Thematic section
The negotiation of meaning in dialogue interpreting
On the effects of the verbalization of interpreters’ inferences
The objective of this study is to contribute to a better
understanding of the negotiation of meaning between the participants of a
bilingual interpreter-mediated interaction by analysing the effects of the
verbalization of the inferences by the interpreter. The conceptual tools of
Relevance Theory were applied to three interpreted excerpts of Russian-French
psychotherapeutic interactions. The results suggest that, by verbalizing
inferences, the interpreter co-creates a shared cognitive environment,
reinforces intra- and inter-discursive coherence, diminishes the cognitive
efforts of the recipient, and encourages primary parties to cooperate. The
analysis of the cognitive processes at work in the excerpts tends to show that
what has so far been treated as the interpreter’s “additions” or “expanded
renditions” enables the latter to exercise cooperative coordination of
interaction, and could therefore be more precisely called collaborative
renditions.
Article outline
- 1.Objective of the study
- 2.The Relevance Theory framework
- 3.Analysis: Inferential processes and negotiation of meaning
- 3.1Presentation of discursive data
- 3.2
Excerpt I (EnTh5 / 39: 24–40: 36)
- 3.3
Excerpt II (EnTh4–11: 12–16: 47)
- 3.4
Excerpt III (EnTh7 / 39: 25–48: 50)
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (34)
References
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2016. “Notation Language and Notation Text: a Cognitive-linguistic model
of consecutive interpreting”. In Consecutive Notetaking and Interpreter Training. Edited by Y. Someya, 71–117. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Amossy, Ruth. 2008. “Argumentation et analyse du discours : Perspectives
théoriques et découpages disciplinaires [Argumentation and discourse analysis: theoretical
perspectives and disciplinary boundaries]”. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours 11: 2–15.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baraldi, Claudio, and Laura Gavioli. 2014. “Are Close Renditions the Golden Standard? Some thoughts on
translating accurately in healthcare interpreter-mediated
interaction”. In Dialogue Interpreting in Practice: Bridging the Gap between Empirical
Research and Interpreter Education. Edited by E. Davitti and S. Pasquandrea, special issue of The Interpreter and Translator
Trainer
8 (3): 336–353.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of explicit
communication. Oxford: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Delizée, Anne. 2018. Du rôle de l’interprète en santé mentale: analyse
socio-discursive de ses positions subjectives au sein de la triade
thérapeute-patient-interprète [on the interpreter’s role in mental health settings:
socio-discursive analysis of the interpreter’s subjective positions within
the triad therapist-patient-interpreter]. PhD Thesis, University of Mons.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Delizée, Anne, and Christine Michaux. 2017. “Discussion critique interprétée & stratégies
argumentatives et discursives : analyse du positionnement intersubjectif de
l’interprète [Interpreted critical discussion & discursive and
argumentative strategies: an analysis of the interpreter’s intersubjective
positioning]”. In Public Service Interpreting: The Interpreter’s Discourse and its
Influence on the Interpersonal Relationship. Discursive and argumentative
approaches. Edited by E. Gallez, A. Delizée, S. Vogeleer, Ch. Michaux, and A. Al-Laithy, special issue of Dragoman
5 (7): 86–110.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Delizée, Anne, and Christine Michaux. In press. “Les représentations mentales de l’interprète de
dialogue : de la pertinence locale à la cohérence discursive
globale [Dialogue interpreter’s mental representations: from
local relevance to global discursive coherence]”. In Déverbaliser-reverbaliser. Edited by S. Vogeleer and L. Béghin, 169–94. Louvain: Presses universitaires.
Gallez, Emmanuelle. 2014. Ethos et interprétation judiciaire: Une étude de
cas [Ethos and interpreting in court proceedings: a case
study]. PhD Diss., University of Leuven.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grosz, Barbara J., and Candace L. Sidner. 1986. “Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of
Discourse”. Computational Linguistics 12 (3): 175–204.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gutt, Ersnt-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mason, Ian. 2006a. “On Mutual Accessibility of Contextual Assumptions in Dialogue
Interpreting”. Journal of Pragmatics 381: 359–73. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mason, Ian. 2006b. “Ostension, Inference and Response: Analysing participant moves in
community interpreting dialogues”. In Taking Stock: Research and Methodology in Community Interpreting. Edited by Eric Hertog and B. van der Veer, special issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia
(5): 103–20.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moeschler, Jacques, et Nina de Spengler. 1981. “Quand même: de la concession à la
réfutation” [
Quand même: from concession to
refutation]. Cahiers de linguistique française 21: 93–112.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Lectures on
Pragmatism. Volume VI1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pérez González, Luis. 2006. “Interpreting Strategic Recontextualization Cues in the Courtroom:
Corpus-based Insights into the Pragmatic Force of Non-restrictive Relative
Clauses”. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (3): 390–417. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation (1964–1972). Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1989. La Pertinence. Communication et cognition. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1990. “Forme linguistique et pertinence” [Linguistic form and relevance]. Cahiers de linguistique française 111: 13–35.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When
nodding is a token of affiliation”. Research on Language & Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1996. La nouvelle dialectique [New dialectics]. Paris: Editions Kimé.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Peter Houtlosser. 2006. “Strategic Manoeuvering: A Synthetic
Recapitulation”. Argumentation 201: 381–392. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vianna, Branca. 2005. “Simultaneous Interpreting: A Relevance-theoretic
Approach”. Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (2): 169–90. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vogeleer, Svetlana. In press. “Le modèle vertical du processus de traduction, la
question du transfert et la place des représentations
mentales” [Vertical model of translation, the transfer and
mental representations issues]. In Déverbaliser-reverbaliser. Edited by S. Vogeleer and L. Béghin, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 217–47.
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Weber, David J. 2005. “A Tale of Two Translation Theories”. Journal of Translation 1 (2): 35–74.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Апресян, Валентина Юрьевна. 2005. “Трехвалентные уступительные слова” [Trivalent concessive words]. In Труды международного семинара Диалог 2005 по компьютерной лингвистике и
ее приложениям, 34–38. Moscow. [URL] Accessed 1 October 2015.
Ефремова, Татьяна Фёдоровна. 2000. Толковый словарь Ефремовой Т.Ф. [Dictionary by T. F. Efremova] Moscow: Russian language.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Defrancq, Bart & Sofie Verliefde
2023.
A Dutch discourse marker in interpreter-mediated police interviewing with drafting: A corpus-based approach to dialogue interpreting.
Research in Corpus Linguistics 11:2
► pp. 50 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Weber, Orest, Jonathan Klemp, Florian Chmetz, Argyro Daliani, Esther-Amélie Diserens & Florence Faucherre
2023.
Interpreter-mediated psychiatric assessments: Metacommunication as key.
Transcultural Psychiatry 60:4
► pp. 626 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.