Tashkent state uzbek language and literature university named after alisher navoiy

The structure of the master's dissertation.
This research paper consists of an introduction, three chapters, summaries after chapters, a general conclusion, a list of references, and an appendix. In the first chapter, the brief information about implicature and types of implicature were discussed. The second chapter deals with the problems and issues of translating implicature in simultaneous interpretation of public speeches from English into Russian, which are part of scientific and technical translation. The third chapter includes how to translate implicature and the most effective methods them in simultaneous interpretation of public speeches the conclusions summarize the general results of the scientific work.
1.1. Simultaneous Interpreting as a type of oral translation
Research into the various aspects of the history of interpreting is quite new. For as long as most scholarly interest was given to professional conference interpreting, very little academic work was done on the practice of interpreting in history, and until the 1990s, only a few dozen publications were done on it.
Considering the amount of interpreting activities that is assumed to have occurred for thousands of years, historical records are limited. Moreover, interpreters and their work have usually not found their way into the history books. One of the reasons for that is the dominance of the written text over the spoken word (in the sense that those who have left written texts are more likely to be recorded by historiansюAnother problem is the tendency to view it as an ordinary support activity which does not require any special attention, and the social status of interpreters, who were sometimes treated unfairly by scribes, chroniclers and historians.
Our knowledge of the past of interpreting tends to come from letters, chronicles, biographies, diaries and memoirs, along with a variety of other documents and literary works, many of which (and with few exceptions) were only incidentally or marginally related to interpreting.
In English, the words ‘translation’ and ‘translating’ are often used as an umbrella term to cover both written translation and interpreting, while the words ‘interpretation’ and ‘interpreting’ are generally used to refer to the spoken and/or signed translation modalities only. Similar ambiguities are found in other languages, including French, with traduire and interpréter, German, with Dolmetschen and Übersetzen, Spanish, with traducir and interpretar, Japanese, where 翻訳 stands for written translation and 通訳 for interpreting, but the verb 訳す is often used for both. In this article, the same usage will be kept, and wherever potential ambiguity is suspected, it will be removed by specifying ‘written translation’. Two further points need to be made here: the first is that translation also includes a hybrid, ‘sight translation’, which is the translation of a written text into a spoken or signed speech. Simultaneous interpreting with text, discussed later in this article, combines interpreting and sight translation. The second point is that while in the literature, there is generally a strong separation between the world of spoken (and written) languages and the world of signed languages, in this paper, both will be considered. Both deserve attention and share much common ground when looking at the simultaneous interpreting mode.