지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
As stated by a number of scholars, interpreting studies has been discussed as a sub-discipline of the canonical translation studies for decades. However, there are inevitable distinctions between the two domains including the feature of immediacy of the interpreting processes. In actuality, interpreting studies involves a wide range of issues including cognitive processes during interpreting, surrounding social functions and other environmental parameters, various textual elements, assessments as well as pedagogical disciplines and methodologies, which are distinct from those of translation studies. Therefore, it is incumbent upon interpreting scholars to suggest ways to systematically and concretely define and categorize interpreting research areas, before drawing any conclusion about how to relate interpreting studies with translation studies.
Against this background, the current study aims to explore the paths of interpreting studies in Korea. To this end, the notion of paradigm was employed as suggested by Pochhacker(2004). All the papers published in three major translation and interpreting journals in Korea from 1997 to 2014 were investigated. Out of a total of 1,125 papers, 226 papers were published by Korean scholars on the subject of interpreting. The current author read through the entire collection of the 226 papers and determined the paradigm status of each and every paper, mostly from their research objectives and research settings. From the analysis, it was found that there was a major paradigm shift from 2004 to 2005. Before the shift, 5 paradigms coexisted in the interpreting research field: the interpretive theory of translation paradigm(IT), the cognitive processing paradigm(CP), the target-text-oriented paradigm(TT), the educational paradigm(ED), and the socio-professional paradigm(SP). Among them, ED, IT, and TT were most prevalent, followed by CP and SP. From 2004 to 2005, however, there was a major paradigm shift. The IT paradigm and TT paradigm declined rapidly, with few papers published under those categories, while the SP paradigm came to the fore. At the beginning, most of the papers under the SP category discussed how to establish the profession of interpreter as a significant professional field. Over time, however, the focus was shifted to meta-discourse about the historical trajectories of the profession. Three other paradigms which emerged after the shift, were the dialogic discourse-based paradigm(DI), the neurolinguistic paradigm(NL), and the philosophical-speculative paradigm(PP).
Against this background, the current study aims to explore the paths of interpreting studies in Korea. To this end, the notion of paradigm was employed as suggested by Pochhacker(2004). All the papers published in three major translation and interpreting journals in Korea from 1997 to 2014 were investigated. Out of a total of 1,125 papers, 226 papers were published by Korean scholars on the subject of interpreting. The current author read through the entire collection of the 226 papers and determined the paradigm status of each and every paper, mostly from their research objectives and research settings. From the analysis, it was found that there was a major paradigm shift from 2004 to 2005. Before the shift, 5 paradigms coexisted in the interpreting research field: the interpretive theory of translation paradigm(IT), the cognitive processing paradigm(CP), the target-text-oriented paradigm(TT), the educational paradigm(ED), and the socio-professional paradigm(SP). Among them, ED, IT, and TT were most prevalent, followed by CP and SP. From 2004 to 2005, however, there was a major paradigm shift. The IT paradigm and TT paradigm declined rapidly, with few papers published under those categories, while the SP paradigm came to the fore. At the beginning, most of the papers under the SP category discussed how to establish the profession of interpreter as a significant professional field. Over time, however, the focus was shifted to meta-discourse about the historical trajectories of the profession. Three other paradigms which emerged after the shift, were the dialogic discourse-based paradigm(DI), the neurolinguistic paradigm(NL), and the philosophical-speculative paradigm(PP).
목차
1. 서론
2. 푀헤커의 통역 연구 패러다임
3. 국내 통역 연구의 패러다임 분류
4. 결과
5. 결과 요약 및 토론
참고문헌
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (6)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
문법 교육 내용의 언어학적 패러다임 전환 : 형태론과 관련된 교육 내용을 중심으로
국어교육연구
2017 .02
-
한국형 의료통역 연구 : 의료관광통역과 다문화 의료통역 중심으로
번역학연구
2018 .06
-
커뮤니티통역을 통한 학부 통역 수업의 다양화
번역학연구
2015 .09
-
권리담론에서 책임담론으로 : 커뮤니티 통역을 중심으로
번역학연구
2015 .09
-
The Paradigm of the Catholic Feminists and Its Missiological Implication
복음과 선교
2020 .01
-
회의통역은 어떻게 통역학의 화두가 되었나
T&I REVIEW
2023 .06
-
통역 능력 향상을 위한 연습용 툴 개발 제안
번역학연구
2015 .12
-
한국교회 설교통역의 특징에 대한 연구 : 커뮤니티통역 및 국제회의통역과의 비교를 중심으로
번역학연구
2015 .06
-
Kuhnian Paradigms Revisited
철학사상
2017 .08
-
원격통역의 개념과 연구 동향 고찰
통역과 번역
2015 .01
-
최근 15년 한·중 통번역 교육 연구 경향 분석 및 미래 방향 제언-연구 주제를 중심으로
번역학연구
2023 .12
-
Syntactic priming paradigms in language research
한국언어학회 학술대회지
2016 .06
-
통역에서의 질적사례연구 확대를 위한 제언 : 국내 통역연구 중심으로
번역학연구
2018 .06
-
통역 4.0: 원격통역의 규범과 실제
번역학연구
2021 .03
-
실증 연구에 기반한 통역사의 통역 행위에 대한 윤리적 분석
통번역학연구
2017 .01
-
통역 사용자를 대상으로 한 통역 모드 선호도 조사: 인간 통역, AI 통역, 자막 비교
번역학연구
2023 .09
-
뉴미디어 연구의 새로운 패러다임(김무규. 『뉴미디어 영화론- 수용에서 수행으로』. 경진출판. 2017)
인문과학연구
2019 .01
-
Is Google Translate a Taboo word in Foreign Language Classrooms?: Exploring New Possibilities and Paradigms
외국학연구
2021 .12
-
Beyond the Transfer Paradigm: New Insights in Bible Translation using the Dutch Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling as a Case Study
성경원문연구
2023 .10
-
한국의 군사통역 현황과 장래 교육 방향 연구
통번역학연구
2015 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-800-001317883