Interpretative Translation Theory

According to ITP, the translation process is divided into three stages: understanding, deverbalization and reexpression. Moreover, among these stages, the process of deverbalization is of great importance. Initially, ITP was developed based on empirical practice and observation of the translation process. Interpretation lends itself to a detailed study of the cognitive translation process better than written. Oral speech disappears, its sounds quickly disappear, but the meaning remains. The language of translators in another language clearly demonstrates that meaning is a consequence of understanding, which consists of two elements: contextual meanings of the language and cognitive additions. Thus, the development of ITP began with the study of interpretation, in which close attention was paid to understanding. However, soon practicing translators and translators recognized the validity of this theory in relation to written translation and expanded the field of study to the study of pragmatic, technical, as well as literary texts. ^[3] ITP finds an explanation of the understanding process, based on the principles of Piaget assimilation and accommodation, according to which, in order to understand, we integrate new information into previous knowledge and this knowledge adapts to the new situation. Understanding means adding extra linguistic knowledge to linguistic signs. At the same time, new information constantly enriches extra linguistic knowledge. Later, this fact was noted in the study of the process of understanding in psychology and philosophy of language ^[4] . ITP recognizes the fact that meaning is not contained in any language or text as given, but arises from the signals that the written language or spoken language gives in conjunction with the cognitive contribution of the potential reader or listener. Later, various scientists have confirmed this point. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson, Relevance - Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner, The Way We Think - Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden complexities, Basic Books, 2002. Hofstadter , D. & E. Sander, Surfaces and Essences –Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, Basic Books, 2013. Since the manifestation of meaning depends on the cognitive contribution of individual readers, listeners, or translators, it is somewhat individual. Its depth will depend on the knowledge, perception of the world and the ideology of each individual. However, often the meaning that each of the participants in the communication understands coincides, which allows it to take place. In the translation process (the same is true for interpretation), translators, acting as intermediaries between authors who want to communicate and readers who want to understand them, work in the above area of ​​coincidence. Translation readers make their own cognitive contribution to the translated text. The interpretation of the translator allows them to understand the text either superficially or deeply, as well as the readers of the original. Like readers of the original, they can give the text their own interpretations, but these interpretations are layered on the meaning and should not be confused with it. The polysemy , the ambiguity , so often mentioned in translation studies, appears in oral and written speech only if it is used consciously by the author. ITP has always insisted that although most words in language systems are polysemic, they lose the polysem in a specific context; this is also true for ambiguity in discourse, as readers bring the necessary relevant extra-linguistic knowledge to the text. Of all the different possible meanings of the word, only one becomes apparent when used in the text. At the same time, any ambiguity is excluded when the corresponding knowledge is combined with the contextual meanings of words, which is expressed in a situational sense. This statement has also been confirmed by various researchers. ^[five]

ITP adds one additional element (deverbalization) to understanding and reexpression (the two stages of translation that are most often described by researchers): Most sounds or graphic signs disappear as soon as understanding comes. ^[6] We all experience deverbalization in daily communication: we can keep in mind the facts, concepts, events conveyed by words, but we do not store these words in our memory. ITP has found evidence for this postulate in neuropsychology, according to which language and thoughts are in different areas of the brain. ^{[7] The} anticipation of meaning that often occurs with oral communication and interpretation, ^[8] is further evidence that, in context and situation, full verbal support is not always necessary for understanding.

Clearly noticeable in interpreting, deverbalization is more difficult to observe in translation, since the original text does not disappear, in contrast to sounds in oral speech. Graphic characters remain on the page and require direct matches in another language. Deverbalization is a natural feature of oral communication, so translators need to make extra efforts to achieve it. However, when graphic signs are immersed in context, translators interpret them directly into meaning. This meaning remains in the form of knowledge, while signs disappear. This allows translators to discover ways of expression in the target language that have little or no common with the signs of the original language. ^[9]

Regarding the re-expression stage, in previous translation studies, a strict distinction has been made between literal and free translation, or literalism and recreation. Nevertheless, a study of ITP in the field of corpus linguistics has shown that translation is always a combination of word-matches and semantic equivalents. Initially, Seleskovich noted the existence in interpretation (later also demonstrated for translation) of two translation strategies: translation with carefully controlled correspondences of several language elements between two languages, and the creation in the context of equivalents between speech or text segments. Due to language differences, a completely literal translation is not possible. However, correspondences are often necessary and the fact that correspondences and equivalents coexist in all translation products, regardless of the type of speech, can be considered as a universal law of translation behavior. Taking into account the “uncertainty of the language”, ^[10] ITP refers to the “synecdochic nature” of language and speech (part for the whole). Exact formulations rarely make sense if they are not supplemented by the implicit part, which deliberately remains unspoken by authors or speakers, but understood by readers and listeners. The explicit layer of texts is a series of synecdohs . A single language formulation does not reveal the full meaning, it only indicates the whole. ^[11] Since languages ​​differ not only in vocabulary and grammar, but also in the ways of expressing thoughts by carriers, in any two languages ​​the combination of explicit and implicit parts is not the same, although they can denote the same whole. The fact that the language is underdetermined is another element in support of deverbalization. This gives interpreters or translators a significant degree of freedom and creativity in re-expression of the meanings of the authors and speakers. Therefore, ITP is not just an abstract concept. It is rooted in practice. Practice enriches the theory, which in turn enlightens professional interpreters and translators. Thus, they realize what they are doing and why. Explaining the process of interpretation and translation in simple words, ITP is intended for practicing translators, and is also particularly suitable for training. ^[12] Since its inception, ITP has been the basis of training at the Paris Higher School of Translators, which has trained many interpreters and translators. They continue to apply the principles of theory in everyday work. ITP also attracts graduate students around the world whose studies demonstrate its viability for all language pairs and all types of texts. The main goal of ITP is to study translation, but at the same time it sheds light on works on language and communication. As an integrated translation model, ITP covers various stages of the translation process, including the expectations and needs of readers. A number of other models ^[13] study the process from certain angles and add some details to the theory. However, none of them proves the insolvency of ITP, which over time expanded to fiction and poetry, ^[14] to sign language and is open for further development.

DELISLE, J., Translation: an Interpretive Approach, University of Ottawa Press (first published in French 1980) translation by Logan, E. & M. Creery, 1988.

DEJEAN le FEAL, K., “Simultaneous Interpretation with Training Wheels”, META, Vol. 42.4, 1997: 616-21. DROZDALE-AMMOUR, E., “The Theory and practice of Training Translators”, Hommage à EA Nida, Presses de l'Université de Nijni-Novgorod, 1998.

DURIEUX C., Fondementdidactique de la traduction technique, Paris: Didier Erudition, 1988.

HENRY, J., La Traduction des jeux de mots. Paris: PSN, 2003.

HURTADO A., La notion de fidélité en traduction, Paris: Didier Erudition, 1990.

ISRAEL, F., “Traductionlittéraire et théorie du sens”, in LEDERER, M. (ed): Etudes traductologiques, Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes, 1990: 29-44.

ISRAEL, F., “La créativité en traduction, ou le texteréinventé”, Raders, M. y Martin-Gaitero, R. (eds), IV Encuentros Computenses en torno a la traduccion, Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1991: 105-117.

ISRAEL, F., “Principes pour unepédagogieraisonnée de la traduction: le modèleinterprétatif”, Folia Translatologica, Vol. 6, 'Issues of Translation Pedagogy', 1999: 21-32.

LAPLACE C., Théorie du langage et théorie de la traduction: les concepts clefs de trois auteurs, Kade (Leipzig), Coseriu (Tübingen), Seleskovitch (Paris), Paris: Didier Erudition, 1994.

LAVAULT E., Fonctions de la traduction en didactique des langues, Paris: Didier Erudition, 1985, 2 ° éd. 1998.

LEDERER, M. “Simultaneous Interpretation - Units of Meaning and Other Features", Gerver, D. & HW Sinaiko (eds) Language Interpretation and Communication, New York: Plenum Press, 1978: 323-332.

LEDERER, M., La traductionsimultanée, expérience et théorie, Paris; Minard Lettres Modernes, 1981.

LEDERER, M., “The role of Cognitive Complements in Interpreting”, BOWEN D. & M. (eds), Interpreting - Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, ATA Scholarly Monograph Series, Vol. IV, SUNY, 1990: 53-60.

LEDERER, M., Translation - The Interpretive Model, Manchester: St. Jerome (first published in French as La Traductionaujourd'hui - Le modèleinterprétatif, 1994), translation by N. Larché, 2003. Also translated in Korean 2001, Hungarian 2006, Russian 2010, Arabic 2012, Georgian 2013.

LEDERER, M., ”Can Theory Help Interpreter and Translator Trainers and Trainees?”, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, Vol.1.1., 2007: 15-36.

PELAGE J., La traductionjuridique: problématique et solutions appliquées au passage des languesromanes au français, autoédition, 2001.

PLASSARD, F. Lire pour Traduire, Paris: PSN, 2007.

ROUX-FAUCARD, G. Poétique du récittraduit, Caen: Minard Lettres Modernes, 2008.

SALAMA-CARR M., La traduction à l'époqueabbasside -L'école de Hunayn Ibn Ishaq, Paris: Didier Erudition, 1990.

SELESKOVITCH, D., Langage, langues et mémoire, Introduction de Jean Monnet, Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes, 1975.

SELESKOVITCH, D., Interpreting for International Conferences - Problems of Language and Communication, Washington DC, Pen and Booth (first published in French as L'Interprètedans les conférencesinternationales –Problèmes de langage et de communication, 1968). Translation by Dailey, S. & EN McMillan, 1978. Also translated in Chinese 1979, German 1988, Serbian 1988, Korean 2002, Japanese 2009.

SELESKOVITCH, D. et LEDERER, M., Interpréter pour traduire, Paris: Didier Erudition, 1984. Fifth edition, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2014. Translated in Chinese 1990, Arabic 2009, Georgian 2009.

SELESKOVITCH, D. and LEDERER, M., A Systematic Approach to Teaching Interpretation, RID, Washington DC, (first published in French as Pedagogieraisonnée de l'interprétation, 1989. 2nd. Augmented edition 2002). Translation by J. Harmer, 1995. Also translated in Chinese 2005, Serbian 2007.