جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "simultaneous interpretation" در نشریات گروه "ادبیات و زبان ها"

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?

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.

Life of people is so interrelated with language that it is not imaginable without it. The effect of language on social, political and cultural life seems to be undeniable as it is observed in many daily events. Besides, translators and interpreters are surrounded with thoughts, beliefs and ideologies and do their task of changing a source language to a target one under their influence, consciously or unconsciously. This is evident in the performance of translators and interpreters who work in various media and must obey dominant ideologies of their workplaces and this can affect the macro/micro-strategies utilized by them in their jobs. Translation and interpretation as two processes that require rewriting have sufficient background for distancing themselves from reality and facts and guiding mindsets towards a specific direction. Indeed, translation is regarded as a mirror that does not reflect light, but produces it. This means that novel ideologies are produced in translation task. The fact that dominant ideology belongs to dominant classes in majority of societies causes us to seek ways and approaches that help to consolidate and reinforce this ideology. Each translator and interpreter tries to impose their ideology through some realities and facts, consciously or unconsciously. The imposed ideology may not work systematically and consistently in conducting personal translation projects, but when such projects are administered in the media that belong to dominant ideologies it seems that translators’ minds are consciously involved in stabilizing the prevailing hegemony. Ideology is a subject that requires particular attention paid by researchers of translation studies. Lots of theoreticians have even claimed that translation is a conflict point for ideologies and each translation is ideological. Ideology itself is a combination of action-oriented beliefs and regarding the relation between ideology and translation, it can be indicated at each level of translation process that if linguistic considerations come to conflict with ideological ones, the latter win.  Translation or interpretation is not just transferring meaning from a language to another and can have a considerable share among rival ideologies. Translation and interpretation are ideological-wise since they can import a collection of values and beliefs (relating to historical eras and social positions) to a target culture. In line with serving domestic interests of target languages, translation or interpretation chooses an ideological solution for linguistic and cultural differences of a source text. Even some theorists have discussed the interaction between ideology and translation and believe that ideology has an important role in translation act and due to the fact that translation and interpretation serve political aims, they affect the choice of texts for translation, translation strategies and propagation of some translated texts. Translation is also considered as the most influential form of rewriting because it can be an indicator of a writer’s image and their works in another culture and can move them beyond cultural borders. Therefore, translation can be utilized as a tool for expressing a translator’s approval or disapproval of any ideology. Indeed, translation means creating new readership for a source text. This article aimed to investigate the controversial and contentious relation between translation and ideology regarding simultaneous English interpretation of Iranian president Hassan Rouhani’s speech in the UN in 2017 conducted in Press TV channel of Iran and France 24 channel of France in order to clarify whether ideology of these interpreters affected the interpretations or not. This speech was aired in numerous international TV channels as it was considered as a response to American President, Donald Trump’s speech against Iran in the UN the earlier day and many channels interpreted Iranian president’s speech simultaneously due to its significance and sensitivity. To this end, their interpretations were compared to each other, utilizing Critical Discourse Analysis and Van Dijk’s theoretical background. The results of this study indicated that both interpretations carried out by these news channels were intentionally or unintentionally under the influence of their respective ideologies. Ideological differences of investigated interpretations prove the fact that France 24 interpreter has deleted or added some parts of Iranian president’s speech and it might be caused by increasing reinforcement of Iranphobia by Western news channels, while the interpreter of Press TV channel has tried his best to remain loyal to contents of the speech and highlight ideas and comments of Rouhani with possible minor alterations. Consequently, the results of this study can confirm the existence of ideological conflicts between Iran and Western countries and these differences might be caused by ideological backgrounds of these two interpreters. As Nord (2003) believes, any decision making in translation is consciously or unconsciously affected by ideological criteria.