Teaching Community Interpreting Students Consecutive Interpreting
A text-based analysis of the interplay of genre and grammar in a good-will speech text
Published online: 1 October 2013
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.11.2.03cho
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.11.2.03cho
Abstract/Résumé
Les textes de discours qui sont « écrits pour être parlés » (Snell-Hornby, 1997) emploient un mode de langage écrit et parlé qui donne lieu à leur contexte unique et leurs ressources linguistiques sous-jacentes. En jouant sur le registre (en particulier, le mode de langage), ces textes hybrides développent, à mesure de leur élaboration, une « identité générique » et une grammaire qui leur sont propres (Eggins, 2004, p. 55). Inspiré par la recherche sur le genre de Martin et de ses collègues (ex : Martin et Rose, 2005), ce papier vise à identifier l'identité générique d'un type de texte de discours, le « discours de bonne volonté », dans le but d'aider les étudiants d'interprétation communautaire dans le contexte de l'interprétation consécutive (Monroe et Ehninger, 1967). A partir de la linguistique fonctionnelle systémique (SFL), ce papier examine à la fois les niveaux de contexte et les niveaux linguistiques pour révéler comment la structure du genre et la grammaire (combinaison de clauses et nominalisation) interagissent dans un texte de discours pour produire du sens. Les aboutissants d'une étude de cas menée dans le cadre de cette recherche indiquent que les étudiants ont du mal à interpréter les interactions du genre et de la grammaire. Les principales données de cette étude de cas s'appuient sur un discours prononcé par le Premier ministre australien et deux textes interprétant ce discours produits par deux étudiants coréens de maîtrise.
References (47)
Candy, P. C. (1989). Constructivism and the Study of Self-direction in Adult Learning. Studies in the Education of Adults 21(2), 95–116.
Chafe, W. & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of Spoken and Written Language. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written Language (pp. 167–201). San Diego: Academic Press.
Choi, G. (2013). A Study on Logical Meaning Using SFL and the Implications of this for Translation Studies (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of New South Wales.
Christie, F. & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre and institutions. Social processes in the workplace and school. London/Washington: Cassell.
Dam, H. V. (1998). Lexical Similarity vs Lexical Dissimilarity in Consecutive Interpreting: A Product-oriented Study of Form-based vs Meaning-based Interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker, and M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp.. 266–277). London/New York: Routledge.
Dowis, R. (2000). The Lost Art of the Great Speech. How to Write One. How to Deliver it. New York: Amacom.
Ficchi, V. (1999). Learning consecutive interpretation: An empirical study and an autonomous approach. Interpreting 4(2), 199–218.
Gile, D. (1991). Methodological aspects of interpretation (and translation) research. Target 3 (2), 153–174.
(1995). Fidelity assessment in consecutive interpretation: An experiement. Target (Special issue: Interpreting research) 7(1), 153–174.
(1987). Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written Language (pp. 83–113). San Diego: Academic Press.
(1989/2002). Some Grammatical Problems in Scientific English. In J. J. Webster. (Ed.), The Language of Science (pp. 150–180). London/New York: Continuum.
(1995, 2002). Language and the Reshaping of Human Experience. In J. J. Webster. (Ed.), The Language of Science (pp. 7–23). London/New York: Continuum.
(1998, 2002). Things and Relations: Regrammaticizing Experience as Technical Knowledge. In J. J. Webster. (Ed.), The Language of Science (pp. 49–101). London/New York: Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong: Deakin University.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Third edition. London/New York: Arnold.
Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. J. (1987). Comprehending Oral and Written Languages: Critical Contrasts for Literacy and Schooling. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written Language (pp. 83–113). San Diego: Academic Press.
Iedema, R. (1997). The language of administration: organizing human activity in formal institutions. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin. (Eds.), Genre and institutions. Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 73–100). London/Washington: Cassell.
Ilg, G. & Lambert, S. (1996). Teaching consecutive interpreting. Interpreting 1(1), 69–99.
Jones, R. (1998, 2002). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester/Northampton: St Jerome Publishing.
Lee, J. & Buzo, A. (2009). Community language interpreting: A workbook. Annandale: The Federation Press.
McKerrow, R. E., Gronbeck, B. E., Ehninger, D. & Monroe, A. H. (2007). Principles and types of public speaking. (16th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Martin, J. R. (1985). Factual writing: exploring and challenging social reality. Geelong: Deakin University.
(1992). English text. System and structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1999). Modelling context: a crooked path of progress in contextual linguistics. In M. Ghadessy. (Ed.), Text and Context in Functional Linguistics (pp. 25–61). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education 201, 10–21.
Monroe, H. A. & Ehninger, D. (1967). Principles and Types of Speech. (6th ed.). Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Peng, G. (2009). Using rhetorical structure theory (RST) to describe the development of coherence in interpreting trainees. Interpreting 11(2), 216–243.
Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Kategorisen und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. München: Hueber.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1997). Written to be Spoken: The Audio-Medial Text in Translation. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Text Typology and Translation (pp. 277–290). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Seleskovitch, D. (1978/1994). Interpreting for international conferences: Problems of language and communication (trans. S. Dailey & E. N. McMillan). Washington, D. C.: Pen and Booth.
Seleskovitch, D. & Lederer, M. (1989). A systematic approach to teaching interpretation. (trans. J. Harmer). Paris: Didier Erudition.
Swales, John M (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Ure, J (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. Perren & J.L.M. Trim (Eds.), Applications of Linguistics (pp. 443–452). London: Cambridge University Press.