THE CIRIN BULLETIN
Conference
Interpreting Research
Information Network
An independent network for the
dissemination of information on
conference interpreting
research (CIR)
__________________________________________________________________
BULLETIN n°30
June 2005
Editor: Daniel Gile
Contributors to
this issue:
Aymil Doğan
(AD), Clare Donovan (CD), Yves Gambier (YG),
Hande Ersöz (HE), Minhua Liu (ML), Margus Puusepp (MP)
Editorial address:
D. Gile, 46, rue d'Alembert,
92190 Meudon, France
tel/fax 00 33 1 45 34 83 84
e-mail: daniel.gile@laposte.net
Web site: http://cirinandgile.com
This Bulletin aims at contributing to the dissemination of information
on conference interpreting research (CIR) and at providing useful information
to members of the CIR community worldwide. It is intended to achieve maximum
coverage of research into this sub-field of interpreting, and only occasionally
refers to research and publications in other sub-fields. The Bulletin is
published twice a year, in December and June. For further information and
electronic or paper copies of early issues (the last issue is available on the
Web site at any time), please contact D. Gile.
Note:
the mini-abstracts are followed by the initials of the contributors who sent in
the information, but the text is either written or adapted from the original
text by D.Gile, who takes responsibility for the comments and for potential
errors introduced by him.
* *
*
Miriam Shlesinger has kindly offered to act as a Node
for
No recent
graduation theses and MA theses were reported by regular contributors for this
issue, perhaps due to late vivas this year. The theses listed in the relevant
section were found in a list of references in a recent paper. This may be a
good opportunity to recall that CIRIN operates on a zero budget and cannot buy
books or journal subscriptions on a regular basis (though I am happy to thank
Gérard Ilg for several generous contributions over the past 15 years). Neither
can it count on the editor’s university library, where very little is found on
interpreting. The information provided here comes from texts the editor reads
in his own research work and, more importantly, from other contributors, who
are always named (see above). All readers who have information about research
activity and publications on conference interpreting are invited to take
advantage of this information vehicle to make their work and the work of others
known to the community at large.
Among the most
prominent topics in this issue, along with training, note directionality, with
a more pragmatic attitude than in the past on the part of West-European
authors. There is also an increasing number of contributions from authors from
Asian countries. One further trend is the increasing number of studies with
reflections or empirical research on a wider range of interpreting branches,
including community interpreting and film interpreting (Interpreting
7:1, edited by conference interpreters Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger,
is a good example of such endeavours; so is the latest issue of Tsuuyakukenkyuu
/ Interpretation Studies, which incorporates papers on various types of
interpreting and even translation). These changes, which bring into the
discussion more viewpoints and more data, are welcome. The editorial policy of
CIRIN remains conference-interpreting oriented in an effort to provide good
coverage of the field, but bibliographical items on public service interpreting
and other types of interpreting have been and will continue to be posted on the
Web site of the European Society for Translation Studies (EST) at www.est-translationstudies.org
.
On the
theoretical side, the growing popularity of pragmatics and Relevance Theory is
a clear trend. It is particularly conspicuous in the Japanese journal Tsuuyakukenkyuu
/ Interpretation Studies.
D.G.
Adams, Christine. 2004. What is a
B Language? Towards a Working Definition and Selection Criteria. In EMCI
Workshop proceedings. 20-26.
Ahn, In-Kyoung. 2005.
Pedagogical Considerations of Perspective Coherence Problems in Simultaneous
Interpreting as a Result of Linguistic Structure, Illustrated by German-Korean
Examples.
Ahrens, Barbara. 2005. Prosodic
phenomena in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 7:1. 51-76.
Besson, Chantal, Daria Graf, Insa Hartung, Barbara
Kropfhäusser, Séverine Voisard. 2005. The Importance of Non-verbal
Communication in Professional Interpretation. Communicate, March-April
2005. www.aiic.net/comunity/print/default.cfm/page1662
Chachibaia, N.G. 2001. Problems
of Simultaneous Interpreting of Scientific Discussion. In S.Cunico (ed.) Training
translators and Interpreters in the New Millennium.
Choi, Jung-Yoon.
* The author argues in favour of self-assessment by
students in what amounts to a process-oriented approach.
Choi, Jungwha. 2004. Preparing
for an international conference. (in Korean). Conference Interpretation and
Translation 6:2.187-206
* The results of a questionnaire on the practice of
conference preparation by interpreters.
Christoffels, Ingrid & Annette de Groot. 2004.
Components of SI: Comparing Interpreting with shadowing and paraphrasing. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 7:3. 227-240.
* In these two authors’ work, “interpreting” is to be
taken as a laboratory exercise with formal similarity to professional
interpreting.
Christoffels, Ingrid, Annette de Groot & Lourens
Waldorp. 2003. Basic skills in a complex task: A graphical
model relating memory and lexical retrieval to simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 6:3. 201-211.
Chung, Hyejin & Lee, Taehyung.
2004. Undergraduate level interpreter training using a multi-media language
laboratory. (in Korean). Conference Interpretation and Translation
6:2.127-150.
* On the use of language laboratories equipment for
preparatory training of undergraduate students in consecutive interpreting,
language enhancement and sight translation.
Déjean Le Féal, Karla. 2002.
L’interprétation simultanée en B. Les principes. In EMCI Workshop proceedings.
27-29.
Déjean Le Féal, Karla. 2005. Can and
Should Interpretation into a Second Language be Taught? In Godijns & Hinderdael.
167-194.
Diriker, Ebru. 2005.
Presenting Simultaneous Interpreting: Discourse of the Turkish Media,
1988-2003. Communicate, March-April
2005.www.aiic.net/comunity/print/default.cfm/page1742
* A discussion of the way simultaneous interpreting is
presented in the Turkish press. A revised version of a paper published in the
Interpreters’ Newsletter n°12 (2003).
Doğan, Aymil. 2000. Konferans
Çevirilerinde de Çeviri Dillerin Dili. (Translation is the Language of
Languages as Described by Akşit Göktürk Even in Conference Interpreting). Litera.
İstanbul:Çantay. 59-69.
* Abstract: This paper is presented in the conference
organized to commemorate Turkish translation studies scholar Akşit
Göktürk, basing the arguments on quotations from him, stating that the
principles he highlighted or put forth for translation also apply to conference
interpreting.
Doğan, Aymil. 2000. İspanya’da Bir Çeviri
Konferansının Ardından. (After a Conference on
Translation and Interpretation in
* Abstract: In this paper, after a conference on
translation and interpretation in Universidad Europea de Madrid-UEM, the
evaluations and recollections of the writer as to the organization, the new
trends in translation and interpretation regarding the papers delivered,
personal opinions on interpreting in practice, human, language and life style
factors in different cultures are presented.
Donovan, Clare. 2002. Training
interpreters: improving a B language. Claritas. 8. 9-20. (Universidade
Catolica de São Pãolo).
Donovan, Clare. 2002. User
expectations. In EMCI Workshop proceedings. 1-13.
* By far the most interesting paper in the EMCI
document. Donovan conducted a series of structured interviews of about 10
minutes with conference participants at OECD Headquarters meetings in
- 9 respondents (24%) used interpreting because it is
too tiring to listen to a foreign language all day. It seems that they use
interpreting form comfort, even if they can get by without it.
- Respondents felt able to judge the accuracy of the
target language rendition by comparing notes with colleagues, on the basis of
the coherence of the information served to them, of the interpreter’s tone, by
the terminological accuracy of interpreting, etc.
- Most of them seemed to take the interpreter’s
accuracy for granted
- Incorrect terminology was a frequently cited source
of irritation and an indicator of lack of genuine understanding by the
interpreter
- In no case did an interviewee mention spontaneously
correct pronunciation or accent of other formal elements of discourse
- There was no indication that delegates had
preferences as to directionality
- Any prior disappointing experience with interpreting
seemed to cause long-term damage in terms of loss of confidence
Donovan, Clare. 2004. European Masters
Project Group: Teaching simultaneous interpretation into a B language.
Preliminary findings. Interpreting 6:2, 205-216.
* A report on a topical and controversial issue
in interpreting and interpreter training by a senior instructor at ESIT.
Donovan explains that The European consortium EMCI (European Masters in
Conference Interpreting) accepts “retour” interpreting (into one’s non-native
language) as a fact and has been discussing issues around associated training
requirements. She reports that in a survey conducted in
Donovan,
Clare. 2005. Teaching
Simultaneous Interpretation into B : A Challenge for Responsible
Interpreter Training. In Godijns & Hinderdael. 147-165.
Durieux,
Christine & Jean Vivier.
2004. Pragmatique de l'interprétation de conférence: discours spontané vs discours
lu. In Fleischmann et al, 2004. 731-749.
* An intriguing paper by Durieux, a translation
scholar, and Vivier, a cognitive psychologist, on the difference between read
and adlibbed speeches in conference interpreting. The authors claim that no
scientific research has been done on the subject so far, and Déjean Le Féal's
work, which is quoted twice, is made to appear as largely intuitive and
speculative. From the way the paper is written, and in particular with the
absence of any reference to other research on interpreting but numerous
references to cognitive psychologists and with other comments, the reader is
made to understand that little if any research on other aspects of interpreting
has been done so far, and that this paper is a precursor to such research. It
is not clear whether the authors are unaware of the existing literature or
whether they deliberately decided to ignore it. As to their own contribution,
it is a case study with 3 interpreters, one an expert double-A interpreter, one
a beginner working from A into B and one beginner working from B into A, who
interpreted one read speech and one adlibbed speech. In each case, they counted
(it is not clear how) the number of "information elements" and the
number of "pragmatic elements" in the source speech and target
speeches, and compared the experts' and the beginners' performance. They found
that there are considerably more pragmatic elements per minute in the adlibbed
speech. They also found that in the read speech, the expert interpreter managed
to reformulate 82% of the information elements and added many pragmatic
elements, practically doubling the number found in the source speech. Both
beginners reformulated less than half of the information elements and none of
the pragmatic elements. In the adlibbed speech, the expert reformulates all
information elements, while the beginners reformulate 56% of them, and the
expert adds pragmatic elements while the beginners lose many of them. The paper
ends with reflection on the interpreting task in terms of attention and
concentration in a dual task concept and on the role of working memory in
interpreting, again with no reference to previous work done on the subject. One
is left wondering about the peer-reviewing system which resulted in this paper
being published as it was.
Funayama, Chuta. 2004.
Conceptualization Processes in
Simultaneous Interpretation. Tsuuyakukenkyuu/ Interpretation Studies
4.1-13.
* Within a Relevance Theory framework, Funayama posits
than when encountered in source speeches, lexical items trigger “lexical tags”
and then “conceptual tags” in an attempt to understand conceptualization in
interpreting.
Gile, Daniel. 2004. Issues in
research into conference interpreting. In Kittel et al. Vol I. 767-779.
* Article n°83, in the Section on interpreting of the
TS Encyclopedia. Written about 7 years ago. Perhaps not quite out-of-date as
regards fundamental issues.
Gile, Daniel. 2005. Teaching
conference interpreting: a contribution. In Tennent, Martha (ed). Training
for the New Millenium. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 127-151.
* A synopsis of fundamental issues in conference
interpreter training.
Gile, Daniel. 2005. La recherche sur les processus
traductionnels et la formation en interprétation de conférence. Meta 50:2.
713-726.
Gile, Daniel. 2005. Directionality in
conference interpreting: a cognitive view. In Godijns & Hinderdael. 9-26.
Hönig, Hans. 2002. Piece of
Cake – or Hard to Take? Objective Grades of Difficulty of Speeches Used in
Interpreting Training. In EMCI Workshop proceedings. 38-50.
* An interesting attempt to identify factors which
make speeches used for training more or less difficult: read or adlibbed, with
or without an introductory statement at the beginning, type of cohesion, speed
of delivery, visual aids, numbers, etc. There is no doubt that all these
factors are relevant. But how relevant? Experimental validation of the model
would have been welcome.
Iglesias Fernández, Emilia. 2005. Bidirectionality
in Interpreter Training in Spanish Universities: An Empirical Study. In Godijns
& Hinderdael. 101-125.
* The author’s conducted a large questionnaire and
interview-base survey on Spanish interpreter training programs which included
questions about “retour” (into B) interpreting. The main message which comes
through the results is that trainers, most of whom are practicing interpreters
themselves, believe that more training into B should be offered.
Kalina, Sylvia. 2004. Es gilt das gesprochene Wort,
Wege der Qualitätsforschung im Dolmetschen. In Fleischmann et al. 2004. 751-761,
Kalina, Sylvia. 2005. Quality
Assurance for Interpreting Processes.
Kalina, Sylvia. 2005. Quality
in the Interpreting Process: What Can be Measured and How? In Godijns &
Hinderdael. 27-46.
Kim, Seon-ah. 2004. The verb
‘ha-’ in Korean-Chinese Interpretation and Translation: Focused on ‘Sino-Korean
word+ha-’ (in Korean). Conference Interpretation and Translation
6:2.3-22.
* A linguistic study of a particular language-pair
specific phenomenon.
Kremer,
Benoît. 2005. Réflexions
d’un praticien sur une étape de la formation des interprètes de conférence:
approche méthodologique et pédagogique. Meta 50:2.
785-794.
* A presentation of three didactic exercises for beginning
student interpreters. The first is “Contextualisation”, which consists
essentially in presenting to them short sentences or newspaper headlines and
asking them to evoke as much knowledge as possible from their memory to put
them in the proper context. The second is “Hierarchization”: various pieces of
information including details are presented to students, who are asked to
determine a hierarchy between them. The third is “Visualization”: single words
and sentences are presented to students who are required to seek in their
imagination concrete images to represent them.
Kutz, Wladimir. 2004. Zum Gegenstand der
Translatologie aus dolmetschwissenschaflicher Sicht. In Fleischmann et
al. 763-784.
Láng, Zsuzsa. 2002. Language enhancement
for interpreting into B. In EMCI Workshop proceedings. 57-59.
Lim, Hyang-Ok. 2004.
Revisiting the Role of Interpreters. Conference Interpretation and
Translation 6:2.81-96.
* A general discussion of the role of interpreters in
simultaneous vs. consecutive vs. liaison interpreting vs. community
interpreting. Inter alia, the author makes the interesting point that clients
may expect interpreters to do more than just say what they said in the source
language, and that such situations are not taught in interpreter training
programs.
Lim, Hyang-Ok. 2005. Meeting
Students’ Expectations. Forum 3:1.175-204.
* A survey of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Graduation School of Interpretation and Translation 1st year and 2nd
year students. Fairly general. According to the author, “one of the main areas
of concern is that the number of male students compared to that of female
students is very small. The status of interpreters cannot be enhanced if the
only people involved in the profession are women.” Interestingly, although
students consider that the image of interpreters in Korean society is positive,
none of the female students wanted their husbands to be interpreters, more than
half of the respondents did not wish their children to become interpreters, and
on the whole, students were not sure they wanted to make interpreting a
life-long career.
Martin, Anne. 2005.
Interpreting from A to B: A Spanish Case Study. In Godijns & Hinderdael.
83-99.
* A survey involving ten professional interpreters
working in Southern Spain and asking them about their feelings concerning work
into B with respect to accent, comprehension, fatigue, conference preparation
etc. From the author’s report of answers to individual questions, it is
difficult to draw clear conclusions, which in itself would be interesting, were
it not for the fact that the questionnaires were “anonymous”, but were either
given personally to the interpreters or sent to them by email, which leads to
some doubts as to the validity of the answers - as noted by the author herself.
Mead, Peter. 2005.
Directionality and Fluency: An Experimental Study of Pausing in Consecutive
Interpretation into English and Italian. In Godijns & Hinderdael. 127-146.
* In an experimental study of pauses in consecutive interpreting,
Mead looked inter alia at their length and at the reasons to which interpreters
attributed them. With respect to directionality, he found that pauses in
English, the participants’ B language, were significantly longer than in
Italian, their A language. He also found that they attributed them more
frequently to non-linguistic factors when working into A, perhaps because
production into A was felt as less problematic.
Minns, Philip. 2002. Language
Interpreting into B. Some conclusions gathered from experience. In EMCI
Workshop proceedings. 35-37.
* Straightforward, practical advice by an experienced
ESIT interpreter and interpreter trainer. The following two ideas expressed in
his paper are particularly noteworthy in view of his ESIT background:
- Spectacular progress can be made through
pronunciation drills when students have specific problems in pronouncing their
B language
- Students learning to interpret into B should be
encouraged to develop a store of stock phrases and expressions which run
through all types of discourse.
At first
glance, this latter advice may seem to be in contradiction with ESIT’s “Theory
of Sense” principles, but it is not: as has been stressed by Gérard Ilg for
many years, paying attention to language availability frees processing capacity
for analysis and “deverbalisation”.
Mizuno, Akira. 2005. Process
Model for Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory.
* A theoretical paper, which proposes Cowan’s embedded
model of working memory as a basis for a process model of simultaneous
interpreting.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 2005. The
Teaching of Simultaneous Interpreting: The first 60 years (1929-1989). Forum
3:1. 205-225.
* A very general overview. No mention of the teaching of
simultaneous interpreting in Asian countries during the period covered.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 2005. Remote
Interpreting: Issues of Multi-Sensory Integration in a Multilingual Task.
Mouzourakis, Panayotis. 2005. How do we
interpret? Communicate, March-April 2005.
www.aiic.net/comunity/print/default.cfm/page1739
Padilla, Presentación. 2005. Cognitive
Implications of the English-Spanish Direction for the Quality and the Training
of Simultaneous Interpreting. In Godijns & Hinderdael. 47-62.
Petite, Christelle. 2005. Evidence
of repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 7:1.
27-49.
* This is apparently a summary of Petite’s doctoral
dissertation (listed in the doctoral dissertations section further down).
Extracts of 10 minutes’ duration of work of 8 professional conference
interpreters, including the author, was recorded at 4 different international
conferences and scrutinized for repairs. She found 171 repairs in her 80
minutes’ recordings, that is, a bit over 2 repairs every minute, with high
inter-interpreter variability. Petite offers a categorization by triggering
factors and a discussion of such repairs, inter alia in terms of their cost in
processing capacity in the general framework of the Effort Models. Interestingly,
she notes that some unnecessary repairs are done at considerable cognitive cost
and lead to loss of other speech segments, and that repairs often come in
clusters. From her analysis, she concludes that ample evidence is provided to
show the interpreters are not simply repairing errors, but sometimes seek to
improve the “appropriateness” of their utterances.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2005. From
Operation to Action: Process-Orientation in Interpreting Studies.
Pyoun, Hyewon.
* The paper shows the differences in interpretation
evaluation criteria in the classroom depending on the teacher’s experience and
language combination.
Rejšková, Jana. 2002. Teaching
experience of simultaneous into B. In EMCI Workshop proceedings. 30-34.
Riccardi, Alessandra. 2005. On
the Evolution of Interpreting Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting.
Russo, Mariachiara. 2005.
Simultaneous film interpreting and users’ feedback. Interpreting
7:1.1-26.
* A report and discussion of two surveys of users’
perception of film interpreting at two international film festivals. Paola
Guardini’s 1995 survey concerned 6 interpreters working from English into
Italian. Mariaclara Palazzini Finetti’s 2000 survey concerned 8 interpreting
trainees working from Spanish into Italian. Questionnaires included questions
about both the respondents’ reactions to interpreting performance and general
preferences about interpreting. Samples were quite large, 100 (a return rate of
50%) in Guardini’s survey, and 95 (a return rate of close to 40%) in Palazzini
Finetti’s survey. Some interesting/intriguing findings: Respondents were
generally satisfied with the quality of interpreting; students received a
higher percentage of “excellent” (the highest mark in a 5 point scale) than
professionals; for the professionals’ performance, the assessment of general
quality was higher than the assessment of individual quality components;
students were less generous than film critics and other professionals in their
evaluations. This paper includes a review of earlier studies on film
interpreting.
Seel, Olaf-Immanuel. 2005.
Non-Verbal Means as Culture-Specific Determinants that Favour Directionality
into the Foreign Language in Simultaneous Interpreting. In Godijns &
Hinderdael. 63-82.
* This theoretical discussion of directionality
focuses on the role of non-verbal components of discourse which, the author
argues, tip the scale in favour of working into one’s B language. The
underlying rationale is (apparently) the idea that interpreters working from a
B language do not necessarily have excellent knowledge of the source culture
and are therefore not in a position to take advantage of non-verbal clues as
completely and as rapidly as interpreting working from an A language. The
contribution of this paper resides in the attention devoted to non-verbal
components. The problem is, as is the case of many theoretical discussions of
theories and models in translation and interpreting, that no quantitative
assessment of the relative importance of each component, in this case
non-verbal components in the overall configuration, is offered. What is the
relative weight of alleged comprehension deficits associated with working from
a non-native language as opposed to the cost of less than perfect mastery of
the B language when working from a native language? To what extent do circumstances
such as the distance between the booth and the speaker, the degree to which the
relevant culture uses visible non-verbal components in communication, the
extent to which such non-verbal component are culture-specific in the relevant
field and in the relevant speeches, etc. I (D.Gile) suspect that variability in
many relevant parameters is such that it is very difficult to predict
context-independent superiority of one direction over the other. Arguments
presented by authors who defend either direction are equally valid, but no
theoretical discussion so far has proved convincing.
Sun, Yaling & Liu, Minhua.
2004. Speech features of television interpreting and their effects on the
audience [in Chinese]. Mass
Communication Research. 81. 43-83.
* Simultaneous interpreting involves multitasking that
can easily overload the interpreter’s cognitive resources and result in
undesirable speech features such as false starts, slip of the tongue, unnatural
pauses, and an unsteady speech rate in the interpretation output. These
imperfections are sometimes unavoidable and can be considered characteristic of
simultaneous interpretation output. This study investigates whether these
speech features in simultaneous interpreting affect the TV audience. An experiment
was conducted using the live broadcast of the 1992
Sunnari, Mariana. 2002. Aptitude
tests & selection criteria for interpreting students. In EMCI Workshop
proceedings. 23-26.
Szabari, Krisztina. 2005.
Interpreting into the B language. In EMCI
Workshop Proceedings .12-19.
Tanaka, Miyuki. 2004. Current
Pedagogical Issues in Teaching Interpreting at the Undergraduate Level. Tsuuyakukenkyuu/
Interpretation Studies 4. 63-82.
* A fairly detailed report on an interpreting class
within a general English studies program at University with respect to the
specific exercises, the literature used, the students’ needs, didactic issues.
Tsuruta, Chikako, Yoshiaki Sato & Kiyoshi Kawahara.
2004. Lexical Selection in Interpreting - A Theoretical Account (In Japanese). Tsuuyakukenkyuu/
Interpretation Studies 4.15-40.
* A paper which looks at basic English vocabulary
words – which, they say, tend to be more polysemous than terms from specialized
vocabulary – and at their translation in Japanese in actual conference speeches.
Tyruk, Małgorzata. 2002. Le
perfectionnement linguistique pour les interprètes vers la langue B. In EMCI
Worshop proceedings. 51-56.
Viaggio, Sergio. 2005. How
Should We Interpret? A counterpoint to Panayotis Mouzourakis’ article. Communicate,
AIIC webzine, Summer 2005, www.aiic.net/Viewpage.cfm/page1788
Watanabe, Tomie. 2004. Pragmatic
Approaches of Interpreters in Ten Cases from real settings. (in Japanese). Tsuuyakukenkyuu/
Interpretation Studies 4. 41-62.
* In a pragmatics and Relevance Theory approach,
ten extracts from actual English-Japanese interpreting are discussed with
reference to coherence between given and new information and to the
interpreter’s autonomy versus obligation.
THESES
Bevilacqua, L. 2003. Posizione del verbo nelle
lingue germaniche e interpretazione simultanea. Unpublished thesis,
University of Trieste.
Ferrusso, P. 2002. Interpretazione simultanea con
e senza l’ausilio del testo scritto: uno studio sperimentale. Unpublished
thesis, University of Trieste.
Messner, C. 2000. Interpretazione consecutive e
interpretazione simultanea: confronto e analisi delle strategie interpretative.
Unpublished thesis, University of Trieste.
DOCTORAL
DISSERTATIONS
Chang, Chia-chien. 2005. Directionality in
Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting: Impact on performance and strategy
use. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation.
* This study aimed to
explore professional Chinese/English interpreters’ experience of simultaneous
interpreting in different language directions, focusing specifically on the
impact of language direction on performance and strategy use. Ten professional
Chinese/English interpreters were asked to interpret two speeches from English
into Mandarin Chinese, and two speeches from Mandarin Chinese into English,
each followed with a stimulated retrospective interview. Of the ten
interpreters, seven reported dominance in Chinese and three reported either
being dominant in English or having equal abilities in Chinese and English. The
products of their interpreting, their linguistic outputs, were analyzed using a
propositional analysis of the semantic content and an error analysis of the
linguistic quality. The processes of their simultaneous interpreting were
explored through qualitative analysis of their stimulated retrospective
interviews. Through a grounded theory approach, a model was constructed showing
how interpreters’ experience of simultaneous interpreting in different
directions was determined by a myriad of factors, including contextual factors,
personal factors, and interpreting norms. Results of this study indicate that
professional interpreters who must regularly interpret simultaneously in both
directions may develop strategic approaches to cope with the different demands
of A-to-B and B-to-A interpreting. The difference in their performances seems
not only to be a result of the asymmetry between their A and B language proficiency,
but also a result of their metacognitive awareness of the limits of their
language abilities, the strategies available to them, their audience’s
expectations and other norms they believe apply to their performance, as well
as the discourse structures of their working languages. The present data
suggest professional interpreters may again behave differently from student
interpreters when it comes to simultaneous interpreting in different
directions. This study not only sheds light on the differences in performance
and strategy use between interpreters working with different language
directions, but also can contribute to the design of more effective
interpreting pedagogy. (ML)
Doğan, Aymil. 1995. Simultane
Tıp Çevirisi Eğitiminde Bellek Destekleyici Anahtar Sözcük Yönteminin
Etkililik Derecesi (Effect of Mnemonic Keyword Method in the Training of
Simultaneous Medical Interpreting). Doctoral dissertation. Hacettepe
University.188 pages.
Petite, Christelle. 2004. Repair
mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting. A corpus-based analysis of
interpreters’ deployment of processing resources (English/French/German).
Unpublished PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.
BOOKS AND
UNPUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS
EMCI (European Masters in Conference Interpreting). 2002. Proceedings
of EMCI Workshop Paris 2002: Teaching simultaneous interpretation into a B
language.
* The unpublished proceedings of a workshop on
directionality in training. A collection of short to very short papers, mostly
prescriptive and somewhat repetitive. Among the more interesting papers,
Donovan’s report on her survey stands out (see the comments in the Articles’
Section). Readers interested in these proceedings can write to
Christophe.Nicolau-Bergeret (Christophe.Nicolau-Bergeret@univ-paris3.fr)
or to Clare Donovan (Clare.Donovan@univ-paris3.fr).
Chernov, Ghelly. 2004. Inference
and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. A probability-prediction model.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
* This book,
edited by Adelina Ivanova-Hild and Robin Setton, is an excellent initiative.
Chernov’s research in the 1970s was very influential in the
Doğan, Aymil. 2003. Sözlü
Çeviri: Çalışmaları ve Uygulamaları (Interpreting
: Studies and Practices). Ankara: Hacettepe
Doktorlar Yayınevi, 193 pages.
* Abstract: “Sözlü
Çeviri: Çalýþmalarý ve Uygulamalarý” (“Interpreting: Studies and
Practices”) is the first book in
Fleischmann, Eberhard, Peter A. Schmitt, Gerd Wotjak (eds).
2004. Translationskompetenz. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 24.
Godijns, R & M. Hinderdael (eds). 2005. Directionality
in Interpreting. The ‘Retour’ or the Native? Gent: Communication &
Cognition.
* A collective volume on directionality in
interpreting. 9 papers (see in the Articles section). The initiative is
interesting. A few empirical studies.
Kittel, Harald, Armin Paul Frank, Norbert Greiner,
Theo Hermans, Werner Koller, José Lambert. 2004. Übersetzung
Translation Traduction. Ein internationals Handbuch zur Übersetzungsforchung An
International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies - encyclopédie Internationale
de la recherche sur la traduction. Berlin & New York: Walter de
Gruyter. Volume I.
Klautz, Ulrich. 2000. Handbuch Didaktik des
Übersetzens und Dolmetschens. München:
Iudicium.
Pradas
Marcia, Macarena. 2004. La
fluidez y sus pausas: enfoque desde la interpretación de conferencias.
* Based on the author’s doctoral dissertation.
Rozan, Jean-François. 2002 [1956]. (eds. Gillies,
Andrew and Waliczek, Bartosz). Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting.
Notatki w tłumaczeniu konsekutywnym. Krakow: Tertium.
* A Polish translation
of this classical handbook on note-taking principles and techniques.
Viaggio,
Sergio.
2004. Teoría general de la mediación interlingüe. Alicante:
Publicaciones de
REVIEWS
Ahrens, Barbara. 2005. Review of Collados
Aís, Fernández Sánchez & Gile (eds). 2003. La evaluación
de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación, and of Collados
Aís, Fernández
Sánchez & Gile (eds). 2003. La evaluación de la
calidad en interpretación: Docencia y profesión. Interpreting 7:1.
133-141.
Garzone, Giuliana. 2004. Review of
Pöchhacker. Introducing Interpreting Studies.
Gile, Daniel. 2004. Review of
Garzone, Mead and Viezzi. 2002. Perspectives on Interpreting. Interpreting
6:2, 235-238.
Gile, Daniel. 2005. Review of Baigorrí-Jalón,
Jesús. 2004. Interpreters at the United Nations: A History.
Translated from Spanish by Anne Barr.
Liu, Minhua. 2005. Review of Cai,
Xiaohong (ed). 2002. Kouyi yanjiu xin tan: Xin fangfa, xin guannian, xin
qushi (Recent research into interpreting: New methods, concepts and
trends).
* A particularly informative and interesting review,
which gives readers an insight into interpreting research in
Mason, Ian. 2004. Review of
Garzone and Viezzi 2002. Interpreting in the 21st
Century. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Interpreting 6:2,
230-235.
Matthews, John. 2005. Review of Pöchhacker,
Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies.
Sawyer, David. 2004. Review of
Kautz Ulrich. 2000. Handbuch Didaktik des Übersetzens und
Dolmetschens. Interpreting 6:2, 217-222,
Tsuruta, Chikako. 2004. Review of Pöchhacker,
Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies.
Viaggio, Sergio. 2005. Review of
Baigorrí-Jalón, Jesús. 2004. Interpreters at the
United Nations: A History. Translated from Spanish by Anne Barr.
de Salamanca. Interpreting 7:1. 141-146.
Present Nodes
Nodes are local institutional or individual members who represent CIRIN in their
respective geographical area. Members volunteer to become Nodes; they
cease to operate as such at any time after notifying headquarters in
For
Argentina: Silvia Veronica Lang, Coletta 373 2804, Campana, Provincia de Buenos Aires
For Australia: JC Lloyd-Southwell,
Department of Language and International Studies, Faculty of Language,
Education and Community Services, RMIT University, Melbourne - Telephone (03)
9527- 4160 or mobile 0414-614-022, e-mail:
hewittandlloyd@bigpond.com
For
For
Belgium: Erik Hertog, Lessius
Hogeschool, St.-Andriesstraat 2, 2000 Antwerp Tel: 32 3 206 04 91 (ext.
264) Fax: 32 3 206 04 99 - e-mail: erik.hertog@lessius-ho.be
For Canada: Stephen Capaldo, Interpretation and Translation Service,
Legislative Offices, Room 3657, Whitney Block, Queen's Park, Toronto, Canada
M7A 1A2 - e-mail: Capaldo@gowebway.com
For China (Beijing): Wang Lidi, School of Translation and
Interpreting, Beijing Foreign Studies University, N°2, North Xisanhuan Avenue,
Beijing 100081 - e-mail: sti@bfsu.edu.cn
For the Republic of
For
Costa Rica: Priscila Siu,
Apartado 846-2350, San Francisco de Dos Rios San Jose, Costa Rica - e-mail: prissiu@sol.racsa.co.cr
For
Cuba: Lourdes Arencibia, 17 No.357 (altos) esquina a G. Vedado.
For the
For
Denmark: Helle Dam, Handelshojskolen i Aarhus, Fuglesangs Allé 4,
DK-8210 Arhus V - e-mail: HD@asb.dk
For
Egypt: Sania Sharawi-Lanfranchi
4, El-Saleh Ayoub, Zamalek 11 2 11, Cairo shara11@hotmail.com
For
Estonia: Margus Puusepp, Parna 21A-41, 50604 Tartu, Estonia. mpuusepp@hot.ee
For
Finland: Yves Gambier, University of Turku -
Centre for Translation and Interpreting, Koskenniemenkatu 4 - 20500 TURKU,
Finland - yves.gambier@utu.fi
For France: Daniel
Gile, 46, rue d'Alembert, 92190 Meudon - e-mail: daniel.gile@yahoo.com
For
Germany: Sylvia Kalina,
Fachhochschule Köln, Fachbereich Sprachen, Mainzerstr. 5, 50678 Köln
- e-mail: Sylvia.Kalina@fh-koeln.de
For
Greece: Anastasia Parianou, Ionian University, Megaro
Kapodistria, 49100 Corfu - e-mail: papik1@otenet.gr
For Hong Kong: Andrew Cheung, Department of Chinese and Bilingual
Studies, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong - e-mail: ctandrew@polyu.edu.hk
For
For
For
For
Israel: Miriam Shlesinger, Bar Ilan University, 12 Recanati Street,
69494 Ramat-Aviv, Shlesm@mail.biu.ac.il
For
Italy: Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori,
Universita degli Studi di Trieste, Via Filzi 14, 34132 Trieste - e-mail: laurag@sslmit.univ.trieste.it
For Japan: Masaomi
Kondo, Daito Bunka University, Dept. of
Economics, 1-9-1 Takashimadaira, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, Phone: 935
1111 - e-mail: mkondo@ic.daito.ac.jp
For Mexico: CESLAA (Dra
Georganne Weller), Tlaxcala 78-501, Col. Roma Sur, México, D.F. 06760 - e-mail:
georgann@avantel.net
For
Peru: ASPTI - Asociación de Profesionales en Traducción e Interpretación
de
For the
For
For
Portugal: Manuel Santiago Ribeiro, Rua da Arriaga, 8-C, PT - 1200-609
Lisboa, tel/fax 351 21 397 8832 - e-mail: msr@aiic.net
For
Rumania: Doina Motas, 3, Nicolaie Iorga Str., Bucarest 1, 71117
For
Russia: Elena Alikin, Perm State Technical University elena_alikina@ecology.perm.ru
For
For Spain: John MATTHEWS, Facultad de Traduccion e
Interpretacion, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Edifici M, 08193 Bellaterra,
Cerdanyala, Barcelona, tel/fax +34 3 580 65 45 - e-mail: jmatthews@grn.es
For
For
For the
For Uruguay: Maria Julia Sainz, Facultad de Derecho/Traductorado,
Universidad de
To become a CIRIN Member, please write to D.Gile and ask for your name
or the name of your organization to be added to the list. Membership entails no
financial or administrative commitments, but indicates willingness to share CIR
information, in particular through the Bulletin. Please report any
relevant IR information (bibliographical items, research activities, etc.) to
your Regional Node or directly to
ITS VALUE DEPENDS ON MEMBERS'
CONTRIBUTIONS.