Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SUMMARIES
UNIT I
Rodríguez Andrea
Pochhacker, F. (2004). Concepts. Introducing interpreting studies
[versioó n digital] (pp. 9-26). Londres y Nueva York: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-
57018-9.
Interpreting: It is a translational activity. Interpreting is an ancient human practice.
The English word ‘interpreter’ is derived from Latin interpres (in the sense of
‘expounder’, ‘person explaining what is obscure’). While some scholars take the second
part of the word to be derived from partes or pretium (‘price’), thus fitting the meaning
of a ‘middleman’, ‘intermediary’ or ‘commercial go-between’. The Latin term interpres,
denoting someone ‘explaining the meaning’, ‘making sense of’ what others have
difficulty understanding, is An appropriate semantic foundation for ‘interpreter’ and
‘interpreting’.
a) Interpreting is performed ‘here and now’ for the benefit of people who want to
engage in communication across barriers of language and culture. By elaborating on
the feature of immediacy, one can distinguish interpreting from other forms of
Translation.
interpreting is an immediate type of translational activity, performed ‘in real time’ for
immediate use.
Interpreting as Translation
Translation is:
(a) a process by which a spoken or written utterance takes place in one language
which is intended or presumed to convey the same meaning as a previously existing
utterance in another language (Rabin 1958)
Interpreting is:
(c) A situation-related and function-oriented complex series of acts for the production
of a target text, intended for addressees in another culture/language,on the basis of a
given source text (Salevsky 1993)
Essential feature of Translation (i.e. notions like transfer, ideas, sameness, intention or
culture)
languages will have served the purpose of trading and exchanging goods, of ‘doing
business’, which would give us business interpreting as a ‘primeval’ type of
interpreting. Henri van Hoof (1962) mentions liaison interpreting as a form of
interpreting practiced mainly in commercial negotiations. Gentile et al. (1996) took
advantage of the generic meaning of ‘liaison’, denoting the idea of ‘connecting’ and
‘linking up’, and extended the term ‘liaison interpreting’ to a variety of interpreting
settings across the inter- vs intra-social dimensions.
Arising in the context of (im)migration countries like Sweden and Australia responded
to the demand for interpreting services to help immigrants function in the host
society, others have been slow to address such intra-social communication needs. It
was only in the 1980s and 1990s, in the face of communication problems in public-
sector institutions (healthcare, social services), that ‘interpreting in the community’
(community-based interpreting) acquired increasing visibility. Thus community
interpreting, also referred to as public service interpreting and cultural interpreting ,
emerged as a wide new field of interpreting practice, with healthcare interpreting and
legal interpreting as the most significant institutional domains.
Figure 1.2 illustrates this dual spectrum, in which liaison/dialogue interpreting holds
more of the middle ground, with reference to some characteristics which are usually
associated with either end of the spectrum.
Typological parameters
Apart from the broad classification of interpreting types , there are additional and
clear-cut criteria for a more systematic inventory of types and subtypes of
interpreting, among them:
1. Language modality: the term ‘interpreting’ is used generically as implying the use
of spoken languages, in particular Western European languages as used in
international conferences and organizations.
Working mode
It was only in the 1920s, when transmission equipment was developed to enable
interpreters to work simultaneously, that it became meaningful to distinguish between
consecutive interpreting (after the source-language utterance) and simultaneous
interpreting (as the source-language text is being presented). Simultaneous
interpreting was initially implemented as ‘simultaneous consecutive’, that is, the
simultaneous transmission of two or more consecutive renditions in different output
languages. Since consecutive interpreting can be conceived of as a continuum which
ranges from the rendition of utterances as short as one word to the handling of entire
speeches, or more or less lengthy portions thereof, ‘in one go’ (Figure 1.3). The
consecutive interpretation of longer speeches usually involves note-taking as
developed by the pioneers of conference interpreting in the early twentieth century.
For sign language interpreters, whose performance in the visual channel leaves little
room for activities requiring additional visual attention, note-taking is less of an
option, and they work in the short consecutive or, typically, the simultaneous mode.
The distinction between consecutive and simultaneous interpreting is not necessarily
clear-cut.
A special type of simultaneous interpreting is the rendition of a written text ‘at sight’.
Commonly known as ‘sight translation’, this variant of the simultaneous mode would
be labeled more correctly as ‘sight interpreting’. In sight translation, the interpreter’s
target-text production is simultaneous not with the delivery of the source text but
with the interpreter’s real-time (visual) reception of the written source text.
Directionality
While the interpreting process as such always proceeds in one direction – from source
to target language – the issue of direction is more complex at the level of the
communicative event. In the prototype case of mediated face-to-face dialogue, the
interpreter will work in both directions, that is, ‘back and forth’ between the two
languages involved, depending on the turn-taking of the parties. Bilateral
interpreting is thus typically linked with the notions of ‘liaison interpreting’ and
‘dialogue interpreting’
There is no special label for ‘one-way’ or one-directional interpreting at the level of the
communicative event. Relevant distinctions are rather made with reference to the
individual interpreter’s combination of working languages
The use of technical equipment functions to avoid the mixing of source- and target-
language messages in the acoustic channel. Apart from their common use in situ, that
is, in conference halls or in noisy conditions, electro-acoustic and audiovisual
transmission systems are employed to reach far beyond a given location. In what is
generally called remote interpreting, the interpreter is not in the same room as the
speaker or listener, or both. Telephone interpreting is usually performed with
standard telecommunications equipment in the bilateral consecutive mode. For
international and multilateral conferences, the use of videoconferencing technology
has made audiovisual remote (conference) interpreting and tele-interpreting the focus
of attention,
Professional status
Harris as well as Toury agree that there exist socio-cultural translational norms which
shape interpreting practices and determine the skill levels required for the activity to
be recognized as such.
“The translating done in everyday circumstances by people who have had no special
training for it” (Harris and Sherwood 1978:155) has been common practice
throughout history. Today, too, communication with speakers of other languages often
remains heavily dependent on the efforts of natural interpreters, the most significant
example in community settings being bilingual children, of immigrants or deaf
parents, interpreting for their family.
To put interpreting more visibly on the map, Heidemarie Salevsky (1993) proposed an
analogous branch structure for the discipline of interpreting studies, with theoretical
subdomains based on a list of situational variables (see Salevsky 1993: 154):
Summary
Consecutive interpretation is divided in two: short CI and long CI. Short CI uses
fragments that the interpreter has to memorize and render orally, while in Long CI,
the interpreter takes notes.
Memory can be split in two types: short and long-term memory. Short-term memory
is important for the interpreter to retain what he/she has just heard, while a good
long-term memory helps genuine understanding and an accurate conveying of the
message.
Effort Models
Daniel Gile (1992) talks about the difficulties and efforts “involved in interpreting
tasks and strategies needed to overcome them” (Gile 1992: 191. He proposes his Effort
Models which has been designed to help interpreters understand difficulties [of
interpreting] and select appropriate strategies and tactics. They are based on the
concept of Processing Capacity and on the fact that some mental operations in
interpreting require much Processing Capacity” (Gile 1992:191).
They are constructed upon four types of efforts, namely: the Listening and Analysis
Effort, the Memory Effort, the Production Effort, plus the Coordination one.
listening and analysis efforts recall the presence of understanding, besides the
hearing of words, that is, the brain has to use its capacity of conveying the sounds into
a rational message.
Coordination Effort has a crucial task. It allows the interpreter to manage her focus
of attention between the listening and analysis task and the ongoing self-monitoring
that occurs during performance” (Leeson 2005: 57).
there is synchronization between their skill level and the task they have to perform.
Even if sometimes these Efforts overlap, coordination actually finds the balance
between all the factors.
Gile’s effort model of simultaneous interpreting comprises the above mentioned four
elements, and he codes the model as follows:
CI = Rem + Read + P
Where interpreters retrieve messages from their short-term memory and reconstruct
the speech (Rem), read the notes (N), and produce the Target Language Speech (P).
This formula proposed by Gile is only applicable in the case of long CI, where the
interpreter takes notes to render orally the message at the end of the conference.
Short CI is very close to SI, but the pace of the whole process is slower, which increases
the interpreter’s capacity of understanding and analyzing the information. Due to this,
the interpreter only uses his/her short term-memory and produces the language
speech, without neglecting coordination.
Short CI = L + M + P + C
The acoustic coding relates closely to what we hear (words, sentences, sounds),
without placing the emphasis on the meaning of sentences/words. Experiments
suggest that material in our short-term memory is processed largely in terms of
speech sounds, whereas our long-term memory depends primarily on meaning”
(Baddeley 1999:36). Alan Baddeley states that STM depends mainly on acoustic
coding (1966).
During the rapid translation process, the message is rendered appropriately if the
words are heard, but also placed in context. In this case, LTM acts better, and is based
mainly on the interpreter’s good knowledge of the area the translation is being
performed.
The visual coding of a message is linked to the pictures or images we mentally create
when we hear a discourse. For some people it is called photographic memory, as they
immortalize an image, while in others, it is less functional.
Semantic coding talks about the actual meaning of words. Kellogg (2003) found out
that semantic codes are powerful in STM, and that people were aware of the actual
meaning of triads or pairs of words given.
Mnemonics
Memory can be trained and improved. Vivid and colorful images are well received by
your brain, so any time you hear something, try to turn it into a pleasant image for the
brain. In order to make your mnemonics more memorable, you should use positive,
pleasant images. Your brain often blocks out unpleasant ones. You should also use
vivid, colorful, sense-laden images – these are easier to remember than drab ones.
Humour is always a good means of easily remembering things or aspects, while
symbols, like road signs, or red traffic lights can code quite complex messages quickly
and effectively.
Memory has very little to do with intelligence, but a lot to do with practice and
technique. So, do not be afraid to experiment. The more ridiculous the images you
create in your mind, the better chances of remembering them you will have. If the
images your mind creates are too common, your STM will not be able to recall them.
2. Picture your items in action whenever possible. Violent or shocking images in action
make the whole scene more memorable.
3. Exaggerate the number of items. You can easily imagine “thousands” or “millions”
The link method boils down to strange associations that you make in your head. The
more ridiculous and illogical the associations are, the better your chances to
remember the items are.
Note-taking
Another simple method that will relieve the strain on your STM is by taking notes.
This thing is possible, even if the speaker has a rapid pace. All the interpreter has to do
is to be used to some abbreviations.
Imagination, association and location are the three most important aids in developing
your mnemonic. Imagination talks about the power with which you create an image
so that it will come to you later. Association links certain things with others,
sometimes sounds or even smells. Location gives you two things: a coherent context
into which you can place information so that it hangs together, and a way of separating
one mnemonic from another.
Zhong suggests four types of tactics: “Categorization: Grouping items of the same
properties; Generalization: Drawing general conclusions from particular examples or
message from the provided text; Comparison: Noticing the differences and
similarities between different things, facts and events; Description: Describing a
scene, a shape, or size of an object, etc.
Conclusion
Interpretation is a complex task that requires the association of many factors. The role
of the memory is extremely important. Short-term memory is based especially on the
actual hearing of sounds, without always filtering the information, that is why the
interpreter has to be careful with the message he/she conveys r. Due to the fact that
long-term memory involves neural pathways and synaptic connections, it is better
established in the interpreter’s brain. So, long-term memory has the advantage that
the interpreter is better acquainted with the field to which the translation belongs. We
have to encourage memory training through all of its aspects - acoustic, visual, or
semantic, which together with the other tools is crucial in the interpreter’s work.
CHAPTER 7
The development of the Models originated in two intuitive ideas based on observation
and introspection:
Interpreting requires some sort of ‘mental energy’ that is only available in limited
supply.
– Interpreting takes up almost all of this mental energy, and sometimes requires
Toward the end of the 1940s, Claude Shannon, formulated the idea that any channel
serving to transmit information had a finite transmission capacity beyond which
information losses occurred (Shannon 1948).
Interpreting Efforts
namely a listening and analysis component, a speech production component, and a short-term
memory component. I called these components ‘Efforts’ to stress their effortful nature, as they
include deliberate action which requires decisions and resources.
In order for words to be recognized, acoustic features of the incoming sounds have to be
analyzed and compared with patterns stored in the listener’s long-term memory. Speech
recognition as it occurs in interpreting has non-automatic components. Actually,
interpreters know that interpreting involves much more than speech recognition. Some
kind of semantic representation of the content of source speeches is always present,
which includes plausibility analyses and probably some anticipation. When interpreting
simultaneously, interpreters do achieve a level of comprehension much beyond the
recognition of individual words. Interpreting comprehension goes beyond word
recognition. Interpreters have to concentrate on everything the speaker says whereas
delegates can select the information they are interested in. The interpreters’ relevant
extralinguistic knowledge, and often the terminological part of their linguistic knowledge,
are less comprehensive than the delegates’. It follows that comprehension during
interpreting is a non-automatic process.
– Following the source-language structure and lexical choices in one’s target language
speech is risky because the interpreter may get stuck because of syntactic and grammatical
differences between the languages.
Besides the risk of getting stuck, when following the target-language structure and lexicon,
interpreters may find themselves deprived of part of their own favourite productive
linguistic resources as speakers (words and structures) which they might put to use if they
were to produce a speech on the basis of meaning rather than on the basis of a linguistic
structure borrowed from another speaker, in another language at that. – Third, such
transcoding is associated with great danger of linguistic interference between the two
languages, be it gross interference resulting in grammatical errors, mispronunciations and
false cognates, or more discrete interference that will make the interpreter’s speech more
hesitant, less idiomatic, less clear, less pleasant to listen to. Fourth, by focusing on
language, the interpreter is in greater danger of processing the incoming speech more
superficially than if s/he produced the speech from the meaning. The rule to be followed
whenever possible is to produce the target-language speech on the basis of the meaning,
not the words of the source language speech. It appears that the effects of interpreting
constraints on production are stronger in simultaneous than in consecutive, probably
because of differences between the two modes, both in processing capacity management
and in time constraints. A further difficulty rises from the fact that interpreters often have
to produce speech in fields with which they are not necessarily familiar. Speech
production in interpreting is clearly a non-automatic operation.
Short-term memory operations (up to a few seconds) succeed each other without
interruption. Other short-term memory operations are associated with the time it takes to
produce speech (selecting the appropriate words and syntactic structures and
implementing the speech plan), during which interval the idea or information to be
worded has to be maintained in memory. if the speech is unclear because of its logic,
information density, unusual linguistic structure or speaker’s accent, the interpreter may
wish to wait for a short while before reformulating it (in simultaneous) or taking notes (in
consecutive) so as to have more time and a larger context to deal with comprehension and
reformulation difficulties. Language-specific factors may also require short-term memory
operations. Short-term memory operations fall under the category of non-automatic
operations because they include the storage of information for later use (see Richard
1980, cited earlier).
3. Working memory has a small storage capacity. Working memory is necessarily part of
the language-comprehension process and of the speech-production process. It is part of
the Memory Effort.
Problem triggers
Linguistic anticipation
Extralinguistic anticipation
The Effort Models are basically a conceptual framework rather than a theory
in the Popperian sense (i.e. one which should be formulated in such a way as
to make it testable for the purpose of revealing its weaknesses if any so as to
foster the development of alternative theories). The Effort Models and other
models are essentially didactic and have been developed in such a way as to
be immediately understood by student interpreters.
Interpreters and students are aware of the fact that while interpreting, they
need to store some information which they will later need to recover, and
while some information storage and retrieval operations are subconscious (in
the course of the Listening Effort and of the Production Effort), some are
conscious and deliberate, with choices regarding what information to render
immediately in the target language or take down as notes and what to store
tactically while waiting for more information which will help understand it,
confirm it and/or reformulate it into the target language. The ‘Memory
Effort’ as defined in the Effort Models is what they experience consciously
and can relate to both conceptually and in the choice of words