GARDEN-PATH SENTENCES: DIFFICALTIES OF INTERPRETATION

Introduction. Issues of training interpreters in connection with accelerating the recent processes of globalization are today in the focus of attention of scientists and teachers-practitioners. The main task of the interpreter is to transfer the meaning of foreign, often ambiguous texts adequately. The meaning of the utterance in the original language is made up of several clear characteristics that, if neglected, may cause serious errors in translation. One such characteristic is the syntactic structure of the original message. Unfortunately, linguistic exercises that form and develop the ability of students to solve the translation goals rarely include tasks to teach the correct perception and reproduction of polysemantic (homonymous) messages, which can be translated correctly only under condition of knowing about the syntax of a foreign language.

The aim set out in article is the search of possibilities to train professional translators better on the bases of their learning to implement syntactic analysis of the text.

Methodology and research methods. The work is based on the competence approach to the training of student translators. The complex of interrelated scientific methods was used, the main of which is the experiment.

Results and scientific novelty. The typology of garden-path sentences (statements and messages) is given, the structure of which may cause ambiguity. With the help of quantitative data translation peculiarities of these sentences are characterized. The conducted experiment, where participants were 60 students of theUralStatePedagogicalUniversity (Ekaterinburg) and theInstitute ofInternationalRelations (Ekaterinburg), concluded that the syntactic analysis of garden-path sentences is the problematic point for the translation of texts from English into Russian. Specific examples of exercises for the development of skills of this kind of analysis while studying the course of “Translation Practice” are described. It is noted that parsing as a professional competence of a future translator is formed in the process of training activities and integrated efforts of various departments of anyLanguageSchool/ University.

Practical significance. The results of the study can be used by teachers of foreign languages, working both in linguistic and in non-linguistic schools/ universities.

1. Plotnikova M. V., Tomilova A. I. About the role of translator decision in the attainment of equivalence (on the example of French fiction texts and their Russian translations). Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie v Rossii = Pedagogical Education in Russia. 2015; 10: 191–195. (In Russ.)

2. Kushnina L. V., Ulirina S. G. From communicative competences to translator’s communicative personality. Izvestia Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogichskogo universiteta = News of Volgograd State Pedagogical University. 2013; 9: 16–18. (In Russ.)

3. Kushnina L. V. Translation as a synergetic system. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossijskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya = Perm University Bulletin. Russian and Foreign Philology. 2011; 3 (15): 81–86. (In Russ.)

4. Milovanova L. A. Biligual communicative competence. Problemy bilingvizma v sovremennom meshkulturnom diskurse = Bilingualism Problems in the Contemporary Cross Cultural Discourse. 2011. 2: 25–29. (In Russ.)

5. Zainurrahman. Five translation competences. Zainurrahman’s Home. ZP: Free Journal [Internet]. 2010 June 06 [cited 2017 Dec 5]. Available from: https://zainurrahmans.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/five-translation-competencies/

6. Belaya E., Sidorova M. Yu. Syntactic ambiguity of constructions with infinitives and deverbatives in the Russian language (in comparison with the French language). Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Kemerov State University Bulletin. 2010; 4 (44): 162–168. (In Russ.)

7. Yudina M. V. The role of syntactic priming in the syntactic ambiguity resolution. Vestnik TzMO MGU. Filologiya. Kulturologiya. Pedagogika. Metodika = CME MSU Bulletin. Philology. Culturology. Pedagogics. Methodology. 2010; 2: 32–37. (In Russ.)

8. Tzubylya N. S. On problem of amphibology in syntax of German sentence. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki = Philological Sciences. Problems of Theory and Practice. 2013; 9: 180–182. (In Russ.)

9. Chernova D. A. Sentence parsing in speech processing: an experimental study of processing syntactically ambiguous constructions in Russian. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta = Perm University Bulletin. 2015; 11 (29): 36–44. (In Russ.)

10. Vlasov M. S., Savostjanov A. N., Saprygin A. T., Astkhova T. N. Clobal syntactic disambigulation in bilingual subjects during psycholinguistic experiment. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Tomsk State University Bulletin. 2015; 4 (36): 5–18. (In Russ.)

11. Krivonos E. A. Computer-aid translation and some ways of syntactic homonymy resolution. In: Russkij jazyk: sistema i funkcionirovanie (k 80-letiju professora P. P. Shuby): materialy III Mezhdunar. nauch. konf., Minsk, 6–7 apr. 2006 g. = Russian Language: System and Functioning (to the 80 Anniversary of Professor P. P. Shuba). Materials of the 3rd International Scientific Conference [Internet]; 2006 Apr. 6–7; Minsk. Minsk: Publishing House RIVSh; 2006 [cited 2017 Nov 30]; p. 142–145. Available from: http://elib.bsu.by/handle/123456789/26439 (In Russ.)

12. Kozerenko E. V. Syntactic polysemy and ambiguity in machine translation perspective. Rema = Rhema. 2016; 1: 51–63. (In Russ.)

13. Horvath J., Siloni T. Anticausatives have no causer: A rejoinder to Beavers and Koontz-Garboden. Lingua [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2017 Dec 05]; 131: 217–230. Available from: https://english.tau.ac.il/sites/tau.ac.il.en/files/media_server/imported/326/files/2013/04/LINGUA-2031-Revised-Proof3.pdf

14. Mitrenina O. V., Romanova E. E., Slusar N. A. Vvedenie v generativnuyu grammatiku = Introduction in generative grammar. Moscow: Publishing House USSR; 2012. 376 p. (In Russ.)

15. Tsvilling M. Yu. Cross-cultural aspects of translation in translators’ training. Voprosy filologii = Journal of Philology. 2010; 1 (34): 60–64. (In Russ.)

16. Alikina E. V., Shvetsova Yu. O. Teaching the preliminary preparation methods for the situation of consecutive interpretation to students-interpreters. Sibirskij pedagogicheskij zhurnal = Sibirian Pedagogical Journal. 20b; 2: 93–100. (In Russ.)

17. Yermolovich D. I. The methodological basis of language A to language B translation training. Tetradi perevodchika = Translator’s Notebooks. 2016; 28: 55–71. (In Russ.)

18. Yermolovich D. I. Slovesnaya mekhanika. Izbrannoe o yazyke, perevode i culture rechi = Verbal mechanics. Language, translation and speech culture. Moscow: Publishing House R. Valent; 2013. 400 p.

19. Korolkova S. A. On the question of translators’ linguistic training. Mir obrazovania – obrazovanie v mire = World of Education – Education in the World. 2013; 3 (51): 101–108. (In Russ.)