A Pragmatic Analysis of the Process of Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpretation

Document Type : Research

Author

Assistant Professor, Arak University, Arak, Iran

Abstract

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?

Keywords

References

  1. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Johan Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2004.10415924
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.22
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Dimitrova, B. (2005). Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v20i38.25915
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Egg, M., & Redeker, G. (2008). Underspecified discourse representation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication
  15. Egg, M. (2010). Semantic Underspecification. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(3), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00188
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Gumul, E. (2006). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting. Across Languages and Cultures, 7(2), 171–190. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  28. Khazaeefar, A. (2000) Explicitation and implicitation. Motarjem, 33, 45-52. https://motarjemjournal.ir/2020/07/3123 [In Persian]
  29. 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
  30. Krogsgaard, A. (2017). Explicitation in Legal Translation. Journal of Specialized Translation, 27(5), 35-47. https://www.phoenix3.ir/admin/News/file/36.pdf
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Pym, A. (2005). Explaining explicitation. Akadémiai Kiadó. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265620725_Explaining_Explicitation
  38. 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
  39. 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]
  40. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841
  41. 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
  42. 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/
  43. Seliger, H. & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research. Oxford University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2177234
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. Spooren, W. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24, 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545010
  48. Steele, D. (2015). Improving the translation of discourse markers for Chinese into English [Workshop presentation]. NAACL-HLT Student Research Workshop, Venis, Italy.
  49. Yazdani, M. (2017). Explicitation in translation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 75-80. https://www.academypublication
  50. Yule, G. (2011). The study of language. Cambridge. https://assets.cambridge.org/97810092/33415/frontmatter/9781009233415_frontmatter.pdf
  51. 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
  52.  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

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics