NEUROLINGUISTIC INDICATORS OF CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETING

Main Article Content

Iwona DRABIK

Abstract

In spite of a large body of research, it has proved difficult to integrate the existing data concerning interpreters’ professional knowledge, their linguistic competence and their psycholinguistic predispositions into a cohesive theoretical framework. The article highlights a coherent and interrelated set of psychological abilities as well as processes constituting a relevant component of translation competence.

According to this framework, consecutive interpreting comprises three conceptually related mental processes involving a variety of psycholinguistic factors. These processes are: (1) reception of an initial message, (2) storing of a message, and (3) production of a target message. The message may be received in three ways: (1) on the basis of a text produced by the speaker, (2) via the senses, and (3) through nonverbal communication. Human perception is determined by their cultural background which comprises rules, principles, norms, beliefs – all the cognitive factors which influence their outlook, and according to which they distinguish particular elements of the world and evaluate modes of behaviour, attitudes, etc.

Due to the fact that in the analysis of a message, the interpreter has to identify the main ideas and give them their proper relevance in their interpretation, the received information is converted in the human brain into basic conceptual units forming a semantic net.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
DRABIK, I. (2011). NEUROLINGUISTIC INDICATORS OF CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETING. Comparative Legilinguistics, 7, 47-54. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2011.07.04
Section
Articles

References

  1. Brown, Roger. 1986. Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.
  2. Carnap, Rudolf. 1964. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  3. Fodor, Jerry. 1979. The language of thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  4. Garretson, Deborah. 1981. A psychological Approach to Consecutive Interpretation, Meta 26: 4-254.
  5. Grucza, Franciszek. 1983. Zagadnienia metalingwistyki. Lingwistyka – jej przedmiot, lingwistyka stosowana. Warszawa: PWN.
  6. Grucza, Franciszek. 1997. Języki ludzkie a wyrażenia językowe, wiedza a informacja, mózg a umysł ludzki, In Podejścia kognitywne w lingwistyce, translatoryce i glottodydaktyce, ed. Franciszek Grucza and Maria Dakowska, 7-21. Warszawa: PWN.
  7. Grucza, Franciszek. 2004. Glottodydaktyka: nauka – praca naukowa – wiedza. Przegląd glottodydaktyczny 20: 5-48.
  8. Katz, Jerrold and Jerry Fodor. 1963. The structure of semantic theory. Language 39: 170-210.
  9. Katz, Jerrold, and Paul Postal. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  10. Kielar, Barbara. 2003. Zarys translatoryki. Warszawa: KJS.
  11. Kintsch, W., 1974. The representation of meaning in memory, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Lukszyn, J., 2007a. Parametry analizy tekstów specjalistycznych, In Podstawy technolingwistyki I, ed. Jerzy Lukszyn, 182-196. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Euro-Edukacja.
  13. Lukszyn, J., 2007b. Tekst specjalistyczny pod lingwistyczną lupą. In Języki Specjalistyczne 7. Teksty specjalistyczne jako nośniki wiedzy fachowej, ed. Małgorzata Kornacka, 51-70. Warszawa: KJS.
  14. Lukszyn, J., 2009, W kwestii definicji pojęcia „tekst specjalistyczny”. Komunikacja Specjalistyczna: 7-13.
  15. Marchwiński, Adam. 2008. Wiedza fachowa a kompetencja translatorska. In Podstawy technolingwistyki II, ed. Jerzy Lukszyn, 25-39. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Euro-Edukacja.
  16. Rozan, Jean. 1959. La Prise de notes en interprétation consecutive. Geveva: Georg & Cie.