249
TYPES OF ANTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS OF
INTERPRETATION
Abdullaeva Gulnoza Mirolim qizi
1st year Master Student, Uzbekistan State World Languages University
The given publication work aims at revealing the notion of anticipation, its
features and its types in the process of interpretation. According to some scholars
Anticipation, no matter whether as a strategy or a phenomenon, plays a crucial role
in field simultaneous interpretation and has drawn considerable attention of scholars.
However, the study on anticipation is far from being systematic and thorough, and
agreements are hard to achieve on some issues related to anticipation among
different scholars. We are eager to deal with some basic issues of anticipation in
simultaneous interpretation such as the definition, classification and features of
anticipation, in hope that this paper can cast some light on the understanding of
anticipation in simultaneous interpretation and can invite more attention and studies
to anticipation in simultaneous interpretation.
Anticipation, no matter as an unconscious psychological activity or an effective
subsidiary device in the process of interpretation, calls for more exploration. Besides,
anticipation is an integrated prediction concerning psychological, linguistic, and even
cultural aspects, which is up to the prospect of interpreting studies. Important as
anticipation in simultaneous interpretation (SI) is, works specific to it in the past
decades were precious and rare and they were mostly the display of technical rules
or general theories with no specific focus on certain languages. Actually anticipation
is language-specific, which will be illustrated later in this paper.
Many interpreting theorists have explicitly or implicitly classified anticipation
into several kinds according to their respective criteria. Relevant classifications in the
overall research in anticipation are as follows:
Lederer
describes two types of anticipation in her famous article “Simultaneous
Interpretation: Units of Meaning and Other Features”. She holds that apart from the
pure, observable kind of anticipation, namely, the interpreter produces a constituent in
the target language before the speaker has uttered the corresponding constituent in
the source language (Lederer, 2002: 138-148), there exists another type she considers
more common. The type called by Lederer as freewheeling anticipation is that the
interpreter produces a constituent in the target language after the corresponding
constituent has been uttered in the source language, “but so soon afterwards and at
so correct a place in his own language that there is no doubt the interpreter summons
it before hearing t
he original” (ibid, 139).
According to the objects interpreter predicts in the process of interpreting,
Roderick Jones divides anticipation into three kinds. The first one is the anticipation of
the broad structure and sometimes the general thrust of a speech. This anticipation can
be possible from the context of a meeting. If there is a discussion or a negotiation where
delegations’ positions or arguments will become known, they will return to points they
have already made, or react to points made by other participants. Such anticipation will
be enhanced if the interpreter can also bring to bear other cognitive knowledge available
to them. The second kind is the anticipation of speech patterns and rhetorical structures.
250
For instance, those working from English should know that an Englishman or woman
who begins his/her speech with, “This is a fantastic idea” and so on is very possible to
be followed with, “but…”. The third kind is the anticipation of specific words or phrases
in individual sentences. This type of anticipation is actually possible because it is simply
so obvious how the sentence is going to end. For most authors, according to the
information that interpreters use to predict what speakers intend to say, anticipation can
fall into two kinds: linguistic and extra-lingustic.
Besides, according to Wilss, linguistic anticipation is triggered by certain
linguistic units (e.g. words or word combinations) which serve as cues. These cues
are of two types--co-textual cues and extra-linguistic cues.
It has become more evident over the years that anticipation is enabled by
several factors. Interpreters can be helped by linguistic factors, that is to say their
knowledge of the source language
– mastering expressions, set phrases or being
able to quickly locate important key words is fundamental for anticipation. But there
are also the so-called extra-
linguistic factors. These refer to the text’s or the speaker’s
particular background. Any information about them is really helpful for anticipation.
Hence preparation before interpreting events is essential! Also prosody (that is to say
non-
verbal communication, such as the speaker’s tone, intonation, rhythm and div-
language) plays an important role. However, it is not always possible to see the
speaker. Moreover, the intonation does not necessarily have the same meaning
depending on the language. For instance, studies showed English intonations can
sound aggressive to German-speaking people, while German intonations are
monotonous and boring to an English-speaking audience.
All in all, when interpreting between two languages which do not have the same
natural word order, a very in-depth knowledge of the source language is required, even
if it is considered to be one of your passive languages (that is to say, if you only interpret
from that language). It also highlights the importance of training for an interpreter,
because only in this manner will interpreting students learn how to anticipate properly.
To conclude, the widely-accepted classification of anticipation includes
linguistic anticipation and extra-linguistic anticipation. According to above mentioned
facts we can say that anticipation has a great role in the process of interpretation as
it is the important element during interpretation.
REFERENCES:
1. Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation [M]. Oxford: Pergamon. 1981.
2. Newmark P.A Textbook of Translation [M]. New York: Prentice Hall
International, 1988.
3. Newmark P. (2006). About Translation [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research.
4. Nord C.A. Functional Typology of Translation [M]. Amsterdam, 1997.
5. Shoabdurahmonov Sh, Askarova M., Hojiev A., Rasulov I., Doniyorov X.
Modern Uzbek literary language.
– T.: Teacher, 1980. – PP. 137–146.
6. The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume03Issue.
7. The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume03Issue.
