Review published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 13:2 (2011) ► pp.251257
References (8)
References
Cronin, Michael. (2002). The Empire talks back: Orality, heteronomy and the cultural turn in interpreting studies. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 386–397.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, Ezequiel. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciencies 51, 429–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diriker, Ebru. (2004). De-/Re-contextualizing conference interpreting: Interpreters in the ivory tower? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Guba, Egon G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maturana, Humberto. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 91, 5–34.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. (2009). Conference interpreting: Surveying the profession. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Profession, identity and status: Translators and interpreters as an occupational group. Special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 4 (2), 172–186.Google Scholar
Poerksen, Bernhard. (2004). The certainty of uncertainty: Dialogues introducing constructivism. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Vohs, Kathleen D. & Baumeister, Roy F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation: An introduction. In R. F. Baumeister & Kathleen D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press, 1–10.Google Scholar