Strategies for Conveying Discourse Coherence in Simultaneous Interpreting from Russian into German

This paper analyses how pragmatic markers are conveyed in simultaneous interpretation, and also identifies the main translation strategies for conveying discourse coherence and the influence of the evaluative component of an utterance on the choice of these strategies. The research makes a novel contribution by applying a pragmatic approach to the analysis of actual simultaneous interpreting practice for the first time. This enables the identification of core mechanisms for constructing and managing discourse, and reveals specific strategies for translating pragmatic (or discursive) markers that contribute to discourse cohesion. The research methodology is based on a classification of discourse-construction markers, which allows the speaker to signal the continuation of a topic (Group 1), a return to a previous topic (Group 2) as well as specify the structure of the discourse (Group 3). The study material comprises video recordings of speeches by participants of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and Russian Energy Week in 2018, where simultaneous interpretation was provided. The corpus of examples includes 38 pragmatic markers. The study has revealed that when conveying pragmatic markers indicating a continuation of the topic or referring back to a previous part of the discourse, the strategies chosen by the interpreter demonstrate the highest variability (literal translation, compensation, omission with preservation of meaning). Returning to a previous topic is the most cognitively demanding process, as it disrupts the linearity of the discourse and therefore must be clearly marked in the translation. The results demonstrate that the function of a pragmatic marker — to attract attention and structure the transition — is more important than its lexical content. The evaluative component is lost when conveying the pragmatic meaning of an utterance and is replaced by the closest functional equivalent in the target language. The fewest strategies are used when translating markers of discourse structure (literal translation is predominant). Conveying them is the simplest process, as in most cases they have a direct functional equivalent in the target language. The empirical data from the study can be used as stimulus material for a translation experiment, as well as for developing exercises to manage cognitive load among student interpreters specializing in simultaneous interpretation.

1. Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh University Press.

2. Andreeva, S. V. (2005). Konstruktivno-sintaksicheskie edinitsy ustnoi russkoi rechi: monografiya [Constructive-syntactic units of Russian oral speech]. Saratov: Izdatel’stvo Saratovskogo universiteta. (In Russian)

3. Averina, A. V. (2020). Modal’nye chastitsy v strukture predlozheniya (na materiale nemetskogo i russkogo yazykov) [Modal particles in sentence structure (based on German and Russian languages)]. Voprosy sovremennoi lingvistiki, (2), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-712X-2020-2-59-67 (In Russian)

4. Blakemore, D. (2004). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.

5. Erofeeva, E. V. (2023). Znachenie i funktsii pragmaticheskikh markerov v russkoi ustnoi rechi [The meaning and functions of pragmatic markers in Russian oral speech]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Yazyk i literatura, 20(1), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2023.110 (In Russian)

6. Filatova, V. V. (2017). Problema vnedreniya sinkhronnogo perevoda v perevodcheskuyu deyatel’nost’ [The problem of implementing simultaneous interpreting in translation activity]. Vestnik magistratury, 12-4(75), 34–37. (In Russian)

7. Fischer, K. (2000). From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Walter de Gruyter.

8. Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166%2890%2990096-V

9. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra

10. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S03782166%2898%2900101-5

11. Fraser, B. (2009a). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 292–320. https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X12505863431603

12. Fraser, B. (2009b). Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 892–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.006

13. Glushak, V. M. (2009). Epistemicheskaya funktsiya chastits v organizatsii rechevogo povedeniya [Epistemic function of particles in the speech behavior realization]. Vestnik Pomorskogo universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki, (3), 32–37. (In Russian)

14. Halliday, M. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. Edward Arnold.

15. Ilyukhin, V. M. (2002). Strategii v sinkhronnom perevode: na materiale anglo-russkoi i russko-angliiskoi kombinatsii perevoda [Strategies in Simultaneous Translation (Based on English-Russian and RussianEnglish Combinations of Translation)] (Extended abstract of PhD dissertation). Moscow. (In Russian)

16. Inkova-Manzotti, O. Yu. (2001). Konnektory protivopostavleniya vo frantsuzskom i russkom yazykakh: sopostavitel’noe issledovanie [Opposition connectors in French and Russian (contrastive study)]. (Doctoral dissertation). Moscow. (In Russian)

17. Kobozeva, I. M., & Zakharov, L. M. (2007). Oznachayushchee diskursivnykh slov russkogo yazyka kak ob”ekt kognitivno orientirovannogo opisaniya: problema metayazyka [The signifier of Russian discourse words as an object of cognitively oriented description: The problem of metalanguage]. In Russkii yazyk: istoricheskie sud’by i sovremennost’. Moscow: Moskovskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet. (In Russian)

18. Konina, A. A., & Chernigovskaya, T. V. (2018). Sinkhronnyi perevod kak ekstremal’nyi vid kognitivnykh protsessov (obzor eksperimental’nykh issledovanii) [Simultaneous Interpreting as an Extreme Cognitive Activity (Experimental Studies. Review)]. Voprosy psikholingvistiki, 4(38), 178–203. https://doi.org/10.30982/2077-5911-2018-4-178-203 (In Russian)

19. Kuleshova, A. V. (2024). Problema parametrizatsii diskursivnykh markerov v trudakh zarubezhnykh lingvistov (na primere frantsuzskogo yazyka) [The problem of parametrization of discursive markers in the works of foreign linguists (using the example of the French language)] Voprosy sovremennoi lingvistiki, (3), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5075-2024-3-6-15 (In Russian)

20. Porubilkin, V. E. (2026). Strategii peredachi svyaznosti vyskazyvaniya v ustno-zritelnom perevode s nemetskogo yazyka na russkii [Strategies for conveying coherence in sight translation from German into Russian]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 19(2), 669–678. https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20260088 (In Russian)

21. Putina, O. N. (2022). Diskursivnye markery v dialogicheskom edinstve vopros-otvet: kommunikativno-pragmaticheskii podkhod [Discourse markers in question-answer dialogue unity: A communicative-pragmatic approach]. Perm. (In Russian)

22. Rakovа, K. V. (2025). Sinkhronnyi perevod leksicheskikh sredstv vyrazitel’nosti v sovremennom obshchestvenno-politicheskom diskurse [Simultaneous Interpretation of Lexical Expressive Means in Modern Social and Political Discourse]. Filologicheskie nauki v MGIMO, 11(4), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.24833/2410-2423-2025-4-45-126-140 (In Russian)

23. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.

24. Serebrova, O. F. (2023). Nemetskie diskursivnye markery v tekstakh razlichnykh funktsional’nykh stilei [German discourse markers in texts of various functional styles]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 16(7), 2166–2172. https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20230355 (In Russian)

25. Viktorova, E. Yu. (2014). Diskursivnye slova: edinstvo v mnogoobrazii [Discursive words: uniformity in Diversity]. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Seriya Filologiya. Zhurnalistika, 14(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.18500/1817-7115-2014-14-1-10-15 (In Russian)

26. Viktorova, E. Yu. (2024). Khedzhing-strategiya v otsenochnom nauchnom diskurse: mezhdistsiplinarnoe issledovanie [Transdisciplinary Study of Hedging Strategy in Evaluative Academic Discourse] Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2: Yazykoznanie, (1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2024.1.1 (In Russian)

27. Vinogradov, V. V. (1975). O kategorii modal’nosti i modal’nykh slovakh v russkom yazyke [The category of modality and modal words in Russian]. In Issledovaniya po russkoi grammatike: izbrannye trudy (pp. 53–87). Moscow. (In Russian)

28. Volkova, T. A. (2022). Strategii ustnogo perevoda: obzor i pereosmyslenie podkhodov [Strategies of interpreting: Review on approaches]. Teoriya yazyka i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya, (2), 52–61. (In Russian)

29. Volkova, T. A. (2023). Diskursivnoe modelirovanie perevoda: zachem perevodchiku diskurs [Discourse-based translation modeling: why translators need discourse]. Inostrannye yazyki v vysshei shkole, 3(66), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.37724/RSU.2023.66.3.009 (In Russian)