Compartimos el siguiente articulo, espero complemente nuestra formación para comprender mejor el significado en contexto de cada término. Cualquier comentario u opinión es bienvenido.
"PROTEUS ---- THE NEWSLETTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF JUDICIARY INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS --
TRANSLATION and INTERPRETATION as RESTORATION of CONTEXT
Marina Braun
Communication is likely to get disrupted when words are taken out of context. Context is a concept that belongs as much to the sphere of linguistic and psycholin¬guistic research as it does to everyday commu¬nication. A layperson may not know the types of context that linguists single out for analysis, but people intuitively know that context is essential for successful communication.
A translator or interpreter, however, cannot rely on a vague, intuitive understanding of context. A firm grasp of the concept is criti¬cal both to ensure correct decoding of the received message in the source language and its accurate encoding in the target language.
One type of context, for example, is known as linguistic context. The interpreter needs to be aware of how the elements of linguistic context are interconnected, as illustrated in the following sentences:
(1) I’ll mark it as exhibit 2.
(2) Nobody did.
Both examples illustrate the use of the so-called cohesive factors that serve to bind sentences together to achieve cohesion, which makes a text a text rather than a random sequence of sentences (Halliday & Hasan). The pronoun it stands for something referred to earlier in the discourse. (For example, “I want you to take a look at this document. I’ll mark it as exhibit 2.”) The verb did substitutes a verb in the past tense used earlier. (For example, “I didn’t believe him. Nobody did.”)
An interpreter needs to be aware of how the elements of the linguistic context are inter¬connected and to be familiar with cohesive factors in both languages, since they may vary from language to language. For example, the Russian language does not provide for the type of substitution illustrated above (“Nobody did.”) Instead, it requires a repetition of the verb, “Nobody believed.”
The above examples deal with structural elements of a linguistic context. The following sentence demonstrates how linguistic context works on the semantic level:
They will certainly hang.
At the first stage of the translation or inter¬pretation process (decoding of the target lan¬guage message), we examine the linguistic (semantic) context in order to resolve ambi¬guity, specifically in order to determine the meaning of a polysemantic word. A layperson is not usually aware of how ambiguous words can be, and how easily ambiguity can lead to misunder¬standing.
The word “hang” is ambiguous. It is only the linguistic context that can help determine whether it is a jury who will hang, unable to come to a unanimous decision, or whether the phrase refers to a number of defendants who will be executed.
Ambiguity can be created deliberately by placing words in unexpected contexts in order to create a pun or play on words that may be used as a rhetorical device. This is extremely common in the language of journal¬ism, politics, and advertising, and is also frequently part of courtroom discourse (for example, a rhetorical device used in opening statements or closing arguments).
The following sentences represent contexts in which ambiguity is used deliberately.
(1) The heat is up in Martha’s kitchen.
(2) Cooking Martha’s goose.
Examples (1) and (2) are magazine headlines alluding to Martha Stewart’s alleged illegal insider-trading activities.
Some translators or interpreters would dismiss the above instances of ambiguity as “untranslatable” and resort to literal renditions. But to do so is to lose a sig¬nificant portion of the information conveyed. Finding an adequate variant in the target language is not easy, especially during simultaneous interpretation, but it is far from impossible, and there is usually more than one way to cope with the problem.
One approach to the problem would be to find poly¬semantic words or word combinations in the target lan¬guage whose meanings, in the given context, will be simi¬larly juxtaposed. Thus, for example, instead of looking for the equivalent of “to cook somebody’s goose” (a play on words, contrasting the literal cooking of a goose with an expression meaning “to get into trouble,” which probably could not be conveyed by a single phrase in the target language) – a search for a contextual equivalent should be conducted. The Martha Stewart example provides for a whole variety of options: one might think not only of the semantic fields of cooking but also sewing, gardening, or home furnishing (since those are also areas of Martha Stewart’s expertise). A possible contextual equivalent in Russian might be Марте-рукодельнице дали по рукам, literally, “Martha, the handiwork queen, got slapped on the hand.” In this way, the semantic context in the source language is restored with the help of the semantic proper¬ties of the target language.
The next examples illustrate a different type of context, known as situational (or extralinguistic, or non-verbal).
(1) No, I don’t need this one. I meant that one.
(2) She threw the book at him.
The term situational or extralinguistic context refers to circumstances external to the discourse, which include the addresser (the encoder of the message), who sends a message to the addressee (the decoder of the message),1 the setting in which communication occurs (usually includes place and time), the topic, the respective social roles or positions of the addresser and addressee, the channel of communication, and the code itself (assuming the code is shared by the encoder and decoder).2
To correctly decode these sentences, the interpreter needs to be aware of several components of the situational context.
In (1), the place and topic of conversation are impor¬tant, especially if the interpreter is not present at the time of this communicative act and not privy to the gestures accompanying the phrases “this one” and “that one.”
In (2), the addressee and the setting are of primary concern. If “she” refers to a judge in the courtroom, the correct decoding of the sentence will be “She gave the defendant the maximum sentence.” (As opposed to a liter¬al rendition in the context of a woman who might conceiv¬ably have thrown a book during a household argument.)
Two other dimensions may be added to the concept of situational context, that of the interlocutors’ common knowledge and understanding of the circumstances (frequently called shared [background] knowledge) and common evaluation of the circumstances.
If we view situational context as a structure, in which all the above-mentioned components are connected in a certain way, we can say that the target language provides us with a different set of building materials to be used to restore the original structure. This is what the translator’s or inter¬preter’s task at the encoding stage is. The interpreter’s final product in the target language should reflect the linguistic characteristics of each component: addresser, addressee, their respective social and/or gender roles, and others.
It is restoration, rather than preservation, that I advocate, because by encoding the message into the target language, the intepreter restores the balance that existed among the components of the situational context in the source lan¬guage.
For example, there are no pronoun markers in English to indicate different social status, such as that of a judge in relation to an adult defendant. In languages which dis¬tinguish between a formal and a familiar “you”, however, as is the case in Russian, Spanish, French, or German, an interpreter will use the formal pronoun if a judge is addressing an adult defendant directly. Conversely, if a judge addresses a juvenile defendant, the interpreter may opt for the informal “you” (in Russian, for sure).
The next type of context is cultural context. Situational context, as we discussed above, can help the addresser and addressee communicate by providing “common knowledge and understanding of the circumstances” or “shared knowledge of the circumstances” and “a spatial purview common to them” (Bakhtin). However, if people come from two different cultures, they are separated by a lack of shared knowledge that no situational context can compensate for.
In semiotics, culture is seen as a system of shared signs or symbols, which the following examples illustrate.
(1) He was a straight A student.
According to Umberto Eco, “From a semiotic point of view [meaning] can only be a cultural unit… Recognition of the presence of these cultural units (which are therefore the meaning to which the code makes the system of sign-vehicles correspond) involves understanding language as a social phenomenon.” From this perspective, the meaning of the sign “A” in the word combination “A student” is a cultural unit that exists in present-day American culture. It is part of a system of six cultural units (expressed by letters A to F) that the culture uses for grading students’ perfor¬mance. The corresponding system in many other cultures consists of five cultural units (expressed by numbers 5 to 1).
Cultural context, like the other types of contexts we discussed earlier, should be understood as a system, whose elements are interconnected and exist in a state of balance. Dealing with it at the decoding stage, the transla¬tor, instead of tackling the word “A” (in “A student”) as an isolated entity, will analyze it within the cultural context it is an element of. Those cultural units will then be jux¬taposed with the cultural units of the corresponding sys¬tem in the target language in order to establish cultural equivalency.
Dealing with “culture laden” words or word combina¬tions has traditionally been considered one of the biggest challenges in translation. As is the case with puns, such instances are frequently labeled “untranslatable.” One of the arguments given in support of this view is that the average bilingual dictionary does not list them. The other argument is that the target language simply lacks “the concept” expressed by the word in question. Indeed, it is extremely rare that there is a one-to-one equivalence between words and concepts in two different languages. The key to this challenge, it seems, is to adopt a cultural unit, rather than a word, as a unit of translation or inter¬pretation, and to consider restoration of cultural context, rather than verbatim translation, as the goal.
The example is straightforward in this respect (“He was an A student” would correspond, in Russian, to “He got only ‘fives’ in school”). As for the other letter grades, “C” through “F,” the interpreter needs to take into account the whole cultural context, since there is no one-to-one correspondence.
Other challenges of cultural context can be seen in the following newspaper headline:
(2) Boston’s Cardinal Law Felled by Revolt, Scandal.
At first sight, it appears that the article is about an important (cardinal) law that evoked protests in Boston. In reality, the text is about a particular cardinal from Boston, whose name is Law, the scandal surrounding his handling of alleged sexual misconduct by priests, and his resignation in the aftermath of that scandal.
“Revolt” also allows for several interpretations, one of which is “insurrection” or “rebellion.” This meaning would definitely be at odds with the cultural context. It is the shared cultural knowledge about a much-publicized scandal, which affected several high-ranking priests in 2002, that is vital for correct decoding of the sentence. Once decoded, the sentence should not pose any difficulty in translation.
Often, cultural context is the greatest challenge for an interpreter, as in the following sentences:
(3) I’m going to try for a home run.
The best you can do is a base hit.
Outside of the baseball or football field, these words and phrases are always used metaphorically. As Lakoff and Johnson point out, “the essence of metaphor is understand¬ing and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” In contemporary American culture, the expressions “base hit” and “home run,” if used metaphorically, are under¬stood to mean “success” vs. “extraordinary success” or “to reach a moderate goal” vs. “to reach the highest goal.”
The underlying concept of these two expressions stays the same regardless of the extralinguistic context (address¬er, addressee, place of communication, topic, etc.), but the latter determines the specific language forms in the target language the translator or interpreter would select.
This example is taken from the popular TV show “Law and Order,” from a dialogue between the district attorney and an assistant district attorney. In saying “I’m going to try for a home run,” the latter means that he is going for a murder indictment. His boss, however, thinks that, under the circumstances, manslaughter is the best they can hope for, and expresses that idea by the phrase, “The best you can do is a base hit.”
Obviously, if the same dialogue were to take place in the film world, the attributes of “success” would be different: for example, two Oscar nominations as opposed to just one.
In interlingual communication, recognition that different cultures conceptualize success (and many
other seemingly universal values) differently is essential. Moreover, each culture uses a unique set of metaphors to denote success. Should the translator resort to literal or verbatim transla¬tion of these metaphors, the end result may be nonsensical because of the differences in cultural context. This, in turn, would lead to the breakdown of communication.
To prevent a breakdown in communication, an inter¬preter needs to restore the cultural context by finding an appropriate cultural unit in the target culture. In other words, the interpreter needs to find a similar meaning that the target culture conveys by means of a certain language form. In this case, a metaphoric or an idiomatic expression would, of course, be preferable. If the target language lacks such expressions, the only way to interpret the phrases in the example above would be to eliminate the metaphor and convey the direct meaning of the phrases, “murder” vs. “manslaughter.”
In the professional literature on court interpreting, con¬servation of meaning is considered the interpreter’s main goal. Restoration, addition and modification are words usually treated with suspicion because these concepts are perceived as incompatible with conservation. The idea of restoration of cultural context is effectively rejected as a court interpreter’s tool since it is believed to be tantamount to cultural advocacy or cultural brokerage. While it is true that advocacy does not coincide with an interpreter’s function, restoration of cultural context is quite another matter, as this article has suggested.
Also missing from the publications devoted to court interpreting is the concept of context. It is not even men¬tioned in the index of subjects of the most exhaustive study to date, Fundamentals of Court Interpretation. This sit¬uation is paradoxical given that modern linguistics takes context as a concept of primary importance. I hope that the ideas expressed in this article will stimulate further linguistic discussion of the problem of context.
[A version of this paper was given at NAJIT’s Northwest Regional Conference in 2002. Marina Braun, Ph.D., is a court-certified Russian interpreter in Oregon and Washington and is accredited by the American Translators Association for English-Russian. She also provides training for interpreters and transla¬tors. She can be reached at marinabraun@faenov.com]
REFERENCES
Bakhtin School Papers. (1983) (Russian Poetics in Translation, 10).
Eco, U. (1979). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.
Gonzalez, R.D., Vasquez, V.E. & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Court Interpretation. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Jakobson, Roman. (1960). Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.
In Sebeok, T.(Ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press.
FOOTNOTES
1 The terms addresser and addressee were used by Roman Jakobson [2], whose model of communication is considered a major contribution to linguistic theory.
2 Some linguists break it down into smaller units: physical context (objects surrounding communication), social context (relationship between communicants) and epistemic context (information shared by communicants."
"PROTEUS ---- THE NEWSLETTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF JUDICIARY INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS --
TRANSLATION and INTERPRETATION as RESTORATION of CONTEXT
Marina Braun
Communication is likely to get disrupted when words are taken out of context. Context is a concept that belongs as much to the sphere of linguistic and psycholin¬guistic research as it does to everyday commu¬nication. A layperson may not know the types of context that linguists single out for analysis, but people intuitively know that context is essential for successful communication.
A translator or interpreter, however, cannot rely on a vague, intuitive understanding of context. A firm grasp of the concept is criti¬cal both to ensure correct decoding of the received message in the source language and its accurate encoding in the target language.
One type of context, for example, is known as linguistic context. The interpreter needs to be aware of how the elements of linguistic context are interconnected, as illustrated in the following sentences:
(1) I’ll mark it as exhibit 2.
(2) Nobody did.
Both examples illustrate the use of the so-called cohesive factors that serve to bind sentences together to achieve cohesion, which makes a text a text rather than a random sequence of sentences (Halliday & Hasan). The pronoun it stands for something referred to earlier in the discourse. (For example, “I want you to take a look at this document. I’ll mark it as exhibit 2.”) The verb did substitutes a verb in the past tense used earlier. (For example, “I didn’t believe him. Nobody did.”)
An interpreter needs to be aware of how the elements of the linguistic context are inter¬connected and to be familiar with cohesive factors in both languages, since they may vary from language to language. For example, the Russian language does not provide for the type of substitution illustrated above (“Nobody did.”) Instead, it requires a repetition of the verb, “Nobody believed.”
The above examples deal with structural elements of a linguistic context. The following sentence demonstrates how linguistic context works on the semantic level:
They will certainly hang.
At the first stage of the translation or inter¬pretation process (decoding of the target lan¬guage message), we examine the linguistic (semantic) context in order to resolve ambi¬guity, specifically in order to determine the meaning of a polysemantic word. A layperson is not usually aware of how ambiguous words can be, and how easily ambiguity can lead to misunder¬standing.
The word “hang” is ambiguous. It is only the linguistic context that can help determine whether it is a jury who will hang, unable to come to a unanimous decision, or whether the phrase refers to a number of defendants who will be executed.
Ambiguity can be created deliberately by placing words in unexpected contexts in order to create a pun or play on words that may be used as a rhetorical device. This is extremely common in the language of journal¬ism, politics, and advertising, and is also frequently part of courtroom discourse (for example, a rhetorical device used in opening statements or closing arguments).
The following sentences represent contexts in which ambiguity is used deliberately.
(1) The heat is up in Martha’s kitchen.
(2) Cooking Martha’s goose.
Examples (1) and (2) are magazine headlines alluding to Martha Stewart’s alleged illegal insider-trading activities.
Some translators or interpreters would dismiss the above instances of ambiguity as “untranslatable” and resort to literal renditions. But to do so is to lose a sig¬nificant portion of the information conveyed. Finding an adequate variant in the target language is not easy, especially during simultaneous interpretation, but it is far from impossible, and there is usually more than one way to cope with the problem.
One approach to the problem would be to find poly¬semantic words or word combinations in the target lan¬guage whose meanings, in the given context, will be simi¬larly juxtaposed. Thus, for example, instead of looking for the equivalent of “to cook somebody’s goose” (a play on words, contrasting the literal cooking of a goose with an expression meaning “to get into trouble,” which probably could not be conveyed by a single phrase in the target language) – a search for a contextual equivalent should be conducted. The Martha Stewart example provides for a whole variety of options: one might think not only of the semantic fields of cooking but also sewing, gardening, or home furnishing (since those are also areas of Martha Stewart’s expertise). A possible contextual equivalent in Russian might be Марте-рукодельнице дали по рукам, literally, “Martha, the handiwork queen, got slapped on the hand.” In this way, the semantic context in the source language is restored with the help of the semantic proper¬ties of the target language.
The next examples illustrate a different type of context, known as situational (or extralinguistic, or non-verbal).
(1) No, I don’t need this one. I meant that one.
(2) She threw the book at him.
The term situational or extralinguistic context refers to circumstances external to the discourse, which include the addresser (the encoder of the message), who sends a message to the addressee (the decoder of the message),1 the setting in which communication occurs (usually includes place and time), the topic, the respective social roles or positions of the addresser and addressee, the channel of communication, and the code itself (assuming the code is shared by the encoder and decoder).2
To correctly decode these sentences, the interpreter needs to be aware of several components of the situational context.
In (1), the place and topic of conversation are impor¬tant, especially if the interpreter is not present at the time of this communicative act and not privy to the gestures accompanying the phrases “this one” and “that one.”
In (2), the addressee and the setting are of primary concern. If “she” refers to a judge in the courtroom, the correct decoding of the sentence will be “She gave the defendant the maximum sentence.” (As opposed to a liter¬al rendition in the context of a woman who might conceiv¬ably have thrown a book during a household argument.)
Two other dimensions may be added to the concept of situational context, that of the interlocutors’ common knowledge and understanding of the circumstances (frequently called shared [background] knowledge) and common evaluation of the circumstances.
If we view situational context as a structure, in which all the above-mentioned components are connected in a certain way, we can say that the target language provides us with a different set of building materials to be used to restore the original structure. This is what the translator’s or inter¬preter’s task at the encoding stage is. The interpreter’s final product in the target language should reflect the linguistic characteristics of each component: addresser, addressee, their respective social and/or gender roles, and others.
It is restoration, rather than preservation, that I advocate, because by encoding the message into the target language, the intepreter restores the balance that existed among the components of the situational context in the source lan¬guage.
For example, there are no pronoun markers in English to indicate different social status, such as that of a judge in relation to an adult defendant. In languages which dis¬tinguish between a formal and a familiar “you”, however, as is the case in Russian, Spanish, French, or German, an interpreter will use the formal pronoun if a judge is addressing an adult defendant directly. Conversely, if a judge addresses a juvenile defendant, the interpreter may opt for the informal “you” (in Russian, for sure).
The next type of context is cultural context. Situational context, as we discussed above, can help the addresser and addressee communicate by providing “common knowledge and understanding of the circumstances” or “shared knowledge of the circumstances” and “a spatial purview common to them” (Bakhtin). However, if people come from two different cultures, they are separated by a lack of shared knowledge that no situational context can compensate for.
In semiotics, culture is seen as a system of shared signs or symbols, which the following examples illustrate.
(1) He was a straight A student.
According to Umberto Eco, “From a semiotic point of view [meaning] can only be a cultural unit… Recognition of the presence of these cultural units (which are therefore the meaning to which the code makes the system of sign-vehicles correspond) involves understanding language as a social phenomenon.” From this perspective, the meaning of the sign “A” in the word combination “A student” is a cultural unit that exists in present-day American culture. It is part of a system of six cultural units (expressed by letters A to F) that the culture uses for grading students’ perfor¬mance. The corresponding system in many other cultures consists of five cultural units (expressed by numbers 5 to 1).
Cultural context, like the other types of contexts we discussed earlier, should be understood as a system, whose elements are interconnected and exist in a state of balance. Dealing with it at the decoding stage, the transla¬tor, instead of tackling the word “A” (in “A student”) as an isolated entity, will analyze it within the cultural context it is an element of. Those cultural units will then be jux¬taposed with the cultural units of the corresponding sys¬tem in the target language in order to establish cultural equivalency.
Dealing with “culture laden” words or word combina¬tions has traditionally been considered one of the biggest challenges in translation. As is the case with puns, such instances are frequently labeled “untranslatable.” One of the arguments given in support of this view is that the average bilingual dictionary does not list them. The other argument is that the target language simply lacks “the concept” expressed by the word in question. Indeed, it is extremely rare that there is a one-to-one equivalence between words and concepts in two different languages. The key to this challenge, it seems, is to adopt a cultural unit, rather than a word, as a unit of translation or inter¬pretation, and to consider restoration of cultural context, rather than verbatim translation, as the goal.
The example is straightforward in this respect (“He was an A student” would correspond, in Russian, to “He got only ‘fives’ in school”). As for the other letter grades, “C” through “F,” the interpreter needs to take into account the whole cultural context, since there is no one-to-one correspondence.
Other challenges of cultural context can be seen in the following newspaper headline:
(2) Boston’s Cardinal Law Felled by Revolt, Scandal.
At first sight, it appears that the article is about an important (cardinal) law that evoked protests in Boston. In reality, the text is about a particular cardinal from Boston, whose name is Law, the scandal surrounding his handling of alleged sexual misconduct by priests, and his resignation in the aftermath of that scandal.
“Revolt” also allows for several interpretations, one of which is “insurrection” or “rebellion.” This meaning would definitely be at odds with the cultural context. It is the shared cultural knowledge about a much-publicized scandal, which affected several high-ranking priests in 2002, that is vital for correct decoding of the sentence. Once decoded, the sentence should not pose any difficulty in translation.
Often, cultural context is the greatest challenge for an interpreter, as in the following sentences:
(3) I’m going to try for a home run.
The best you can do is a base hit.
Outside of the baseball or football field, these words and phrases are always used metaphorically. As Lakoff and Johnson point out, “the essence of metaphor is understand¬ing and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” In contemporary American culture, the expressions “base hit” and “home run,” if used metaphorically, are under¬stood to mean “success” vs. “extraordinary success” or “to reach a moderate goal” vs. “to reach the highest goal.”
The underlying concept of these two expressions stays the same regardless of the extralinguistic context (address¬er, addressee, place of communication, topic, etc.), but the latter determines the specific language forms in the target language the translator or interpreter would select.
This example is taken from the popular TV show “Law and Order,” from a dialogue between the district attorney and an assistant district attorney. In saying “I’m going to try for a home run,” the latter means that he is going for a murder indictment. His boss, however, thinks that, under the circumstances, manslaughter is the best they can hope for, and expresses that idea by the phrase, “The best you can do is a base hit.”
Obviously, if the same dialogue were to take place in the film world, the attributes of “success” would be different: for example, two Oscar nominations as opposed to just one.
In interlingual communication, recognition that different cultures conceptualize success (and many
other seemingly universal values) differently is essential. Moreover, each culture uses a unique set of metaphors to denote success. Should the translator resort to literal or verbatim transla¬tion of these metaphors, the end result may be nonsensical because of the differences in cultural context. This, in turn, would lead to the breakdown of communication.
To prevent a breakdown in communication, an inter¬preter needs to restore the cultural context by finding an appropriate cultural unit in the target culture. In other words, the interpreter needs to find a similar meaning that the target culture conveys by means of a certain language form. In this case, a metaphoric or an idiomatic expression would, of course, be preferable. If the target language lacks such expressions, the only way to interpret the phrases in the example above would be to eliminate the metaphor and convey the direct meaning of the phrases, “murder” vs. “manslaughter.”
In the professional literature on court interpreting, con¬servation of meaning is considered the interpreter’s main goal. Restoration, addition and modification are words usually treated with suspicion because these concepts are perceived as incompatible with conservation. The idea of restoration of cultural context is effectively rejected as a court interpreter’s tool since it is believed to be tantamount to cultural advocacy or cultural brokerage. While it is true that advocacy does not coincide with an interpreter’s function, restoration of cultural context is quite another matter, as this article has suggested.
Also missing from the publications devoted to court interpreting is the concept of context. It is not even men¬tioned in the index of subjects of the most exhaustive study to date, Fundamentals of Court Interpretation. This sit¬uation is paradoxical given that modern linguistics takes context as a concept of primary importance. I hope that the ideas expressed in this article will stimulate further linguistic discussion of the problem of context.
[A version of this paper was given at NAJIT’s Northwest Regional Conference in 2002. Marina Braun, Ph.D., is a court-certified Russian interpreter in Oregon and Washington and is accredited by the American Translators Association for English-Russian. She also provides training for interpreters and transla¬tors. She can be reached at marinabraun@faenov.com]
REFERENCES
Bakhtin School Papers. (1983) (Russian Poetics in Translation, 10).
Eco, U. (1979). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.
Gonzalez, R.D., Vasquez, V.E. & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Court Interpretation. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Jakobson, Roman. (1960). Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.
In Sebeok, T.(Ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press.
FOOTNOTES
1 The terms addresser and addressee were used by Roman Jakobson [2], whose model of communication is considered a major contribution to linguistic theory.
2 Some linguists break it down into smaller units: physical context (objects surrounding communication), social context (relationship between communicants) and epistemic context (information shared by communicants."
Comentarios