentality dynamic adaptation,target-language culture dynamic adaptation. Among the above three aspects, thedissertation holds that dynamic adaptation is the theme, target-language contextsbeing the platform, target-language receptors mentality and target-language culturebeing the available resources for interpreters dynamically adjusting his or herawareness to adapt to target-language expression. Therefore, the language choiceswill surely better adapt to the contexts and language structures of the target-language,fulfilling successfully the cross-language and cross-culture communication ofinterpreting.
The attributes of description and prescription of Interpreting Dynamic RDAModel make it a descriptive cognitive model theoretically, and a prescriptive modelfor practices as well. Therefore, the dissertation comes to explore the practice andapplication of Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model. Based on the above-mentionedtheoretical discussions and by way of description of the interpreting education andtraining and its development in China, the dissertation formulates a cognitiveevolution model of interpreting skills, and concludes the following principles foreducation: principle of interdisciplinary theories; principle of practice and experience;principle of skill cognitive evolution. And then discusses the detailed practices andapplication in each phase of the interpreting process, so as to broaden the vision andhorizon for the interpreting education and training and its practice.
Since interpreting studies enter an interdisciplinary development era, we shouldemphasize the synthesis of interpreting studies strategies and methods, some scholarsproposed the application, objects and effects of quantitative method studies should bereevaluated properly in the interpreting studies, even appealed a quality method “turn”back to interpreting studies, so as to emphasize the significance of embodiment andsociality of interpreting studies upon the researches and teaching, proposing that thetheme of interpreting studies should return back to interpreting in itself. Thisdissertation of Interpreting Dynamic RDA Model: Theory and Its Application is justan attempt concerning the interpreting itself studies, with the hope that the broadmasses of scholars and experts, interpreting practitioners and teachers and students,and interested people from all walks of life will pay their attention to this area,making it grows vigorously to serve better for the increasingly frequent internationalcommunication promoting the harmonious relationship among the internationalcommunity.
引文
Atkinson R C&Shiffrin R M. In KW Spence&J&T Spence (Eds.). The sychologyof Learning and Motivation[C]. New York: Academic Press,1968
Anderson，R. B. W.(1976)Perspective on the Role of Interpreter[A]. In FranzP chhacker&Miriam Shlesinger (eds.).The Interpreting Studies Reader [C].Londen: Routledge,2002.
Anderson, J. R.1982. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review[C].89/4:369-406
Baddeley, A.D.&Hitch, G. Working memory [A]. The Psychologyof Learning andMotivation: Advances in Research and Theory [C]. Bower, G.H.(Ed.). NewYork: Academic Press,1974.
Baddeley, A.D. The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?[J].Trends in Cognitive Science.2000(4).
Carrel P. L.&J. C. Eisterhold. Schema: Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy [C]//M.H. Long&J. C. Richards. Methodology in TESOL: A Book of Read ing. Row ley,Mass: Newbury House Publishers,1987.
Chestennan, A. From ‘Is’to‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in TranslationStudies[J]. Target: International Journal of Translation studies1993,5(1):1-20.
Collins, A. M.,&Loftus, E. F. A Sp reading Activation Theory of SemanticProcessing [J]. Psycological Re2view.1975:82.
Collins, A.M.&Quillian, M.R. Retrieval time from semantic memory [J]. Journalof verbal learning and verbal behavior.1969(8).
Denhière, G.&Baudet, S. Lecture, compréhension de texte et science cognitive[M].Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,1992.
Diriker, E. De-/Re-contextualising Simultaneous Interpreting:Interpreters in the IvoryTower?[D]. PhD dissertation, Boazi iUniversity, Istanbul,2001.
Ericsson, K. A.&Kintsch, W. Long-term working memory [J].Psychological Review.1995:211-245.
Fabbro，Francop Grant' Laura Bassot G.&Bava，Antonio. Cerebral Literalizationin Simultaneous Interpretation [J].Brain and Language39，1990.
Fabbro. Franco&Gran，Laura. Neurological and Neuropsychological Aspects ofPolyglossia and Simultaneous Interpretation[A]. In Lambert，Sylvie&BarbaraMoser-Mercer (eds). Bridging the Gap Empirical Research in SimultaneousInterpretation [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia： John Banjamins PublishingCompany，1994.
Garzone, G.&Viezzi, M.(eds.). Interpreting in the21stCentury: Challenges andopportunities [C]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,2002.
Gerver, D. A Psychological Approach to Simultaneous Interpretation[J]. Meta.1975(2):119-128.
Gerver, D. The effects of source language presentationrate on the performance ofsimultaneous conference interpreters [A]. In P chhacker, F.&M. Shlesinger(eds.).The Interpreting Studies Readers [C]. London&NewYork: Routledge,1969/2002:53-66.
Gerver，David. Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation：A Review and AModel [A]. In Brislin，R.W.(ed). Translation：Applications and Research [C].New York：Gardner Press1976.
Gile, D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1995.
Gile, D. Being constructive about shared ground [J]. Target,2001(1):149-153.
Gile, D. Opening up in interpretation studies [A]. In Snell-Hornby, M., F. P chhackerand K. Kaindl (eds.). TranslationStudies: An Interdiscipline [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Banjamins Publishing Company,1994.
Gile，Daniel. Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem[A].InPochhacker，Franz&Miriam Shlesinger(eds).The Interpreting Studies Reader[C].London&New York：Routledge，2002.
Gile，Daniel. Regards sur la Recherche en Interpretation de Conference. Lille：PressesUniversitaires de Lille，1995a.
Glémet, R. Conference Interpreting [A]. In Smith A. H.(ed.).Aspects of TranslationStudies in Communication2[C].London: Secker and Warburg,1958:105-122.
Goldman-Eisler, F. Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation [A]. In F.
Graesser, A.C. Singer, M.&Trabasso, T. Constructing inferences during narrativetext comprehension [J]. Psychological Review.1994(3):371-395.
Haberland, H&J. Mey. Linguistics and Pragmatics [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1977,1(1):1-12
Holz Manttari,J.(1984) Translatorische Handeln: Theore und Methode,Helsinki:Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Humboldt, W.1836.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响.姚小平译[M].商务印书馆，1997.
Johns, R. Conference Interpreting Explained [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing,1998.
J.R.安德森(美).认知心理学[M].杨清，张述等译.吉林教育出版社，1989.
Kintsch, W.&van Dijk, T. Toward a model of text comprehension and production[J]. Psychological Review.1978:363-394.
Kintsch, W. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition [M].New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,1998.
Ladmiral, J.R., Le salto mortale de la déverbalisation [J].Meta.2005(2):473-487.
Lakoff,G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories reveal about theMind.[M]. University of Chicago Press,1987.
Lakoff,G.&M.Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.1980.
Lakoff,G.&M.Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh—The Embodied Mind and itsChallenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.1999.
Lamb, Sidney. Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. JohnBenjamins.1998
Langacker, R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.I: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press.1988.
Le Ny, J. F. Science cognitive et compréhension du langage [M].Paris: PressesUniversitaires de France,1989.
Lederer, M.&Seleskovitch, D. Pédagogie raisonnée de l,interprétation(2e édition)[M]. Brussels/Paris: Office desPublications des Communautés uropéennes/DidierErudition,2001.(English trans. A Systematic Approach to TeachingInterpretation, Washington: RID,1995).
Lederer, M., La pédagogie de la traduction simultanée [A].L, enseignement de l,interprétation et de la traduction,Cahiers de traductologie4[C]. Delisle, J.(Réd.). Ottawa:Editions de l, Université d, Ottawa,1981b.
Lederer, M., La traduction simultanée, expérience et théorie [M].Paris: MinardLettres Modernes,1981a.
Lederer，Marianne. La Traduction Aujourdh'hui—Le Modele Interpretatif [M].ParisHachette Livre，1994.
Lederer，Marianne. Translation：the Interpretive Approach [M].Translated by NinonLarch-e. Manchester：St. Jerome Publishing，2003.
Leech,G. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London:Longman,1983.
Leo Hickey. The Pragmatics of Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguages Education Press,2001.
Mey, J.L. Pragmatics: an introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press,2001.
Nida, E.A. Toward a Science of Translating [M]. Leiden: E.J. Brul,1964.
Nida, E.A. Language, Culture and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,1993.
Nida, E.A. Language and Culture--Contexts in Translating [M]. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press,2001.
Oléron, P.&H. Nanpon.(1965).Research into simultaneous translation [A].P chhacker, F.&M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C].London New York: Routledge,2002.
Peterson LR&Peterson MT. Short-term retention of individual verbal items[J].Journal of Experimental Psychology,1968.
P chhacker, F.&M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. LondonNew York: Routledge,1972/2002:69-76.
P chhacker, F. Introducing Interpreting Studies [M]. London and New York:Routledge,2004.
P chhacker, F. On the Science of Interpretation [J]. The Interpreters’ Newsletter.1993(5):52-59.
P chhacker, F. Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln[M]. Tübingen: GunterNarr,1994.
P chhacker, F. Why Interpreting Studies Matters [A]. In Gile, Daniel, Hansen, Gydeand Pokorn, Nike K (eds.). Why Translation Studies Matters [C]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2010:3-14.
P chhacker， Franz. The Role of Theory in Simultaneous Interpreting [A]. InDollerup，Cay&Anne，Loddegaard (eds). Teaching Translation and Interpreting：Training，Talent and Experience [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia：John BenjaminsPublishing Company，1992.
Phelan, May. The Interpreter’s Resource [J]. Multilingual Matters,Clevedon,2001,(7):24-30.
Richards,I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford University Press.1936.
Reiss, K.&H.J. Vermeer,1984, Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie,Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Roy, C. Interpreting as a Discourse Process [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
Price, S. Communication Studies [M]. London: Longman,1996.
Salevsky, H. The distinctive nature of interpreting studies [J].Target.1993(2):149-167.
Sapir, E.作为一门科学的语言学的地位.马毅等译[J].《福建外语》季刊1993年第3-4期合刊.
Seleskovitch, D.&Lederer, Interpreter pour Traduire[M]. Paris: Didier Erudition,1984.
Seleskovitch, D.&Lederer, M. Pédagogie Raisonnée de l, Interprétation(3e édition)[M]. Paris: Didier Erudition,2003.
Seleskovitch, D. Interpreting for International Conferences [M].Washington, DC:Pen and Booth,1978.
Seleskovitch, D. Langage, langues et mémoire [M]. Paris:Minard,1975.
Seleskovitch, D. Language and memory: A study of note taking in consecutiveinterpreting [A]. In F. P chhacker&M.Shlesinger (eds.). The InterpretingReaders [C]. London and New York: Routledge,1975/2002:121-129.
Seleskovitch， Danica. Interpreting for International Conference.Problems ofLanguage (trans).and Communication [M].Stephanie Dailey&Eric. NormanMcMillan Washington：Pen and Booth，1978a.
Seleskovitch，Danica. L'interprete dans les Conferences Internationales，Problernesde Langage et de Communication [M].Paris：Minard Lettres Modernes，1968.
Lederer, M.&Seleskovitch, D. Pédagogie raisonnée de l,interprétation(2e édition)[M]. Brussels/Paris: Office des Publications des CommunautésEuropéennes/Didier Erudition,2001.(English trans. A Systematic Approach toTeachingInterpretation, Washington: RID,1995).
Shlesinger, M. Shared ground in interpreting studies [J]. Target.2001(1):165-168.
Snell-Hornby, M (1988, revised1995) Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,PA: John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby,M. The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or ShiftingViewpoints [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,2006.
Sperber，D.&D. Wilson.1986，1995. Relevance：Communication and Cognition.[M].Oxford：Blackwell.
Taylor, John. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford University Press.2002
Toury,Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995.
Thomas, Alexander. Kultur und Sprachenvielfalt in Europa [M]. Mnster, New York:Waxmann,1991:192.
Verschueren, J. A Handbook of Pragmatics[M]. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsPublishing Co.,1995.
Verschueren, J. Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation [C]. A WorkingDocument1, Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association,1987.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teachingand Research Press,1999.
Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations [M]. The English Tex t of the ThirdEdition, G. E. M. Anscombe(tr.). N. J.: Prentice Hall Inc. Upper SaddleRiver,1958.
白雪洁，科技英语口译问题初探[J].青海大学学报(自然科学版)，2007(6).
鲍刚，口译理论概述[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司，2005.
鲍晓英，帮助学生实现口译“信”的标准——记忆心理学在口译教学中的应用[J].外语界，2005(3).
蔡小红，以跨学科的视野拓展口译研究[J].中国翻译，2001(2).
蔡小红，口译研究新探[M].香港：开益出版社，2002.
曹剑芬，语言的节奏，Report of Phonetic Research,2003:24-29.
陈宝国，双语语义表征的理论及其研究方法[J].民族教育研究,2001,(1).
陈春华，顺应论与关联论——两种语用观的比较[J].四川外国语学院学报，2003(2).
陈嘉映，语言哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2006.
陈科芳，基于语用推理机制的翻译过程框架[J].中国翻译，2010(3).
陈平文、邱元概，语言顺应理论及其对英语教学的启示[J].湖南科技学院学报，2006(2).
陈友勋，口译笔记的认知理据[J].重庆文理学院学报（社会科学版）,2008(5).
谌莉文、王文斌，论口译双重语境的认知构建:在场概念与不在场概念──以温总理在记者招待会上使用的古训口译为例[J].中国翻译，2010(6).
邓斯、平森，曹剑芬等译.言语链——说和听的科学[M].北京：中国社会科学院出版社，1986.
冯庆华，从文化交流的宏观角度研究翻译——《飘》的译本研究[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报)，1998(3).
冯庆华，实用翻译教程（第三版）[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2010.
冯之林，从认知角度剖析Gile的“认知负荷模型”[A].蔡小红，口译研究新探——新方法、新观念、新趋势[C].香港开益出版社，2002.
戈玲玲，顺应论对翻译研究的启示——兼论语用翻译标准[J].外语学刊，2002(3).
戈玲玲，文化语境顺应与翻译解码[J].西安外国语学院学报，2005(3).
耿智、刘英蘋，论动态顺应与翻译[J].上海翻译，2011(2).
龚龙生，顺应理论在口译中的应用研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文，2008
龚龙生，从释意理论看我国口译研究的发展[J].西安外事学院学报，2006(12).
桂诗春，新编心理语言学[M].上海外语教育出版社，2000.
黑玉琴，从关联理论看口译过程中的最佳意义选择[J].外语教学，2003(6).
何自然，认知语用学——言语交际的认知研究[M].上海外语教育出版社，2007
何自然、于国栋，《语用学的理解》——Verschueren的新作评介[J].现代外语，1999(10).
何自然、再永平，语用学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社，2002.
胡敏霞，同声传译的理解机制[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版)，2008(10).
蒋凤霞、吴湛，口译的跨学科理论概述[J].外国语文，2011(4).
勒代雷，释意学派口笔译理论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2002.
赖祎华，标记理论在企业广告英语中的应用[J].企业经济，2009(12).
赖祎华，文化全球化背景下中国国际话语权的提升[J].江西社会科学，2011(10).
赖祎华，口译研究的哲学思考[J].南昌大学学报（人文社会科学版），2012a(6).
赖祎华，多维协作视阈下的企业外宣翻译[J].企业经济，2012b(12).
勒代雷，释意学派口笔译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社，2002.
李冬雷.无缝听说——口译表达论，http://blog.sina.com.cn/m/lidonglei2007
李芳琴，论口译记忆策略[J].中国科技翻译，2004(11).
李占喜，关联与顺应：翻译过程研究[M].北京：科学出版社，2007.
李占喜、何自然，从关联域视角分析文化意象翻译中的文化亏损[J].外语与外语教学,2006(2).
林超伦.实战口译[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
林大津、毛浩然，不是同根生,聚合皆因缘——谈修辞学与语用学的区别与联系[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2006(9).
林茂孙，改进中译外工作，更好地向世界介绍中国[A].中译英技巧文集[C].《中国翻译》编辑部编，北京:中国对外翻译出版公司，1992:6-14.
林郁如等，新编英语口译教程（教师用书）[Z].上海外语教育出版社，1999.
刘和平，口译技巧—思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司，2001.
刘和平，法国释意理论：质疑与探讨[J].中国翻译，2006(4).
刘宓庆，口笔译理论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司，2006.
刘件福，从图式理论看背景知识在口译中的作用[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2003(6).
刘正光、吴志高，选择——顺应:评Verschueren《理解语用学》的理论基础[J].外语学刊,2000(10):39-43.
刘仲林，现代交叉科学[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,1998.
马霞，口译：选择、协商与顺应——顺应论的语境关系在口译中的应用[J].中国翻译，2006(5).
梅德明、谌莉文，口译活动的语言游戏参与规则[J].外语教学，2011(3).
莫莉莉，景观设计口译过程中文化特征的构建与维护[J].上海翻译，2011(8).
穆丹，语境与口译选词[J].外语教学，2000(3).
潘文国，语言对比的哲学基础——语言世界观问题的重新考察[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，1995(10).
任文，交替传译[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社，2010.
芮敏，关联理论与口译理解策略[J].四川外语学院学报，2000(7).
塞莱丝柯维奇、勒代雷著，口笔译概论[M].孙慧双译.北京语言学院出版社，1992.
沈家煊，句法的象似性问题[J].外语教学与研究，1993(1).
束定芳，试论Geoffrey Leech的语言观和人际交际修辞理论[J].外语研究,1990(4).
宋志平，翻译:选择与顺应——语用顺应论视角下的翻译研究[J].中国翻译，2004(3).
石毓智，语法的认知义基础[M].南昌:江西教育出版社，2000.
王建国，从语用顺应论的角度看翻译策略与方法[J].外语研究，2005(4).
王建华，关于语境的定义和性质[J].浙江社会科学2002(2).
王立弟，翻译中的知识图式[J].中国翻译，2001(2).
王燕，图式论与英语阅读教学[J].零陵学院学报，2004(7).
王寅，认知语言学的哲学基础:体验哲学[J].外语教学与研究，2002(3).
王寅，体验哲学:一种新的哲学理论[J].哲学动态，2003(7).
王寅，语言世界观多元论——八论语言的体验观[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版)，2007a(1).
王寅，认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社，2007b.
卫凌超，俄汉—汉俄口译研究[D].哈尔滨工业大学硕士论文，2008.
王治河，后现代哲学思潮研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社，2006.
文军、马步宁、姜治文，当代翻译理论著作评价[M].成都：四川人民出版社，2002
吴建、张韵菲，企业外宣英译:一个多层次重构的过程[J].上海翻译2011,(1).
吴玲娟，图式理论视角下的口译研究及口译教学[J].上海第二工业大学学报，2010(12).
吴增生，语言顺应论与二语习得研究[J].四川外语学院学报，2004(1).
肖晓燕，西方口译研究：历史与现状[J].外国语，2002(4).
谢少万，顺应理论与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学，2003(4)：25-27.
辛春晖，顺应理论在翻译中的应用[J].常熟理工学院学报，2007(11).
徐翰，本科英语专业技能化口译教学的实证研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文，2010
徐翰，口译信息解码与动态语境的关联性研究[J].江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2008(4).
徐然，“专注听力”——口译听力培训方法之我见[J].中国翻译，2010(3).
许明，口译认知过程中“deverbalization”的认知诠释[J].中国翻译，2010(3).
许明，西方口译认知研究概述[J].中国翻译，2008.(1):16-21.
杨春燕，我国任务型教学中的顺应理论[J].文教资料，2006(10).
杨柳，西方口译理论的兴起及其在中国的接受[J].中国翻译，2007(2).
杨梅、蒋婷，从认知角度看同声传译译员误译的原因[J].四川外语学院学报，2007(5).
杨先明、何明霞.图示理论与口译记忆能力训练[J].上海翻译，2007(3).
杨治良，记忆心理学[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1999.
杨自俭，英汉语言文化对比研究和翻译理论建设.英汉语比较研究（刘重德主编）[M].湖南科学技术出版社，1994
姚小平，洪堡特的语言研究道路[J].外国语(上海外国语学院学报)，1991(3).
查明建，论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译，2003(1).
张吉良，当代国际口译研究视域下的巴黎释意学派口译理论[D].上海外国语大学博士论文，2008.
张吉良.巴黎释意学派口译理论研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2010.
张克定，Verschueren的语用理论对语用句法研究的启示[J].外语教学，2002(9).
张蕾，静态与动态语境[J].山东外语教学，2004(2).
张威，口译认知研究:同声传译与工作记忆的关系[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社，2011.
张威，口译研究的跨学科探索：困惑与出路[J].中国翻译,2012(3).
张维为，英语同声传译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1999.
张文忠，第二语言口语流利性发展的理论模式[J].现代外语，1999(2).中国翻译,2010b(5).
仲伟合，口译训练：模式、内容、方法[J].中国翻译，2001(3).
仲伟合，翻译硕士专业学位教育点的建设[J].中国翻译，2007(7).
仲伟合，译员的知识结构与口译课程设置[J].中国翻译，2003(4).
仲伟合、王斌华，基础口译[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2010a.
仲伟合、王斌华，口译研究的“名”与“实”——口译研究的学科理论构建之一[J].中国翻译，2010b(5).
周青，英语演讲艺术与口译[J].中国科技翻译，2010(3).
朱莉华，认知语言学哲学视角阐释[J].求索，2011(12).
Anderson，R. B. W.(1976)Perspective on the Role of Interpreter[A]. In FranzP chhacker&Miriam Shlesinger (eds.).The Interpreting Studies Reader [C].Londen: Routledge,2002.
Anderson, J. R.1982. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review[C].89/4:369-406
Baddeley, A.D.&Hitch, G. Working memory [A]. The Psychologyof Learning andMotivation: Advances in Research and Theory [C]. Bower, G.H.(Ed.). NewYork: Academic Press,1974.
Baddeley, A.D. The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?[J].Trends in Cognitive Science.2000(4).
Carrel P. L.&J. C. Eisterhold. Schema: Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy [C]//M.H. Long&J. C. Richards. Methodology in TESOL: A Book of Read ing. Row ley,Mass: Newbury House Publishers,1987.
Chestennan, A. From ‘Is’to‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in TranslationStudies[J]. Target: International Journal of Translation studies1993,5(1):1-20.
Collins, A. M.,&Loftus, E. F. A Sp reading Activation Theory of SemanticProcessing [J]. Psycological Re2view.1975:82.
Collins, A.M.&Quillian, M.R. Retrieval time from semantic memory [J]. Journalof verbal learning and verbal behavior.1969(8).
Denhière, G.&Baudet, S. Lecture, compréhension de texte et science cognitive[M].Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,1992.
Diriker, E. De-/Re-contextualising Simultaneous Interpreting:Interpreters in the IvoryTower?[D]. PhD dissertation, Boazi iUniversity, Istanbul,2001.
Ericsson, K. A.&Kintsch, W. Long-term working memory [J].Psychological Review.1995:211-245.
Fabbro，Francop Grant' Laura Bassot G.&Bava，Antonio. Cerebral Literalizationin Simultaneous Interpretation [J].Brain and Language39，1990.
Fabbro. Franco&Gran，Laura. Neurological and Neuropsychological Aspects ofPolyglossia and Simultaneous Interpretation[A]. In Lambert，Sylvie&BarbaraMoser-Mercer (eds). Bridging the Gap Empirical Research in SimultaneousInterpretation [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia： John Banjamins PublishingCompany，1994.
Garzone, G.&Viezzi, M.(eds.). Interpreting in the21stCentury: Challenges andopportunities [C]. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,2002.
Gerver, D. A Psychological Approach to Simultaneous Interpretation[J]. Meta.1975(2):119-128.
Gerver, D. The effects of source language presentationrate on the performance ofsimultaneous conference interpreters [A]. In P chhacker, F.&M. Shlesinger(eds.).The Interpreting Studies Readers [C]. London&NewYork: Routledge,1969/2002:53-66.
Gerver，David. Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation：A Review and AModel [A]. In Brislin，R.W.(ed). Translation：Applications and Research [C].New York：Gardner Press1976.
Gile, D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,1995.
Gile, D. Being constructive about shared ground [J]. Target,2001(1):149-153.
Gile, D. Opening up in interpretation studies [A]. In Snell-Hornby, M., F. P chhackerand K. Kaindl (eds.). TranslationStudies: An Interdiscipline [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Banjamins Publishing Company,1994.
Gile，Daniel. Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem[A].InPochhacker，Franz&Miriam Shlesinger(eds).The Interpreting Studies Reader[C].London&New York：Routledge，2002.
Gile，Daniel. Regards sur la Recherche en Interpretation de Conference. Lille：PressesUniversitaires de Lille，1995a.
Glémet, R. Conference Interpreting [A]. In Smith A. H.(ed.).Aspects of TranslationStudies in Communication2[C].London: Secker and Warburg,1958:105-122.
Goldman-Eisler, F. Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation [A]. In F.
Graesser, A.C. Singer, M.&Trabasso, T. Constructing inferences during narrativetext comprehension [J]. Psychological Review.1994(3):371-395.
Haberland, H&J. Mey. Linguistics and Pragmatics [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1977,1(1):1-12
Holz Manttari,J.(1984) Translatorische Handeln: Theore und Methode,Helsinki:Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Humboldt, W.1836.论人类语言结构的差异及其对人类精神发展的影响.姚小平译[M].商务印书馆，1997.
Johns, R. Conference Interpreting Explained [M]. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing,1998.
J.R.安德森(美).认知心理学[M].杨清，张述等译.吉林教育出版社，1989.
Kintsch, W.&van Dijk, T. Toward a model of text comprehension and production[J]. Psychological Review.1978:363-394.
Kintsch, W. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition [M].New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,1998.
Ladmiral, J.R., Le salto mortale de la déverbalisation [J].Meta.2005(2):473-487.
Lakoff,G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories reveal about theMind.[M]. University of Chicago Press,1987.
Lakoff,G.&M.Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.1980.
Lakoff,G.&M.Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh—The Embodied Mind and itsChallenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.1999.
Lamb, Sidney. Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. JohnBenjamins.1998
Langacker, R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.I: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press.1988.
Le Ny, J. F. Science cognitive et compréhension du langage [M].Paris: PressesUniversitaires de France,1989.
Lederer, M.&Seleskovitch, D. Pédagogie raisonnée de l,interprétation(2e édition)[M]. Brussels/Paris: Office desPublications des Communautés uropéennes/DidierErudition,2001.(English trans. A Systematic Approach to TeachingInterpretation, Washington: RID,1995).
Lederer, M., La pédagogie de la traduction simultanée [A].L, enseignement de l,interprétation et de la traduction,Cahiers de traductologie4[C]. Delisle, J.(Réd.). Ottawa:Editions de l, Université d, Ottawa,1981b.
Lederer, M., La traduction simultanée, expérience et théorie [M].Paris: MinardLettres Modernes,1981a.
Lederer，Marianne. La Traduction Aujourdh'hui—Le Modele Interpretatif [M].ParisHachette Livre，1994.
Lederer，Marianne. Translation：the Interpretive Approach [M].Translated by NinonLarch-e. Manchester：St. Jerome Publishing，2003.
Leech,G. Principles of Pragmatics[M]. London:Longman,1983.
Leo Hickey. The Pragmatics of Translation[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguages Education Press,2001.
Mey, J.L. Pragmatics: an introduction [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press,2001.
Nida, E.A. Toward a Science of Translating [M]. Leiden: E.J. Brul,1964.
Nida, E.A. Language, Culture and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press,1993.
Nida, E.A. Language and Culture--Contexts in Translating [M]. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press,2001.
Oléron, P.&H. Nanpon.(1965).Research into simultaneous translation [A].P chhacker, F.&M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C].London New York: Routledge,2002.
Peterson LR&Peterson MT. Short-term retention of individual verbal items[J].Journal of Experimental Psychology,1968.
P chhacker, F.&M. Shlesinger (eds.). The Interpreting Studies Reader [C]. LondonNew York: Routledge,1972/2002:69-76.
P chhacker, F. Introducing Interpreting Studies [M]. London and New York:Routledge,2004.
P chhacker, F. On the Science of Interpretation [J]. The Interpreters’ Newsletter.1993(5):52-59.
P chhacker, F. Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln[M]. Tübingen: GunterNarr,1994.
P chhacker, F. Why Interpreting Studies Matters [A]. In Gile, Daniel, Hansen, Gydeand Pokorn, Nike K (eds.). Why Translation Studies Matters [C]. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,2010:3-14.
P chhacker， Franz. The Role of Theory in Simultaneous Interpreting [A]. InDollerup，Cay&Anne，Loddegaard (eds). Teaching Translation and Interpreting：Training，Talent and Experience [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia：John BenjaminsPublishing Company，1992.
Phelan, May. The Interpreter’s Resource [J]. Multilingual Matters,Clevedon,2001,(7):24-30.
Richards,I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford University Press.1936.
Reiss, K.&H.J. Vermeer,1984, Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie,Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Roy, C. Interpreting as a Discourse Process [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
Price, S. Communication Studies [M]. London: Longman,1996.
Salevsky, H. The distinctive nature of interpreting studies [J].Target.1993(2):149-167.
Sapir, E.作为一门科学的语言学的地位.马毅等译[J].《福建外语》季刊1993年第3-4期合刊.
Seleskovitch, D.&Lederer, Interpreter pour Traduire[M]. Paris: Didier Erudition,1984.
Seleskovitch, D.&Lederer, M. Pédagogie Raisonnée de l, Interprétation(3e édition)[M]. Paris: Didier Erudition,2003.
Seleskovitch, D. Interpreting for International Conferences [M].Washington, DC:Pen and Booth,1978.
Seleskovitch, D. Langage, langues et mémoire [M]. Paris:Minard,1975.
Seleskovitch, D. Language and memory: A study of note taking in consecutiveinterpreting [A]. In F. P chhacker&M.Shlesinger (eds.). The InterpretingReaders [C]. London and New York: Routledge,1975/2002:121-129.
Seleskovitch， Danica. Interpreting for International Conference.Problems ofLanguage (trans).and Communication [M].Stephanie Dailey&Eric. NormanMcMillan Washington：Pen and Booth，1978a.
Seleskovitch，Danica. L'interprete dans les Conferences Internationales，Problernesde Langage et de Communication [M].Paris：Minard Lettres Modernes，1968.
Lederer, M.&Seleskovitch, D. Pédagogie raisonnée de l,interprétation(2e édition)[M]. Brussels/Paris: Office des Publications des CommunautésEuropéennes/Didier Erudition,2001.(English trans. A Systematic Approach toTeachingInterpretation, Washington: RID,1995).
Shlesinger, M. Shared ground in interpreting studies [J]. Target.2001(1):165-168.
Snell-Hornby, M (1988, revised1995) Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,PA: John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby,M. The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or ShiftingViewpoints [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,2006.
Sperber，D.&D. Wilson.1986，1995. Relevance：Communication and Cognition.[M].Oxford：Blackwell.
Taylor, John. Cognitive Grammar[M]. Oxford University Press.2002
Toury,Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995.
Thomas, Alexander. Kultur und Sprachenvielfalt in Europa [M]. Mnster, New York:Waxmann,1991:192.
Verschueren, J. A Handbook of Pragmatics[M]. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsPublishing Co.,1995.
Verschueren, J. Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation [C]. A WorkingDocument1, Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association,1987.
Verschueren, J. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teachingand Research Press,1999.
Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations [M]. The English Tex t of the ThirdEdition, G. E. M. Anscombe(tr.). N. J.: Prentice Hall Inc. Upper SaddleRiver,1958.
白雪洁，科技英语口译问题初探[J].青海大学学报(自然科学版)，2007(6).
鲍刚，口译理论概述[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司，2005.
鲍晓英，帮助学生实现口译“信”的标准——记忆心理学在口译教学中的应用[J].外语界，2005(3).
蔡小红，以跨学科的视野拓展口译研究[J].中国翻译，2001(2).
蔡小红，口译研究新探[M].香港：开益出版社，2002.
曹剑芬，语言的节奏，Report of Phonetic Research,2003:24-29.
陈宝国，双语语义表征的理论及其研究方法[J].民族教育研究,2001,(1).
陈春华，顺应论与关联论——两种语用观的比较[J].四川外国语学院学报，2003(2).
陈嘉映，语言哲学[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2006.
陈科芳，基于语用推理机制的翻译过程框架[J].中国翻译，2010(3).
陈平文、邱元概，语言顺应理论及其对英语教学的启示[J].湖南科技学院学报，2006(2).
陈友勋，口译笔记的认知理据[J].重庆文理学院学报（社会科学版）,2008(5).
谌莉文、王文斌，论口译双重语境的认知构建:在场概念与不在场概念──以温总理在记者招待会上使用的古训口译为例[J].中国翻译，2010(6).
邓斯、平森，曹剑芬等译.言语链——说和听的科学[M].北京：中国社会科学院出版社，1986.
冯庆华，从文化交流的宏观角度研究翻译——《飘》的译本研究[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报)，1998(3).
冯庆华，实用翻译教程（第三版）[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2010.
冯之林，从认知角度剖析Gile的“认知负荷模型”[A].蔡小红，口译研究新探——新方法、新观念、新趋势[C].香港开益出版社，2002.
戈玲玲，顺应论对翻译研究的启示——兼论语用翻译标准[J].外语学刊，2002(3).
戈玲玲，文化语境顺应与翻译解码[J].西安外国语学院学报，2005(3).
耿智、刘英蘋，论动态顺应与翻译[J].上海翻译，2011(2).
龚龙生，顺应理论在口译中的应用研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文，2008
龚龙生，从释意理论看我国口译研究的发展[J].西安外事学院学报，2006(12).
桂诗春，新编心理语言学[M].上海外语教育出版社，2000.
黑玉琴，从关联理论看口译过程中的最佳意义选择[J].外语教学，2003(6).
何自然，认知语用学——言语交际的认知研究[M].上海外语教育出版社，2007
何自然、于国栋，《语用学的理解》——Verschueren的新作评介[J].现代外语，1999(10).
何自然、再永平，语用学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社，2002.
胡敏霞，同声传译的理解机制[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版)，2008(10).
蒋凤霞、吴湛，口译的跨学科理论概述[J].外国语文，2011(4).
勒代雷，释意学派口笔译理论[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2002.
赖祎华，标记理论在企业广告英语中的应用[J].企业经济，2009(12).
赖祎华，文化全球化背景下中国国际话语权的提升[J].江西社会科学，2011(10).
赖祎华，口译研究的哲学思考[J].南昌大学学报（人文社会科学版），2012a(6).
赖祎华，多维协作视阈下的企业外宣翻译[J].企业经济，2012b(12).
勒代雷，释意学派口笔译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社，2002.
李冬雷.无缝听说——口译表达论，http://blog.sina.com.cn/m/lidonglei2007
李芳琴，论口译记忆策略[J].中国科技翻译，2004(11).
李占喜，关联与顺应：翻译过程研究[M].北京：科学出版社，2007.
李占喜、何自然，从关联域视角分析文化意象翻译中的文化亏损[J].外语与外语教学,2006(2).
林超伦.实战口译[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
林大津、毛浩然，不是同根生,聚合皆因缘——谈修辞学与语用学的区别与联系[J].福建师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2006(9).
林茂孙，改进中译外工作，更好地向世界介绍中国[A].中译英技巧文集[C].《中国翻译》编辑部编，北京:中国对外翻译出版公司，1992:6-14.
林郁如等，新编英语口译教程（教师用书）[Z].上海外语教育出版社，1999.
刘和平，口译技巧—思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司，2001.
刘和平，法国释意理论：质疑与探讨[J].中国翻译，2006(4).
刘宓庆，口笔译理论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司，2006.
刘件福，从图式理论看背景知识在口译中的作用[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2003(6).
刘正光、吴志高，选择——顺应:评Verschueren《理解语用学》的理论基础[J].外语学刊,2000(10):39-43.
刘仲林，现代交叉科学[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,1998.
马霞，口译：选择、协商与顺应——顺应论的语境关系在口译中的应用[J].中国翻译，2006(5).
梅德明、谌莉文，口译活动的语言游戏参与规则[J].外语教学，2011(3).
莫莉莉，景观设计口译过程中文化特征的构建与维护[J].上海翻译，2011(8).
穆丹，语境与口译选词[J].外语教学，2000(3).
潘文国，语言对比的哲学基础——语言世界观问题的重新考察[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，1995(10).
任文，交替传译[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社，2010.
芮敏，关联理论与口译理解策略[J].四川外语学院学报，2000(7).
塞莱丝柯维奇、勒代雷著，口笔译概论[M].孙慧双译.北京语言学院出版社，1992.
沈家煊，句法的象似性问题[J].外语教学与研究，1993(1).
束定芳，试论Geoffrey Leech的语言观和人际交际修辞理论[J].外语研究,1990(4).
宋志平，翻译:选择与顺应——语用顺应论视角下的翻译研究[J].中国翻译，2004(3).
石毓智，语法的认知义基础[M].南昌:江西教育出版社，2000.
王建国，从语用顺应论的角度看翻译策略与方法[J].外语研究，2005(4).
王建华，关于语境的定义和性质[J].浙江社会科学2002(2).
王立弟，翻译中的知识图式[J].中国翻译，2001(2).
王燕，图式论与英语阅读教学[J].零陵学院学报，2004(7).
王寅，认知语言学的哲学基础:体验哲学[J].外语教学与研究，2002(3).
王寅，体验哲学:一种新的哲学理论[J].哲学动态，2003(7).
王寅，语言世界观多元论——八论语言的体验观[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版)，2007a(1).
王寅，认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社，2007b.
卫凌超，俄汉—汉俄口译研究[D].哈尔滨工业大学硕士论文，2008.
王治河，后现代哲学思潮研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社，2006.
文军、马步宁、姜治文，当代翻译理论著作评价[M].成都：四川人民出版社，2002
吴建、张韵菲，企业外宣英译:一个多层次重构的过程[J].上海翻译2011,(1).
吴玲娟，图式理论视角下的口译研究及口译教学[J].上海第二工业大学学报，2010(12).
吴增生，语言顺应论与二语习得研究[J].四川外语学院学报，2004(1).
肖晓燕，西方口译研究：历史与现状[J].外国语，2002(4).
谢少万，顺应理论与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学，2003(4)：25-27.
辛春晖，顺应理论在翻译中的应用[J].常熟理工学院学报，2007(11).
徐翰，本科英语专业技能化口译教学的实证研究[D].上海外国语大学博士论文，2010
徐翰，口译信息解码与动态语境的关联性研究[J].江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2008(4).
徐然，“专注听力”——口译听力培训方法之我见[J].中国翻译，2010(3).
许明，口译认知过程中“deverbalization”的认知诠释[J].中国翻译，2010(3).
许明，西方口译认知研究概述[J].中国翻译，2008.(1):16-21.
杨春燕，我国任务型教学中的顺应理论[J].文教资料，2006(10).
杨柳，西方口译理论的兴起及其在中国的接受[J].中国翻译，2007(2).
杨梅、蒋婷，从认知角度看同声传译译员误译的原因[J].四川外语学院学报，2007(5).
杨先明、何明霞.图示理论与口译记忆能力训练[J].上海翻译，2007(3).
杨治良，记忆心理学[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1999.
杨自俭，英汉语言文化对比研究和翻译理论建设.英汉语比较研究（刘重德主编）[M].湖南科学技术出版社，1994
姚小平，洪堡特的语言研究道路[J].外国语(上海外国语学院学报)，1991(3).
查明建，论译者主体性——从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起[J].中国翻译，2003(1).
张吉良，当代国际口译研究视域下的巴黎释意学派口译理论[D].上海外国语大学博士论文，2008.
张吉良.巴黎释意学派口译理论研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2010.
张克定，Verschueren的语用理论对语用句法研究的启示[J].外语教学，2002(9).
张蕾，静态与动态语境[J].山东外语教学，2004(2).
张威，口译认知研究:同声传译与工作记忆的关系[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社，2011.
张威，口译研究的跨学科探索：困惑与出路[J].中国翻译,2012(3).
张维为，英语同声传译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1999.
张文忠，第二语言口语流利性发展的理论模式[J].现代外语，1999(2).中国翻译,2010b(5).
仲伟合，口译训练：模式、内容、方法[J].中国翻译，2001(3).
仲伟合，翻译硕士专业学位教育点的建设[J].中国翻译，2007(7).
仲伟合，译员的知识结构与口译课程设置[J].中国翻译，2003(4).
仲伟合、王斌华，基础口译[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2010a.
仲伟合、王斌华，口译研究的“名”与“实”——口译研究的学科理论构建之一[J].中国翻译，2010b(5).
周青，英语演讲艺术与口译[J].中国科技翻译，2010(3).
朱莉华，认知语言学哲学视角阐释[J].求索，2011(12).
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |