Main Problems of Language and Communication in Interpretation
Main Problems of Language and Communication in Interpretation
ISBN 978-607-9015-05-3
Abstract
Interpretation is more instantaneous than translation. Human beings have
always made use of intermediaries in order to communicate from one
language to another. Through the years, interpretation has become into a
revolutionary activity practiced by elders of the profession such as Kaminker
and Herbert amongst others. Generally interpreters, specially those who are
in training courses deal with various difficulties related to the speaker, the
listener, the language and the message during the process of interpretation.
Thus, the objective of this research is to learn about the main problems of
language and oral communication with which students of interpretation deal
the most. The methodology consisted of a bibliographical research on
consecutive and simultaneous interpretation. Field work consisted in the
design of a questionnaire to be answered by a sample of students in
advanced courses of interpretation. The information was compiled and
analysed using the data collecting technique of the qualitative research. The
findings enumerated the difficulties encountered related to the practice of
interpretation. This work might be useful for students, professional
interpreters and translators, beginners in these fields and instructors.
1 Introduction
An interpreter is a person who converts an expression of a source
language into an equivalent expression in a target language. The interpreter's
work is to convey every semantic element and feeling of the message that the
source-language speaker is directing to the target-language audience.
Interpretation is the practice of oral and sign-language communication,
simultaneously and consecutively, between two different languages. Interpreting
and interpretation are provide a description for this process.
Professionally, interpreting depicts the act of facilitating communication
from one language form into its equivalent, in another language. Interpretation
denotes the message rendered into speech, sign language, writing and nonmanual signals. A big amount of people confuse translation with interpretation.
The main difference is that translation is written, while interpretation is verbal.
In order to interpret a text the interpreter must be able to receive and
understand the incoming message and then express its meaning in the target
Universidad de Quintana Roo Departamento de Lengua y Educacin
http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
481
By
discarding words, structure etc. of the source text the interpreter is free to
concentrate on extracting and analyzing the meaning of the text, and conceiving
strategies for reformulating the message into the target language. Consecutive
and simultaneous interpreting employ the same cognitive processing skills, with
the only difference being the amount of time that elapses between the delivery
of the source utterance and the delivery of the interpretation.
2. Objective
The objective of this research is to learn about the main problems of
language and oral communication with which students of interpretation deal the
most.
3 Methodology
The methodology consisted of a bibliographical research on consecutive
and simultaneous interpretation.
The professional interpreting services are mainly on the following: PreCourt Interpreting: Any out-of-court hearings or interviews; Judicial Interpreting:
In the courtroom with the judge present; Immigration: Translation of documents
and interpretation of hearings etc.; Seminar Interpreting: Addresses and
Universidad de Quintana Roo Departamento de Lengua y Educacin
http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
482
processing skills, with the only difference being the amount of time that elapses
between the delivery of the source utterance and the delivery of the
interpretation.
superior clarity the interpreter do not hesitate much, do not use filler sentences,
and non-intentional repetitions.
3.1 Figure 1. The Consecutive Interpretation Process
483
484
passage and will not be able to recall it accurately. Memory Lesson 2, contains
controversial passages that help become aware of how personal prejudices can
impede retention and recall, and how identification with the speaker can
enhance these skills. Memory Lesson 3, illustrates the value of focusing on key
words as an aid to memory. Whether y the interpreter writes down these words
or make a mental note of them, they help organize the ideas into a meaningful
structure that is easier to recall than a mere string of disjointed words. Memory
Lesson
4,
without taking any notes, provided that the original message is clear and logical;
it also helps if the content lends itself to visualization. The more coherent the
original message, the more you can retain. If the interpreter is unfamiliar with
the subject matter, he has more trouble remembering the message. In Memory
Lesson 5, the interpreter has an opportunity to try note-taking again. Some
interpreters take very few notes, writing down only names and numbers, while
other interpreters take copious notes. The interpreter will find that with some
speakers and some subject matter, he can make more notes than with others.
Finally, Memory Lesson 6, contains questions and answers that are typical of
the length and detail of the testimony the interpreter is expected to interpret in
court.
Interpretation quality implies the fidelity of the target-language speech,
the quality of the interpreters linguistic output, the quality of his or her voice, the
prosodic characteristics of his or her delivery, (Bhler 1984 and 1986, Kurz
1989 and 1993, Gile 1990, Kopczyski 1994). Fidelity cannot be assessed with
any degree of precision without referring to the source-language speech. This
makes fidelity assessment difficult in simultaneous interpreting, (Carroll 1978,
Lambert 1978, Varantola 1980, Cartellieri 1983). Due that it is practically
impossible to monitor all of the original speech and all of its interpretation on
site.
When conference participants or observers do evaluate fidelity in the
simultaneous mode, they generally do so on the basis of two types of
processes:
485
1. Analysis
The information was compiled and analysed using the data collecting
technique of the qualitative research. The information was organized as follows:
If a student answers Always and Frequently in four or more questions, it
is assumed that the student has problems regarding to the interpreting process.
Thus it could be said that the student has various opportunity areas to work on.
If a student answers Algunas Veces in four or more questions, it is assumed
Universidad de Quintana Roo Departamento de Lengua y Educacin
http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
486
that the student has to acquire and domain some strategies. Therefore, the
student has some areas of opportunity to work on. If a student has underlined
four times Never o Almost Never, and also if he/she has underlined twice either
Always/ frequently or Sometimes, it could be assumed that the student does not
have problems regarding to his/her interpretation practice.
The entries follow a logic sequence therefore by logic a student has to
have underlined Always, Sometimes, Almost never or Never, four, or more
times.
The analysis states that regarding question number one, five students
out of six underlined Always, and only one underlined Frequently,
As for the
second question four students out of six answered Almost never and two
underlined Sometimes. As far as fidelity, the premise of the third question, four
students out of six underlined Frequently,, and two underlined Always. As for
question number four regarding listening skills, four students underlined Always,
and two underlined Frequently. In question five related to excesive note-taking,
five students out of six underlined Always, an only one underlined Frequently,.
As far as question six related to Unfamiliar topic, three students out of six
answered Frequently, and three underlined Sometimes.
2. Findings and conclusions
A big amount of people confuse translation with interpretation. The main
difference is that translation is written, while interpretation is verbal.
The
cognitive processing skills, with the only difference being the amount of time
that elapses between the delivery of the source utterance and the delivery of
the interpretation.
simultaneous
interpretations.
According to the bibliographical investigation there are various language
and oral communication problems in interpreting, for instance one of these is
listening many people overlook listening as a component of memory. Often,
errors in consecutive interpretation occur because the interpreter was not using
good listening skills. For example, if one become bogged down in details and
Universidad de Quintana Roo Departamento de Lengua y Educacin
http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]
487
fail to grasp the overall meaning of a passage, that one will not be able to recall
it correctly. Memory is such an important language and oral communication
problem in interpreting specially in consecutive.
Note-taking, is another
problem for interpreters either taking very few notes, writing down only names
and numbers, or taking copious notes.
message, the more you can retain. A good domain of the language or vice
versa determines the performance in interpretation. Fidelity is the only quality
component which cannot be assessed with any degree of precision without
referring constantly to the source-language speech.
unfamiliar with the subject matter, he has more trouble remembering the
message.
listening, and note-taking skills. Interpreter should also be familiar with the topic
and transmit an accurate speech.
488
References
1. Bhler, Hildegund.1984. Pragmatic criteria for the evaluation of professional
translation and evaluation. Jan den Haese and Jos Nivette, eds. AILA Brussels 84:
Proceedings 4. Brussels, 1984. 1560.
2. Bhler, Hildegund. 1986. Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria
for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Mutlilingua 5:4.231235.
3. Carroll, John B. 1978. Linguistic abilities in translators and interpreters. Gerver and
Sinaiko 1978: 119-130.
4. Cartellieri, Claus. 1983. The inescapable dilemma: quality and or quantity. Babel
29.209-213.
9. Gile, Daniel. 1995a. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
10. Gile, Daniel. 1995b. Regards sur la recherche en interprtation de confrence. Lille:
Presses Universitaires de Lille.
11. Kopczyski, Andrzej. 1994. Quality in conference interpreting: some pragmatic
problems. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation
studies: an interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 189-198.
489
the 30 Annual Conference. Medford, New Jersey: Learned Information Inc. 143-148.
13. Kurz, Ingrid. 1993. Conference Interpretation: expectations of different user groups.
The Interpreters Newsletter 5.13-21.
14. Lambert, Wallace E. 1978. Psychological approaches to bilingualism, translation and
interpretation. Gerver and Sinaiko 1978: 131-144.
15. Seleskovitch, Danica (1968) L'interprte dans les confrences internationales, Cahiers
Champollion.
16. Seleskovitch, Danica (1978) Interpreting for international Conferences (2 nd printing
2001), Pen and Booth, Arlington, VA
17. Seleskovitch, Danica (1978) Fundamentals of the interpretative theory of translation, in
Expanding Horizons.
Press.
18. Varantola, Christa. 1980. On simultaneous interpretation. Turku: Publications of the
Turku Language Institute.
19. Williams, Sarah. Forthcoming. Observations on anomalous stress in interpreting.
Presented as a poster at the International conference on interpreting in Turku, August
1994.
490
Biodata
491