RAQAMLI TEXNOLOGIYALAR DAVRIDA TARJIMASHUNOSLIK VA LINGVISTIKA: ZAMONAVIY YONDASHUVLAR TADQIQI” nomli ilmiy
maqolalar to‘plami May – 2024
135
PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION AND
ITS DIFFERENCE FROM OTHER TYPES OF TRANSLATION
Mirzaqulov Anvar
Teacher, the Department of Translation theory and practice,
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
Abstract —
The strategies in the joint venture are directly related to the pragmatic aspects of translation - the communicative
intention of the sender, the attitude towards the recipient and the communicative attitude of the translator. The translation problems
associated with targeting the recipient span an unusually wide range of translation techniques. These are private techniques that are
used in any kind of translation, including fiction and poetry. In this work, we tried to focus on those aspects that distinguish
simultaneous interpretation from all other types of translation, and on those strategies and techniques that may be inherent in the
main simultaneous translation, since there are certain differences between simultaneous interpretation and other types of translation
(primarily written).
Keywords
— Simultaneous interpretation (SI), Strategies, techniques, Source language (SL), target language (TL), linguistic
factors, written text.
1.
I
NTRODUCTION
The strategies in the joint venture are directly related to the pragmatic aspects of translation - the communicative intention of the
sender, the attitude towards the recipient and the communicative attitude of the translator. The translation problems associated with
targeting the recipient span an unusually wide range of translation techniques. These are private techniques that are used in any
kind of translation, including fiction and poetry. In this work, we tried to focus on those aspects that distinguish simultaneous
interpretation from all other types of translation, and on those strategies and techniques that may be inherent in the main
simultaneous translation, since there are certain differences between simultaneous interpretation and other types of translation
(primarily written).
2.
M
AIN PART
Brian Harris describes similar differences in the work of a translator and an interpreter.
1. The text for written translation was created in the past; before translation starts. In the joint venture, the performance is created
on the spot, in real time.
2. The written text is complete and not subject to change, while the oral statement, developing in real time, is incomplete, and its
end is unpredictable, which allows the simultaneous interpreter to apply the strategy of probabilistic forecasting, the strategy of
trial and error, and other strategies. In most cases, a translator is not able to do this.
3. The translator can read the text, put it aside and return to the text later, while the oral message quickly “disappears” and the
simultaneous interpreter can only rely on memory.
4. The text consists exclusively of verbal material, the written text is not accompanied by any gestures or facial expressions. As a
rule, the translator does not know under what conditions the given text was written. In the joint venture, the utterance is
accompanied by gestures, and the simultaneous interpreter in most cases sees in what conditions the message is created and the
speaker speaks.
5. Most written texts are the work of one author. The translator has enough time to get used to and feel the author’s style. In a SI, a
translator must translate several or many speakers who can speak using completely different styles, accents and different ways of
presenting the material.
6. In the written genre, the text does not have a direct emotional impact on the translator due to the fact that it was written in the
past. The interpreter is not only aware of the conditions or possible tense atmosphere of the meeting, but is himself susceptible to
this atmosphere.
7. Before publication, the translator may revise and completely re-edit the text. In the joint venture, it is necessary to translate
correctly the first time.
8. Just like the author, the translator does not know who his reader is. There is no direct contact between the author and the reader.
The simultaneous interpreter knows his audience and most likely sees it.
But the most important difference between written and simultaneous translation, according to B. Harris, is fidelity to the original:
“Fidelity to the original in a written translation ... means the exact transmission of the author’s written text; and in oral translation it
means, first of all, the correct transmission of the meaning, the communicative intention of the speaker[5,280].
RAQAMLI TEXNOLOGIYALAR DAVRIDA TARJIMASHUNOSLIK VA LINGVISTIKA: ZAMONAVIY YONDASHUVLAR TADQIQI” nomli ilmiy
maqolalar to‘plami May – 2024
136
So, it is quite obvious that a simultaneous interpreter is able to competently translate the locutionary act contained in the utterance
(in the sense that he can easily find the corresponding lexical and syntactic equivalents in the TL), but may not cope with the
illocutionary power of the utterance in this context. In such a case, it is fraught not only with incorrect translation, but also with
serious errors.
In this work, we did not set out to analyse the mistakes that simultaneous interpreters make in the process of work and to identify
their causes, since this is a topic for a separate extensive study. However, the choice of a specific strategy in the process of
implementing the joint venture depends on a number of factors, both linguistic and extralinguistic in nature.
1. Linguistic factors are diverse in nature. They include factors of grammatical, stylistic and semantic nature. For example, the
phrase “hyphenated Americans” is translated into Russian as “foreign Americans” using a decompression strategy because. In the
Russian version, the simultaneous interpreter could not find a similar phrase consisting of two words. It should be noted that
linguistic factors have a very large impact on the use of SL or TL, which was discussed in the relevant sections[4,253].
2. The speaker’s tempo often influences the choice of compression strategy. The faster the speaker speaks, the stronger the desire
of the simultaneous interpreter to compress the material being translated, which sometimes even leads to semantic losses. At a very
fast pace, the compression may not be entirely successful, and the simultaneous interpreters even proceeds to abstracting the text,
especially when he realizes that he cannot keep up with the speaker. Decompression is unusual for SP at a very fast speech rate,
although some cases of its use take place, as the analysis of recordings made by various simultaneous interpreters at conferences
and meetings, where the speakers spoke very quickly, shows. For this reason, the nalysed recordings are replete with a rather
significant number of stylistic errors and reservations, which, however, is perceived by the audience less painfully due to the
situational nature of the joint venture than similar mistakes in translation.
With a slow pace of presentation of the material by the speaker, the simultaneous interpreter has more room for maneuver, and
depending on the specific situation, he can resort to both the SC and the DS [1, 12].
3. Background knowledge of the translator and background knowledge of the audience.
Of course, the translator cannot fully take into account the background knowledge of the recipient, however, he is able to predict
with a sufficient degree of probability one or another variant of the translation, depending on the audience to which the translation
is addressed. Background knowledge has a significant impact on the choice of a probabilistic forecasting strategy and a signed
translation strategy. So, for the audience, which includes lawyers and legal scholars, the translation of “Attoney General” into OJ
will sound like “Attorney General” (AG). But for a wide audience, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings, it is better to
translate this position with the phrase “US Secretary of Justice.” A similar example can be cited when translating from SL to TL,
where the source language is Russian. “Chief Medical Officer”, taking into account that the speaker is addressing a professional
audience, will be translated into English as “Chief Medical Officer” (WHO terminology), while for a wide American audience this
position is better translated as “Surgeon General”. Here is a specific example from a speech by Graham Allison, Dean of the
Institute of Public Administration. D. Kennedy at Harvard University, before the deputies of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
So, our approach to you during the Cold War was not to match you in numbers of tanks, planes and soldiers but try to have better
technology to offset your large numbers. We call it the offset strategy [2,85].
Translation: Во время холодной войны мы не старались обогнать в количестве танков, самолетов и солдат. Мы пошли по
пути совершенствования технологий. Это называется стратегией технического превосходства.
Here, the “offset strategy” is passed to the TL as a “technical superiority strategy”, i.e. decompression is used, based on the
background knowledge of the simultaneous interpreter with the elements of the VI. Moreover, even if the translator did not have
such background knowledge, he would be able to quite accurately convey this concept into the TL, since there is a hint in the
context itself when the speaker simply deciphers this concept before citing the English term [3,170].
For educational purposes, it is advisable to work out such aspects in the classroom with listeners or students in the classroom with
the help of special exercises – dictations into words, when the listener needs to make an instant decision depending on the situation
given by the teacher.
4. Extra-linguistic factors of a political, cultural and religious nature.
3.
C
ONCLUSION
we are talking primarily about ready-made stamps that are used by translators, depending on the specific situation. Thus, the
English phrase “white superiority”, used in the negotiations between B. Yeltsin and N. Mandela in the Kremlin in April 1998, as
well as during N. Mandela’s meeting with other Russian officials, had only one version of translation into PY – “White minority
regime”, a clear example of decompression at a pragmatic level, driven by political factors. It would be completely wrong to
translate white supremacy or white supremacy [12, 193].
4.
R
EFERENCES
[1]
Barik, H.C. Simultaneous Interpretation: temporal and quantitative data, in Language and Speech, London, Kingston Press
Services, 16, 1973 pp. 5-270.
RAQAMLI TEXNOLOGIYALAR DAVRIDA TARJIMASHUNOSLIK VA LINGVISTIKA: ZAMONAVIY YONDASHUVLAR TADQIQI” nomli ilmiy
maqolalar to‘plami May – 2024
137
[2]
Fillmore, C.J. The case for case. In E. Bach and R Harms. Universals in Linguistic Theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.:
New York, 1968, pp. 1-90.
[3]
Mary Snell-Hornby. Translation studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Ben jamins Publishing Company, 1995. P. 170.
[4]
Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты). Уч. для институтов и факультетов ин.яз. -М., Высш.
шк., 1990 -253 c.
[5]
Швейцер А.Д. Перевод и лингвистика. Уч. для институтов и фа культетов ин.яз. -М., Воениздат, 1973. -280 с
[6]
Asror, Y. (2023, March). THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE IN THE LINGUOCULTURAL STUDY OF WORDS AND THE
CONCEPT OF “LINGUOCULTURAL LITERACY”. In Конференция: Союз Hауки и Oбразования (Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 15-17).
[7]
Abdirasulov, B. A. ughli. (2024). THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LINGUACULTUROLOGICAL ANALYSIS IN
TRANSLATION.
GOLDEN
BRAIN,
2(1),
314–317.
Retrieved
from
https://researchedu.org/index.php/goldenbrain/article/view/5958
[8]
Kushbakova, M., Shahram, A., & Zarina, R. INTERULTURAL TRAINING AT EARLIER STAGES–AS AN
INNOVATIONAL PROJECT AT EFL TEACHING.
Zbiór artykułów naukowych recenzowanych.
, 72.
[9]
Shahram, A., & Zarina, R. MODERN LANGUAGE TEACHERS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES (US EXPERIENCE).
Zbiór
artykułów naukowych recenzowanych.
, 277.
[10]
Шамахмудова, А. (2022). Pragmatic possibilities of interrogative sentences in a stable form.
Современные
лингвистические исследования: зарубежный опыт, перспективные исследования и инновационные методы преподавания
языков
, (1), 17-19.
[11]
Furkatovna, S. A., Jurabekovna, T. M., & Mamurjonovna, T. P. (1962). Gender aspects of politeness strategy in speech acts.
Linguistics and Culture Review, 5 (S2), 1488-1496.
[12]
Шамахмудова, А. Ф. (2022). ҲУРМАТ ТАМОЙИЛЛАРИНИНГ ГЕНДЕР АСПЕКТЛАРИ.
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ
ЖУРНАЛ ИСКУССТВО СЛОВА
,
5
(3).
