 A.A.I.

Dwi Pramesti Dewi (1301305043)

 Novianie Ayu Pryanka (1601541077)

 Alfian Dimas Prasetya (1601541079)

 Ni Made Anney Kastina Putri (1601541083)

 Ni Made Prana Diansari A. (1601541085)

 Pande Putu Gunatika (1601541089)

 Komang Sri Hariyani (1601541094)

Talk as text is connects to a monological views of language and mind, while talk as activity

associates with dialogism. Talk as text and talk as activity are in one sense diametrically

opposing conceptualizations, founded as they are in diverse theoretical frameworks. From

another point of view they are interdependent.

 Talk as text production and text
processing
 Language use is explored as speakers’ productions
of different types of texts.
 The functions of verbal actions are understood as
being tied to meanings inherent in the respective
languages in which the text are produced
(vocabulary, syntax, prosodic patterns, etc.).
 Utterances are viewed as units of meaning that
consist of smaller units of meaning such as words
and morphemes; each of them is equally
meaningful.
Talk as activity interaction and
situated sense making
 Language use is explored as an (inter) activity
occurring simultaneously with other kinds of human
activity.
 The functions of verbal actions are understood as
being tied to the actors understanding of these
actions in the situation at hand. The actors’ view, in
turn, depends on their expectations and
communicative projects.
 Utterances are viewed as activities that are part of
situated interactions, and make sense to those
involved, depending on the type of situation at hand,
on the number of people present, and their mutual
alliances and mutual involvement.
Judge: Så du erkänner inte stölden. (Swedish)
So you don’t confess the theft.
Interpreter: То есть ты не признаешься в краже. (Russian)
That is you don’t confess the theft.
Suspect: да. (Russian)
Yes.
Interpreter: Nej. (Swedish)
No.
 Translation studies is a young academic discipline,
and research on all kinds of translating and
interpreting is referred to by this term. Toury (1980,
1995) following Holmes (1998), uses the term “inter-
discipline”. Holmes sees the interdisciplinarity within
translation studies as a teamwork between specialists
in a variety of fields – text studies, psycho- and socio-
linguistics, literary studies, psychology and sociology
(Holmes 1988:101).
 Interdisciplinarity can also mean a shared
subject area. Whether starting from
established disciplines or from fields of
study where the shared theoretical and
methodological orientation goes across
disciplines, interdisciplinarity can optimally
lead to fruitful combinations of ideas and
scientific traditions.
 A textual approach to translation and interpretation
might appear self-evident in view of the fact that
translations relate to written originals.
 When the first attempts were made to establish
translation studies among the scientific disciplines,
 It goes without saying that translators of sacred or politically
the connection to linguistics has been close, and
from this discipline translation studies inherited a
written language bias.
 Besides, the history of translating and interpreting as
professions is intimately tied to the diffusion of written
documents of legal, religious, cultural, scientific and political
importance and to the spreading of literacy.
important texts have been source text oriented, and applied a
mono-logical view of language. When the influence of a
specific text is linked to divine or earthly authorities, this also
means that a translation needs divine sanction or blessings from
those who exercise religious and political power.
 The two classical preconceptions of translation (and
interpretation) as theory and practice are associated with
the issue of translatability that is, the question how to
determine the limits of translation. Translation is taken to
imply a problem of transferring a source text to a target
text. On the other hand, it is viewed as a problem of
finding out the hidden meaning behind the original; the
author’s actual intention.
 New explorations showing that word order, syntax etc. in
spoken interaction often deviate considerably from written
language standards, lead to a general reconsideration of
what should be counted as correct language use and
likewise how language generally should be described.
 A current trend in translation studies, drawing on
insights from pragmatics, discourse analysis and text
linguistics, promote what can be termed a ‘top-down’
approach, that is to adopt a textual analysis that
proceeds from whole to part or from text to sign rather
than starting from lexical items or other units taken
from grammatical theory.
 The question of translatability as it is traditionally put
forward, according to Toury, must be perceived as a
purely academic one; it presupposes a perspective from
outside. As such, it essentially misses translatability as a
problem lived by the participants who are involved in a
here-and-now communicative activity.
 Toury (1995) emphasize that translations must be understood and explored in relation to the socio-
cultural contexts in which they appear.

 Toury has proposed program for "Descriptive Translation Studies" which is defined as "target-oriented",
and translation as a fact of and a requirement of a "target culture.

 Nida (1977) has developed a theory of translation which point that the traditional concentration on the
author's intentions and on the linguistic features of the source texts, had led to an underestimation of
translation as "an act of communication".

 Nida (1976) proposed to be more focus on accomplished communicative results, posing questions like;
what is lost in translations and how can losses in and by translating be minimized.
o Hatim and Mason (1990)

In a review of tendencies within translation studies, conclude that recent developments such as "context
sensitive linguistics, sociolinguistics, discourse studies and artificial intelligence provide a new direction
for the future. It is one which restores to the translator the central role in a process of cross-cultural
communication and ceases to regard equivalence merely as a matter of entities within texts.
o Wadensjo (1998)

She states that a considerable body of literature on translating and interpreting principally banishes moral
issues and quality questions from the realm of theory. The aim of these studies is to learn about translating
and interpreting in terms of individuals cognitive (or even brain) functions by looking at these actors as
information-processing systems and their translating activity as consisting of specific types of cognitive
processes, also termed decoding and 'encoding operations’
o Manttari (1988)

Manttari outlines a program for translation studies, in which she suggests tracing the competence for
‘translatorial action’ in the "basic biological social elements of the system ‘man’. She points to the
importance of accounting for the translator's background knowledge concerning the prospective functions
and expected audience of translated text.

o Rommetveit (1992)

He argues the representational-computational models within mainstream individual cognitive psychology

and cognitive science are monologically based and converge in an image of Man as an essential asocial, but
highly complex information-processing device.
 The sense-making work carried out by anyone in
interaction can be described as based on different
aspects of meaning, basically the propositional
meaning of talk and the interactional or situated
meaning of words spoken
La theorie de sens partly appears as a juxtaposition of the two conventional views on language
and mind mentioned above what voloshinov terms individualistic subjectivism and abstract
objectivism.
• Seleskovitch's theory interpreting claims insights in the
processes place in the interpreter's brain. It involves what
may be called a mentalistic view of interpreting. A similar
view is present in several works in the field. Language use is
regularly conceptualized in the literature as 'text processing
and/or text production'.
• For instance, Kalina (1992), presenting a 'strategic' approach to
interpreting didactics, phrases the interpreter's concern as the rule-
governed production of texts, corresponding texts produced by
others. In a more recent article, written together with Kohn, the
term used is not 'text' but 'discourse'-"source and target dis- course"
(Kohn and Kalina 1996), but the foregrounding of this one activity
remains the production of source discourse and target discourse
respectively -based as it is on a "mental-modelling view of
communication and interpreting/translation" (Kohn and Kalina
1996
Interpreters' reactions to primary parties' utterances can there be described as flexible rather than 'fixed in
advance'. Furthermore, the co-actors can be described as neither necessarily cooperative in speaking and
listening, nor as having a shared understanding of what is correct and appropriate. Regarding interpreters'
activity solely as production of equivalent texts, where equivalent implies correct, appropriate, successful,
etc., we end up identifying part of what interpreters in practice do as something else than interpreting. If the
text-production view is combined with a monological view of language and language use, this something-
else-part will be described as individual deficiencies and failures.
 Harris (1992) warns that, "in the translation context, 'text loses important implications if we do not
restrict it to texts possessing a high degree of discourse complexity, and which are usually written or, if
spoken, prepared in advance". This remark is interesting, for what it states about discourse complexity,
and for the fact that it does so.
 Prototypical examples of 'natural translation' would be immigrant children assisting their parents as
interpreters at the doctor’s, or reading the message from the authorities. One definition is borrowed from
Wilss (1981): Translation is a series of reformulation processes transposing a source- language text into a
target-language text which is as closely equivalent to the former as possible; these processes suppose a
syntactic, semantic and pragmatic comprehension of the content of the text.
 according to Krings's conditions. He seems to embrace the idea that definitions of 'translation' must
include a quality requirement. Krings argues that the relation between "a source-language text" and "a
target-language text" must fulfil certain predefined criteria to make a candidate translation qualify as a
"real" translation.
Bakntin’s theory of the appropriation of others words: Bakhtin argues (1979/1986) that a word (Ru: slov̡̡̡̡̡̡̡̡ͻ),
exists in three aspects. These aspects are in simultaneously and equally relevant in theory, it is possible to
distinguish between them.

 First, a word has one existence as a dictionary gloss, with a range of potential meaning (znacheniya).
This aspect of the word lacks both emotional expressiveness and loadedness with values.

 The second aspect of the word is connected to others use of it. When individuals say or write a word,
they to some extend reproduce the presuppositions, including values, emotions and contexts, that are
associated with others use of the same word, in turn yet others applications at different times and places.

 The third aspect of the word is connected to a specific utterance, at a particular instance. This third
aspect is part and parcel of the actual utterance in which it is spoken.

Bakhtin perceives language as something connecting individuals with one another, whilst simultaneously
being the concrete means by which people can express themselves as individuals.
 Studying the nature of the novel, Bakhtin observes that what is written by one individual, the author, reflects not just this
person’s consciousness. It invokes also the perspectives and voices of a diversity of other consciousnesses, from different cultures
and times. The voice of the characters described, and also the voice of the current reader of the novel in question. Stories, texts,
utterances, etc. reflect, and refract the multiple voices by which languages live and develop (Bakhtin 1984:18).

Consequently, if we consider that interpreting is kind of quoting, interpreter-mediated conversations would provide
excellent occasions to explore how the dialogical opposition between the voices involved creates new meanings.

According to Bakhtin, an utterance thus has connections backwards in time., but it also links to the future. It is
constituted by its addressivity. A word has a sense (smysl) only in a social context, and this sense is not constant but changes and
multiplies in and by human inter-activity.

When interpreting in everyday life is thought about in terms of possible losses of information, this reflects an idea of
information as belonging to words, of ‘facts’ and ‘emotions’ as properties of speech. Accordingly, the work of interpreters would
consist solely of a production of ‘texts’, possessing the same information, facts and emotions as the original ‘texts’/ utterances.
This represents a monological preconception of language.
Bakhtin’s theory provides a ground for a distinction between normative activity (activity in principle) and real life activity (the
actual cases). Only in theory is the utterance the carries of specific information, and only theoretically is it an instantiation of
linguistic or other rules. Rules belong to an idealized, abstract world. They exist in the minds of people. Utterance, in contrast
belong to the concrete world. An utterance in the oral or the text bound mode can be seen as correct, incorrect, equivalent,
translatable, adequate, etc.

Bakhtin’s view of the nature of discourse has far-reaching theoretical implications when applied to studies of
interpreting in face-to-face interaction. It implies that language is viewed and explored as a historical and social phenomenon,
continuously reproduced and recreate by being used. The use of language is regarded as social activities, connected to different
genres and layers of contexts.

Interpreters on duty understand themselves not only to be translating between two languages, but also to be
performing on others behalf various activities, such as persuading, agreeing, lying, questioning, claiming, explaining, comforting,
accusing, denying, coordinating interaction, and so forth. The links more to a dialogical view of language and mind.
 Utterance is seen as a link in a chain of utterances, as a thread in a net of intertwined

communicative behavior.

 Meanings conveyed are seen as resulting from joint efforts between the people involved.
The meanings of an original utterance will depend:

 on how it is reacted to by people present at it (the other interlocutor and the interpreter)

 on preceding and following sequences of talk

 on non-verbal communicative behavior

 on defining the speech situation

The meaning of a translation utterance will depend:

 on participant mutual expectations

 physical circumstances and artefacts

 on whether the utterance is a part of a focused event or disattended by those present at it

 When analysis equivalence between utterances (comparing originals and translations) on the basis of the

function they are designed to perform, there are more or less consciously taking into consideration
contextual aspects manifest in the situation.

 When applying a textual approach, there are reason to consider what may be called conceptual traps.
 Downplay the importance of all of the other activities

 Focus on discourse details

 As a logical consequence of this, language users in turn tend to be objectified, and responsibility for

verbal activities tends to be partly de-personified.

 Being trained as an interpreter, the talk-as-text model is part of how interpreter understand and define

what interpreter doing.

 Words and utterances achieve their meanings primarily in the framework of a particular activity, which in

turn associates with a particular speech genre

 Individuals work as interpreters is dialogically organized in accordance with the overarching type of

activity in which it takes place.

 According to Foucault (1971), institutions live partly by their routines, including their ways of naming

and talking about people and events.

 The legal responsibility of interpreters presupposes a textual model of talk. According to Ruth Morris

(1993, 1995) concludes that court interpreters are supposed to perform ‘just translation’, or ‘verbatim
translation’.