Academic Scientific JournalsStyle of religious texts as a potential hindrance in interpreter training
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26881/bp.2019.4.02Keywords:
religious discourse, interpreting, interpreter training, metaphorsAbstract
According to the thematic progression model of Janikowski (2011) religious texts can be used at the early stages of interpreter training. The reservations against such placement of allegedly stylistically sophisticated texts are scrutinised in the following paper by means of (1) developing a set of features of spoken religious discourse and (2) empirically testing their frequency in a convenience corpus. The results do show an unexpectedly high level of metaphorical saturation of spoken religious texts (1.4 per minute of speech), but they also show that only 8% of these metaphors were unconventional and that speakers sometimes employed special means of facilitating metaphor processing. Additionally, the appearance of other markers traditionally recognised as elements of religious style (intertextual allusions, markers of higher register and other figures of speech) was only marginal. Thus, the results support the use of religious texts as the second stage in thematic development, however, with a set of recommendations.
Downloads
References
Alexieva, Bistra (1992). “The optimum text in simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive approach to interpreter training”. In: Cay Dollerup, Anne Loddegaard (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent, and Experience. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 221-229.
Alexieva, Bistra (1999). “Understanding the source language text in simultaneous interpreting”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 9 (50): 45-59.
Barcelona, Antonio (2003). “Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy”. In: Antonio Barcelona (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1-28.
Binghan, Zheng, Zhou Hao (2018). “Revisiting processing time for metaphorical expressions: An eye-tracking study on eye-voice span during sight translation”. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 50/5: 744-759.
Bowen, David, Margareta Bowen (1987). “Formal translation and interpretation training for a member of an international congregation of religious”. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal 32/1: 85-89.
Chmiel, Agnieszka, Przemysław Janikowski (eds.) (2015). Dydaktyka tłumaczenia ustnego. Katowice: Stowarzyszenie Inicjatyw Wydawniczych.
Damian, Markus F., Nicolas Dumay (2007). “Time pressure and phonological advance planning in spoken production”. Journal of Memory and Language 57/2: 195-209.
Hagoort, Peter, Willem J. M. Levelt (2009). “The speaking brain”. Science 326 (5951): 372-373.
Huber, Carlo (2000). Speaking of God. Washington: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Janikowski, Przemysław (2011). “Progresja tematyczna jako oś dydaktyki tłumaczenia ustnego”. In: Przemysław Janikowski (ed.). Z zagadnień dydaktyki tłumaczenia ustnego. Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Lingwistycznej, 109-131.
Janikowski, Przemysław (2012). “Evaluating difficulty of teaching materials for interpreting classes”. In: Łukasz Bogucki, Mikołaj Deckert (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Advances and Perspectives. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 119-136.
Johnson, Mark (2009). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Karpenko-Seccombe, Tatyana (2016). “Intertextuality as cognitive modelling”. English Text Construction 9/2: 244-267.
Kelly, Dorothy (2005). A Handbook for Translator Trainers: A Guide to Reflective Practice. Manchester – Northampton: St. Jerome.
Lakoff, George, Mark Turner (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lenart, Sylwia (2006). “Dobór tekstów w kształceniu tłumaczy konferencyjnych”. In: Małgorzata Tryuk (ed.). Teoria i dydaktyka przekładu konferencyjnego: Z badań Instytutu Lingwistyki Stosowanej Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Warszawa: Takt, 31-48.
Lundquist, Lita (1991). “Some considerations on the relations between text linguistics and the study of texts for specific purposes”. In: Hartmut Schröder (ed.). Subject-oriented Texts: Languages for Special Purposes and Text Theory. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter, 231-243.
Majkiewicz, Anna (2008). Intertekstualność – implikacje dla teorii przekładu: Wczesna proza Elfriede Jelinek. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Newmark, Peter (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Pöchhacker, Franz (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London – New York: Routledge.
Schäffner, Christina (2004). “Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach”. Journal of Pragmatics 36/7: 1253-1269.
Setton, Robin, Andrew Dawrant (2016). Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Słownik języka polskiego PWN (n. d.). Available at <https://sjp.pwn.pl/>. Accessed 20.02.2019.
Stamenković, Dušan, Nicholas Ichien, Keith J. Holyoak (2019). “Metaphor comprehension: An individual-differences approach”. Journal of Memory and Language 105: 108-118.
The Oxford English Dictionary (n.d.) Available at <http://www.oed.com/>. Accessed 20.02.2019.
Tryuk, Małgorzata (2007). Przekład ustny konferencyjny. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Wilkoń, Aleksander (2002). Spójność i struktura tekstu: Wstęp do lingwistyki tekstu. Kraków: Universitas.
Zheng, Binghan, Xia Xiang (2013). “Processing metaphorical expressions in Sight Translation: An empirical-experimental research”. Babel 59/2: 160-183.
