Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Literature review
1. Definition of terms
1.1 Introduction
Over the past several years, practitioners have been mixing many
terms and using them interchangeably to refer to distinct concepts like
sense and meaning, interpretation and understanding, and because the use
of superordinate can lead to confusion and misconception, we have seen
that it is of a necessity to clearly distinguish them apart.
Page | 1
Page | 2
1.1.3
Interpretation Vs understanding
Omar Kouch (2012) says in this respect that interpretation during
translation process aims to collect the meaning of the text but must not
exceed the interpretation of the meaning that comes with the original text
not the supposed meaning intended by the author.
Page | 3
interpreting then sets the basis of a new model disassociating by that the
translator/interpreter's performance from the use of Catford's formal
correspondence. In this approach, interpreting is regulated by the principle
of equivalence of sense, the process, according to Seleskovitch, is based
on language-free (de-verbalization) conversion procedures.
Page | 4
2.
3.
4.
The broader the cognitive complements, he says, the less ambiguity and
polysemy there is in language, and the more thoroughly speech is
understood. Additionally, he states that translation needs information
additional to language meaning .This is how the Interpretive Theory of
Translation introduces the process of translation into the vast area of
cognitive research.
Page | 5
Page | 7
3- Reformulation ()
One may ask what is re-expressed exactly. Is it a reformulation of the
cultural component? Or is it a reformulation of the linguistic one? Or is it,
rather, a reformulation the communicative meaning? Well, the answer is
simple, the interpreter may enclose more than what was originally said in
the text and explain if necessary, but without adding anything new to the
core meaning, s/he can change the cultural image to approximate the
content to the receiving public, but without changing the function of this
very image. What is important, hence, is to reformulate what the writer of
the original text has successfully conveyed to his SL readers.
When the translator does not succeed in grasping that meaning, the
product falls inevitably into vulgarity and pettiness. To prevent this from
happening, the following types of translations are to be avoided (Omar
kouch, 2014):
The literal translation: Transcodage:
The over-translation: Sur-traduction:
The under-translation: Sous-traduction :
Page | 8
Page | 9
Conclusion
This theory has emerged as a reaction to some notions of the late 70s
regarding interpreting and translation being merely a representation of
linguistic meaning. The proponent of this theory is that interpreters and
translators have to take into account such factors as cognitive and
situational context of what has been produced and their own world
knowledge (Levault, 1996). The focus thence should derive from words to
the intended meaning (sense).
Overall, translation is a complex process requiring an evocation of
knowledge and many cognitive and social parameters. The general
emphasis at the outset is that translation should not be literal, but should
seek to transfer the essence of meaning after imbibing the ideas and
intentions of the original.
Page | 10
Bibliographical References
House.
Christine Bartels, (2014). The Intonation of English Statements and
Questions: A Compositional Interpretation. 2nd ed. England: Routledge.
Hannelore Lee-Jahnke, (2005). Processus et cheminements en traduction et
interprtation. Journal des traducteurs, 50 (2), 682-695
Logos Group (2014). Meaing and sense. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://courses.logos.it/EN/2_25.html. [Last Accessed 27/11/2014].
L'VOVSKAJA Z. D. (1985). Teoreticheskie problemy perevoda, Moskv,
Nauka.
SCVEJCER A. D. (1988): Teorija perevoda: status, problemy, aspekty.
Moskv: Nauka.
Mona Baker, (2003). Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. 2nd ed.
England: Routledge.
Pchhacker, F. (1992). The Role of Theory in Simultaneous Interpreting,
Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent and
Experience (C.Dollerup and A. Loddegaard, eds). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211-220.
Roy, C. B. (2000). Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Seleskovitch, D. (1962). Linterprtation de confrence Babel, 8-1, 13-18
Page | 11
Page | 12
List of Abbreviations
Page | 13
Contents
Introduction 1
Literature review ... 1
1.1
Definition of terms
1.1.1 Introduction .. 1
1.1.2 Sense Vs meaning . 2
1.1.3 Interpretation Vs understanding ... 3
1.2
Theoretical background
1.2.1 Introduction .. 3
1.2.2 Relationship to other approaches.. 4
1.2.3 D.Seleskovitch and M. Lederer Model of Interpreting . 5
1.2.4 J. Delisle Model of Interpreting 6
Page | 14
Page | 15