. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, 22- 49.
Björkman, Beyza. 2008. “So where we are?” Spoken lingua franca English at a technical university in Sweden. English Today, 24(2), 35–41. doi:10.1017/S0266078408000187
Björkman, Beyza. 2011. The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca in the international university: Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 923–925. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.015
Brown, Kara. 2010. Teachers as Language‐Policy Actors: Contending with the Erasure of Lesser-Used Languages in Schools
The aim of this investigation is a comparative description of translation and interpretation in terms of modern communication technology, translation, and discourse studies. Each type of translation work, either oral or written, has its own specific requirements for the translator and the final result of his work - translation. A description of both types of translation cannot suffice without taking into account pragmatics, psycholinguistics, and the pragmatic scope of each text. A more important final result is the right linguistic expression in compliance with the grammatical, semantic, and stylistic rules of the target language. Special attention should be paid to extralinguistic factors - certain communicative situations that create special conditions for interpreting, including the place, time, recipients, and environment (interfering noise). The article describes different types of interpreting and draws the reader’s attention to the controversial question of the interpreter’s natural ability and the possibility of achieving excellence in interpreting through the intensive practising of skills simultaneously with a profound knowledge of certain languages and the translator or interpreter’s general educational development.
Translation usually gives the translator more time for focusing and considering the choice of the necessary lexico-grammatical and stylistic elements for a certain text. Interpretation requires an immediate reaction from the interpreter, who is in a constant state of stress and works under pressure. The translator of a written text is not only the person who renders the original text, but he is also the creator of a new written version of the text that can be read and, discussed, with its own mistakes in it. Interpreting is much more neutral and invisible to the addressee; the main thing here is the pragmatic transfer of the original information.
For the research the first-hand experience of teaching students in a class of translating and interpreting, with the presentation of examples in Czech and Ukrainian, is used.
The author comes to the conclusion that common features of interpretation and translation include the need for high language competence and the translator’s general erudition (excellent language skills, knowledge of features of the cultural background, a functional approach to linguistic means, and a developed aesthetic and cultural perception). But, considering that the requirements for performers of translation and interpretation are different, even in the scientific literature the assertion whether the professional specialist exists at all and can be a true professional in both translating and interpreting remains debatable.
). Translating popular film. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pym, A. (2004). On the Pragmatics of Translating Multilingual Texts. In. JoSTrans-The Joournal of Specialised Translation 1 (2004). Eb. 1 Sept. 2011. Retrieved from http://www.jostran.org/issue01/art_pym.php
Stratford, M. (2008). Au tour de Babel! Les défis multiples du multilinguisme. In: Journal des traducteurs, 53(3), pp. 457-70.
Szarkowska, A. Żbikowska, J. & Krejtz, I. (2013) “Subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing in multilingual films” in International
The main aim of this study is to probe into major impediments in teaching literary criticism to the Persian speaking Iranian students of translation studies and to argue in which ways teaching literary criticism may be a successful undertaking in the educational establishments in globally less widely taught and learnt languages like Persian. For this purpose, following a mandatory literary criticism course, 35 male and 65 female graduate students from Fars and Isfahan universities were selected through convenience sampling and encouraged to fill in “record-of-work” forms, including reflection on learning strategies as well as their personal experiences and impressions. Next, to triangulate the results, fifty participants were selected to partake in semi-structured interviews, and findings were sorted and content analyzed based on Oxford’s (1990) dimensions of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and the tenets of grounded theory. It was revealed that there exist major defects with the current socio-pragmatic and pedagogical status of teaching literary criticism to the Iranian MA students and educational gaps are typically ascribed to the learners’ cultural conditions in Iranian EFL context. Results can hopefully provide EFL teachers with ways to recover defects in teaching literary criticism in less widely taught and learnt languages and provide learners with immediate feedback to meet cultural requirements in doing literary criticism.
Abbott, Barbara (2000). Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419-1437.
Atlas, Jay David (2004). Presupposition. Horn, Laurence, Gregory Ward, eds. TheHandbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 29-52.
Baker, Carl Leroy (1970). Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1.2: 169-186.
Chandler, David (2000). Bosnia: Faking Democracy After Dayton (2nd edn.). London; Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press.
Chilton, Paul, Christina Schäffner (2002). Themes and
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Aijmer, Karin and Christoph Rühlemann (eds.). 2015. Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Australian National Corpus. n.d. Accessible at https://www.ausnc.org.au/.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
: A focus on language in action. In K. P. Schneider and A. Barron (eds.). The pragmatics of Irish English, 2-15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, David. 2006. Words, words, words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farr, Fiona and Bróna Murphy. 2009. Religious references in contemporary Irish
functional asymmetry. In Diamond, S.J., Blizard, D.A. (Eds.), Evolution and lateralization of the brain . Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 299, pp. 328–354.
 Chomsky, N., 1995. The minimalist program . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
 Boeckx, C., 2006. Linguistic minimalism: Origins, concepts, methods and aims . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Boeckx, C. (Ed.) 2006. Minimalist essays . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Al-Mutairi, F.R., 2014. The minimalist program: The nature and plausibility of Chomsky