11.3.4 Analysis of the use of specific cohesive devices

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Following a general analysis, the specific demonstrative referential devices were also analyzed. Table 11.11 details the devices included in this round of analysis (based on Károly, 2014, p. 79).
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Table 11.11 Demonstrative referential cohesive ties
 
Noun Group
Adverbial Group
pronoun
determiner
adverb
Proximal
this/these
[ez/ezek]
this/these
[ez/ezek]
here (now)
[itt/ide (most/ekkor)]
Distal
that/those
[az/azok]
that/those
[az/azok]
there (then)
[ott/oda (akkor)]
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

First, the proportion of specific demonstrative referential devices kept from the original source language texts is given (Table 11.12).
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Table 11.12 Proportion of demonstrative referential ties kept from the ST
Student/TL text
2nd Semester
3rd Semester
4th Semester
Estrella
75
16.6
40
Luna
50
33.3
40
Matador
75
50
60
Senorita
100
66.6
60
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In the case of all four students, the trend seems to be that fewer specific demonstrative referential ties are kept from the original as students progress in their training. At the same time, as concerns the frequency of demonstrative referential ties overall, we can see how students, as active text producers, add specific demonstrative referential cohesive ties to their target language texts (Table 11.13).
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Table 11.13 Specific demonstrative referential ties/100 words of text
Student/TL text
2nd Semester
3rd Semester
4th Semester
Spontaneous speech
ST
0.81
1.25
0.97
Estrella
2.38
2.23
1.93
1.66
Luna
3.28
2.17
2.29
2.2
Matador
3.08
2.08
1.64
4.2
Senorita
2.88
1.36
1.68
1.6
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

As students progress in their training, there are fewer specific demonstrative referential cohesive ties in their target texts. This might be explained by the fact that students use different ways of achieving cohesion, as the use of demonstratives is often considered colloquial, and not seen as polished by interpreter trainers. When compared with the spontaneous speech of the students, there are no clear trends observable.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Next, the use of connectives is examined in the STs and the target language texts. In the analysis, I use the four categories described by Károly (2014, p. 81): those of additive, opposite, causal and temporal connectives. First, the proportion of each of these categories is given in the SL texts (Table 11.14).
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Table 11.14 Proportion of connectives in the source language texts
 
2nd Semester
3rd Semester
4th Semester
Additive
50
50
46.1
Opposite
16.7
0
7.7
Temporal
25
37.5
38.5
Causal
8.3
12.5
7.7
Total
100
100
100
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

As can be seen from the table, additive conjunctions dominated in all three of the SL texts, followed by temporal ones. Opposite and causal conjunctions appeared less frequently in the source language texts. This distribution of conjunctions remains in the consecutively interpreted target language texts as well.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

First, figures for the consecutively interpreted Hungarian target language texts and the spontaneous speech of the students are given together, followed by a detailed analysis of the TTs of each student.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

As indicated in Table 11.15, there are considerable differences between the consecutively interpreted target language texts and the spontaneous speech production of students. Irrespective of the stage in training, in the consecutively interpreted target language texts, the order of frequency of occurrence of conjunctions is additive, followed by temporal, with opposite and causal conjunctions ranking third. In contrast, in the spontaneous speech production of the students, the most frequent conjunctions are still additive conjunctions, however, their proportion is lower than in the consecutively interpreted target texts. They are followed by causal conjunctions, while opposite conjunctions rank third. There were no temporal conjunctions in the spontaneous texts.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Table 11.15 Proportion of connectives in the TL texts and in the spontaneous speech of the students
 
2nd Semester
3rd Semester
4th Semester
Spontaneous speech
Additive
64.6
75
67.6
45.2
Opposite
10.1
2.8
4.2
19.3
Temporal
19.2
11.1
24
0
Causal
6.1
11.1
4.4
35.5
Total
100
100
100
100
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Compared with the source language texts, the proportion of additive conjunctions is higher, irrespective of the stage in training. The proportion of temporal conjunctions, the second most frequent conjunctions in the source texts, is lower in the target texts than in the source texts. The proportion of causal and opposite conjunctions remains low in both the source language and the target language texts. In other words, in the consecutively interpreted target language texts, interpreter trainees favor the use of additive conjunctions, followed by temporal conjunctions. During the process of the active analysis and target language speech production, they add more additive and temporal conjunctions as compared to the original. The above averages, however, hide considerable individual differences.
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next

A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:

    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave