View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures University of Massachusetts, Amherst 430 Herter Hall 161 Presidents Drive, Amherst, MA 01003 United States Phone: +1 413 800 9976
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription

USD  $360.00

This article illustrates an intermodal study on simultaneous interpreting and translation from Italian into English based primarily on the European Parliament Interpreting Corpus (EPIC) and official translations from the European Parliament. In line with Gideon Toury’s posited law of interference, the hypothesis that drives the present study is that interpreters and translators working into English from Italian may underrepresent the ’s-genitive as a result of the syntactic asymmetry between English (which alternates between ’s and of) and Italian (which only has one type of prepositional phrase consisting of di + noun). The results of this study indicate that ’s-genitives occur with lower frequency in interpreted English than in non-mediated English, thus revealing a particular form of syntactic interference. The same tendency, however, is not found in translations from Italian into English. This difference is explained by recourse to Englund Dimitrova’s (2005) findings on translation expertise and to the literal translation hypothesis (Chesterman 2011) and by suggesting that simultaneous interpreting tends to adhere to the source-language syntax more closely than translation, thus displaying similarities with translation drafts. The results also point to the theoretical and methodological limitations of the théorie du sens developed by the Paris School of Interpreters and Translators.

  • 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. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 233250.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., Miličević, M. 2016. From EPIC to EPTIC. Exploring Simplification in Interpreting and Translation from an Intermodal Perspective. Target Vol. 28. No. 1. 6186.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chesterman, A. 2004a. Beyond the Particular. In: Mauranen, A., Kujamäki, P. (eds) Translation Universals. Do They Exist? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3349.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chesterman, A. 2004b. Hypotheses about Translation Universals. In: Hansen, G., Malmkjær, K. (eds) Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Selected Contributions from EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chesterman, A. 2011. Reflections on the Literal Translation Hypothesis. In: Alvstad, C., Tiselius, E. (eds) Methods and Strategies of Process Research. Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2335.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Crystal, D. 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Dam, H. V. 2000. On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting. The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting. Paper presented at the ASLA Symposium on Translation and Interpreting, Stockholm, November 1998.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Englund Dimitrova, B. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Gile, D. 2004. Translation Research Versus Interpreting Research. Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership. In: Schaffner, C. (ed.) Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Tradition, Gaps and Synergies. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. 1034.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grafmiller, J. 2014. Variation in English Genitives Across Modalities and Genres. English Language & Linguistics. Vol. 18. No. 3. 471496.

  • Gries, S. Th. 2013. Elementary Statistical Testing with R. In: Krug, M., Schlüter, J. (eds) Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 361381.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gries, S. Th., Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Extending Collostructional Analysis. A Corpus-Based Perspective on ‘Alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics Vol. 9. No. 1. 97129.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • House, J. 2008. Beyond Intervention: Universals in Translation? trans-kom Vol. 1. No. 1. 619.

  • Ivir, V. 1981. Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited. In: Even-Zohar, I., Toury, G. (eds) Theory of Translation and Intercultural Relations. Tel Aviv, The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University. Poetics Today 2: 4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kreyer, R. 2003. Genitive and of-construction in Modern Written English. Processability and Human Involvement. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics Vol. 8. No. 2. 169207.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lanstyák, I., Heltai, P. 2012. Universals in Language Contact and Translation. Across Languages and Cultures Vol. 13. No. 1. 99121.

  • Levý, J. 2011. The Art of Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Pym, A. 2005. Explaining Explicitation. In: Károly, K., Fóris, Á. (eds) New Trends in Translation Studies. In Honour of Kinga Klaudy. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 2934.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pym, A. 2015. Translating as Risk Management. Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 85. 6780.

  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.

  • Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive Variation in English. Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Topics in English Linguistics 42. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rosenbach, A. 2014. English Genitive Variation. The State of the Art. English Language and Linguistics Vol. 18. No. 2. 215261.

  • Rouhe, O. 2017. Kieliopin rakenne-erojen vaikutus suomi–venäjä-simultaanitulkkauksen sujuvuu-teen (The impact of structural differences of grammar on fluency of simultaneous interpreting of Finnish into Russian). Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Russo, M., Bendazzoli, C., Sandrelli, A., Spinolo, N. 2012. The European Parliament Interpreting Corpus (EPIC). Implementation and Developments. In: Straniero Sergio, F., Falbo, C. (eds) Breaking Ground in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies. Bern: Peter Lang. 5390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seleskovitch, D. 1968. L’interprète dans les conférences internationales. Paris: Minard

  • Seleskovitch, D., Lederer, M. 1989. Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier Erudition.

  • Setton, R. 2006. Context in Simultaneous Interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 38. 374389.

  • Shlesinger, M. 1998. Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies as an Offshoot of Corpus-Based Translation Studies. Meta Vol. 43. No. 3. 486493.

  • Shlesinger, M. 2009. Towards a Definition of Interpretese. An Intermodal, Corpus-Based Study. In: Hansen, G. (ed.) Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 237253.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shlesinger, M., Ordan, N. 2012. More Spoken or More Translated? Exploring a Known Unknown of Simultane ous Interpreting. Target Vol. 24. No. 1. 4360.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Snell-Hornby, M. 2006. Turns of Translation Studies. New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Stefanowitsch, A. 2003. Constructional Semantics as a Limit to Grammatical Variation. In: Rohdenburg, G., Mondorf, B. (eds) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 155173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Swan, M. 2005. Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press

  • Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 2005. The Monitor Model Revisited. Evidence from Process Research. Meta Vol. 50. No. 2. 405414.

  • Toury, G. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Tymoczko, M. 1998. Computerized Corpora and the Future of Translation Studies. Meta Vol. 43. No. 4. 652659.

  • Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague/Paris/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

  • Zwicky, A. 1987. Suppressing the Z’s. Journal of Linguistics Vol. 23. 13348

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Aug 2020 0 0 0
Sep 2020 0 0 0
Oct 2020 0 0 0
Nov 2020 0 0 0
Dec 2020 65 13 7
Jan 2021 30 4 5
Feb 2021 0 0 0