Download
1 / 29
290 likes | 848 Views
Directionality in Interpreting: . empirical studies revealing far less obvious disparities between the retour and the native (e.g. Tommola
E N D
1. Explicitation & Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting Ewa Gumul – University of Silesia, Poland The problem of directionality in interpreting has for long been one of the most contentious issues in the translation & interpreting studies community.
However, it is only recently that we can observe a surge in the number of empirical studies and discussions based on firm theoretical foundations from other fields.
The problem of directionality in interpreting has for long been one of the most contentious issues in the translation & interpreting studies community.
However, it is only recently that we can observe a surge in the number of empirical studies and discussions based on firm theoretical foundations from other fields.
2. Directionality in Interpreting: empirical studies revealing far less obvious disparities between the retour and the native (e.g. Tommola & Helevä 1998, Al-Salman & Al-Khanji 2002, Bartlomiejczyk 2004, Seel 2005)
the need to adopt a more balanced view on directionality (e.g. Gile 2005, Martin 2005, Padilla 2005)
the need to incorporate retour into training curricula (e.g. Adams 2002, Donovan 2005, Fernández 2005) In contrast to the two prevailing dogmas of the past (Western Europe rejecting interpreting into B, and Eastern Europe claiming the supremacy of this direction), recent research provides a wealth of evidence indicating that this issue certainly cannot be perceived in terms of a clear-cut dichotomy.
The results of a number of empirical studies reveal far less obvious disparities between the retour and the native (e.g. Tommola & Helevä 1998, Al-Salman & Al-Khanji 2002, Bartlomiejczyk 2004, Seel 2005).
There are many voices in the translation & interpreting studies community advocating the need to adopt a more balanced view on directionality (e.g. Gile 2005, Martin 2005, Padilla 2005).
There is also a growing tendency among interpreter trainers to recognise the need to incorporate retour into training curricula (e.g. Adams 2002, Donovan 2005, Fernández 2005).In contrast to the two prevailing dogmas of the past (Western Europe rejecting interpreting into B, and Eastern Europe claiming the supremacy of this direction), recent research provides a wealth of evidence indicating that this issue certainly cannot be perceived in terms of a clear-cut dichotomy.
The results of a number of empirical studies reveal far less obvious disparities between the retour and the native (e.g. Tommola & Helevä 1998, Al-Salman & Al-Khanji 2002, Bartlomiejczyk 2004, Seel 2005).
There are many voices in the translation & interpreting studies community advocating the need to adopt a more balanced view on directionality (e.g. Gile 2005, Martin 2005, Padilla 2005).
There is also a growing tendency among interpreter trainers to recognise the need to incorporate retour into training curricula (e.g. Adams 2002, Donovan 2005, Fernández 2005).
3. Directionality & Explicitation: explicitation – one of translation universals
testing translation universals in interpreting – a potential future path of the interpreting research ? Directionality in interpreting is most often discussed in the context of interpreting quality and interpreter training.
I would like to look at the issue of directionality in the context of explicitation, a phenomenon which is widely regarded as one of the translation universals because I believe that testing translation universals in interpreting might possibly be seen as one of the potential future paths of the interpreting research.
Before I present the results of my own research into the relationship between explicitation and directionality in simultaneous interpreting, I would like to begin with a brief outline of the concept of explicitation.
Directionality in interpreting is most often discussed in the context of interpreting quality and interpreter training.
I would like to look at the issue of directionality in the context of explicitation, a phenomenon which is widely regarded as one of the translation universals because I believe that testing translation universals in interpreting might possibly be seen as one of the potential future paths of the interpreting research.
Before I present the results of my own research into the relationship between explicitation and directionality in simultaneous interpreting, I would like to begin with a brief outline of the concept of explicitation.
4. Defining explicitation: “ A stylistic translation technique which consists of making explicit in the target language what remains implicit in the source language because it is apparent from either the context or the situation” (Vinay & Darbelnet 1958/1995: 342) The phenomenon of explicitation has remained in the centre of attention of those preoccupied with translation studies since 1950.
The first definition of explicitation appeared in the classic work of Vinay and Darbelnet in 1958. According to them explicitation is: “ A stylistic translation technique which consists of making explicit in the target language what remains implicit in the source language because it is apparent from either the context or the situation” (Vinay & Darbelnet 1958/1995: 342).
The phenomenon of explicitation has remained in the centre of attention of those preoccupied with translation studies since 1950.
The first definition of explicitation appeared in the classic work of Vinay and Darbelnet in 1958. According to them explicitation is: “ A stylistic translation technique which consists of making explicit in the target language what remains implicit in the source language because it is apparent from either the context or the situation” (Vinay & Darbelnet 1958/1995: 342).
5. Explicitation hypothesis (Blum-Kulka 1986): “ (...) postulates an observed cohesive explicitness from SL to TL texts regardless of the increase traceable to differences between the two linguistic and textual systems involved” (Blum-Kulka 1986: 19) Probably the most groundbreaking study in the field of explicitation is that of Blum-Kulka.
She formulated the explicitation hypothesis, which: “ (...) postulates an observed cohesive explicitness from SL to TL texts regardless of the increase traceable to differences between the two linguistic and textual systems involved” (Blum-Kulka 1986: 19).
Probably the most groundbreaking study in the field of explicitation is that of Blum-Kulka.
She formulated the explicitation hypothesis, which: “ (...) postulates an observed cohesive explicitness from SL to TL texts regardless of the increase traceable to differences between the two linguistic and textual systems involved” (Blum-Kulka 1986: 19).
6. Forms of explicitation (1): adding connectives (e.g. Blum-Kulka 1986, Vehmas-Lehto 1989, Englund Dimitrova 2003, Shlesinger 1995, Puurtinen 2003, 2004)
reiterating lexical items (Øverås 1998, Pápai 2004)
categorial shifts of cohesive devices (i.e. from vaguely cohesive to more explicitly cohesive) (Øverås 1998) The phenomenon of explicitation attracted a lot of interest in the translation studies community. The explicitation hypothesis has been confirmed by numerous researchers, whose studies dealt with the following forms of explicitation:
adding connectives,
reiterating lexical items,
categorial shifts of cohesive devices (i.e. from vaguely cohesive to more explicitly cohesive),
The phenomenon of explicitation attracted a lot of interest in the translation studies community. The explicitation hypothesis has been confirmed by numerous researchers, whose studies dealt with the following forms of explicitation:
adding connectives,
reiterating lexical items,
categorial shifts of cohesive devices (i.e. from vaguely cohesive to more explicitly cohesive),
7. Forms of explicitation (2): shifts from referential cohesion to lexical cohesion (i.e. lexicalisations of pro-forms) (Weissbrod 1992, Øverås 1998, Pápai 2004)
shifts from reiteration in the form of paraphrase to reiteration in the form of identical/partial repetition (Øverås 1998, Gumul 2004, 2006) shifts from referential cohesion to lexical cohesion (i.e. lexicalisations of pro-forms)
and
shifts from reiteration in the form of paraphrase to reiteration in the form of identical/partial repetition.
shifts from referential cohesion to lexical cohesion (i.e. lexicalisations of pro-forms)
and
shifts from reiteration in the form of paraphrase to reiteration in the form of identical/partial repetition.
8. Forms of explicitation (3): adding modifiers and qualifiers (Vanderauwera 1985)
inserting discourse organizing items (Pápai 2004)
filling out elliptical constructions (Weissbrod 1992, Øverås 1998, Pápai 2004, Heltai 2005)
lexical specification (Englund Dimitrova 1993, Øverås 1998, Perego 2003, Klaudy & Károly 2005)
meaning specification (Perego 2003) Although the explicitation hypothesis has been formulated on the basis of cohesive explicitness, other studies in the field identified other forms of explicitation, such as:
adding modifiers and qualifiers,
inserting discourse organizing items,
filling out elliptical constructions,
lexical specification (i.e. substituting a word with general meaning with a word with more specific meaning),
meaning specification (i.e. articulating ideas retrievable or inferable from the preceding part of the text),
Although the explicitation hypothesis has been formulated on the basis of cohesive explicitness, other studies in the field identified other forms of explicitation, such as:
adding modifiers and qualifiers,
inserting discourse organizing items,
filling out elliptical constructions,
lexical specification (i.e. substituting a word with general meaning with a word with more specific meaning),
meaning specification (i.e. articulating ideas retrievable or inferable from the preceding part of the text),
9. Forms of explicitation (4): replacing nominalizations with verb phrases (Klaudy & Károly 2003, Puurtinen 2003)
replacing metaphors with similes (Weissbrod 1992, Øverås 1998)
including additional explanatory remarks (Baker 1992, Al-Quinai 2001, Pápai 2004)
spelling out implicatures (e.g. Séguinot 1985, Abdellah 2004, Pym 2005) replacing nominalizations with verb phrases,
replacing metaphors with similes,
including additional explanatory remarks,
Or more generally: spelling out implicatures.replacing nominalizations with verb phrases,
replacing metaphors with similes,
including additional explanatory remarks,
Or more generally: spelling out implicatures.
10. Language-specificity: explicitation should be viewed as independent of language-specific differences (e.g. Blum-Kulka 1986, Séguinot 1988, Øverås 1998, Vehmas-Lehto 2001)
exclusion of all obligatory explicitating shifts and also those optional shifts which could be attributed to clear-cut stylistic differences between English and Polish
“(…) to prove that there was explicitation, there must have been the possibility of a correct but less explicit or precise version” (Séguinot 1988:108) A substantial number of approaches favour the view that if explicitation is a universal feature of translated texts, then it should be viewed as independent of language-specific differences (e.g. Blum-Kulka 1986, Séguinot 1988, Øverås 1998, Vehmas-Lehto 2001). This view is adopted in the present study. Hence the exclusion of all obligatory explicitating shifts and also those optional shifts which could be attributed to clear-cut stylistic differences between English and Polish.
Such approach appears to be especially legitimate in this type of study, as it minimises the risk of obtaining random findings resulting form the influence of language-pair specific factors. Obviously it only serves to minimise such risk since it is often impossible to separate the influence of directionality from the influence of language-pair specific factors (Gile 2005).
The view of explicitation adopted in the present study is probably best reflected in Séguinot’s (1988) claim stating that “(…) to prove that there was explicitation, there must have been the possibility of a correct but less explicit or precise version” (Séguinot 1988:108).
A substantial number of approaches favour the view that if explicitation is a universal feature of translated texts, then it should be viewed as independent of language-specific differences (e.g. Blum-Kulka 1986, Séguinot 1988, Øverås 1998, Vehmas-Lehto 2001). This view is adopted in the present study. Hence the exclusion of all obligatory explicitating shifts and also those optional shifts which could be attributed to clear-cut stylistic differences between English and Polish.
Such approach appears to be especially legitimate in this type of study, as it minimises the risk of obtaining random findings resulting form the influence of language-pair specific factors. Obviously it only serves to minimise such risk since it is often impossible to separate the influence of directionality from the influence of language-pair specific factors (Gile 2005).
The view of explicitation adopted in the present study is probably best reflected in Séguinot’s (1988) claim stating that “(…) to prove that there was explicitation, there must have been the possibility of a correct but less explicit or precise version” (Séguinot 1988:108).
11. Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting: Shlesinger (1995): cohesive explicitation
Niska (1999): cohesive explicitation
Ishikawa (1999): cognitive explicitation
Gumul (2006): analysis of various kinds of explicitation; comparison with CI The overwhelming majority of studies on explicitation mentioned so far deal with this phenomenon in written translation. Naturally, not all assumptions concerning this phenomenon in written translation might be applicable to interpreting. Given the fundamental differences between written and oral translation as well as the intrinsic constraints impeding the interpreting process, such as substantial temporal load, linearity constraint, and limited short-term memory capacity, explicitation might be expected to acquire a different dimension in interpreting.
Despite initial claims that the constraints intrinsic to simultaneous interpreting might preclude extensive and recurrent explicitation in this mode (Schjoldager 1995), the studies conducted in the field of SI (Shlesinger 1995, Ishikawa 1999, Niska 1999, Gumul 2006) have shown that the phenomenon of explicitation does exist in this mode of interpreting. Shlesinger’s (1995) study, aiming to investigate the changes in cohesive patterns, confirmed that interpreters tend to explicitate implicit links by inserting additional cohesive devices. The same tendency was observed in Niska’s study. Ishikawa’s research concentrated on explicitation without an apparent textual motivation. Her main objective was to investigate psychological factors triggering explicitation. The aim of Gumul’s (2006) research was to identify and analyse various forms of explicitation in interpreting, ranging from syntactic and lexical levels to the pragmatic stratum. This product-based study also focused on comparison of simultaneous interpreting with consecutive as regards the extent and type of explicitating shifts.The overwhelming majority of studies on explicitation mentioned so far deal with this phenomenon in written translation. Naturally, not all assumptions concerning this phenomenon in written translation might be applicable to interpreting. Given the fundamental differences between written and oral translation as well as the intrinsic constraints impeding the interpreting process, such as substantial temporal load, linearity constraint, and limited short-term memory capacity, explicitation might be expected to acquire a different dimension in interpreting.
Despite initial claims that the constraints intrinsic to simultaneous interpreting might preclude extensive and recurrent explicitation in this mode (Schjoldager 1995), the studies conducted in the field of SI (Shlesinger 1995, Ishikawa 1999, Niska 1999, Gumul 2006) have shown that the phenomenon of explicitation does exist in this mode of interpreting. Shlesinger’s (1995) study, aiming to investigate the changes in cohesive patterns, confirmed that interpreters tend to explicitate implicit links by inserting additional cohesive devices. The same tendency was observed in Niska’s study. Ishikawa’s research concentrated on explicitation without an apparent textual motivation. Her main objective was to investigate psychological factors triggering explicitation. The aim of Gumul’s (2006) research was to identify and analyse various forms of explicitation in interpreting, ranging from syntactic and lexical levels to the pragmatic stratum. This product-based study also focused on comparison of simultaneous interpreting with consecutive as regards the extent and type of explicitating shifts.
12. Explicitation in SI – Gumul (2006): Results of my previous research into explicitation in SI indicate that explicitation in this mode of interpreting is mainly cohesion-based (apart from substituting nominalizations with verb phrases).
The six most common changes include adding connectives – 40%, shifts from referential cohesion to lexical cohesion, i.e. lexicalization of pro-forms – 20%, replacing nominalizations with verb phrases – 13%, reiterating lexical items, filling out elliptical constructions, and shifts from reiteration in the form of paraphrase to reiteration in the form of identical/partial repetition – 6% each. The other 7 types of explicitating shifts consitute 9% of all instances of explicitation identified in target texts. Results of my previous research into explicitation in SI indicate that explicitation in this mode of interpreting is mainly cohesion-based (apart from substituting nominalizations with verb phrases).
The six most common changes include adding connectives – 40%, shifts from referential cohesion to lexical cohesion, i.e. lexicalization of pro-forms – 20%, replacing nominalizations with verb phrases – 13%, reiterating lexical items, filling out elliptical constructions, and shifts from reiteration in the form of paraphrase to reiteration in the form of identical/partial repetition – 6% each. The other 7 types of explicitating shifts consitute 9% of all instances of explicitation identified in target texts.
13. Subconscious explicitation (94%) vs. Strategic explicitation (6%) (Gumul – previous research) The results of another study show that explicitation in interpreting is in most cases an unconscious procedure.
The analysis of both interpreting outputs and the retrospective remarks indicates that subconscious explicitation accounts for 94% of all cases of explicitating shifts detected in the outputs, while strategic explicitation only for 6%.
The vast majority of subconscious shifts are cohesion-based, whereas a large proportion of meaning specification, disambiguating metaphors, and explanatory phrases are fully conscious strategic choices of the interpreters. The results of another study show that explicitation in interpreting is in most cases an unconscious procedure.
The analysis of both interpreting outputs and the retrospective remarks indicates that subconscious explicitation accounts for 94% of all cases of explicitating shifts detected in the outputs, while strategic explicitation only for 6%.
The vast majority of subconscious shifts are cohesion-based, whereas a large proportion of meaning specification, disambiguating metaphors, and explanatory phrases are fully conscious strategic choices of the interpreters.
14. The aim of the study : attempt to determine whether explicitation is dependent on the direction of interpreting
hope to provide some additional evidence on directionality in trainees The principal aim of this study is the attempt to determine whether explicitation is dependent on the direction of interpreting.
Since the subjects in the study are advanced interpreting students, the present research is also hoped to provide some additional evidence on directionality in trainees.
The principal aim of this study is the attempt to determine whether explicitation is dependent on the direction of interpreting.
Since the subjects in the study are advanced interpreting students, the present research is also hoped to provide some additional evidence on directionality in trainees.
15. Hypothesis: explicitation might be more frequent in retour (processing capacity management in retour is believed to be a more demanding task)
analysis of both product and process data (i.e. interpreting outputs and the subjects’ retrospective remarks) Previous research on explicitation in interpreting into an A language showed that a certain amount of shifts are clearly attributable to the constraints inherent in the interpreting process. Thus the initial hypothesis might be formulated, assuming that such shifts might be more frequent in the other direction, since processing capacity management in retour is believed to be a more demanding task.
The analysis is based on both product and process data (i.e. interpreting outputs and the subjects’ retrospective remarks).
Previous research on explicitation in interpreting into an A language showed that a certain amount of shifts are clearly attributable to the constraints inherent in the interpreting process. Thus the initial hypothesis might be formulated, assuming that such shifts might be more frequent in the other direction, since processing capacity management in retour is believed to be a more demanding task.
The analysis is based on both product and process data (i.e. interpreting outputs and the subjects’ retrospective remarks).
16. Research design (1): Direction: English – Polish / Polish – English
Subjects:
28 advanced interpreting students
language A (Polish); language B (English)
Prior Training:
180 & 120 hours of training
equal proportion of native and retour The research has been conducted on the English – Polish language pair, in both directions of interpreting.
The subjects in the study were 28 advanced interpreting students.
All subjects were native speakers of Polish, with English as language B.
Prior to the experiment, about half of the subjects had received 180 hours of training in simultaneous interpreting (which amounts to 6 semesters) and the other half – 120 hours (i.e. 4 semesters).
The classes in SI provided practice in both native and retour, in almost equal proportion, in an attempt to cater for the needs of the Polish interpreting market and the situation of the Polish language on the international scene, owing to which interpreters are regularly required to work into a B language.
The research has been conducted on the English – Polish language pair, in both directions of interpreting.
The subjects in the study were 28 advanced interpreting students.
All subjects were native speakers of Polish, with English as language B.
Prior to the experiment, about half of the subjects had received 180 hours of training in simultaneous interpreting (which amounts to 6 semesters) and the other half – 120 hours (i.e. 4 semesters).
The classes in SI provided practice in both native and retour, in almost equal proportion, in an attempt to cater for the needs of the Polish interpreting market and the situation of the Polish language on the international scene, owing to which interpreters are regularly required to work into a B language.
17. Research design (2): Corpus:
source texts: 5 fragments of authentic speeches = 4 sets of equal length
comparable lexical choice and levels of morphosyntactic complexity & redundancy
the same subject matter (political speeches)
each set interpreted by 14 subjects
56 interpreting outputs
target texts: a corpus of approx. 100,000 words The corpus of source texts consists of 5 fragments of authentic speeches, constituting four sets of equal length (in order to ensure the uniform length of the source texts, two of the speeches were used together during one experimental session).
The source texts were comparable in terms of lexical choice and the levels of morphosyntactic complexity and redundancy as well as in terms of the subject matter (all of them were political speeches delivered following the terrorist attack on the 11th of September).
Each of the analysed sets has been interpreted by 14 subjects, which amounts to 56 interpreting outputs and a corpus of approx. 100,000 words.
The two directions of interpreting were recorded during separate sessions in order to prevent the fatigue effect. The corpus of source texts consists of 5 fragments of authentic speeches, constituting four sets of equal length (in order to ensure the uniform length of the source texts, two of the speeches were used together during one experimental session).
The source texts were comparable in terms of lexical choice and the levels of morphosyntactic complexity and redundancy as well as in terms of the subject matter (all of them were political speeches delivered following the terrorist attack on the 11th of September).
Each of the analysed sets has been interpreted by 14 subjects, which amounts to 56 interpreting outputs and a corpus of approx. 100,000 words.
The two directions of interpreting were recorded during separate sessions in order to prevent the fatigue effect.
18. Research design (3): Rate of delivery (controlled): approx. 130 words per minute
Retrospection procedure:
each set followed by a retrospective remarks session
remarks concerning:
expressing sth more explicitly in the TT than in the ST
adding words or expressions to the TT The average rate of delivery was about 130 words per minute. In order to eliminate the variable of the speed of delivery, which is bound to influence the number and type of explicitating shifts, the rate of delivery was controlled, i.e. all the texts were recorded by lectors.
Each set was followed by a retrospective remarks session.
Immediately after the interpretation, the subjects were asked to listen to their outputs and make comments whenever they felt they expressed something more explicitly than it was articulated in the source text, or added any words or expressions that did not appear in the input. They were specifically asked not to make any comments regarding the quality of their outputs, but rather talk about the decisions taken and the reasons behind them. It was also emphasised that their remarks should only reflect what they thought during the task of interpreting, and must not be made on the basis of their outputs. In order to determine whether potential scarcity of comments stemmed from the subjects’ lack of verbosity, their unwillingness to make remarks or the unconscious nature of explicitation in interpreting, the subjects were also asked to make comments regarding the topic of the interpreted speech, its form and vocabulary employed by the speaker.The average rate of delivery was about 130 words per minute. In order to eliminate the variable of the speed of delivery, which is bound to influence the number and type of explicitating shifts, the rate of delivery was controlled, i.e. all the texts were recorded by lectors.
Each set was followed by a retrospective remarks session.
Immediately after the interpretation, the subjects were asked to listen to their outputs and make comments whenever they felt they expressed something more explicitly than it was articulated in the source text, or added any words or expressions that did not appear in the input. They were specifically asked not to make any comments regarding the quality of their outputs, but rather talk about the decisions taken and the reasons behind them. It was also emphasised that their remarks should only reflect what they thought during the task of interpreting, and must not be made on the basis of their outputs. In order to determine whether potential scarcity of comments stemmed from the subjects’ lack of verbosity, their unwillingness to make remarks or the unconscious nature of explicitation in interpreting, the subjects were also asked to make comments regarding the topic of the interpreted speech, its form and vocabulary employed by the speaker.
19. Research design (4): Parallel analysis of both transcripts and audio recordings (advocated by Kalina 2005) Both interpreting outputs and retrospective remarks were recorded and transcribed.
The analysis was based on both transcripts and the actual audio recordings, as advocated by Sylvia Kalina in her recent paper, in which she emphasises the need to combine different observational techniques in the interpreting research. Both interpreting outputs and retrospective remarks were recorded and transcribed.
The analysis was based on both transcripts and the actual audio recordings, as advocated by Sylvia Kalina in her recent paper, in which she emphasises the need to combine different observational techniques in the interpreting research.
20. Results: B ? A: 481 explicitating shifts
A ? B: 624 explicitating shifts
T-test: statistically significant difference (p<0.05) The results of the analysis reveal that explicitation is more frequent in interpreting into a B language.
The number of explicitating shifts detected in interpreting outputs into an A language, i.e. Polish is 481, while in the other direction (into B) as many as 624 such shifts have been identified.
T-test analysis indicates that the difference is statistically significant. The results of the analysis reveal that explicitation is more frequent in interpreting into a B language.
The number of explicitating shifts detected in interpreting outputs into an A language, i.e. Polish is 481, while in the other direction (into B) as many as 624 such shifts have been identified.
T-test analysis indicates that the difference is statistically significant.
21. Shifts prevailing in retour: Quite predictably, the difference is not uniform for categories of explicitating shifts. The four categories which show markedly higher proportion of explicitations in retour interpreting are: adding connectives, reiteration, meaning specification, and disambiguating metaphors.
Closer analysis of the outputs and retrospective remarks reveals that a substantial proportion of these types of explicitating shifts is apparently due to adopting repair or preventive strategies.
Quite predictably, the difference is not uniform for categories of explicitating shifts. The four categories which show markedly higher proportion of explicitations in retour interpreting are: adding connectives, reiteration, meaning specification, and disambiguating metaphors.
Closer analysis of the outputs and retrospective remarks reveals that a substantial proportion of these types of explicitating shifts is apparently due to adopting repair or preventive strategies.
22. Adding connectives: subconscious or highly automated procedure (none of the subjects verbalised this type of operation in their retrospective comments)
explicitating the implicit logical relations might in some cases be due to adopting the strategy of padding Although adding connectives appears to be a largely subconscious or highly automated procedure, as none of the subjects verbalised this type of operation in their retrospective comments, analysis of two overlapping lines of discourse suggests that explicitating the implicit logical relations might in some cases be due to adopting the strategy of padding, i.e. uttering a non-committal material. Although adding connectives appears to be a largely subconscious or highly automated procedure, as none of the subjects verbalised this type of operation in their retrospective comments, analysis of two overlapping lines of discourse suggests that explicitating the implicit logical relations might in some cases be due to adopting the strategy of padding, i.e. uttering a non-committal material.
23. Reiteration: result of self-correction (a strategy of repair)
retrospective remarks on reiteration report problems with lexical search Reiterations fall into two distinct groups. One of the is repeating certain word or phrase later in the text, while the other, far more frequent in retour interpreting, results from self-correction (employing a strategy of repair). Since the analysis focuses only on successful attempts at explicitation, in the analysed cases either both lexical items tend to be correct equivalents, or the first one is better, whereas the second merely approximates the idea expressed in the source text.
The retrospective remarks on reiteration, albeit very few, report problems with lexical search.
Reiterations fall into two distinct groups. One of the is repeating certain word or phrase later in the text, while the other, far more frequent in retour interpreting, results from self-correction (employing a strategy of repair). Since the analysis focuses only on successful attempts at explicitation, in the analysed cases either both lexical items tend to be correct equivalents, or the first one is better, whereas the second merely approximates the idea expressed in the source text.
The retrospective remarks on reiteration, albeit very few, report problems with lexical search.
24. Meaning specification: sometimes due to adopting the coping tactic of parallel reformulation or padding
problems with effective processing capacity management (e.g. directing all resources to the production effort) Meaning specification, as indicated in numerous retrospective comments reporting such shifts, is sometimes due to adopting the coping tactic of parallel reformulation or padding. The necessity to resort to such techniques is brought about by problems with lexical search or problems with effective processing capacity management, e.g. directing all available resources to the production effort while working on a previous segment.
Both tendencies are illustrated by the examples:
Meaning specification, as indicated in numerous retrospective comments reporting such shifts, is sometimes due to adopting the coping tactic of parallel reformulation or padding. The necessity to resort to such techniques is brought about by problems with lexical search or problems with effective processing capacity management, e.g. directing all available resources to the production effort while working on a previous segment.
Both tendencies are illustrated by the examples:
25. Meaning specification – retrospective remarks: “I didn’t hear the beginning of the next sentence, so I decided to add the words of the attack to the phrase to save the victims, because I wanted to fill the gap.”
“I added the word civilisation just to fill the gap while I was thinking how to translate the word inclusive.” “I didn’t hear the beginning of the next sentence, so I decided to add the words of the attack to the phrase to save the victims, because I wanted to fill the gap.”
“I added the word civilisation just to fill the gap while I was thinking how to translate the word inclusive.”
This tendency has been identified in both directions of interpreting, but it appears to be considerably more frequent in retour. “I didn’t hear the beginning of the next sentence, so I decided to add the words of the attack to the phrase to save the victims, because I wanted to fill the gap.”
“I added the word civilisation just to fill the gap while I was thinking how to translate the word inclusive.”
This tendency has been identified in both directions of interpreting, but it appears to be considerably more frequent in retour.
26. Disambiguating metaphors: A ? B: problems with finding an appropriate stylistic equivalent
B ? A: striving for optimal relevance of the interpreted message The retrospective remarks also reveal that a higher proportion of disambiguated metaphors in interpreting into a B language is mostly attributable to problems with finding an appropriate stylistic equivalent. Whereas in the other direction, such explicitations are far more often due to striving for optimal relevance of the interpreted message, thereby facilitating the comprehension task for a target text audience. The retrospective remarks also reveal that a higher proportion of disambiguated metaphors in interpreting into a B language is mostly attributable to problems with finding an appropriate stylistic equivalent. Whereas in the other direction, such explicitations are far more often due to striving for optimal relevance of the interpreted message, thereby facilitating the comprehension task for a target text audience.
27. Retrospective remarks: RELEVANCE: 14 (A) vs. 11 (B)
INTERPRETING CONSTRAINTS: 14 (A) vs. 30 (B) The analysis of all retrospective remarks reporting conscious explicitation provides further evidence that in retour more explicitating shifts are attributable to the interpreting constraints than in the native.
Whereas striving for optimal relevance is almost equally frequent in both directions of interpreting, the subjects report more cases of resorting to explicitation due to the interpreting constraints while rendering the source-text into a B language.
The analysis of all retrospective remarks reporting conscious explicitation provides further evidence that in retour more explicitating shifts are attributable to the interpreting constraints than in the native.
Whereas striving for optimal relevance is almost equally frequent in both directions of interpreting, the subjects report more cases of resorting to explicitation due to the interpreting constraints while rendering the source-text into a B language.
28. Concluding remarks (1): explicitation appears to be dependent on the direction of interpreting to a certain extent
more frequent occurrence of explicitation in interpreting into a B language is apparently due to the constraints intrinsic to the process of interpreting
providing further evidence to support the opinions voiced by numerous researchers (e.g. Déjean Le Féal 2005, Donovan 2005) that retour interpreting is particularly difficult for interpreting students In conlusion, explicitation appears to be dependent on the direction of interpreting to a certain extent.
More frequent occurrence of explicitation in interpreting into English (i.e. the B language) is apparently due, in a relatively large number of cases, to the constraints intrinsic to the process of interpreting.
This provides further evidence to support the opinions voiced by numerous researchers (e.g. Déjean Le Féal 2005, Donovan 2005) that retour interpreting is particularly difficult for interpreting students.In conlusion, explicitation appears to be dependent on the direction of interpreting to a certain extent.
More frequent occurrence of explicitation in interpreting into English (i.e. the B language) is apparently due, in a relatively large number of cases, to the constraints intrinsic to the process of interpreting.
This provides further evidence to support the opinions voiced by numerous researchers (e.g. Déjean Le Féal 2005, Donovan 2005) that retour interpreting is particularly difficult for interpreting students.
29. Concluding remarks (2): the vast majority of explicitations identified in both directions of interpreting appear to be either subconscious or automatic and hardly ever attributable to any strategic behaviour
further research on professional interpreters However, it must be emphasised that the above-mentioned explanations account only for a certain proportion of explicitating shifts.
The vast majority of explicitations identified in both directions of interpreting appear to be either subconscious or automatic and hardly ever attributable to any strategic behaviour.
Finally, it must be underlined that in order to generalize the results of the present study, analysis of the output samples of professional interpreters would be necessary, bearing in mind that any research on explicitation should be carried out on large samples of subjects and source texts since it is a highly idiosyncratic behaviour.
However, it must be emphasised that the above-mentioned explanations account only for a certain proportion of explicitating shifts.
The vast majority of explicitations identified in both directions of interpreting appear to be either subconscious or automatic and hardly ever attributable to any strategic behaviour.
Finally, it must be underlined that in order to generalize the results of the present study, analysis of the output samples of professional interpreters would be necessary, bearing in mind that any research on explicitation should be carried out on large samples of subjects and source texts since it is a highly idiosyncratic behaviour.
30. Explicitation & Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting Ewa Gumul – University of Silesia, Poland
