Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 4:3 (2015) ► pp.299–316

Argumentative equivalence as the reproduction of strategic maneuvering in interpreted texts

Though interpreting is to a great extent about the interlinguistic reproduction of arguments, argumentation theory is almost completely overlooked by interpreting studies, which partly explains the frequent production of pragmatically inappropriate interpreted texts. Against the theoretical gap, the paper puts forward a descriptive argumentation approach to political speeches with a view to their simultaneous interpretation, in the spirit of making the case for a systematic contribution of argumentation studies to interpretation theory and training.
Keywords: simultaneous interpreting, argumentative equivalence, strategic maneuvering, interpreted texts, source texts
Published online: 28 January 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.3.03bra
References (39)
Colucci, Chiara. 2011. “Modalisation and Pragmatics in Simultaneous TV Interpreting. A Case Study: American Presidential Debates.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 161: 61–80.Google Scholar
Crevatin, Franco. 1998. “Prefazione [Preface].” In Interpretare il discorso argomentativo. Teoria, aspetti e problemi [Interpreting Argumentative Discourse. Theory, Aspects and Problems], ed. by Carlo Marzocchi, vii-xvii1. Trieste: Scuola superiore di lingue moderne per interpreti e traduttori [Advanced School of Modern Languages for Interpreters and Translators].Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2001. “The State of the Art in Argumentation Theory.” In Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 11–26. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falbo, Caterina. 1999. “Morfosintassi e riformulazione [Morphosyntax and reformulation].” In Interpretazione simultanea e consecutiva. Problemi teorici e metodologie didattiche [Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation. Theoretical Problems and Training Methodologies], ed. by Caterina Falbo, Mariachiara Russo, and Francesco Straniero Sergio, 175–188. Milano: Hoepli.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Error analysis: a research tool.” In Perspectives on Interpreting, ed. by Giuliana Garzone, Peter Mead, and Maurizio Viezzi, 111–127. Bologna: CLUEB.Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves. 2008. “Stratégies et tactiques en traduction et interprétation [Strategies and tactics in translation and interpreting].” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: a Tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 63–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garssen, Bart. 2001. “Argument Schemes.” In Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 81–99. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana. 2000. “Textual Analysis and Interpreting Research.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 101: 69–88.Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana, and Maurizio Viezzi. 2002. “Introduction.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities, ed. by Giuliana Garzone, and Maurizio Viezzi, 1–11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerritsen, Susanne. 2001. “Unexpressed Premises.” In Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 51–79. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Govier, Trudy, and Henrike Jansen. 2011. “Anecdotes and Arguments.” In Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 75–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Keith. 1995. “A Descriptive Framework for Compensation.” The Translator 1 (1): 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopczyński, Andrzej. 1994. “Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems.” In Translation Studies. An Interdiscipline, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 189–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marzocchi, Carlo. 1997. “The Analysis of Argumentation and its Relevance to Interpretation Research and Theory.” In Transferre Necesse Est. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, 5-7 September, 1996, Budapest, Hungary, ed. by Kinga Klaudy and János Kohn, 179–185. Budapest: Scholastica.
. 1998. Interpretare il discorso argomentativo. Teoria, aspetti e problemi [Interpreting Argumentative Discourse. Theory, Aspects and Problems]. Trieste: Scuola superiore di lingue moderne per interpreti e traduttori [Advanced School of Modern Languages for Interpreters and Translators].Google Scholar
Mayaffre, Damon. 2012. Nicolas Sarkozy. Mesure et Démesure du Discours (2007-2012) [Nicolas Sarkozy: Measure and Excessiveness in Discourse (2007-2012)]. Paris: SciencesPo. Les Presses.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht. 1985. Text and Translation. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Palazzi, Maria Cristina. 2007. “Tipologie di interpretazione e formazione degli interpreti [Types of interpreting and interpreter training].” In Tradurre: Formazione e Professione [Translation: Training and the Profession], ed. by Maria Teresa Musacchio and Geneviève Henrot Sostero, 257–275. Padova: Cleup.Google Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 2005. L’argumentation : Histoire, théories, perspectives. Paris: PUF - Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reboul, Olivier. 1991. Introduction à la Rhétorique [Introduction to Rhetoric]. Paris: PUF, Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2009. “The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA).” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 87–121. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Riccardi, Alessandra. 1998. “Interpreting Strategies and Creativity.” In Translators’ Strategies and Creativity, ed. by Ann Beylard-Ozeroff, Jana Králová, and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 171–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “On the Evolution of Interpreting Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Meta: Translators’ Journal 50 (2): 753–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina. 1997. “Strategies of Translating Political Texts.” In Text Typology and Translation, ed. by Anna Trosborg, 119–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1995. “Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting.” The Translator 1 (2): 193–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snelling, David. 1999. “Introduzione alla simultanea verso la lingua straniera [Introduction to simultaneous interpreting into a foreign language].” In Interpretazione simultanea e consecutiva. Problemi teorici e metodologie didattiche [Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation. Theoretical Problems and Training Methodologies], ed. by Caterina Falbo, Mariachiara Russo, and Francesco Straniero Sergio, 202–206. Milano: Hoepli.Google Scholar
Straniero Sergio, Francesco. 2003. “Norms and Quality in Media Interpreting: The Case of Formula One Press Conferences.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 121: 135–174.Google Scholar
Viaggio, Sergio. 2002. “The Quest for Optimal Relevance. The Need to Equip Students with a Pragmatic Compass.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities, ed. by Giuliana Garzone and Maurizio Viezzi, 229–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viezzi, Maurizio. 1999. “Aspetti della qualità in interpretazione [Quality in interpreting].” In Interpretazione simultanea e consecutiva. Problemi teorici e metodologie didattiche [Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation. Theoretical Problems and Training Methodologies], ed. by Caterina Falbo, Mariachiara Russo, and Francesco Straniero Sergio, 140–151. Milano: Hoepli.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpreting (non-conference settings).” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Carmen Millán and Francesca Bartrina, 377–388. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2004. Relevance in Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 2009. “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.” In Examining Argumentation in Context. Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.