Psycholinguistic classification of translation
Тип работы: Курсовая
Предмет: Английский
Год защиты: 2016
Кол-во страниц: 26
Описание работы
Early psycholinguists, following Chomsky, tended to see language as an autonomous system, insulated from other cognitive systems. In this modular view, the initial stages of word and sentence comprehension are not influenced by higher levels of knowledge. Information about context and about real-world constraints comes into play only after the first steps of linguistic processing have taken place, giving such models a serial quality. On an interactive view, in contrast, knowledge about linguistic context and about the world plays an immediate role in the comprehension of words and sentences. In this view, many types of information are used in parallel, with the different sources of information working co- operatively or competitively to yield an interpretation. Such ideas are often expressed in connectionist terms. Modular and interactive views may also be distinguished in discussions of language production, where one issue is whether there is a syntactic component that operates independently of conceptual and phonological factors.
The main object of research is the study of psycholinguistic classification of translation types and their interaction.
Оглавление:
Introduction 3
1. General theory on psycholinguistics 5
1.1 Psycholinguistics and language comprehension 5
1.2 Language production 8
2 Psycholinguistic classification of translation 14
2.1 Types of translation 14
2.2 The Difference Between Interpreting and Translation 19
Conclusion 24
Bibliography 26
Источники:
1. Marslen-Wilson, W.D., Tyler, L.K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3-33.
2. McClelland, J.L., & Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
3. Cutler, A., & Norris, D.G. (1979). Monitoring sentence comprehension. In W.E. Cooper & E.C.T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 113-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Леонтьев А. Психолингвистические единицы и порождение речевого высказывания. – М., 1969.
5. Allopenna, P.D. Magnuson, J.S., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419-439
6. Ревзин И. И., Розенцвейг В. Ю. Основы общего и машинного перевода. – М.: Высшая школа, 1964.
7. Garrett, M.F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 9 (pp. 133-177). New York: Academic Press.
8. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.
Количество источников:
8
Цена: 3500 тг