本研究旨在以Corder（1974）的學說為基礎，探索適用於口譯研究的錯誤分析法，並以該法分析英譯中逐句口譯。
本研究設計一結合單字辨識、句子理解與句子口譯任務的實驗，以30位大學主修英文者為對象蒐集語料。所有原文句和譯文句均在抄錄後分解成命題。為規範錯誤的辨認與分類，本研究提供一參考譯文，並根據命題結構確立比對及對應中英文命題的原則。為解釋並評估錯誤，本研究從任務及表現兩方面分析錯誤類別、句長及句速之間的關連。本研究的主要發現如下：
1. 參考譯句、比對原則及對應原則，似乎有助於降低主觀，使辨認與分類的結果趨向一致，讓單語人也可擔任評定者。
2. 除了遺漏、替換以及扭曲原意的增加之外，涉及蘊含（entailment）及預設（presupposition）概念的語意錯誤，似乎也可做為錯誤類別。譯文句內最大的錯誤類別為扭曲原意的增加，原文句內最大的錯誤類別則是遺漏，顯示邊加邊漏似乎是逐句口譯的特性。此外，譯句的長度及速度似乎是可靠的品質及表現指標，尤其是譯句秒數。
3. 相較於理解度，辨識度與原文句譯出與否之間的關係似乎較為密切，且長度較能反映辨識與理解的難度，顯示原文句越長時：（a）參與者似乎越在已完成辨識但未充分理解的狀況下，以零星的意義單位建構譯文句，使扭曲原意的增加處比例上升；且（b）譯文句就越長，原意似乎也越可能因記憶的衰減及干擾而遭到遺漏。
4. 不論從譯文句或原文句觀之，錯誤的比例均過半，顯示整體品質欠佳。遺漏與扭曲原意的增加之間具共發性，屬較嚴重的出錯型態。

In line with steps suggested by Corder (1974a), this study aimed to develop procedures tailored to the analysis of interpretation errors, and conducted an Error Analysis of English to Chinese sentence-by-sentence interpretation.
An experiment consisting of word recognition, sentence comprehension and sentence interpretation tasks was carried out to collect target outputs from 30 bilingual college graduates with dominance in Mandarin Chinese. Both the source inputs and target outputs were transcribed and deconstructed into propositions. To facilitate the identification and classification of errors, reference interpretations and guidelines were established to govern the comparison and alignment of source and target propositions. To explain and evaluate errors, correlation analysis by task and by performance was applied to investigate the connections within and between error type, sentence length and sentence speed. The major findings of this study are listed as follows:
1. The reference interpretations, and comparison and alignment guidelines seemed to effectively limit subjectivity, ensuring more consistency in error recognition and classification, and allowing monolinguals to participate as raters.
2. In addition to omissions, substitutions and meaning-altering additions, entailing and presupposing propositions were also classified as errors. Meaning-altering additions were the largest error type of the target sentence, while omissions the largest of the source sentence. The speed and length, especially duration, of a target sentence seemed to be reliable indicators of quality and performance.
3. Compared with comprehension rate, recognition rate seemed to correlate better with how much a source sentence was correctly interpreted. Length was a more reliable difficulty indicator of recognition and comprehension than speed. This seemed to imply that the longer the source sentence, the more likely that: (a) it was recognized but only partially comprehended, thus its interpretation was characterized by meaning-altering additions composed of fragmented meaning units; and (b) its target sentence was lengthier, thus omissions occurred due to the decay and interference in memory
4. On average, more than 50% of a source and target sentence were errors, indicating a generally poor quality. Meaning-altering additions and omissions seemed to co-occur, thus were considered grave errors.

中文部分
丘羽先 (民95)。口譯原文材料難易度判定之初探：以英譯中逐步口譯實驗為例(未出版碩士論文)。天主教輔仁大學，新莊。
教育部 (民96)。教育部中英文翻譯能力檢定考試作業要點。
陳正昌 (民93)。行為及社會科學統計學：統計軟體應用 (三)。巨流圖書公司。
陳昭珍、趙子萱 (民99)。讀本分級及閱讀者程度評量 ─ Lexile架構簡介。圖書教師電子報，(3)。取自http://teacherlibrarian.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/index.php?id=31
詞庫小組 (民82)。中文詞知識庫小組技術報告( No. 93-05)(p.102)。南港：中央研究院。
劉月華、潘文娛。故韡、鄧守信 (繁體版總編輯) (民93)。實用現代漢語語法。(繁體四版)。師大書苑有限公司。
劉敏華 (民94)。從描述翻譯學到建構主義：口譯研究與教學的新思維.。國立編譯館館刊，33(4)，42–50。
鄭恆雄、張郇慧、程玉秀、顧英秀、許秀玲、黃莉琪、劉欣潔等人 (民91)。大考中心高中英文參考詞彙表編修研究計畫報告第二期 ( No. 研-90-012) (p. 203)。財團法人大學入學考試中心基金會。
賴則中 (民99)。從文本難度與特色看視譯之困難 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。臺灣台北。取自http://ir.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/handle/309250000Q/76382
魏文真 (民83)。國語的有字句。取自http://ir.lib.nthu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/27521
西文部分
Abadia-Barrero, C., Rowinsky, P., Hausmann, J., Battisti-Ashe, A., Peters, G., Flores, G., Laws, M. B., et al. (2003). Errors in medical interpretation: Our concerns for public health and a call for caution. Pediatrics, 111(6), 1495–1497.
Agrifoglio, M. (2004). Sight translation and interpreting: A comparative analysis of constraints and failures. Interpreting, 6(1), 43–67.
Al-Khanji, R., El-Shiyab, S., & Hussein, R. (2002). On the use of compensatory strategies in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 45(3), 548–557.
Al-Salman, S., & Al-Khanji, R. (2004). The native language factor in simultaneous interpretation in an Arabic/English context. Meta, 47(4), 607–626.
Altman, J. (1994). Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpreting: A pilot study. In J. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 25–38). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Angelelli, C. V. (2009). Using rubrics to assess translation ability. In C. V. Angelelli & H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice, American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series (pp. 13–47). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bajo, M. T., Padilla, F., & Padilla, P. (2000). Comprehension processes in simultaneous interpreting. In A. Chesterman, N. G. S. Salvador, & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Translation in context: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Granada, 1998, Benjamins Translation Library (Vol. 39, pp. 127–142). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bajo, M. T., Padilla, P., Munoz, R., Padilla, F., Gomez, C., Puerta, M. C., Gonzalvo, P., et al. (2001). Comprehension and memory processes in translation and interpreting. Quaderns. Revista de traducció, (6), 27–31.
Barik, H. C. (1971). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 16(4), 199–210.
Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech, 16(3), 237 –270.
Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech, 18(3), 272 –297.
Barik, H. C. (1994). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. In J. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 121–137). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2006). Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality. Interpreting, 8(2), 149–174.
Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2010). Effects of short intensive practice on interpreter trainees’ performance. In D. Gile, G. Hansen, & N. K. Pokorn (Eds.), Why translation studies matters, Benjamins Translation Library (pp. 183–194). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bovair, S., & Kieras, D. E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 315–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Brown, C., Snodgrass, T., Kemper, S. J., Herman, R., & Covington, M. A. (2008). Automatic measurement of propositional idea density from part-of-speech tagging. Behavior research methods, 40(2), 540–545.
Brown, R. W. (2001). Multi-choice versus descriptive examinations. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, 2001. on 31st Annual - Volume 01, FIE’01 (pp. T3A–13–18vol.1). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
Campbell, S., & Hale, S. (2003). Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of educational measurement. In G. M. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives (pp. 205–224). Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto/Sydney: Multilingual Matters.
Carey, P. (1971). Verbal retention after shadowing and after listening. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 9(1), 79–83.
Carroll, J. B. (1966). An experiment in evaluating the quality of translation. Mechanical Translation, 9(3-4), 55–66.
Chang, B., Danielsson, P., & Teubert, W. (2002). Extraction of translation unit from Chinese-English parallel corpora. Proceedings of the first SIGHAN workshop on Chinese language processing - Volume 18, SIGHAN’02 (pp. 1–5). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Chang, C. (2005). Directionality in Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting: Impact on performance and strategy use (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.
Chmiel, A. (2010). Interpreting Studies and psycholinguistics: A possible synergy effect. In D. Gile, G. Hansen, & N. K. Pokorn (Eds.), Why translation studies matters, Benjamins Translation Library (pp. 223–236). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161–170.
Corder, S. P. (1974a). Error analysis. In J. Allen & S. P. Corder (Eds.), Techniques in applied linguistics, The Edinburgh course in applied linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 122–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corder, S. P. (1974b). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 158–171). London: Longman.
Coughlin, D. (2003). Correlating automated and human assessments of machine translation quality. Proceedings of MT Summit IX (pp. 63–70). Presented at the MT Summit IX.
Cutler, A., & Clifton, C. E. (1999). Comprehending spoken language: A blueprint of the listener. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 123–166). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dam, H. V. (2001). The manipulation of data: Reflections on data descriptions based on a product-oriented PhD on interpreting. In D. Gile, H. V. Dam, F. Dubslaff, B. Martinsen, & A. Schjoldager (Eds.), Getting started in interpreting research: Methodological reflections, personal accounts and advice for beginners, Benjamins Translation Library (pp. 163–183). John Benjamins.
Davies, E. E. (1983). Error evaluation: The importance of viewpoint. ELT Journal, 37(4), 304–311.
Dillinger, M. L. (1989). Component processes of simultaneous interpreting. McGill University.
Dillinger, M. L. (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do Interpreters know that bilinguals don’t? In J. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 156–189). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173–210.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. The Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Endres-Niggemeyer, B. (1998). Summarizing information. Springer.
Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2005). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook (5 Student.). Psychology Press.
Fabbro, F., & Gran, L. (1997). Neurolinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile, & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research (pp. 9–27). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning, 34(1), 45–63.
Falbo, C. (2003). Error analysis: A research tool. In G. Garzone, P. Mead, & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Perspectives on interpreting (pp. 111–127). Foli: Clueb.
Farrow, J. (1996). Propositional analysis and macrorules in indexing. Library Review, 45(1), 6–15.
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex, drugs and rock’n’roll) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Flores, G., Laws, M. B., Mayo, S. J., Zuckerman, B., Abreu, M., Medina, L., & Hardt, E. J. (2003). Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters. Pediatrics, 111(1), 6–14.
Gany, F., Kapelusznik, L., Prakash, K., Gonzalez, J., Orta, L. Y., Tseng, C.-H., & Changrani, J. (2007). The impact of medical interpretation method on time and errors. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(Suppl 2), 319–323.
Gerver, D. (1969). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 53–66). London and New York: Routledge.
Gerver, D. (1974). Simultaneous listening and speaking and retention of prose. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(3), 337–341.
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 165–207). New York: Gardner Press.
Gile, D. (1994). Methodological aspects of interpretation and translation research. In J. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 39–56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1997). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1(2), 127–140.
Gumul, E. (2006). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting: A strategy or a by-product of language mediation? Across Languages and Cultures, 7(2), 171–190.
Hamers, J. F., Lemieux, S., & Lambert, S. (2002). Does early bilingual acquisition affect hemispheric preferences during simultaneous interpretation? Meta, 47(4), 586–595.
Hu, G. (2006). Adaptation in consecutive interpreting. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 14(1), 3–12.
Hughes, A., & Lascaratou, C. (1982). Competing criteria for error gravity. English Language Teaching Journal, 36(3), 175–82.
Hurford, J. R. (2003). The neural basis of predicate-argument structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(6), 261—283.
Ibáñez, A. J., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2010). Language access and language selection in professional translators. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 257–266.
Isham, W. P., & Lane, H. (1993). Simultaneous interpretation and the recall of source-language sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(3), 241–264.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Longman.
Jensen, P. (1985). SI: A note on error typologies and the possibility of gaining insight in mental processes. Meta, 30(1), 106–113.
Jordan, P. W., Dorr, B. J., & Benoit, J. W. (1993). A first-pass approach for evaluating machine translation systems. Machine Translation, (8), 48–58.
Kashioka, H. (2002). Translation unit concerning timing of simultaneous translation. Proceedings of LREC-2002: Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 142–146). Presented at the LREC-2002: Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Kashioka, H. (2005). Word alignment viewer for long sentences. Conference Proceedings: the tenth Machine Translation Summit (pp. 427–431). Presented at the MT Summit X, Phuket, Thailand.
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.
Kohn, K., & Kalina, S. (1996). The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta, 41(1), 118–138.
Korpal, P. (2012). Omission in simultaneous interpreting as a deliberate act. In A. Pym & D. Orrego-Carmona (Eds.), Translation Research Projects 4 (pp. 103–111). Tarragona, Spain: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Retrieved from http://isg.urv.es/publicity/isg/publications/trp_4_2012/isgbook4_web.pdf
Lambert, S. (1983). Recall and recognition among conference interpreters (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Stirling. Retrieved from https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/handle/1893/2531
Lambert, S. (1988). Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis. Meta, 33(3), 377–387.
Lambert, S. (1989). Simultaneous interpreters: One ear may be better than two. TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 2(1), 153–162.
Lambert, S. (1993). The effect of ear of information reception on the proficiency of simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, (5), 22–34.
Lambert, S. (1994). Forward. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation, Benjamins Translation Library (pp. 5–14). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lambert, S., Darò, V., & Fabbro, F. (1995). Focalized attention on input vs. output during simultaneous interpretation: Possibly a waste of effort! Meta, 40, 39–46.
Lederer, M. (2003). Translation: The interpretive model. (N. Larchae, Trans.). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.bookdepository.com/Translation-Marianne-Lederer/9781900650618
Lee, T. (2002). Ear voice span in English in Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta, XLVII(4), 598–606.
Lemieux, S., & Hamers, J. (1995). Hemispheric involvement and information processing in simultaneous interpretation. Brain and Cognition, 30(3), 354–357.
Lennon, P. (1991). Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 180–196.
Lin, P. F.-J. (1998). You sentences in Taiwan Mandarin (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Liu, M. (2001). Expertise in simultaneous interpreting: A working memory analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.
Liu, M., & Chiu, Y.-H. (2009). Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting: Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment. Interpreting, 11(2), 244–266.
Liu, M., Schallert, D. L., & Carroll, P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19–42.
Long, D. L., Baynes, K., & Prat, C. S. (2005). The propositional structure of discourse in the two cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language, 95(3), 383–394.
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2004). When translation makes the difference: Sentence processing in reading and translation. Psicologica: International Journal of Methodology and Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 181–205.
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99(1), 1–34.
Mackintosh, J. (1985). The Kintsch and Van Dijk model of discourse comprehension and production applied to the interpretation process. Meta, 30(1), 37–43.
Maier, R. M. (2009). Structural interference from the source language: A psycholinguistic investigation of syntactic processes in non-professional translation. Retrieved from http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/3406
Mason, I. (1990). The interpreter as listener: An observation of response in the oral mode of translating. In G. McGregor & R. S. White (Eds.), Reception and response: Hearer creativity and the analysis of spoken and written texts (pp. 145–159). Taylor & Francis.
Matsubara, S., Tagaki, A., Kawaguchi, N., & Inagaki, Y. (2002). Bilingual spoken monologue corpus for simultaneous machine interpretation research. Proceedings of LREC-2002: Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 153–159). Presented at the LREC-2002: Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluations, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, 27 May – 2 June 2002, s, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Mckenna, P. C., & Bull, J. (1999). Designing effective objective test questions: An introductory workshop. Proceedings of The Third Annual Computer-assisted Assessment Conference, Loughborough University, 253–257.
McQueen, J. M. (2007). Eight questions about spoken-word recognition. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 37–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://book.douban.com/subject/2843804/
Miller, G. A., & Beebe-Center, J. G. (1956). Some psychological methods for evaluating the quality of translations. Mechanical Translation, 3(3), 73–80.
Moser-Mercer, B., Lambert, S., Darò, V., & Williams, S. (1997). Skill components in simultaneous interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile, & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research (pp. 133–148). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nagao, M., Tsujii, J., & Nakamura, J. (1985). The Japanese government project for machine translation. Computer Linguistics, 11(2-3), 91–110.
Napier, J. (2003). A socialinguistic analysis of the occurrence and types of omissions produced by Australian sign language-English interpreters. In M. Metzger, S. Collins, V. Dively, & R. Shaw (Eds.), From topic boundaries to omission: New research on interpretation (pp. 99–153). Gallaudet University Press.
Napier, J. (2004). Interpreting omissions: A new perspective. Interpreting, 6(2), 117–142.
Ohara, M., Matsubara, S., & Inagaki, Y. (2003). Automatic extraction of translation patterns from bilingual legal corpus. 2003 International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, 2003. Proceedings (pp. 150– 157). Presented at the 2003 International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, 2003. Proceedings, IEEE.
Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1987). What’s wrong with three-option multiple choice items? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(2), 513–522.
Padilla, P., Bajo, M. T., & Padilla, F. (1999). Proposal for a cognitive theory of translation and interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, (9), 61–78.
Perera, K. (1980). The assessment of linguistic difficulty in reading material. Educational Review, 32(2), 151–161.
Pio, S. (2003). The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, (12), 69–100.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. Routledge.
Porter, P. (2006). Meaning. In R. W. Fasold & J. Connor-Linton (Eds.), An introduction to language and linguistics (pp. 137–168). Cambridge University Press.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience (pp. 279–288). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pym, A. (2003). Redefining translation competence in an electronic age. In defence of a minimalist approach. Meta, 48(4), 481–497.
Pym, A. (2008). On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. In D. Gile, G. Hansen, A. Chesterman, & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 83–105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1978). Priming in item recognition: Evidence for the propositional structure of sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 403–417.
Riccardi, A. (2002a). Interpreting research: Descriptive aspects and methodological proposals. In Giuliana Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities : Selected papers from the 1st Forlì Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November 2000, Benjamins Translation Library (Vol. 43, pp. 15–27). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Riccardi, A. (2002b). Evaluation in interpretation: Macrocriteria and microcriteria. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges, Benjamins Translation Library (Vol. 42, pp. 116–125). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Riccardi, A. (2003). The relevance of interpreting strategies for defining quality in interpreting. In Á. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez, & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación : investigación : actas del I congreso internacional sobre evaluación de la calidad en interpretación de conferencias, Almuñécar, 2001 (pp. 257–265). Comares: Granada. Retrieved from http://www.synergiescanada.org/journals/erudit/meta15/meta881/011016ar
Riccardi, A. (2005). On the evolution of interpreting strategies in simultaneous interpreting. Meta, 50(2), 753–767.
Rifkin, B., & Roberts, F. D. (1995). Error gravity: A critical review of research design. Language Learning, 45(3), 511–537.
Rinne, J. O., Tommola, J., Laine, M., Krause, B. J., Schmidt, D., Kaasinen, V., Teräs, M., et al. (2000). The translating brain: Cerebral activation patterns during simultaneous interpreting. Neuroscience Letters, 294(2), 85–88.
Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(2), 3–13.
Ruiz, C., Paredes, N., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2008). Activation of lexical and syntactic target language properties in translation. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 490–500.
Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Salem, I. (2004). Teacher differences in perception of student error. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 8, 48–65.
Salem, I. (2007). The lexico-grammatical continuum viewed through student error. ELT Journal, 61(3), 211–219.
Santos, T. (1987). Markedness theory and error evaluation: An experimental study. Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 207–18.
Schjoldager, A. (1994). Interpreting research and the “manipulation school” of translation studies. Hermes, 12, 65–89.
Schjoldager, A. (1995). An exploratory study of translational norms in simultaneous interpreting: Methodological reflections. Hermes, 14, 65–87.
Schjoldager, A. (2001). Reflective summary of a dissertation on simultaneous interpreting. In D. Gile, H. V. Dam, F. Dubslaff, B. Martinsen, & A. Schjoldager (Eds.), Getting started in interpreting research: Methodological reflections, personal accounts and advice for beginners, Benjamins Translation Library (pp. 221–232). John Benjamins.
Seeber, K. G., & Kerzel, D. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism.
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. John Benjamins.
Setton, R. (2002). A methodology for the analysis of interpretation corpora. In Giuliana Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities : Selected papers from the 1st Forlì Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November 2000, Benjamins Translation Library (Vol. 43, pp. 29–45). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sharpe, P. J. (2004). Pass Key to the TOEFL with Audio CD (5th ed.). Barron’s Educational Series Inc.
Shlesinger, M. (1998a). Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta, 43(4), 493, 486.
Shlesinger, M. (1998b). Interpreting as a cognitive process: What do we know about how it is done? In L. F. Fernández & E. O. Arjonilla (Eds.), II Estudios sobre Traducción e Interpretación (Vol. II, pp. 749–766). Universidad de Málaga, Grupo de Investigación de Lingüística Aplicada y Traducción, Departamento de Filología Griega, Estudios Arabes y Traducción e Interpretación, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Excma. Diputación Provincial de Málaga, Centro de Ediciones de la Diputación de Málaga.
Sidick, J. T., Barrett, G. V., & Doverspike, D. (1994). Three‐alternative multiple choice tests: An attractive option. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 829–835.
Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Cognitive psychology (3rd ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
Sunnari, M. (1995). Processing strategies in simultaneous interpreting: “Saying-it-all” vs. synthetic. Topics in interpreting research (pp. 109–119). University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting.
Sunnari, M. (2003). Expert and novice performance in simultaneous interpreting: Implications for quality assessment. In Á. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez, & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación : investigación : actas del I congreso internacional sobre evaluación de la calidad en interpretación de conferencias, Almuñécar, 2001 (pp. 235–247). Comares: Granada. Retrieved from http://www.synergiescanada.org/journals/erudit/meta15/meta881/011016ar
Taylor, A. K. (2005). Violating conventional wisdom in multiple choice test construction. College Student Journal, 39(1), 141.
Thierry, G., & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(30), 12530–12535.
Tommola, J. (2003). Estimating the transfer of semantic information in interpreting. In Á. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez, & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación : investigación : actas del I congreso internacional sobre evaluación de la calidad en interpretación de conferencias, Almuñécar, 2001 (pp. 125–146). Comares: Granada. Retrieved from http://www.synergiescanada.org/journals/erudit/meta15/meta881/011016ar
Tommola, J., & Helevä, M. (1998). Language direction and source text complexity: Effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny, & J. Pearson (Eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies (pp. 177–186). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Tommola, J., Laine, M., Sunnari, M., & Rinne, J. O. (2000). Images of shadowing and interpreting. Interpreting, 5(2), 147–169.
Tommola, J., & Lindholm, J. (1995). Experimental research on interpreting: Which dependent variable? Topics in interpreting research (pp. 121–133). University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting.
Torre, M. G. da. (2001). Acceptable (?) variations in the judgements of error gravity. Revista da Faculdade de Letras: Estudos, (1), 13–29.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Benjamins Translation Library. John Benjamins. Retrieved from http://www.tau.ac.il/~toury/works/dts.html
Turner, A., & Greene, E. (1978). The construction and use of a propositional text base (Technical Report No. 87-02). JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology (p. 53). Boulder, Colo.: Institute for the Study of Intellectual Behavior, University of Colorado.
Valdés, G. (2002). Understanding the special giftedness of young interpreters ( No. RM02158) (p. 221). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED478268
Vann, R. J., Meyer, D. E., & Lorenz, F. O. (1984). Error gravity: A study of faculty opinion of ESL errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 427–40.
Waddington, C. (2001a). Should translations be assessed holistically or through error analysis? Hermes, (26), 15–37.
Waddington, C. (2001b). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta, 46(2), 311–325.
Waddington, C. (2003). A positive approach to the assessment of translation errors. In R. Munoz (Ed.), I AIETI. Actas del I Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación. Granada 12-14 de Febrero de 2003. Granada: AIETI (Vol. 2, pp. 409–426). Presented at the I AIETI. Actas del I Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación, Granada: AIETI.
Waddington, C. (2006). Measuring the effect of errors on translation quality. Lebende Sprachen, 51(2), 67–71.
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. Longman.
Wang, H. (2006, August 12). Numbers as a quality variable in simultaneous interpreting: A case study of English into Chinese SI (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/handle/309250000Q/76341
White, J. (2001). Predicting intelligibility from fidelity in MT evaluation. Machine Translation Summit VIII Workshop on Machine Translation Evaluation, 35–37.
Williams, J. N. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(01), 71–88.
Williams, S. (1995). Research on bilingualism and its relevance for interpreting. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, (15), 143–154.