A Study of the Relationship between Discoursal Elements in Parallel Corpora: A Case Study of Simultaneous Interpretation

Document Type : Research

Author

Assistant professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Languages, Arak University, Arak, Iran

Abstract

Simultaneous interpretation is a complex interactional process involving the simultaneous decoding and encoding of information in both source and target languages. Discourse relations play a crucial role in establishing and maintaining coherence within units of discourse, encompassing semantic and pragmatic links. Coherence can be achieved through various frameworks such as elaboration, contrast, inference, and temporal sequence, often facilitated by the use of discourse markers. However, despite the importance of studying discourse relations in simultaneous interpretation, there is a lack of research in this area, particularly in Iranian scientific and educational environments. This study aims to address this gap by analyzing the discourse relations in parallel corpora during the process of simultaneous interpretation, focusing on linguistic and metalinguistic elements and drawing on Coherence Theory and a discourse marker inventory.

Keywords

References

  1. Aijmir, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus . Amsterdam: Johan Benjamin
  2. Alsharifi, M. (2017). The frequently used discourse markers by Saudi EFL learners. Arab
    World English Journal, 8     (2), 384–397
  3. Baker, M. (2014). In Other Words. USA: Routledge.
  4. Baker, M. (1993). Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In Baker, M. & Francis, G.  Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.) Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, (pp. 233–250) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  5. Cartoni, L & Zuferry, S. (2013). Annotating the Meaning of Discourse Connectives by Looking at their Translation: The Translation Spotting, Dialogue and Discourse, 4(8), 65-86.  
  6. Chen, Z. & X. Dong, (2010). Simultaneous Interpreting: Principles and Training, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(5), 714-716.
  7. Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
  8. Crible, L. & A. Abuczki, N. Burksaitiene, P. Furko, A. Nedoluzhko. (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.     
  9. Crible, L. & Degand, L. (2017). Reliability vs granuality in discourse annotation, Corpus Linguistics, 1, 1-29.
  10. Dagand, L. (2009). On Identifying Basic Discourse Units in Speech, Discours, 4(3), 23-38.
  11. Das, D. & A. Taboada. (2017). Signalling coherence relations in discourse, beyond discourse markers. Retrieved from <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1379327.>
  12. Dimitrova, B. )1993(. Semantic Change in Translation – A Cognitive Perspective. In Gambier, Y. & Tommola, J. (eds.) Translation and Knowledge. (pp. 285–296) Turku: Centre for Translation and Interpreting, University of Turku.
  13. Faghih Malek Marzban, N. (2008). The Functions of Conjunctions, Olum Ensani Alzahra, 17(68-69), 145-168
  14. Frank-Job, B. (2006). A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer, Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 359-375). Oxford: Elsevier.
  15. Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 240-256). Oxford: Elsevier.
  16. Furko, P. (2014). Perspectives on the Translation of Discourse Markers. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 6(2), 181–196.
  17. Furkó, P. (2007). The pragmatic marker - discourse marker dichotomy reconsidered - the case of ‘well’ and ‘of course’. Debrecen: Debrecen University Press.
  18. Gile, D. (2005). Directionality in conference interpreting: a cognitive view, Retrieved from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260120149.>
  19. Gile, D. (2018). Simultaneous interpreting, in C. Sinwai (ed). An Encyclopedia of Practical Translation and Interpreting (pp. 531-561), Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press
  20. Glanzberg, M. (2018). The Coherence Theory. Retrieved from <https://www.oxfordhandbooks.>
  21. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
  22. Gumul, E. (2006). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting, Across Languages and Cultures, 7(2), 171–190.
  23. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
  24. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
  25. Klaudy, k. (2005). Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation, Across Languages and Cultures, 6(1), 13–28.
  26. Mohammadi, A. M. (2020). A pragmatic analysis of co-occurrence of discourse markers in texts: pragmaticalization of functions, Zabanpazhuhi, 14 (43), 119-144. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2020.32471.1902 [In Persian].
  27. 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 [In Persian].
  28. Mousavi Razavi, M. S. (2016). Memory-Enhancement Techniques in Interpreter Training. Translation Studies Quarterly, 14(54), 35-49.
  29. Overas, L. (1998). In Search of the third code. an investigation of norms in literary translation, Meta, 43(4), 571–590.
  30. Petukhova, V. & Bunt, H. (2011). Multi-level discourse relations between Dialogue Units. Retrieved from <https://www.researchgate.net.>
  31. Puurtinen, T. 2004. Explicitation of Clausal Relations: A Corpus-based Analysis of Clause Connectives in Translated and Non-translated Finnish Children’s Literature. In Mauranen, A. & Kujamäki, P. (eds.) Translation Universals. Do they Exist? (pp. 165-176). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  32. Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of
    Pragmatics, 14    , 367 - 381.
  33. Riccardi, A. (2005). On the Evolution of Interpreting Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting. Meta 50(2), 753–767.
  34. Sahhaf, A., Khoshsaligheh, M., & Ghazizadeh, K. (2015). Iranian Novice Interpreters’ Strategies in Translating Political Speech. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(50), 34-51.
  35. Salimi, E. A., & Nosrati, S. (2015). The Role of Multimedia Corpora in Improving EFL Learners’ Interpreting. Translation Studies Quarterly, 13(51), 25-44.
  36. Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and. In K. Fischer, Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 315-339). Amstersam: Elsevier.
  37. Seifi, A., & Mahmoodzadeh, K. (2010). The Role of Cooperative Principles in Achieving Translation Equivalence. Translation Studies Quarterly, 7(28), 45-59.
  38. Shafiei, S., Tavakoli, M., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2017). Delving into Note-Taking Technique in Consecutive Interpreting: Academic Context in Focus. Translation Studies Quarterly, 14(56), 26-42.
  39. Shlesinger, M. (2000). Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How can we know what really happens? In S. Tirkonen-Condit, & A. Jaaskelainen (3-17) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  40. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. & Jaaskelainen, M. (2000). Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  41. Tranvac, R. & Das, T. Taboada, S. (2015). Discourse Relations and Evaluation, Corpora, 3(2), 35-49.
  42. Ying, S. (2007). An analysis of discourse markers used by non-native English learners: Its implications for teaching English as a foreign language. Retrieved from <http://www.kuis.ac.jp/icci.>
  43. Zhao, H. (2014). The textual function of discourse markers under the framework of relevance theory, Practices in Language Studies, 4(10), 2105-2113.
  44. Zufferey, S. (2017). Discourse connectives across languages: factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation, Languages in Contrast, 16(2), 264-279.
  45. وب‌گاه‌ها www.Khamenei.ir

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics