Inferencing and Functional Approach to Text: Based on Simultaneous Interpreting

Cover Page

Cite item


A prompt exchange of information requires a thrift in expressive means and makes relevant the processes of verbalizing and reverbalizing sense in bilingual communication. The analysis of various communicative situations in simultaneous interpreting both from English into Russian and Russian into English show specific parameters of generating a text in the target language, which differ from the traditional author’s text generation. The study’s objective is to introduce the notion of inferencing (in the Russian linguistic studies the term inference is used) as a special linguistic tool of eliciting and interpreting sense in the process of translation/interpreting. General linguistic understanding of inference and implication refers to the direct communication between a sender (speaker) and recipient (listener) that produces interrelated notions via independent inferences. The method of sampling and comparing the inferences accumulated empirically and of simulation modelling of simultaneous interpreting can demonstrate that a distinctive feature of indirect communication via interpreter is multi-component system of additional cognitive procedures at the stage of interpreting. The simultaneous interpreting outcomes as the material of research indicate that conveying the sense in interpreting is based on a dynamic process of inferencing, which is a creative search of implicatures and their reverbalization, with an interpreter resorting to his/ her own thesaurus-based resources (mental lexicon) related to the knowledge of domain, which is a subject of communication. The distinctive parameter of inferencing in interpreting is both the generation of inferences and implicatures and a cognitive analytical process of selecting facts from presuppositional knowledge. The study outcomes show that the cognitive analytical process of inferencing is closely related to probabilistic forecasting, which presupposes an accumulation by an interpreter of a sufficient individual base of verified intuitive solutions and referential languagebased interpretations and presuppositions. The study makes a conclusion that of crucial importance for interpreting is inferencing, rather than inference as such.

About the authors

Marina Ye. Korovkina

Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University)

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7423-0541

PhD (Philology), Assistant Professor, English Language Department № 1

76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119454

Arkady L. Semenov

Moscow State Linguistic University

Author for correspondence.
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7158-884X

Doctor of Philology, Professor, professor, the Department of Translation Theory and Practical Translation of English, Department of Translation and Interpreting

38, Ostozhenka, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119034


  1. Sellars, W. (1953). Inference and Meaning. Mind, 62 (3), 313–338.
  2. Hildyard, A. & Olson, D.R. (1978). Memory and Inference in the Comprehension of Oral and Written Discourse. Discourse Processes, 1, 91–117.
  3. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In: Syntax and Semantics, P. Cole amd J.L. Morgan (eds.). Vol.3. New York: Aademic Press. pp. 41—58.
  4. Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 368–372.
  5. Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2016). Relevance Theory. In: Handbook of Pragmatics, L. Hord and G. Ward (eds.). G. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 249—287.
  6. Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Dijk, (van) T. & Kintsch, W. (1986). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Language, 62, 3, 664–668.
  8. Panther, K-U. & Thornburg, L. (2007). Metonymy. In: The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, G. Geeraerts, H. Cuyckens (eds.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. Fillmore, Ch. (1969). Types of Lexical Information. In: Studies in Syntax und Semantics, F. Kiefer (Ed.). Dordrecht. рр. 109—137.
  10. Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
  11. Kubryakova, E.S. (ed.) (1997). Concise Dictionary of Cognitive Terms. Moscow: Philology Faculty State University. (In Russ.).
  12. Kubryakova, E.S. (2004). Language and Knowledge: on the Way to Generating Knowledge about Language: Parts of Speech in a Cognitive Perspective. Language’s Role in World’s Cognition. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Сultures. (In Russ.).
  13. Boldyrev, N.N. (2014). Cognitive Semantics. Introduction into Cognitive Linguistics. Tambov: TGU im. G.R. Derzhavina. (In Russ.).
  14. Paducheva, E.V. (2004). On Semantics of Prosodic Shifts and Prosody’s Contribution into Semantics of the Sentence. News by RAN (Russian Academy of Sciences). Series of literature and language, 5, 10–15. (In Russ.).
  15. Zaliznyak, A.A. (2006). Polysemy in Language and Ways of its Representation. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Сultures. (In Russ.).
  16. Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge.
  17. Zalevskaya, A.A. (1999). Introduction to Psycholinguistics. Moscow: RGGU. (In Russ.).
  18. Chernov, G.V. (1987). Fundamentals of simultaneous translation. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola. (In Russ.).
  19. Korovkina, M.E., Semenov, A.L. & Rykova, P.A. (2020). Simultaneous Interpreting: Cognitive Mechanisms and Strategies. Translation and Culture: Interaction and Interinfluence. In: Translation and culture: interaction and mutual influence: collection of theses of the IV All-Russian Scientific. online conf. with inter. plot., Nizhny Novgorod, October 10–11, 2020, A.V. Ivanov (Ed.). Nizhny Novgorod: NGLU. pp. 166–169. (In Russ.).
  20. Arutyunova, N.D. (1973). The Notion of Presupposition in Linguistics. News of the USSR Academy of Scinces. Series of literature and language, 32, 1, 325–331. (In Russ.).
  21. Arutyunova, N.D. & Paducheva, E.V. (1985). Sources, Problems and Categories of Pragmatics. New Trends in Foreign Linguistics, 16, 8–42. (In Russ.).
  22. Makarov, M. (2003). The Fundamentals of Discourse Theory. Moscow: Gnozis. (In Russ.).
  23. Khaleeva, I.I. (1989). The Theoretic Basics of Teaching Understanding a Foreign Language. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola. (In Russ.).
  24. Givon, T. (1989). Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. New Jersey: Hillsdale.
  25. Korovkina, M.E. (2020). G. Chernov’s Heritage and its Importance for Russian and European Studies of Simultaneous Interpreting. Moscow University Translation Studies Bulletin. Seriya 22, 4, 121–135. (In Russ.).
  26. Zubanova, I.V. (2019). Functional and Pragmatic Frame — the Basis of Success in Consecutive Interpreting. In: Integration Point or Heavy Burdon of Dragonfly. Articles about Consecutive Interpreting. Moscow: R.Valent. pp. 105–115. (In Russ.).

Copyright (c) 2022 Korovkina M.Y., Semenov A.L.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies