1887
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The objective of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the negotiation of meaning between the participants of a bilingual interpreter-mediated interaction by analysing the effects of the verbalization of the inferences by the interpreter. The conceptual tools of Relevance Theory were applied to three interpreted excerpts of Russian-French psychotherapeutic interactions. The results suggest that, by verbalizing inferences, the interpreter co-creates a shared cognitive environment, reinforces intra- and inter-discursive coherence, diminishes the cognitive efforts of the recipient, and encourages primary parties to cooperate. The analysis of the cognitive processes at work in the excerpts tends to show that what has so far been treated as the interpreter’s “additions” or “expanded renditions” enables the latter to exercise cooperative coordination of interaction, and could therefore be more precisely called .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00029.del
2019-09-06
2019-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albl-Mikasa, Michaela
    2016 “Notation Language and Notation Text: a Cognitive-linguistic model of consecutive interpreting”. InConsecutive Notetaking and Interpreter Training. Edited by Y. Someya , 71–117. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Amossy, Ruth
    2008 “Argumentation et analyse du discours : Perspectives théoriques et découpages disciplinaires [Argumentation and discourse analysis: theoretical perspectives and disciplinary boundaries]”. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours1: 2–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baraldi, Claudio , and Laura Gavioli
    eds. 2012Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.102
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2014 “Are Close Renditions the Golden Standard? Some thoughts on translating accurately in healthcare interpreter-mediated interaction”. InDialogue Interpreting in Practice: Bridging the Gap between Empirical Research and Interpreter Education. Edited by E. Davitti and S. Pasquandrea , special issue of The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8 (3): 336–353.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  6. Delizée, Anne
    2018Du rôle de l’interprète en santé mentale: analyse socio-discursive de ses positions subjectives au sein de la triade thérapeute-patient-interprète [on the interpreter’s role in mental health settings: socio-discursive analysis of the interpreter’s subjective positions within the triad therapist-patient-interpreter]. PhD Thesis, University of Mons.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Delizée, Anne , and Christine Michaux
    2017 “Discussion critique interprétée & stratégies argumentatives et discursives : analyse du positionnement intersubjectif de l’interprète [Interpreted critical discussion & discursive and argumentative strategies: an analysis of the interpreter’s intersubjective positioning]”. InPublic Service Interpreting: The Interpreter’s Discourse and its Influence on the Interpersonal Relationship. Discursive and argumentative approaches. Edited by E. Gallez , A. Delizée , S. Vogeleer , Ch. Michaux , and A. Al-Laithy , special issue of Dragoman5 (7): 86–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. . In press. “Les représentations mentales de l’interprète de dialogue : de la pertinence locale à la cohérence discursive globale [Dialogue interpreter’s mental representations: from local relevance to global discursive coherence]”. InDéverbaliser-reverbaliser Edited by S. Vogeleer and L. Béghin , 169–94. Louvain: Presses universitaires.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta , and Elisabet Tiselius
    2016 “Cognitive Aspects of Community Interpreting. Toward a process model”. InReembedding Translation Process Research. Edited by R. Muñoz , 195–214. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.128.10eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.10eng [Google Scholar]
  10. Gallez, Emmanuelle
    2014 Ethos et interprétation judiciaire: Une étude de cas [Ethos and interpreting in court proceedings: a case study]. PhD Diss., University of Leuven.
  11. Grosz, Barbara J. , and Candace L. Sidner
    1986 “Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse”. Computational Linguistics12 (3): 175–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gutt, Ersnt-August
    1991Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction”. InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Edited by G. H. Lerner , 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  14. Mason, Ian
    2006a “On Mutual Accessibility of Contextual Assumptions in Dialogue Interpreting”. Journal of Pragmatics38: 359–73. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.022 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2006b “Ostension, Inference and Response: Analysing participant moves in community interpreting dialogues”. InTaking Stock: Research and Methodology in Community Interpreting. Edited by Eric Hertog and B. van der Veer , special issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia (5): 103–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2012 “Gaze, Positioning and Identity in Interpreter-mediated Dialogues”. InCoordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Edited by C. Baraldi and L. Gavioli , 177–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.102.08mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.08mas [Google Scholar]
  17. Moeschler, Jacques , et Nina de Spengler
    1981 “Quand même: de la concession à la réfutation” [Quand même: from concession to refutation]. Cahiers de linguistique française2: 93–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Peirce, Charles Sanders
    1931Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Lectures on Pragmatism. VolumeVI. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Penn, Claire , and Jennifer Watermeyer
    2012 “Cultural Brokerage and Overcoming Communication Barriers: A case study from aphasia”. InCoordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Edited by C. Baraldi and L. Gavioli , 269–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.102.12pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.12pen [Google Scholar]
  20. Pérez González, Luis
    2006 “Interpreting Strategic Recontextualization Cues in the Courtroom: Corpus-based Insights into the Pragmatic Force of Non-restrictive Relative Clauses”. Journal of Pragmatics38 (3): 390–417. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  21. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on Conversation (1964–1972). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Setton, Robin
    1999Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive and Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  23. Sperber, Dan , and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1989La Pertinence. Communication et cognition. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1990 “Forme linguistique et pertinence” [Linguistic form and relevance]. Cahiers de linguistique française11: 13–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation”. Research on Language & Social Interaction41 (1): 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  27. van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Rob Grootendorst
    1996La nouvelle dialectique [New dialectics]. Paris: Editions Kimé.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Eemeren, Frans H. van , and Peter Houtlosser
    2006 “Strategic Manoeuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation”. Argumentation20: 381–392. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9037‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9037-z [Google Scholar]
  29. Vianna, Branca
    2005 “Simultaneous Interpreting: A Relevance-theoretic Approach”. Intercultural Pragmatics2 (2): 169–90. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.169
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.2.169 [Google Scholar]
  30. Vogeleer, Svetlana
    . In press. “Le modèle vertical du processus de traduction, la question du transfert et la place des représentations mentales” [Vertical model of translation, the transfer and mental representations issues]. InDéverbaliser-reverbaliser Edited by S. Vogeleer and L. Béghin , Presses universitaires de Louvain, 217–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1998Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Weber, David J.
    2005 “A Tale of Two Translation Theories”. Journal of Translation1 (2): 35–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Апресян, Валентина Юрьевна
    2005 “Трехвалентные уступительные слова” [Trivalent concessive words]. InТруды международного семинара Диалог 2005 по компьютерной лингвистике и ее приложениям, 34–38. Moscow. www.dialog-21.ru/digests/dialog2008/materials/html/16.htmAccessed1 October 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ефремова, Татьяна Фёдоровна
    2000Толковый словарь Ефремовой Т.Ф. [Dictionary by T. F. Efremova ] Moscow: Russian language.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00029.del
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00029.del
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error