Linguistic and cognitive aspects of translation and interpretation skills

Abstract

Translation receives a lot of attention from sociology, psychology, computer sciences, information technologies and from linguistics, from which it originates. With the advances in technology in the 21st century, studies show that translation is not a sterile linguistic activity, but a reflection of a set of skills and capabilities of the translator/interpreter (T/I). In this respect, the formation of translation competence and related practices requires a thorough perception of worldwide affairs embodying value systems that a language holds framed through sociocultural practices. The achievement of the nature of both source and target languages, henceforth, allows for the establishment of effective linguistic competencies. In turn, such sociolinguistic, communicative, strategic, pragmatic and semiotic competencies provide the T/I with the opportunity to consider the translation/interpretation task from a variety of perspectives, all of which might initially seem independent of each other, but inherently correlated in their nature. Especially, the study of the physical properties of speech helps interpreters perceive a wide range of sounds for fluency and strategic thinking. Therefore, translation/interpretation is said to be a communicative activity, to be recognized and acknowledged by practitioners more in the sense that language – the tool of the craft – is a reflection of value systems framed through sociocultural practices and a mindset formulated with critical and creative thinking. This is believed to play a key role in the way translation/interpretation is perceived and, hence, its success upon implementation. In accordance with this framework, this paper provides a set of key qualities accounting for a T/I’s success.

Keywords

• translation
• interpretation
• translator; interpreter; linguistics; competence; translation skills

Kaynakça

1. Arslan, S. (2010). İyi bir çevirmen olmak. Retrieved from
2. https://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/2834/1/%C4%B0Y%C4%B0-B%C4%B0R-%C3%87EV%C4%B0RMEN-OLMAK
3. Baker, M. (1992). In other words. London: Routledge.
4. Bassnett, S. (1980). Translation Studies. London: Methuen.
5. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp.2-27). Harlow, UK: Longman.
6. Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University Press.
7. Çoban, F. (2015). Analysis and training of the required abilities and skills in translation in the light of translation models and general theories of translation studies. ELSEVIER, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 707-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.074
8. Dechert H. W., Sandrock U. (1986). Thinking-aloud protocols: The decomposition of language processing. In: Cook V. J., (Ed.), Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning. (pp.119-136). Oxford, Pergamon.

9. Erton, İ. (2018). The essence of semiotics as a mediator of communication and cognition. International Online Journal of Education & Teaching, 5(2), 266–277.
10. Gentzer, E. (1993). Contemporary translation theories. London: Routledge.
11. Gerloff, P. (1987). Identifying the unit of analysis in translation: some uses of think-aloud protocols data. In Faerch e Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research. (pp. 135-158). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
12. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
13. Hatim, B. & Ian M. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
14. https://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/2834/1/%C4%B0Y%C4%B0-B%C4%B0R-%C3%87EV%C4%B0RMEN-OLMAK
15. Kress, G. (2012). Thinking about the notion of “Cross-Cultural” from a social semiotic perspective. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(4), 369–385.
16. Krings, H. P. (1986). Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Eine empirische Untersuchung der Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen: Narr.
17. Lin, G. H. C., Su, S. C. F., & Ho, M. M. H. (2009). Pragmatics and Communicative Competences. Online Submission.
18. Lörscher, W. (1996). A psycholinguistic analysis of translation processes. Meta, 41(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.7202/003518ar
19. Mey, L. J. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
20. Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.
21. Neubert, A. & Gregory M. S. (1992). Translation as text. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
22. Neubert, A. (1985). Text and translation. Leipzig, Germany: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
23. Nida, E. A. & Charles R. T. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.
24. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.
25. Rudvin, M. (2007). Professionalism and ethics in community interpreting: The impact of individualist versus collective group identity. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 9(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.04rud
26. Türker, F . (1991). Dilbilimin çalışma alanlarında bilgisayar kullanımı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(), 137-143. Retrieved from http://dad.boun.edu.tr/en/pub/issue/29237/313022
27. Yined, T. R. (2006). Developing pragmatic competence in a foreign language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 8(), 169. SciELO. Web. 21 Feb. 2020.