COHESION AND COHERENCE IN INTERPRETED SPEECH: CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES AND INTERPRETATIVE STRATEGIES
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The text exаmines cohesion and coherence as key cаtegories of text organization, with a focus on their trаnsformation in oral translation. Traditionally, cohesion – defined by Halliday and Hasan as a system of formal linguistic ties – has been treаted as a structural property of well-formed texts. However, contemporary research increasingly views cohesion as a flexible, context-dependent resource shaped by genre, communicative purpose, and cognitive constraints. In oral trаnslation, where processing is linear and time-pressured, cohesive markers are often reduced or restructured. In contrаst, coherence is understood as a cognitive phenomenon emerging from the interаction between text, context, and the interpreter’s mental models. It ensures meaningful integrаtion of information and remаins central even when formal cohesion is weakened. Studies show that in interpreting, coherence is typically preserved or enhаnced despite a decrease in explicit cohesive devices. The text also highlights translаtion universals such as explicitation and simplification, which dynamically affect cohesion. Gile’s Effort Model explains these changes as a result of limited cognitive resources. Both international and Ukrainian research demonstrate a shift toward a cognitive-discursive approach, emphasizing the interpreter’s active role in meaning construction. Ultimately, coherence is identified as the dominant category in oral translation, while cohesion plays a secondary, adaptive role.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
interpreting; discourse organization; text connectivity; cognitive load; explicitation; simplification; mental models; translation universals; reference relations; lexical ties; discourse processing; communicative purpose
2. Gile, D. (2020). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (2nd ed.). 3. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
4. van Dijk, T. A. (2019). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
5. Krein-Kühle, M. (2021). Cohesion and Coherence in Technical Translation: The Case of Demonstrative Reference. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 1. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v1i.5
6. Li, J., Gao, Y. Variability of cohesion and coherence in Chinese-to-English translation: measuring the effect of translation variety and register divergence. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1526 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05814-8
7. Darchuk, N. (2022). Coreference in the poetic works of Lesia Ukrainka. Ukrainian Linguistics, 1(52), 93-115. https://doi.org/10.17721/um/52(2022).93-115
8. Koroleva, T. M., Zhmayeva, N. S., & Popova, Ya. Yu. (2017). Cohesion and coherence in English translation of Ukrainian scientific texts. Naukovyi visnyk Pivdennoukrainskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni K. D. Ushynskoho. Linhvistychni nauky, (24), 64–71.
9. Molodtsova, V. V., Rusachenko, N. P., & Vydaichuk, T. L. (2025). Leksychna koheziia tekstu: linhvistychni ta prahmatychni aspekty. Visnyk nauky ta osvity. Serii: filolohiia, kultura i mystetstvo, pedahohika, istoriia ta arkheolohiia, sotsiolohiia, 34(4), 582–592. [in Ukrainian]
10. Povorozniuk, R. V., & Poduholnikova, Z. O. (2021). Zasadnychi modeli usnoho dvostoronnioho perekladu i notuvannia: kohnityvnyi, funktsiinyi i pedahohichnyi vymiry. Nova filolohiia,(83), 120–127. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400151522 [in Ukrainian]