11.5 Summary

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In chapter eleven, an overview was provided of the definitions of cohesion, followed by a description of means of achieving cohesion in Hungarian. Then, shifts of cohesion in translation were described, followed by shifts of cohesion in interpreting.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In this chapter, the following research questions were raised:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. What proportion of the SL cohesive devices is kept in the TL texts?
  2. How does the frequency of occurrence of cohesive devices change as students progress in their training?
  3. How does the proportion of cohesive devices for 100 words of the TL text change as students progress in their training?
  4. What are the differences between the use of cohesive devices in the interpreted target language texts and the spontaneous speech of the students of interpreting?
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The analysis of keeping the SL cohesive ties in the consecutively interpreted target language texts showed no consistent pattern in the case of conjunctions and referential ties, however, results indicated that elliptical structures are not transferred from the SL texts to the TL texts.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Results related to the frequency of occurrence of overall cohesive ties in the consecutively interpreted Hungarian TL texts are the following. In the TL texts, there were more cohesive ties for 100 words of the texts than in the SL texts. There were no consistent patterns for ellipsis, while in the case of conjunctions, as students progress in their training, they use fewer conjunctions, still the proportion of conjunctions for 100 words of texts is higher than that in the SL texts.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The use of demonstrative cohesive ties was also examined. My results indicate that fewer specific referential ties were kept from the SL texts as students progressed in their training, and, at the same time, they added a number of demonstrative referential ties to the TL texts, in other words, the proportion of demonstrative ties for 100 words of text is always higher in the TL texts than in the SL texts.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Moving on to connectives, the most frequently used connectives are additive and temporal connectives in the consecutively interpreted target language texts. In the TL texts, additive connectives are used more frequently than in the SL texts, which can be seen as a considerable shift in terms of the use of cohesive devices between the SL and the TL texts.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

When looking at individual data, the proportion of additive conjunctions is higher in the TL texts than in the SL texts. The frequency of occurrence of temporal connectives is lower in the TL texts than in the SL texts, in other words, the following shift can be observed in the use of connectives: as students of interpreting progress in their training, there is an increase in the overall proportion of additive conjunctions, and a decrease in the proportion of temporal connectives in their TTs.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

What this tells us about interpreters is that during consecutive interpreting, interpreters are seen as active text producers, adding their own cohesive devices to the TL texts. An alternative explanation is that most of the additions can also be interpreted as function words, and their addition or repetition during speech production is a natural process (Gyarmathy, 2009).
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