Interrelation links
Date: 2015-10-07; view: 397.
Repetition links
Ways of ensuring semantic redundancy of oral messages
Semantic redundancy of oral discourse is ensured by the following linguistic means:
a) simple lexical repetition which occurs when a lexical unit that has already occurred in the text is repeated with no grater alteration than can be explained in terms of a grammatical paradigm (e.g. singular vs plural forms, present vs past, first person singular vs third person plural, etc), e.g. country – countries; eat – ate; go – goes; he – him; I – we; â³êíî – â³êíà; ïèøó – ïèñàâ; âîíà – ¿¿, etc).
Only lexical (ïîâíîçíà÷í³ ñëîâà) words can enter into such a link. Connections between such grammatical or function words (ñëóæáîâ³ ñëîâà) as articles, prepositions, conjunctions, auxiliaries, negatives and particles are not treated as repetition links;
b) complex lexical repetitionwhich occurs when two lexical items share a lexical morpheme, but are not formally identical, or when they are formally identical, but belong to different parts of speech (or, rather, have different grammatical functions), e.g. computer – computing; human – humanity; politics – political; êíèãà – êíèæêîâèé; ñ³ëü – ñîëîíèé; ¿ñòè – ¿æà, etc).
a) simple paraphrasewhich occurs whenever a lexical item may substitute another item in contextwith no important change in meaning. Here belong most of the contextual synonyms, e.g. produce – cause; statesman – politician; book – volume; works – writings; killings – executions; âèêëèêàòè – ñïðè÷èíÿòè; ðîáîòà – ïðàöÿ; îñîáà – ëþäèíà, etc);
b) complex paraphrasewhich occurs when one of the lexical items includes the other, although they may share no lexical morpheme. Here, first of all, belong the majority of antonyms, e.g. happy – unhappy; hot – cold; dry – wet; õîëîäíèé – ãàðÿ÷èé; äåíü – í³÷; ãàðíî – ïîãàíî; ñòîÿòè – ëåæàòè.
Secondly, complex paraphrase occurs when an item is a complex lexical repetition of another item (e.g. writer – writings) and also a simple paraphrase of a third item (e.g. writer – author). In this case a complex paraphrase link is established between the second and the third items (writings – author). This link is called “a link triangle” [Hoey 1991: 64-65].
c)co-reference repetitionoccurs when two items are interpreted as having the same referent, i.e. refer to the same object of the real world (denotatum) in the given context. Examples are: scientists – biologists; Tony Blair – British Prime Minister (in the context of spring 2007); Augustus – the Emperor (in the ancient context as a historical figure of ancient Rome at the time of writing); ³êòîð Þùåíêî – Ïðåçèäåíò Óêðà¿íè (in the context of 2007).
d) substitutionoccurs when certain grammatical words (ñëóæáîâ³ ñëîâà), such as pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, etc (e.g. he, she, they, it, we, this, that, the first one, another one, the same, different, similar, â³í, âîíà, âîíî, ìè, öå, âèùåçãàäàíèé, etc) are substituted for lexical items. Examples are: citizens – they; students – we; Ïðåçèäåíò – â³í; æ³íêà – âîíà; ÿâèùå – âîíî).
Michael Hoey [1991: 69-75, 87] mentions also other types of repetition, such as superordinate, hyponymic repetition, repetition due to ellipsis. However, their role in ensuring semantic redundancy of oral discourse is secondary.
Semantic redundancy of oral discourse provides not only for successful transmission of maximum of information in the process of communication but also for filling in the “informational gaps” in oral consecutive and simultaneous interpretation as it is illustrated by the analysis of the transcripts of the TV news items given below where repetition and interrelation links between sentences as well as exophoric relationships of lexical items with the macro context are shown:
(1) After 60 years in exile Tsar *Alexis the Third is back in St. Petersburg. (2) The monument to the father of the last Tsar Nicholas theSecond was brought back to one of the city's most prominent sites – the square in front of the Winter Palace. (3) The monument was erected and officially unveiled by Tsar Nicholas the Second in 1909. (4) It was destroyed by Communist regime in 1937 and lay discarded in the yard of the Russian Museum until the St. Petersburg's City Council decided to bring it back to its former glory.
EuroNews,
http://www.euronews.net
Analysis of the example:
| NN of sentences | Means of ensuring semantic redundancy and implications for interpreters |
| Tsar *Alexis the Third – this is a mistake of the speaker (or news editor) on the TV as there was no such tsar in Russia. To fill in the “gap” interpreters have to refer to their cultural competence (exophoric contextual relationships) and replace *Alexis by Alexander – öàð Îëåêñàíäð Òðåò³é. | |
| 2 – 1 | Tsar – tsar – simple lexical repetition; city's – St. Petersburg – co-reference |
| 3 – 2 | the monument – the monument – simple lexical repetition; Tsar Nicholas the Second – Tsar Nicholas the Second – simple lexical repetition |
| 4 – 3 | it – the monument – substitution |
| 4 – 1 | St. Petersburg's – St. Petersburg – complex lexical repetition |
| 4 – 2 | it – the monument – substitution |
| 4 – 3 | its – the monument – substitution |
(2) The most famous square in Brussels and in all Belgium is the magnificent Grand- Place. (2) True! (3) The peopleof Brussels are proud of their superior French-style cuisine. (4) Bien sûr! (5) And they all speak French. (6) False! (7) Brussels, the headquarters of both NATO and European Union, is also officially the bilingual capital of Belgium, a country whose two communities speak French and Dutch. (8) Brussels is about to be fated as one of the Europe's cultural capitals for the year 2000 but the Flemishcommunity there is unhappy. (9) Some of theirleaders say their language and culture are drowned out. (10) They worry that they will lose political influence as well in local elections later this year in which all EU citizens will have the right to vote.
BBC World,
http://www.bbcworld.com
Analysis of the example:
| NN of sentences | Means of ensuring semantic redundancy and implications for interpreters |
| Grand-Place – French name of the medieval marketplace in Brussels. To render the name of this square interpreters have to refer to their cultural competence (exophoric contextual relationships) and use the method of practical transcription from French – Ãðàí Ïëÿñ | |
| 3 – 1 | Brussels – Brussels – simple lexical repetition |
| Bien sûr! – French for true, of course. Interpreters have to refer to their cultural competence (exophoric contextual relationships) and translate this expression as òàê!, àáñîëþòíî â³ðíî! | |
| 5 – 3 | they – the people of Brussels – substitution; French – French – simple lexical repetition |
| 7 – 1 | Brussels – Brussels – simple lexical repetition; Belgium – Belgium – simple lexical repetition |
| 7 – 3 | French – French – simple lexical repetition |
| 8 – 1 | Brussels – Brussels – simple lexical repetition |
| 8 – 7 | Europe's – European – complex lexical repetition; Flemish – Dutch – simple paraphrase which presupposes certain cultural competence (exophoric contextual relationships) for proper translation – ôëàìàíäñüêà òà í³äåðëàíäñüêà ìîâè; community – communities – complex lexical repetition |
| 9 – 8 | their – community – substitution |
| 10 – 7 | ÅU – European Union – simple lexical repetition |
| 10 – 8 | EU – Europe's – simple paraphrase |
| 10 – 9 | they – leaders – substitution |
| <== previous lecture | | | next lecture ==> |
| Semantic redundancy as one of the main properties of oral discourse | | | Semantic redundancy: recommendations for interpreters |