Cognitive-Pragmatic Aspects of Translation and Interpretation within Discourses

• Authors: Uljana Cholodová
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The aim of this investigation is a comparative description of translation and interpretation in terms of modern communication technology, translation, and discourse studies. Each type of translation work, either oral or written, has its own specific requirements for the translator and the final result of his work - translation. A description of both types of translation cannot suffice without taking into account pragmatics, psycholinguistics, and the pragmatic scope of each text. A more important final result is the right linguistic expression in compliance with the grammatical, semantic, and stylistic rules of the target language. Special attention should be paid to extralinguistic factors - certain communicative situations that create special conditions for interpreting, including the place, time, recipients, and environment (interfering noise). The article describes different types of interpreting and draws the reader’s attention to the controversial question of the interpreter’s natural ability and the possibility of achieving excellence in interpreting through the intensive practising of skills simultaneously with a profound knowledge of certain languages and the translator or interpreter’s general educational development. Translation usually gives the translator more time for focusing and considering the choice of the necessary lexico-grammatical and stylistic elements for a certain text. Interpretation requires an immediate reaction from the interpreter, who is in a constant state of stress and works under pressure. The translator of a written text is not only the person who renders the original text, but he is also the creator of a new written version of the text that can be read and, discussed, with its own mistakes in it. Interpreting is much more neutral and invisible to the addressee; the main thing here is the pragmatic transfer of the original information. For the research the first-hand experience of teaching students in a class of translating and interpreting, with the presentation of examples in Czech and Ukrainian, is used. The author comes to the conclusion that common features of interpretation and translation include the need for high language competence and the translator’s general erudition (excellent language skills, knowledge of features of the cultural background, a functional approach to linguistic means, and a developed aesthetic and cultural perception). But, considering that the requirements for performers of translation and interpretation are different, even in the scientific literature the assertion whether the professional specialist exists at all and can be a true professional in both translating and interpreting remains debatable.

Keywords

EN

translation or interpretation process; communication theory; pragmatics; cognitive aspect; translation or interpretation quality

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: International Journal on Language, Literature and Culture in Education
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 3
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 100-117

Dates

published

2016-06-01

online

2016-07-06

Contributors

author

Uljana Cholodová

• Palacký University, Czech Republic

References

• Anderš J. (2002). Ukrajinština vážně a vesele. Olomouc.
• Bahudarov L. (1975). Yazyik i perevod. Mezhdunarodnyie otnosheniya. Moskva.
• Bondarko A. (1983). Printsipyi funktsionalnoy grammatiki i voprosyi aspektologi. Leningrad.
• Catford J. C. (2004). Lingvisticheskaya teoriya perevoda: Ob odnom aspekte prikladnoy lingvistiki. Moskva.
• Chernov G.V. (1978). Teoriya i praktika sinhronnogo perevoda. Moskva.
• Čeňková I. (2001). Nové možnosti pro tlumočníky v oblasti „community interpreting“ v 21. století. In: Lingua et communicatio in sphaera mercaturae. Bohemica, Britannica, Germanica, Rossica Ostraviensia. Ostrava. 13-17pp.
• Čeňková I. (1988). Teoretické aspekty simultánního tlumočení. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.
• Čeňková I. (2001). Teorie a didaktika tlumočení I. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.
• Čeňková I. (2008). Úvod do teorie tlumočení. Česká komora tlumočníků znakového jazyka.
• Gilles A. (2004). Conference interpreting. Tɬumaczenie ustne. Jązyk i komunikacja 7. Kraków.
• Harviľaková L. (2008). Sprievodcovské tlumočenie. Hrdinova E. M., Vilímek V. a kolektiv. Úvod do teorie, praxe a didaktiky tlumočení. Ostrava, 60-77.
• Hendrickx P. (1972). Simultaneous interpreting - the practice handbook. London.
• Hrdinová E. (2008). Konsekutivní tlumočení. Hrdinova E. M., Vilímek V. a kolektiv. Úvod do teorie, praxe a didaktiky tlumočení. Ostrava.
• Hrdlička M. (2003). O ekvivalenci a adekvátnosti ve sféře uměleckého překladu. Hrdlička, M. Literární překlad. Praha: 19-31.
• Janukovičová M. (1997). Tlumočenie z listu jako špecefický druh tlumočenia. In: Lepillová K., ed. Rossica Ostravinesia 97, Ostrava. Ostravská univerzita, 189-192.
• Jones R. (2002). Conference interpreting explained. Translation practices explained, 6, 2 nd edition. Manchester.
• Karavanskyi S. (2000). Do pytannia pro neperekladnist. Ukrainska mova i literatura. № 2(162), 6-10.
• Komissarov V. N. (2002). Sovremennoe perevodovedenie. Moskva.
• Kundrat Yu. (2009). Pereklad realii, abo materialnoi i movnoi spetsyfiky. Duklia. № 1, Preshov, 68-71.
• Keníž A. (1980). Úvod do komunikačnej teorie tlumočenia. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského.
• Kholod U.A. (2014). Usnyi i pysmovyi pereklad u svitli teorii komunikatsii. Aktualni pytannia perekladu: mizhmovnyi ta mizhkulturnyi vymir. Olomouc, pp. 199 - 217.
• Makarová V. (2004). Tlumočenie. Hraničná oblasť medzi vedou, skúsenosťou a umením možného. Bratislava.
• Nováková T. (1993). Tlumočenie. Teória - vyučba - prax. Bratislava: Univerita Komenského, pp. 52-81.
• Ponomariv O. (2002). Kultura slova. Movnostylistychni porady. Kyiv.
• Radchuk V. (1999). Zabobon neperekladnosti. Ukrainska mova ta literatura № 40 (152), 3-4.
• Radchuk V. (2006). Ukruslysh - mova maibutnoho. Vzaiemodiia mov i pereklad. Slovo prosvity № 11(336), 10-11.
• Selivanova O. (2010). Linhvistychna entsyklopediia. Poltava, pp. 541-552.
• Selivanova O. (2012). Svit svidomosti v movi. Problemy perekladoznavstva. Cherkasy, pp. 445-470.
• Svobodová J. (1983). Notační systém tlumočnický. In: Šabršula J. Zaklady jazykovědy pro romanisty. Praha.
• Šabršula J. (2007). Teorie a praxe překladu. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita.
• Tryuk M. (2007). Przekɬad ustny konferencyjny. Warszawa, pp. 269-276.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/llce-2016-0006