Topic 8: semantic redundancy of oral messages. Interpreter's note–taking

8.1. Semantic Redundancy as one of the Main Properties of Oral Discourse

Semantic redundancy (семантична надлишковість) is an important property of any speech, especially oral one. It provides safeguards for successful transmission of information, i.e. ensures that the listener better understands the speaker and that the communicative intent of the speaker is achieved. It is generally believed that semantic redundancy of messages is based upon: I) repetition of components of the message and 2) interrelation of components of the message, which are manifested through contextual relationships. In oral speech these relationships are ensured by means of lexical and semantic cohesion, which is so important for successful comprehension and translation of oral messages.

Lexical cohesion is manifested in repetition one or more lexical units (words or word combinations) in a sentence that by themselves tell the reader or listener nothing new but reinstate some elements from earlier sentences. Linguistic means, which ensure redundancy of oral speech, fall into two groups: repetition links and interrelation links. These links are established between meaningful components of oral discourse through anaphoric, cataphoric and exophoric contextual relationships.

8.2. Ways of Ensuring Semantic Redundancy of Oral Messages

Semantic redundancy of oral discourse is ensured by the following linguistic means:

1. Repetition links:

a) simple lexical repetition which occurs when a lexical unit that has already occurred in the text is repeated with no grater alteration than can be explained in terms of a grammatical paradigm (e.g. singular vs plural forms, present vs past, first person singular vs third person plural, etc): country–countries; eat – ate; go – goes; he – him; I –we; вікно – вікна; пишу – писав; вона – її, etc).

Only lexical words (повнозначні слова) can enter such a link. Connections between such grammatical or function words (службові слова) as articles, prepositions, conjunctions, auxiliaries, negatives and particles are not treated as repetition links;

b) complex lexical repetition which occurs when two lexical items share a lexical morpheme, but are not formally identical, or when they are formally identical, but belong to different parts of speech (or, rather, have different grammatical functions): computer– computing; human – humanity; politics –political; книга – книжковий; сіль – солоний; їсти– їжа, etc).

II. Interrelation links:

a) simple paraphrase which occurs whenever a lexical item may substitute another item in context with no important change in meaning. Here belong most of the contextual synonyms: produce – cause; statesman –politician; book – volume; works – writings; killings – executions; викликати – спричиняти; poбoma – праця; oco6a – людина, etc);

b) complex paraphrase which occurs when one of the lexical units includes the other, although they may share no lexical morpheme. Here, first of all, belong the majority of antonyms: happy – unhappy; hot – cold; dry – wet;холодний – гарячий; день – ніч; гарно – погано; cmoяти – лежати.

Secondly, complex paraphrase occurs when a unit is a complex lexical repetition of another unit (writer – writings) and also a simple paraphrase of a third unit (writer – author). In this case a complex paraphrase link is established between the second and the third units (writings – author).

c) co–reference repetition occurs when two units are interpreted as having the same referent, i.e. refer to the same object of the real world (denotatum) in the given context: scientists – biologists; Tony Blair – British Prime Minister (in the context of spring 2007); Augustus – the Emperor (in the ancient context as a historical figure of ancient Rome); Віктор Ющенко – Президент України (in the context of 2007).

d) substitution occurs when certain grammatical words (службові слова), like pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, etc (he, she, they, it, we, this, that, the first one, another one, the same, different, similar, він, вона, воно, ми, це, вищезгаданий, etc) are substituted by lexical units: citizens – they; students – we; Президент – він; жінка – вона; явище – воно).

Semantic redundancy of oral discourse provides not only for successful transmission of maximum of information in the process of communication but also for filling in the “informational gaps” in oral consecutive and simultaneous interpretation as it is illustrated by the analysis of the transcripts of the TV news items given below where repetition and interrelation links between sentences as well as exophoric relationships of lexical items with the macro context are shown:

(1) After 60 years in exile Tsar *Alexis the Third is back in St. Petersburg. (2) The monument to the father of the last Tsar Nicholas the Second was brought back to one of the city's most prominent sites – the square in front of the Winter Palace. (3) The monument was erected and officially unveiled by Tsar Nicholas the Second in 1909. (4) It was destroyed by Communist regime in 1937 and lay discarded in the yard of the Russian Museum until the St. Petersburg's City Council decided to bring it back to its former glory.

Analysis of the example:

NN of sentences	Means of ensuring semantic redundancy and implications for interpreters
1	Tsar *Alexis the Third – this is a mistake of the speaker (or news editor) on the TV as there was no such tsar in Russia. To fill in the “gap” interpreters have to refer to their cultural competence (exophoric contextual relationships) and replace *Alexis by Alexander – цар Олександр Третій.
2–1	Tsar – tsar – simple lexical repetition; city's – St. Petersburg – co–reference
3–2	the monument – the monument – simple lexical repetition; Tsar Nicholas the Second – Tsar Nicholas the Second – simple lexical repetition
4–3	it – the monument – substitution
4–1	St. Petersburg's – St. Petersburg – complex lexical repetition
4–2	it – the monument – substitution
4–3	its – the monument – substitution