زبان پژوهی

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

اخبار و اعلانات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

اعضای هیات تحریریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پرسش‌های متداول

پیوندهای مفید

درباره نشریه

فرایند پذیرش مقاله

کارکنان اجرایی

محورهای موضوعی

راهنمای نویسندگان

تنظیم مقالات انگلیسی

تعارض منافع

تعهدنامه

راهنمای ثبت داوری در Publons

داوران نشریه در 1398

داوران نشریه در 1399

لیست داوران 1400

لیست داوران1401

لیست داوران1402

کاربردشناسیِ فرایند تصریح در ترجمۀ شفاهی همزمان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار، گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه اراک، اراک، ایران

چکیده

تصریح پدیده و راهبردی عام در گسترة غنی‌سازی معنایی و منظورشناختی در کاربرد زبان با نقش میانجی و ابهام‌زدایی در حوزه‌های بین‌فرهنگی ترجمه و یادگیری زبان است. لازمة این امر، تغییرات مختلف با رویکردی مخاطب‌محور برای افزایش خوانش‌پذیری متن مقصد، ابراز وفاداری به هدف گوینده/نویسنده، و فهم بهتر مخاطب از ترجمه است. تصریح پدیده، مشتمل بر اظهار اطلاعات تلویحی متن مبدأ در متن مقصد، آشکارکردن و بازتاب موارد حذف شدة متن اصلی در ترجمه، و نشان‌دادن شفاف‌تر و واضح‌تر روابط انسجامی در متن مقصد است. مترجم شفاهی همزمان در آن واحد دارای نقش‌های دوگانة مخاطب/گوینده بوده و درگیر فرایندهای رمزگشایی و رمزگذاری اطلاعات در این فرایند است. هدف این مقاله بررسی رویکردهای آفرینش گفتمان مترجم شفاهی همزمان ایرانی از طریق تجزیه و تحلیل راهبردهای ترجمة گفتمان‌نماها در فرایند ترجمة شفاهی همزمان برای کشف ابعاد تصریح در حوزة مدیریت گفتمان است. پیکرة پژوهش، شامل حدود 35000 واژة برگرفته از سه سخنرانی به زبان فارسی و ترجمة شفاهی همزمان آن‌ها به زبان انگلیسی است. برای اثبات اعتبار و پایایی علمی-پژوهشی این مطالعه از یک فهرست و الگوی گفتمان‌نما در حوزة گفتمان‌شناسی و دو ارزیاب بهره گرفته شد. مطالعة کنش‌های رفتاری مترجم شفاهی همزمان نشان داد که به میزان حدود ۸۰ درصد این مترجم شفاهی همزمان ایرانی از راهبرد گفتمانی تصریح بهره گرفته بودند. همچنین، تحلیل رفتارها و راهبردهای منظورشناختی این مترجم در چارچوب تصریح منجر به کشف یک الگوی مثلثی با رویکردها و راهبردهایی در ترجمة گفتمان‌نماها گردید که مشتمل اند بر افزایش، تغییر، و حذف گفتمان‌نماها. کاربردهای مختلف آموزشی، پژوهشی، و علمی نیز تجزیه و تحلیل شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Pragmatic Analysis of the Process of Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpretation

نویسنده [English]

  • Ali Mohammad Mohammadi

Assistant Professor, Arak University, Arak, Iran

چکیده [English]

Simultaneous decoding and encoding of information in source and target languages comprise the two major components of the simultaneous interpretation as an interactional process. The interpreter is simultaneously involved in decoding of information in the source language and encoding of information in the target language (Chesterman, 2016; Gile, 2018). Parallel corpora are derived from two languages, including source texts and their translations (Zuffery, 2017).
Explicitation, as a general tendency or one of the universals of translation, is a strategy in which the implicit information of the source text is made explicit in the process of translation (Blum-Kulka 1986; Dimitrova, 2005). The bases of explanations originates from comparative analysis of parallel texts in source and target languages. What is the rationale behind the studies in explicitation? It is maintained that explicitation is a universal property in translation, revealing its crucial role, significance, and status in translation. Findings obtained from empirical studies can consequently be supposed to be generalizable to other language-related studies.
Explicitations in translation are initiated by demands of the communicative conditions and situations. Moreover, due to the anticipated differences and variations appearing in culture and world knowledge, translators foresee some problems for the target language reader to comprehend the text. Therefore, they use explicitation as a strategy to solve those anticipated problems and facilitate the understanding of the target text for the reader (Chesterman 2016; Klaudy 1998).
The analysis and investigation of the system of decoding and encoding in process of simultaneous interpretation is generally carried out in the framework of metadiscourse and interpreter’s discursive activities. According to Hyland (2005), in metadiscourse and discursive practices, the investigator tries to study and analyze the processes of production and comprehension of discourse based on social context and social situations. The analysis of these metadiscourse and discursive practice revealed that all these activities involve modification and change on behalf of the speaker/writer and audience. According to Dass and Taboada (2017) and Egg (2010), the analysis of parallel corpora revealed that the themes and issues of modification, substitution, and manipulation generally are directed to coherence relations in discourse. As a result, investigators resorted to the integration of translation studies and discourse investigations (Crible et al, 2019). Consequently, such an integration would result in a new methodology in discourse studies and suggest new models for analysis.
The present paper tries to analyze the conditions, causes, and basis of different types of explicitation in the process of monitoring discourse based on analyzing translation of discourse markers (DMs) in simultaneous interpretation through translation spotting to design a model. In pragmatic investigations, researchers try to analyze the natural processing and use of language within the framework of social communicative settings (Yule, 2011). Discourse monitoring is among the basic issues in human communication and has crucial consequences in people’s social life. In the process of production, configuration, structuration, and comprehension of discourse, speaker/writer and audience apply discourse markers to create coherence in discourse based on grammatical elements, semantics, and pragmatics. DMs are the most frequent, creative, practical, and influential variables in the process of creation, analysis, and understanding of discourse (Fraser, 2006; Mohammadi, 2015). DMs are applied to improve and support the coherence of text, substantiate the activation of people's mind and language in the process of creation and interpretation of discourse, and prepare the ground for coherence and relevance in discourse. Achieving the above-mentioned objectives and aims depends on the precise, appropriate, professional, and creative application of DMs (Aijmer, 2002; Anderson, 2001; Schiffrine, 1987). There are different research positions and assumptions about the translation of DMs and Furku (2014) believes that the most straightforward translation strategy for discourse markers is omission. The present research tries to investigate translation strategies of DMs in simultaneous interpretation based on the following questions:

To what extent is explicitation applied in the process of translating DMs in simultaneous interpretation?
What are the different manifestations and strategies of explicitation in translating DMs in the process of discourse creation in simultaneous interpretation?

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Explicitation
  • Discourse Monitoring
  • Simultaneous Interpretation
مراجع
  1. خزایی‌فر، علی (۱۳۷۹). «تصریح و تلویح». مترجم. شمارة 33. صص ۴5-۵۲. Retrieved from <https://motarjemjournal.ir/2020/07/3123>
  2. سیّاحی، صادق، محمود آبدانان و شکیب انصاری (1395). «تصریح در ترجمة قرآن کریم». پژوهش‌های ترجمه در زبان و ادبیات عربی. دورة 6. شمارة 14. صص 43-63.    Retrieved from <https://qhts.modares.ac.ir/article-10-38766-fa.html>
  3. محمدی، علی محمد (1394). «درآمدی بر نظام مدیریت گفتمان: نظریه ها، مدل‌ها، راهبردها و پژوهش ­ها». پژوهش ­های زبان‌شناختی در زبان­های خارجی. دورة 5. شمارة 1. صص 61-86. https://doi.org/10.22059/JFLR.2015.62512
  4. محمدی، علی محمد و رحیم دهقان (1400). «تحلیلی بر نشانگرهای گفتمان در نقد ترجمه: معرفی الگوی مدیریت گفتمان نقد ترجمه در ایران». مطالعات ترجمه. شمارة 69. صص 8-20. Retrieved from <http://rd.araku.ac.ir/ViewResearch.aspx?ResearcherID=62478>
  5. محمدی، علی محمد و رحیم دهقان (1400). تحلیلی گفتمان‌شناختی بر طیف‌های نقشی گفتمان ‌نماها در نقد ترجمه: کاربردهای آموزشی و پژوهشی در مدیریت گفتمان . زبان‌پژوهی. دورة 13. شمارة 39. صص 91-116. https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2020.31052.1862
  6. نوارچی، عاطفه و لادن معتمدی (1398). «بررسی تصریح و تلویح در ترجمه گلستان». پژوهش‌های زبان و ترجمه فرانسه. دورة 2. شمارة 1. صص 45-66.  https://doi.org/10.22067/RLTF.V2I1.82516
  7. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Johan Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2004.10415924
  8. Anderson, G. (1998). The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In A. A. Jucker (Ed.), Discourse markers (pp. 147-171). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.09and
  9. Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E., Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233–250). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak
  10. Blum-Kuka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 17-35). Narr.
  11. Buysse, L. (2012). So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech, Journal of Pragmatics, 44)13(, 1764-1782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.012
  12. Chen, Z. & X. Dong, (2010). Simultaneous interpreting: Principles and training. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(5), 714-716. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.5.714-716
  13. Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.22
  14. Crible, L., Abuczki, A., Burksaitiene, N., Furko, P., & Nedoluzhko, A. (2019). Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(142), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.012
  15. Crible, L. & Degand, L. (2019). Domains and functions: A two-dimensional account of discourse markers. Discourse, 4(5), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.9997.
  16. Das, D. & A. Taboada. (2017). Signalling coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 743-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.
  17. Dimitrova, B. (2005). Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v20i38.25915
  18. Dimitrova, B. )1993(. Semantic change in translation – A cognitive perspective. In Y.  Gambier, & Tommola, J. (Eds.), Translation and knowledge (pp. 285–296). Centre for Translation and Interpreting, University of Turku. https://www.academia.edu/825291/1993_Semantic_change_in_translation_a_cognitive_perspective
  19. Dupont, M., & Zufferey, S. (2016). Methodological issues in the use of directional parallel corpora: A case study of English and French concessive connectives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 270-297. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.05dup
  20. Egg, M., & Redeker, G. (2008). Underspecified discourse representation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication
  21. Egg, M. (2010). Semantic Underspecification. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(3), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00188
  22. Frank-Job, B. (2006). A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, (pp. 359-375). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_020
  23. Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.),  Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 240-256). Elsevier. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284404305_Towards_a_theory_of_discourse_markers
  24. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(4), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1603&4_3
  25. Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104
  26. Furko, P. (2007). The pragmatic marker - discourse marker dichotomy reconsidered - the case of ‘well’ and ‘of course’. Debrecen University Press. http://hdl.handle.net/2437/79810
  27. Furko, P. (2014). Perspectives on the Translation of Discourse Markers. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 6(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1515/ausp-2015-0013
  28. Gile, D. (2018). Simultaneous interpreting. In C. Sinwai (Ed.), An Encyclopedia of Practical Translation and Interpreting (pp. 531-561). The Chinese University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328028446_2018_Simultaneous_interpreting
  29. Gumul, E. (2006). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting. Across Languages and Cultures, 7(2), 171–190. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/
  30. Hellermann, J., & Vergun, H. (2007). Language which is not Taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(2), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008
  31. Hoek, J. & Zufferey, S. (2015, April). Factors influencing the implicitation of discourse relations across languages. In Proceedings of the 11th joint ACL-ISO workshop on interoperable semantic annotation (ISA-11). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269105580
  32. Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2017). Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 113-131. https://www.sciencedirect.com
  33. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  34. Khazaeefar, A. (2000) Explicitation and implicitation. Motarjem, 33, 45-52. https://motarjemjournal.ir/2020/07/3123 [In Persian]
  35. Klaudy, k. (2005). Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 6(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2
  36. Krogsgaard, A. (2017). Explicitation in Legal Translation. Journal of Specialized Translation, 27(5), 35-47. https://www.phoenix3.ir/admin/News/file/36.pdf
  37. Mohammadi, A. M. & Dehghan, R. (2020). An analysis of discourse markers in translation criticism: Introducing a discourse monitoring model in the iranian context. Translation Studies Quarterly, 18(69), 7–24. https://journal.translationstudies.ir/ts/article/view/7 [In Persian]
  38. Mohammadi, A. M. (2015). An introduction to discourse monitoring system: Theories, strategies, models, and researchers. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 5(1), 61-86. https://doi.org/10.22059/JFLR.2015.62512 [In Persian]
  39. Mohammadi, A. M. (2021). An analysis of the underspecifications of “AND” in parallel corpora: A case study in simultaneous translation in iranian context. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 11 (1), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.22059/JFLR.2021.321993.828 [In Persian]
  40. Navarchi, A. & Motamedi, L. (2019). A study of explicitation and implicitation in translation of Golestan. Researches in French Language, 2(1), 45-66. https://rltf.um.ac.ir/article_24521.html [In Persian]
  41. Overas, L. (1998). In Search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta, 43(4), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.7202/003775arCopiedAne
  42. Puurtinen, T. (2004). Explicitation of clausal relations: A corpus-based analysis of clause connectives in translated and non-translated finnish children’s literature. In A. Mauranen, & P., Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp. 165-176). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.13puu
  43. Pym, A. (2005). Explaining explicitation. Akadémiai Kiadó. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265620725_Explaining_Explicitation
  44. Redeker, G. (1999). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of
    Pragmatics, 14    , 367 - 381. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90095-U
  45. Sayyahi, S., Abdanan, M., & S. Ansari, (2016). Explicitation in translation of the holy Quran, Researches in Translation in Arabic Language and Literature, 6(14), 43-63. http://ttais.akhs.bou.ac.ir/article_73682_b8f99f14828e1f5f5e [In Persian]
  46. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841
  47. Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and. In K. Fischer (Ed.). Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 315-339). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_018
  48. Séguinot, C. (1988). Pragmatics and the explicitation hypothesis. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 1(2): 106-114. https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ttr/1988-v1-n2-ttr1469/037024ar/
  49. Seliger, H. & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research. Oxford University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2177234
  50. Shariati, M. & Fathi Moghaddam, F. (2017). Using illocutionary force types in translation. Review of Applied Linguistic research, 3(3), 59-71. https://civilica.com/doc/868581
  51. Shlesinger, M. (2000). Interpreting as a cognitive process: How can we know what really happens? In S. Tirkonen-Condit, & A. Jaaskelainen (Eds.), Text understanding (pp. 3-17). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.37.03shl
  52. Sipayung, K. (2017). Explicitation and implicitation of conjunctive relations in target text. Indonasian Journal of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v2i1.66
  53. Spooren, W. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24, 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545010
  54. Steele, D. (2015). Improving the translation of discourse markers for Chinese into English [Workshop presentation]. NAACL-HLT Student Research Workshop, Venis, Italy.
  55. Yazdani, M. (2017). Explicitation in translation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 75-80. https://www.academypublication
  56. Yule, G. (2011). The study of language. Cambridge. https://assets.cambridge.org/97810092/33415/frontmatter/9781009233415_frontmatter.pdf
  57. Zufferey, S. & Gygax, M. (2015). The Role of Perspective Shifts for Processing and Translating Discourse Relations. Discourse Processes, 4(7), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839
  58.  Zufferey, S. (2017). Discourse connectives across languages: factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation. Languages in Contrast, 16(2), 264-279. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308275259
زبان پژوهی
دوره 16، شماره 51 - شماره پیاپی 51
مرداد 1403
صفحه 167-195
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار