Quality Assessment in Community Interpreting: A Case-study of Talk-shows Renditions from English into Arabic

Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
Quality Assessment in Community Interpreting:
A Case-study of Talk-shows Renditions from English into Arabic
Dr. Safa'a Ahmed
Faculty of Languages, MSA University
Abstract
This research aims to investigate the quality of community interpreting in social settings through studying the interpretation of talk-shows encounters from English into Arabic and to present some quality assessment criteria to this end. It hypothesizes that if a model for quality assessment is applied to this community interpreting, using a multi-disciplinary approach, we can systematically account for 'ideal', 'close' and 'divergent' renditions and hence improve the practice. The objectives are to show the gap in the knowledge of quality interpreting in the real practices of interpreters at social settings and the limitations of research in this regard, to analyse and discuss the collected data using a pragmatic and cultural approach, and to elicit some criteria for quality assessment. It attempts to answer three questions. How and to what extent can a multi-disciplinary approach together with a quality assessment model help decide the quality of community interpreting in social contexts like talk-shows? What is an ideal or a close rendition? What is a divergent one? It examines three encounters in a talk-show interpreted simultaneously (SI) and consecutively (CI) from English into Arabic. The participants are not native speakers of English. A qualitative research method of a content analysis is utilized to compare Arabic renditions to their original English utterances.
The study concludes that there is a gap in the knowledge of quality interpreting among practitioners of the profession. The appropriateness of the interpreter's role and performance is decided according to the suggested criteria for quality assessment. Also, the multi-disciplinary approach used helps tackle different perspectives and uncover aspects in 'close' and 'divergent' renditions that would not have been possible otherwise. It recommends that this model is adopted by interpreters and in training courses.
Keywords: community interpreting, quality assessment, pragmatics, interaction
(182)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
Quality Assessment in Community Interpreting:
A Case-study of Talk-shows Renditions from English into Arabic
Dr. Safa'a Ahmed
Faculty of Languages, MSA University
1. Introduction
In an age of globalization and in an increasingly developing market for mass media and satellites, the demand for community interpreting proliferates and its practice becomes a fertile issue to explore. And the quality of interpreting is by no means an exception; indeed it haunts researchers, professional practitioners and teachers in interpreting training courses alike. Yet, each context and mode of interpreting requires its own standards and set of criteria to account for quality assessment. For example, in a study of simultaneous conference interpreting, the researcher concludes that mediation is a part and parcel of professionalism and it is acceptable if the target language message is accurate (Ahmed 2015). On the other hand, in another study of simultaneous court interpreting, she argues that the rendition which is as close as possible to verbatim translation, provided that it conforms with the TL syntax, semantics and style and it elicits the same impact as the source thereof, is the accurate and complete translation (Ahmed 2016). For this reason, the present study aims to investigate the quality of community interpreting in social settings through studying the interpretation of talk-shows encounters from English into Arabic and to present some quality standards and criteria to assess the renditions.
1.1 Importance of the research. It explores the task of the interpreter, hence comes its important implication for the profession. It investigates our knowledge of some norms in the profession to fill in a gap in the literature on quality assessment of community interpreting in such contexts. The multi-disciplinary approach employed in data analysis contributes to the studies of translation and interpreting, and enhances SI (Simultaneous Interpreting) and CI (Consecutive Interpreting) practice, teaching and training.
1.2 Objectives of the research. The objectives of the study are: to show the gap in the knowledge of quality interpreting in the real practices of interpreters at social settings and the limitations of research in this regard, to analyse and discuss the collected data using a pragmatic and cultural approach, and to elicit some criteria for quality assessment.
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
1.3 Key Concepts:
1.3.1 Community Interpreting: Interpreting in 'face-to-face encounters between officials and laypeople, meeting for a certain purpose at a public institution' is termed 'community interpreting' (Wadensjö 1998:49; cf Shackman1984, Niska 1991, Tebble 1992, Harris 1994, Schweda Nicholson 1994, Kasanji 1995, Carr et al 1997). Historically, this type of interpreting was performed only by volunteers, ad hoc bilinguals, friends, relatives and even children until it became a recognized profession in many countries like Australia, UK, USA, etc. For instance The one who interprets consecutively in the collected data is the TV Presenter. Subcategories of community interpreting include, but not restricted to, health care, police, legal, mental, refugees and asylum, migration, educational, sign language, social service interpreting. Community interpreting aims to give those lacking fluency in some language equal access to social services.
1.3.2 Renditions: Renditions are interpreters' utterances analysed as formulations of preceding original utterances. Wadensjö argues that 'A rendition is a stretch of text corresponding to an utterance voiced by an interpreter. 'Renditions' can relate to 'originals' in a range of different ways (1998:106). Simply stated, an 'original', corresponding to a source text, starts when a primary speaker starts talking and ends when he stops. Similarly, a 'rendition', corresponding to a target text, starts when the interpreter starts reproductions of what he heard and ends when he stops. The setting is where the context lies. An utterance becomes the unit of analysis.
2. Review of Literature
Generally, research on community interpreting in social contexts is almost rare. There are few papers tackling interpreting at such contexts. Vargas-Urpi stresses the idea that:
As far as we know, interpreting at social offices or in social settings in general, which includes welfare, housing or occupation services, has not been an object of any specific research work, unlike other community interpreting contexts. (2012:12)
Townsley (2007) assumes that the very large numbers of situations of social interpreting is difficult to predict or prepare for them. One can access a lot of research on court interpreting, interpreting at asylum hearings, interpreting at police stations, medical interpreting, interpreting at schools (cf. Vargas-Urpi2012). In a study of interpreting at asylum hearings for instance, Pöllabauer (2004:143-4) analyses 20 hearings and finds out that interpreters lack training and the minimum standard requirements for the profession and that an inaccurate translation may lead to asylum denial, which can be interpreted as a death sentence in
(184)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
extreme situations. Researchers are interested in sub-categories of community interpreting in general (cf. Wadensjö 1998; 1992; Shackman1984, Niska 1991, Tebble 1992, Harris 1994, Schweda Nicholson 1994, Kasanji 1995, Carr et al 1997), but little research on interpreting in talk-shows can be found.
In a paper called 'The Shaping of Gorbachov: On Framing in an interpreter-mediated Talk-show Interview', Wadensjö (2008) examines an interpreted BBC televised interview, where Clive Anderson hosts the ex-USSR president Gorbachov. It studies the interview opening and closing, its local organization and the audience involvement. The aim is to show the features that shaped the president's personal image in the British TV according to the English interpretation of the Russian original. She reaches the conclusion that the skilled interpreter, helped him appear as a witty and an adequate performer.
Bros-Brann (2002), in 'Simultaneous Interpretation and the Media: Interpreting Live for Television', argues that interpreting for television requires a rapidity greater than for normal conference interpreting, in addition to a pleasant lively voice, a regular rhythm and a good diction. She takes examples from the coverage of the US presidential elections for France 2 and from a new Franco-German Channel 'Arte'. In another study, 'Look Who's Talking: The Ethics of Entertainment and Talk-show Interpreting', Katan and Sergio-Straniero (2001:213) assure that the role of the interpreter working on Italian television has changed. His traditional 'invisible black box' role is challenged by a role the authors define as 'the ethics of entertainment'. Through a corpus of 200 hours of Italian Talk show, they find that three major factors, namely the professional performing capacity, the 'comfort factors' and context of culture, influence this ethics. Then, they suggest to expand the traditional role towards multivariate mediation which encompasses various perceptual positions and sensitivity to context.
Capitalizing on studies conducted on CorIT-Television Interpreting Corpus, Vovo (2016) presents a three-phase training course for talk-show interpreting in his study 'The Interpreter's Role in Dialogue Interpreting on Television: A Training Method'. In the first phase, he distinguishes the elements that make talk-show interpreters' role and behaviour special: interpreting as performing, face work and multiple discourse identities. In the second, examples of real-life interpreter-mediated talk-shows are discussed. Last, trainers participate in simulated talk-show experiment, where their performances are assessed, which may serve as a basis for the development of new paradigm for talk-shows.
Looking into research on quality of interpreting, Pöchhacker indicates that a bird's-eye view of research reveals 'a very uneven picture', because
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
'While a considerable amount of work has been done on quality in conference or simultaneous interpreting, interpreting quality in intra-social settings has received only sporadic scholarly attention (2001:411). Gile (1990, cited in Pöchhacker 2001:420), through a questionnaire, writes his impressions about the textual quality of target speeches, but he does not systematically analyse the corpora nor discuss them as an observer. Marrone (1993), too, employs a questionnaire and asks an observer to monitor the process in the light of the questionnaire's parameters. Wadensjö's (1998:50-52) important work 'Interpreting Interaction' provides us with a valuable insight into quality of interpreting. She raises the dilemma of the interpreter's loyalty: should it be to the agency which pays him or to the laypeople, the weak party in most cases, for instance a defendant, a refugee, or people in conflict zones? Then she refers to 'proper conduct' in interpreting as professionalism, implying the presence of a code of ethics or shared norms.
The quality of interpreting, for Berk-Seligson (1990:24), is not a matter of the interpreter's intention; instead, it is his competency in both the original and target languages. She says 'No amount of oath-swearing can guarantee high quality interpreting from an interpreter who does not have the necessary competency'.
In a study to assess Spanish interpreters' quality at health settings, Tellechea (2005; as cited in Vargas-Urpi 2012:6) interviews some Hispanic families who can understand spoken English and therefore detect any omissions made by their interpreters. Her methodology is valuable only if clients understand the target language. In line with this approach, Edwards et al (2005) investigate the users' expectations of interpreters and conclude that users' judgments are biased because translation is good, in their opinions, if and when their needs are fulfilled, and vice versa. Townsley (2007),too, depends on experimentation and role play to assess quality rather than asking participants for their opinions, that is to say he is assessing the interpreted acts themselves, although these are not real contexts. The most important result of his research reveals that there is no consensus among the service providers about the 'quality of interpreting'.
Generally, research exploring quality assessment of interpreting faces many challenges. First, oral translations are difficult to assess unless recorded and transcribed. Second, in many social services contexts, confidentiality represents another challenge. Third, it is difficult to assess objectively the quality of renditions since a good translation for the clients is the one that meets their needs successfully (Vargas-Urpi, 2012:6). Fourth, the validity of using surveys and interviews in this
(186)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
regard is highly questioned. Moreover, the tendency in literature to study the depth of the practice through tackling renditions as texts rather than spoken communicative interaction is criticized by Wadensjö for 'This 'talk-as-text' approach to interpreting is frequently combined with established norms and conventions applying not to spoken interaction but to written language use' (1998:79). Taken from a textual perspective only, any analysis of interpreting would ignore the other factors involved in the interaction, which affect the communication of the message and its effect, like the sender, the receiver, the interpreter, the audience, etc.
Thus, this review of the literature on quality assessment of interpreting generally and community interpreting particularly reveals the gap, the vagueness and sometimes the duality in our knowledge and understanding of assessing the quality of renditions in social settings. The issue of quality assessment does not feature prominently in the literature on community interpreting in the same way it does on translation studies. From this review, the researcher was able to state the research problem statement and the hypothesis.
3.Theoretical Framework
Taking advantage of the available research on the quality of conference interpreting (cf. Gile 1991; Moser-Mercer1996), Pöchhacker (2001:412) indicates that there are two fundamental perspectives to quality standards and assessment criteria: either product- or interaction-oriented. He explains that he who considers quality determines the perspective according to which quality is approached, be him a source-text producer, a target-text receiver, an interpreter, an interpreter's colleague, a client or a researcher. He suggests a model for quality standards and criteria, he terms 'Quality Standards for the product and Service of Interpreting' model (see the figure below). Despite the fact that researchers use terminology differently, they agree on some core concepts like accuracy, clarity or fidelity as criteria to assess quality (p.413). The first three criteria explore interpreting from a text-oriented perspective, while the fourth deems interpreting as an interaction. The first criterion, 'Accurate rendition of source' looks at the rendition as 'a faithful image' of the original (Gile 1991:198). The second, 'Adequate target-language expression', refers to the clarity of expression in the target language, i.e. the text-receiver's linguistic and stylistic
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
SERVICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
PRODUCT
Figure 1
Pöchhacker's Model 'Quality Standards for the Product and Service of Interpreting'
Acceptability of the interpretation, a property Pöchhacker describes as 'listener orientation'. In addition, the interpreter is expected to fully convey the primary speaker's interests and intentions according to the 'Equivalent intended effect' criterion in order to achieve an effect on the target-text receiver equivalent to that of the source-text sender on his original receivers. He adopts the concept 'Equivalent effect' as proposed for simultaneous interpreting by Déjean Le Féal (1990:155; as cited in Pöchhacker 2001:413).
Then, to move from exploring the rendition as a text to considering it as an interaction, a fourth criterion, 'successful communicative interaction', comes into light. Quality here means, Gile (1991:193) says, successful communication between interactants in a given context, as assessed from the various perspectives (interpreter, sender and receiver, client, potential assessors and person with analytical or research purpose). This criterion, Pöchhacker (2001:413) assures, foregrounds the '(inter)activity' of interpreting rather than its nature as a 'text-processing' and altogether, the above set of criteria 'pertain to different aspects or even conceptions of the interpreter's task, ranging from text processing to communicative action for a certain purpose and effect and, most generally, to the systemic function of facilitating communicative interaction'. Eventually, the model reflects the inevitable duality in the interpreting profession: interpreting as both a product and a service. Indeed, a quality assessment model as such requires a multi-disciplinary theoretical approach in order to be able to account for the complexities associated with studying community interpreting as a product and a service, as a text and an interaction.
Comparing between preceding originals and their textual renditions, interpretations can be generally assessed as accurate or inaccurate. In interpreting as translating, i.e. investigating renditions as texts, Wadensjö (1998:103-108) takes 'ideal' interpreting as her point of departure to
SUCCESSFUL com. interaction
EQUIVALENT intended effect
ADEQUATE TL expression
ACCURATE rendition of source
(188)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
assess interpretations. She assumes that interpreters 'strive to translate primary parties' original utterances as 'closely' as possible'. Thus she suggests that renditions are either 'close' or 'divergent'. She categorizes renditions into eight types. First, referring to the 'close' rendition, she argues that principally 'to qualify as a 'close rendition', the propositional content found explicitly expressed in the 'rendition' must be equally found in the preceding 'original', and the style of the two utterances should be approximately the same' (p.107).Second, an 'expanded' rendition is defined as one that includes more explicitly expressed information than the original. Third, contrary to the expanded rendition, the 'reduced' one includes less explicitly expressed information than the preceding original utterance. Then, a 'substituted' rendition is a combination of both an expanded and a reduced one. Fifth, simply stated, a 'summarized' rendition is simply a text corresponding to two or more preceding originals. While the interpreter resorts to summarizing two or more original utterances, the opposite 'two-part' rendition category is rendering one original utterance into two or more renditions as she puts it: 'The text of a 'two-part rendition' consists of two interpreter's utterances corresponding to one 'original', which is split into parts by another interjected 'original' utterance, the propositional content of which is not reflected in the rendition' (p.108). The next type is a 'non-rendition', where the interpreter's addition has no explicit correspondence in the source. It is his initiative or response that does not have an equivalent in the original utterance. Last, 'zero-renditions' are parts of the original left without translation. This primary classification will be adopted, with some amendments, in the data analysis and discussion section.
In an attempt to understand what is going on in the mind of the translator or interpreter during the translation or interpreting process, cognitive pragmatics, Catford discusses the type of shifts, changes, they make: structural shifts (shift in the grammatical structure), class shifts (shift from one part of speech into another), unit or rank shifts (rank refers to the hierarchical linguistic units of sentence, clause, group, word and morpheme) and intra-system shifts (the selection of non-corresponding term in the TL system) (2000:143-7). Most linguists define pragmatics as meaning in use or context in the 1980s, thus focusing on speaker meaning (e.g. Levinson 1983, Leech 1985; Yule 1996) or receiver meaning (e.g. Green 1996; Sperber and Wilson 1986). But more recent work tends to associate pragmatics with both speaker and receiver, like Thomas (1995:22) who defined pragmatics as 'meaning in interaction', thus, meaning becomes 'a dynamic process involving the negotiation of meaning between speaker and hearer, the context of utterance (physical, social and linguistic) and the meaning potential of an
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
utterance'. Hence comes the pragmatic and cultural approach suggested for the analysis and discussion of data.
4. Method and Procedure
From the outset, the researcher made it clear that quality assessment can have great potentials for community interpreting in social settings. She hypothesized that if a model for quality assessment is applied to community interpreting in a context like the mass media genre 'talk-shows', using a multi-disciplinary approach, we can systematically assess 'ideal', 'close' and 'divergent' renditions and hence improve the practice. The objectives were clearly delineated to account for the hypotheses: to show the gap in the knowledge of quality interpreting in the real practices of interpreters at social settings and the limitations of research, to analyse and discuss sample data using a pragmatic and cultural approach, and to elicit some criteria for quality assessment.
To what extent there is a model for quality assessment applicable to community interpreting for talk-shows?
1-How and to what extent can a multi-disciplinary approach together with a quality assessment model help decide the quality of community interpreting in social contexts like talk-shows?
2-What is an ideal or close rendition?
3-What is a divergent one?
To discover and assess quality of interpreting for talk-shows and decide whether they differ from other sub categories of community interpreting or not, the researcher investigated the case of interpreting three encounters from an Egyptian talk-show, called 'Her Excellency', simultaneously (SI) and consecutively (CI) from English into Arabic. Eaad Younis, a well-known comedian from Egypt, made a big comeback to TV screen on CBC channel starring the show. The Arabic programme, which consists of different episodes collected along the period from 2014 to the present time, discussing different topics and hosting celebrities sometimes and lay people other times, was selected because it is a successful talk-show attracting a huge viewership in the Arab World. The participants in the sample data are foreigners from Russia, Ukraine and Italy (i.e. English is not their mother tongue) speaking English (English becomes the source language in the collected data), a matter which poses challenges for interpreters (not the least grammatical mistakes). In fact the researcher wanted to observe the interpreters' performance in a case where participants are not competent users of the language, in this case English. A major challenge she faced was the transcription of the encounters as the participants' voices were deliberately turned down when simultaneous interpreting started, so she had to play the videos tens of times to be able to get it. Even transcribing colloquial Arabic was not an
(190)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
easy job either at some points because its writing rules are too immature to agree upon. This makes the data quite van guard. The researcher employed the general transcription rules as suggested by Sacks et al.(1974). The TV Presenter, on the other hand, interpreted consecutively one of the encounters, an issue we are used to in mass media and in community interpreting as explained above.
Venuti discusses two translation methods, which are valuable for our argument here. The first, domestication, involves the 'ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to receiving cultural values' (2008:15). Meanwhile, the second method, foreignization, is a desirable strategic cultural intervention as it makes the receiving culture aware of the linguistic and cultural difference inherent in the foreign text (pp.15-6). Munday demonstrates that domestication means translating in a transparent, fluent, 'invisible' style to minimize the foreignness of the target text, while foreignization makes visible the presence of the translator and the identity of the source text (2013:218-9). The interpreters in the collected data add a local colour to their renditions through domestication. In order to identify and assess the shifts in these domestic interpretations, a qualitative research methodology based on content analysis is applied to compare Arabic renditions to their preceding original English utterances
The general classification of data analysis and discussion was based on, but not restricted to, Wadensjö's (1998) types of renditions as explained in the theoretical section above, namely: close, expanded, reduced, substituted, summarized, two-part or multi-part, non- and zero renditions. To these, the researcher added two more categories, culturally-mediated and paralinguistic behaviour (e.g. emotions, tone. etc.) renditions thereof. The last category was thought to be valuable in a discussion of a context like talk-shows. Unlike other rarely investigated areas of community interpreting, court interpreting, as a sub-category of the former, provides researchers with insight into and guidelines regarding how paralinguistic behaviour (like emotions, tone, etc.) should be rendered. Some argue that court interpreters must not engage in behaviour (e.g. imitation, gestures, emotions, pointing, or other paralinguistic conduct) which draws attention to interpreters (cf. Berk-Seligson 1990:236). Others think that the opposite view is taken for granted, i.e. any nuance, including emotional subtleties in what primary parties utter, must be conveyed (cf. Colin and Morris 1996:146). The whole analysis of data using Pöchhacker's model is very much like a code of ethics for interpreters. Wadensjö mentions that most codes of ethics in community interpreting are derived from legal and court interpreting. She (1998:58-9) summarizes them as follows:
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
1-Neutrality: Interpreters treat all clients equally.
2-Training: Interpreters get professionality through personal training.
3-Factual Task: His services are provided for the collective good and restricted to specifically defined factual fact or functional specificity.
4-Detachment:He should not let personal attitudes colour his interpreting work.
5-Conflict of Interests: He should disclose any real or apparent conflict of interests (e.g. relationship with one of the parties in a legal case.
6-Official Secrets Act: He should guarantee strict confidentiality and refrain from disclosing any information to outside parties.
7- Full and Faithful Interpreting: He must interpret fully and faithfully everything said by primary parties.
8-Task of Interpreting: He must keep strictly to the task of interpreting, i.e. decline any assignment beyond their capability.
9- A Witness under Oath: He has the obligation of a witness under oath, i.e. to hide nothing, to add nothing and to change nothing.
10-Court Interpreting Dilemma: An inherent dilemma of court interpreting lies in the question: should paralinguistic features be interpreted or not?
With the exception of 4,5,6,9 and 10, which are specific to court interpreting, the codes apply to interpreting for talk-shows.
The analysis and discussion of data would reveal interesting findings and conclusion in this regard.
The researcher was aware of the limitations of the study. First, the size of the sample data could have been bigger. Yet because this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative research, the researcher has not attempted or hoped for a generalization of results. Second, some features of the performance of the interpreter were not taken into account, e.g. power relations. She employed what was relevant to the data analysis and what was convincingly important for the sake of the argument only. Third, some cognitive analyses were mere propositions. Neither interpreters nor researchers (or even just observers) have a full access to what is running inside participants' minds. Interpreting is a complicated process of complex language use in two different cultures.
5. Data Analysis and Discussion
In this section, the data collected from three encounters of 'Her Excellency' Talk-show is approached under ten headings: close renditions, expanded renditions, reduced renditions, substituted renditions, summarized renditions, two-part or multi-part renditions, non-renditions, zero-renditions, culturally-mediated renditions, and paralinguistic renditions. The programme has presented a series of episodes under the name 'Al-Khawahah Masri' (the foreigner is Egyptian)
(192)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
since 2014. It hosts foreigners from different countries and it aims to exhibit how they live safely and happily in Egypt despite all the adverse circumstances the latter witnesses. In the Intro, Esaad Younis, the TV Presenter, mentions that when one scrolls through social media and reads what is written about Egypt, he gets the impression that it has become a desert, which contradicts reality; so to prove the opposite she interviews those foreigners who lived here for some time to speak their minds about their own experiences.
5.1 Close Renditions
In extract [1], the TV Presenter asks a guest, Yelina, who is a member of a dancing group called the Silk Road, when she came to Egypt and joined the group:
[1] 1 Presenterطیب یلینا بقى، انتِ جیتِ مصر امتا؟ :
Back Trans: Yelina, when did you come to Egypt?
2 Yelina: Last time I came here three months ago. But I work here (.) like five years ago for two years 3 maybe.
4 SI: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] اْخر مرة جیت هنا ان من تلات شهور فاتت، لکن من
خمس سنین جیت هنا واشتغلت سنتین.
Back Trans: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] Last time I came here was three months ago. But five years ago, I came here and worked for two years.
5 Presenter: اممم ، کنت مع الفرقة من المرة دی؟ السنة دی؟
Back Trans: Mmm, you are with the group this time? This year?
→ 6 Yelina: I came, I joined this group three months ago. This year.
7 SI: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] انضمیت تقریباً للمجموعة من تلات شهور. السنة دی؟
→ Back Trans: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] I joined the group three months ago. This year?
Comparing the back translation to the source utterance, the interpretation seems to follow the original in terms of transferring explicitly the speaker's message. Every part in the interpretation corresponds to an equivalent part in the original and thus the first criterion of Pochhäcker's assessment model is realized. As for the use of colloquial, rather than classical, Arabic, the researcher thinks that the former seems strange to people who are not used to in mass media interpreting for a foreigner; we do not expect foreigners who cannot speak our language to speak it (through the interpretation) exactly like us, in our local way. It is true that the speaker, herself, uses a colloquial English and that message is accurately conveyed in such a communicative interaction, yet the effect of the colloquial rendition on the audience (who are not accustomed to this type of interpreting) may negatively influence the interaction in such a simultaneous interpreting situation.
The rendition meets, or is adequate to, the target language (Arabic) syntax, semantics and stylistics. Generally, it conveys the question-answer speech act intended in the source, i.e. it has an effect on the target language receivers similar to that elicited by the source message on its
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
receivers, with the exception [1/7] where the statement 'this year' is interpreted wrongly into a question. Therefore, the communicative interaction is not broken; the TV Presenters asks questions and the speaker answers, meanwhile the audience is observing both through the simultaneous interpreter. The interpreter manages to transfer 'closely' the English message's explicit meaning and effect into Arabic. This cannot be claimed to be an ideal performance (i.e. fulfilling the four criteria of the assessment model), but no miscommunication or break of communication occurs. There is some sort of diversion, a translation or an interpretation shift, here. However, the whole interpretation in [1] cannot be described as 'divergent'. Wadensjö (1998:107) argues that principally 'to qualify as a 'close rendition', the propositional content found explicitly expressed in the 'rendition' must be equally found in the preceding 'original', and the style of the two utterances should be approximately the same'. Contrary to her use of the term 'close' interpretation, this paper makes a slight difference between close and ideal interpreting, for close' in this context refers to a slight diversion in the rendition compared to the original utterance.
With the exception of the colloquial target language the rendition in example [1] can be assessed as a 'close' rendition of the original (excluding the interpretation of the statement 'this year' into a question). It would have been ideal, had it not been for colloquial mood.
5.2 Expanded Renditions
When interpretation includes some information that does not explicitly correspond to the original, the interpreter is said to use addition. In talk-shows, for instance, he may use additions to explain or clarify culture-bound referents, to complete unfinished sentences or correct grammar, or to define a terminology. Sometimes addition is a result of just repetition. These additions, however, should be taken carefully as the rule is zero additions. In the next extract, when asked about living in Egypt, Anastasia, a dancer, assures twice that she lives there.
[2] 1 Presenter: ؟ یعنی انتِ انستازیا عایشة فی مصر
Back Trans: So, you, Anastasia, live in Egypt?
2 Anastasia: Yes, (.) yes.
→ 3 SI: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] أیوة عایشة فی مصر.
→ Back Trans: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] Yes, I live in Egypt.
The simultaneous interpreter in this example, not the TV Presenter, translated the second 'yes' [2/2] into a whole sentence 'I live in Egypt' [2/3]. By means of comparison between interpretations (target text) and the original utterance (source text), the latter is considered to transfer the source message, to use adequate target language expression, to achieve an equivalent effect on the audience through question-answer speech act,
(194)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
and thus to keep the communicative interaction. In spite of being an expanded rendition (with the sentence 'Yes, I live in Egypt' [2/3] having no equivalence in the original [2/2]), it conveys more or less the speaker's intended message. The issue of using colloquial Arabic in interpreting, as in example [1], comes to the surface again. Though the context is a light talk-show, it sounds strange to an audience who is not acquainted with colloquial interpreting.
Therefore, the expanded rendition in example[2] is acceptable. Expanded renditions become absolutely divergent and hence unacceptable when they include information added purely on the initiative of the interpreter without precedence in the original utterance and based on his personal interpretation and wrong calculations of the speaker's intended meaning. Additions can be accepted in certain situations, for example in a study of interpreters' addition in court interpreting (as an example for a situation where interpreters should aim to target a must-have verbatim interpretation), Jacobsen (2002:31) notices that court interpreters are primarily concerned with achieving successful communicative interaction, so they sometimes use additions to explicate or explain, etc. a matter which overrides 'the expectations of the courts in question that renditions be verbatim'.
5.3 Reduced Renditions
A reduced rendition, as explained before in the theoretical section, includes less explicitly expressed information than the preceding original utterance. If we imagine the interpreter as a third party who performs the interaction between speakers and receivers, then any change of the message in the rendition (through omission for instance) can be deemed divergent if a distortion in the original message occurs, consequently miscommunication happens. In example[3], the Presenter hosts Maria, an Italian chef, and asks her some questions to elicit answers to show how she enjoys her time in Egypt:
[3] →1 Maria: I live in Red sea. Of course you can imagine, mmm, relax and the sea and the good time
2 [xxx] and after a short period I decide to work again and then- ˚that is why I remain˚.
3 CI: بعد شویة استریحت وشافت الجو فی البحر الأحمر، ثم قررت إنها تعود للعمل مرة أخرى
Back Trans: After a short period, she relaxed and saw the weather in the Red Sea, then decided to return to work again.
4 Presenter: So, you decided after how long of your stay in Egypt?
5 Maria: Two months.
6 Presenter: Two months?
→ 7 Maria: After two months I open my first restaurant.
8 Presenter: You opened where?
9 Maria: In Hurghada.
10 CI: In Hurghada…
→ 11 فتحت بعد شهرین من بقائها فی البحر الأحمر فی الغردقة رستوران بتاعها بعد شهرین.
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
→ Back Trans: Two months after her stay in the Red Sea, Hurghada, she opened her restaurant after two months.
The consecutive interpreter, in this case the TV Presenter, interprets the idea of relaxation and forgets to stress how the sea and the good time affected the guest; she uses the word 'weather' missing the idea of 'relax', 'the sea' and the 'good time' [3/1]. She also omits the word 'first' from her rendition of 'I open my first restaurant' [3/7], which is an important piece of information, not to be overlooked. Thus the interpretation in this example is not an ideal rendition of the original, according to the first criteria in the assessment model. A whole chunk of questions and answers [3/4-11] is interpreted in one statement, thus changing the speech act of the original and thus changing the intended effect: 'So, you decided after how long of your stay in Egypt?', 'Two months.', 'Two months?', 'After two months I open my first restaurant.', 'You opened where?', 'In Hurghada.', and 'In Hurghada…' into 'Two months after her stay in the Red Sea, Hurghada, she opened her restaurant after two months.'. The audience might not have noticed any problem in the interpretation, but for a sincere, faithful interpretation, every part of the message should be translated. We should keep in mind the many grammatical mistakes made by the guests, who are not native speakers of English, and consequently the amount of pressure on the interpreter to understand their indented meaning.
Moreover, it is true that the interpreter uses adequate TL expression but in a colloquial form. The flow of interaction seems not disrupted al all; the Presenter, herself, speaks in colloquial and does the same when interpreting. Simply, a colloquial version is interpreted a colloquial rendition. The interaction cannot be described as ideally or accurately communicated, yet it is still acceptable.
5.4 Substituted Renditions
A substituted rendition is a combination of both expanded and reduced interpretations. Catford (2000:143-7) asserts that equivalence depends on communicative features like function, relevance, situation and culture rather than just on formal linguistic criteria; in other words, deciding what is 'functionally relevant' in a given culture is inevitably 'a matter of opinion' (Munday2013:94). We cannot claim for sure what is going on in the interpreter's mind when she decides to drop some parts of the original utterance or otherwise add something, but we can make propositions or at least recognize the shifts.
Asked what she was doing in Italy before coming to Egypt, Maria, the Italian chef, explains to the TV Presenter:
[4] 1 Maria: I was a chef of course. And I decide to come in [from] Italy, not for work, just because
2 I like Egypt. And I decide to come and see here.
(196)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
→ 3 CI ، ماریا أساساً شف، وکانت بتشتغل فی إیطالیا شف وبعدین جت مصر عشان تتفسح :
وتتبسط. Ok
Back Trans: Ok, Maria is basically a chef; she was working as a chef in Italy and then she came to → Egypt for sight-seeing and having fun.
By comparing the interpretation to the source, it appears that the interpreter in this example drops the whole sentence 'And I decide to come in [from] Italy, not for work, just because I like Egypt' [4/1,2] from her rendition and adds 'and have fun' [4/3] on her initiative; i.e. there is a diversion. The interpretation is not an accurate rendition of the original, true though it may seem to express the message in a language adequate to Arabic. The colloquial target language, here, reflects a colloquial source language and is acceptable from the Presenter, who does not want to interrupt the flow of the colloquial Arabic chosen to be the language of the talk-show. One should notice, also, the interpreter's use of the third person to talk about her guest, thus changing the effect of the original from a conversation between the Presenter and the guest to an imaginary conversation between the Presenter and her audience about the guest in order to make the audience involved and interested. The rules of making a successful talk-show overrides the rules of accurate interpreting.
The interpreter may have omitted some details or added other parts not explicitly referred to in the original because the whole idea of the encounters is to show the audience that the guests, despite the hard circumstances Egypt is going through, are happy about their experiences. Assessing such substitutions, they are slightly divergent but acceptable if taken in the context of a talk-show, where the interpreter is the Presenter. Had a professional interpreter been employed, the interpretation may have been assessed differently. The idea here is to interpret as closely as possible the prior original utterance.
The researcher also suggests repetitions in the interpretation in [4/3], where the interpreter repeats the original utterance ('I was a chef' twice: once in the sentence 'Ok, Maria is basically a chef' and second in 'and she was working as a chef in Italy'), can be categorized under the expanded renditions section. The nature of this kind of talk-shows allows such repetition.
5.5 Summarized Renditions
A summarized rendition is a text corresponding to two or more preceding originals. In a very interesting example [5], the Presenter interprets for Maria, where bulks of original utterances are cleverly summarized to the audience in a clever way. This is a basic technique in consecutive interpreting.
[5] 1 Presenter: Maria, what's your full name?
2 Maria: Maria Angella.
3 Presenter: Maria Angella? Ok. Maria, what made you come to Egypt and what were you doing in
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
4 Italy before?
→ 5 CI: [to the audience] جت من إیطالیا
Back Trans:[to the audience] She came from Italy.
Four sentences in the original, two questions and two statements ( 'Maria, what's
your full name?', 'Maria Angella.', 'Maria Angella?', and 'Ok. Maria, what made you come to Egypt and what were you doing in Italy before?'), are summarized in one interpretation 'she came from Italy' [5/5]. The rendition summarized the original in an adequate TL expression. The conveyed statement, of course, differs from the question-answer intended effect. And because the interaction is successfully communicated, such minor adjustments can be accepted from such a star Presenter in similar talk-show contexts. Again, though the rendition includes a diversion or a shift from the original utterance, it is assessed as an interpretation close to the source.
The social role of the interpreter is normative, typical and personal; the normative role is determined by the commonly shared ideas about a certain activity, what people generally think they are or should be doing when they perform a specific role (Goffman 1961; cited in Wadensjö 1998:83). The role of the interpreter is conceived by the TV Presenter, non professional interpreter, in a way that she thinks she has the right to summarize utterances in her renditions when necessary. Moreover, her social power as the presenter of the show, in addition to being a celebrity herself, may give her extra power over guests and the interpreting process itself, for instance her significant use of colloquial in her interpretation.
5.6 Two-part or Multi-part Renditions
In this category, the interpreter renders one original sentence into two or multi-part ones.
In [6], the chef explains to the audience how to make Italian pizza as follows:
[6] 1 Maria: Here I add khamira beera [yeast], some mayyah [water]. Unfortunately, khamira beera here → 2 is not fresh (.) is dry but we normally use only the fresh or something we call it yeasta → 3 madra. It's a sort of a yeast that we cultivate day by day, then we use it ahhh like this.
4 CI: بتقولک هى حاطة هنا الخمیرة بیرة حطت علیها مایة، بس هى عادة بتستعملها طازة. ولو مالقوش خمیرة
بیرة بیحطوا.. أیه؟ مین؟ مادرا أیه؟
5 What's this
Back Trans: She tells you that she puts yeast here and put water, but she usually uses it fresh. If they don't find yeast, they put (.) what? Who? What's this? Madra what?
6 Maria: Yeasta madra.
→ 7 CI: [laughter] . حاجة طلیانی ).( یعنی بتکبر العجینة عندهم. [laughter] یعنی حاجة مادرة یعنی
بتودر العجینة
Back Trans: [laughter] It's a madra something, i.e. it wadras the dough [laughter]. Something Italian (.) it means it grows the dough there.
8 Maria: Yeast, yeasta madra. Something like this [pointing to the yeast]. Ok ?
By means of comparing the interpretations to its corresponding source, one may notice some shifts. At the syntax and semantic levels, the
(198)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
sentence uttered by the guest referring to 'pasta madra' [6/2,3], a sort of yeast used in Italy, is interpreted into a multi-party rendition [6/4,5]. Then, the guest interjects saying 'pasta madra', but the presenter seems to concentrate on the function of the term rather than the term itself, so she goes on to try to convey the idea to the audience [6/7]. Remember that the TV Presenter herself does the consecutive interpreting so she can repeat or explain an idea until she makes sure that the audience understands. In interpreting, thus, she can exceed the role of the interpreter to add some information on her initiative as deemed necessary, a matter which is not allowed to the professional interpreter. The colloquial Arabic expressions here are adequate, with a nice coinage of a new funny term 'wadras the dough' [6/7] on the part of the presenter, being a comedian herself. The researcher sees that this comic effect is not intended, of course, by the chef, but it is a clever manipulation of language by the presenter in a funny way. Accordingly, the rendition is assessed as a close one, neither ideal nor divergent.
5.7 Non- renditions
The interpreter under this category, non-rendition, adds information that is not explicitly stated in the source utterance. Anastasia, a member in the dancing group 'The Silk Road', whose captain is called Max, is interviewed and asked about how many years she has been working with him and about her stay in Egypt generally. She explains that she came three years ago, but she has joined the group since four years. If we compare the target utterance with its corresponding source, we can identify some diversions in example [7] as follows:
[7] 1 Presenterانستازیا، بقالک کام سنة مع :
ماکس فی الفرقة؟
Back Trans: Anastasia, how long have you been with Max [the dance captain]?
2 Anastasia: In the Max? Four years.
3 SI: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] بالکتیرأربع سنین.
→ Back Trans: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] Maximum four years.
4 Presenter: وقبل کدة جیتِ مصر وجیتِ اونلی مع ماکس؟
→ 5 Anastasia: I am come seven (.) seven years ago in Egypt. Yes and after three years, I am come to that 6 studio and we are work together.
→ 7 SI: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] أنا جیت مصر من سبع سنین. ومن تلات سنین
جیت الاستودیو وبنشتغل مع بعض.
Back Trans: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] I came Egypt seven years ago. I came to the studio three years ago and we work together.
The simultaneous interpreter, a professional one in this case, adds 'maximum' [7/3], with no correspondence in the original, to her rendition, a matter which marks a clear diversion or a change in the target message. Yet, if additions change the meaning or the effect of the source, then they certainly become totally diverge and hence unacceptable. Moreover, the interpretation of 'after three years' [7/5] into 'three years ago' [7/7]
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
changed the intended meaning of the source from 'coming to Egypt seven years ago and joining the group four years ago' into 'coming to Egypt seven years ago and joining the group three years ago'. The source utterance reveals grammatical incompetence because the speaker is not a native speaker of English, which represents a challenge to the interpreter. A question-answer interpreted into a question-answer incites a similar response from the target audience only if the content is the same. The researcher argues that communication breaks when the rendition is convergent, especially if the theme that is mistakenly interpreted continues or when other information and conclusions seem to be built on this. Numbers and calculations, generally speaking, represent a challenge to the simultaneous interpreter.
The simultaneous interpreter may have used a colloquial version of the target language to be appealing to the audience of a light talk-show. But these colloquial renditions are not acceptable from the audience as elaborated in [1] and [2]. In addition, she omits the speaker's question 'In the Max?' [7/2]; this omission, called zero rendition, to be explained in the next category, does not affect the intended meaning of the original here, because the TV presenter's preceding question enquires clearly about the dance captain, Max. We can notice the shift from the interpretation in the third person (e.g. 'she came from Italy' [5/5 ] and 'I came Egypt' [7/7] employed by the Presenter interpreter and the use of the first person by the professional interpreter.
5.8 Zero Renditions
When parts of the original are left without translation, the result is a zero rendition. Maria further explains how to make pizza:
[8] →1 Maria: And sometimes we add also a little bit of olive oil.
2 CI: We add what?
→ 3 Maria: Olive oil. A little bit of olive oil can help. But is not, you know, so important. I Know here in → 4 Egypt they make it with oil. Everywhere.
5 CI: هى بتقول بعد شویة تقدر تخلط علیها زیت زیتون، اسمه أیه بقى؟ الفیرجن أصلی ).( قوی رو الأصلی، ماعرفش هو -
مابیقاش مش أصلی ازای، مش عارفة. احنا بنعملها بالزیت بس هى بتعملها بزیت الزیتون.
6
Back Trans: she says after a while, she can mix it with olive oil. What's its name then? Virgin- original (.) strong, raw, the original. I don't know how it can be not original. I don't know. We make it with oil but she makes it with olive oil.
→ 7 Maria: The oil is so important for me, remain extra virgin with the olive oil than the other oil.
8 CI: [addressing the crew behind the cameras] زیت الزیتون البکر.صح بکر یا أولاد.
Back Trans: Virgin olive oil. Right, guys.
9 CI: You leave it for six, seven hours if you are using the khamira beera?
→ 10 Maria: I use- but you saw I use a little bit not so much, you know. And this is why? For reality you → 11 have no time to put khamira beera. Then it grow very fast. But it's bad for the stomach. Bad.
12 CI: hmmm.
(200)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
Comparing the Arabic renditions to their original English utterances, we notice that the sentences 'And sometimes' and 'also add a little bit' [8/1], ' A little bit of olive oil can help. But is not, you know, so important' and 'everywhere' [8/3,4], 'so important' [8/7] and ' I use- but you saw I use a little bit not so much, you know. And this is why? For reality you have no time to put khamira beera. Then it grow very fast. But it's bad for the stomach. Bad.' [8/10,11] are not interpreted. The Presenter, performing the role of the consecutive interpreter, has a flexible space where she moves between sentences. She concentrates on the essence of the message, without paying attention to details sometimes. Given the context that this is a talk-show and the audience can follow the picture with no need for explanations through the interpretations; she felt that details are of minor importance. This might give us insight into what she would have probably thought of when she decided to omit such a huge bulk of text. Had it been for a professional interpreter, most of the parts left with interpretation should not have been omitted.
In the rendition, the Presenter even makes her own comments on the use of virgin oil in making pizza, when she found it hard to remember the right translation for 'olive oil' in the phrases 'What's its name then? Virgin- original (.) strong, raw, the original. I don't know how it can be not original. I don't know' [8/6]. The Presenter interprets 'virgin oil' into Arabic as 'original' rather than 'virgin', hence comes the unnecessary series of comments and confusion in this extract. This leads to a diversion in both the target language expression and the effect of the interpretation on the audience; they do not know whether the confusion is coming from the source speaker or the Presenter herself. Once more, the presence of the star TV Presenter helps her get out of any embarrassing situation like this, where she does not remember the right translation for a certain term or expression, and consequently communication does not break. The use of the colloquial target language in interpreting represents the Presenter's powerful position as a star rather than professional consecutive interpreting. Example [8] can be assessed as a divergent rendition of the original, unacceptable for a professional, but acceptable for the Presenter Interpreter at this social setting.
5.9 Culturally-mediated Renditions
Interpreting for a talk-show requires a high degree of understanding the source and the target cultures. The type of show itself and the targeted audience would determine the interpreter's intervention to clarify any possible miscommunication that can result from literal translation. In extract [9], the TV Presenter asks Maria, who has been in Hurghada for three years, whether she has thought of leaving Egypt because of the difficult circumstances it passes through.
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
[9] 1 Maria: .. even if you sometimes you become nervous because of the ̊reedom ̊ [xxx] [some Italian
2 words]. As I told you 'bokra', 'baad bokra', 'Inshallah'. You learn, you know. And then you like 3 it and the people [xxx] and they are very close to us, because I think Egyptian and Italian, we 4 are cousin…
5 CI یعنی - - هى بتقول إن الشعوب متقاربة، الشعب المصری والشعب الإیطالی متقاربین جداً... الناس خدت : - --
على الناس،
→ 6 ... وحتى على إیقاعها، تعالى بکرة وفوت علینا بکرة ومدام نوال فی السابع والحاجات
البایخة بتاعتنا دی
Back Trans: She says that the two peoples are close, the Egyptian and the Italian people are so close… she got used to the people and their rhythm: come tomorrow, come to us tomorrow, madam Nawal is on the seventh floor, and our silly stuff as such.
7 Maria: [shows how to make stuffed vegetables] first in a bowl we wash a little bit the rice and
8 [xxx] go. Then I cut all onion. I mix it everything (.) I put oil and onion let all just really
9 really a little bit.
→ 10 CI: طیب. أممم یعنی إحنا بنشوح البصلة فی حبة زیت. -
Back Trans: Ok. Amm- so we stir onion with oil for a while over heat.
Look at the expressions 'bokra' (tomorrow), 'baad bokra' (after tomorrow) and 'Insallah' (If God Will) [9/2] which are very specific to the Egyptian culture. The guest herself refers to them in Arabic. The consecutive interpreter, the TV Presenter, adds to them 'madam Nawal is on the seventh floor' and she even describes them as 'our silly stuff as such' [9/6]. The rendition in this part is somehow close to the original linguistically speaking, as the utterances explicitly stated in the interpretation are transformed into the target language and thus fulfilling the first criterion n the assessment model. The Arabic used suits adequately the target language expression and stylistics. The effect of the interpreted statement, explaining how the speaker has become accustomed to the Egyptian way of life, reflects the same effect of the original on the audience. The interaction is successfully communicated, although the interpreter uses a description like 'madam Nawal is on the seventh floor' on her initiative and does this in her capacity as a presenter, not as an interpreter.
Cooking is one of the things that are best reflected in the cultures of countries. The interesting translation of the second part of the example [9/8-9] into one concise, but an amusingly accurate, rendition [9/10] is interesting and noteworthy. The use of one Arabic verb 'Benshawah' (we stir onion with oil for a while over heat) sums up what the chef has been explaining for a while ('Then I cut all onion. I mix it everything (.) I put oil and onion let all just really a little bit.'). In other words, the interpreter mediates in this example to convey the message in a way that can be easily understood in the Egyptian culture.
As the researcher explained in the methodology section, domestication is a method of translation. Interpreting in a colloquial target language
(202)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
helps highlight such a domestication effect. Hence, choosing colloquial, instead of classical, Arabic as a medium for interpretation in the collected samples aims to make the translation familiar to the audience and to give it a local taste. One possible psychological effect is making those foreigners close to the hearts of the audience. Generally speaking however, the researcher thinks that colloquial Arabic sounds strange in the mass media (usually formal) when it comes to interpreting for a foreigner, especially because we do not expect foreigners who cannot speak our language to speak it (through the interpretation) exactly like us, i.e. in our local way. So, although meaning can be accurately conveyed in such an experience, the effect of the colloquial rendition, she may argue, can negatively affect the communicative interaction, particularly in simultaneous interpreting. But, in consecutive interpreting the TV Presenter performs the role of the interpreter; for this reason we did not feel that her colloquial renditions sound strange. One way or another, colloquial Arabic is the presenter's normal dialect in the programme, and it is cleverly employed in the consecutive interpretation here.
5.10 Paralinguistic Behaviour Renditions
Paralinguistic behaviour renditions refer to the interpreter's performance regarding the transference or non-transference of the extra-linguistic features of the speaker's, like emotions, tone, etc. The researcher argues that in contexts where the behaviour of the speaker counts, like court or conference interpreting, the real practice proves that the interpreter should refrain from conveying any gestures, emotions or any paralinguistic features of the source utterance so that he avoids the possibility of being judged by the concerned parties instead of the original speaker. In other contexts, like interpreting for a talk-show, the situation is less stressful than others, yet there is still the risk of moving the audience's attention from the guest to the interpreter if the latter conveys the same or similar paralinguistic features like emotions. See for example the following parts of extracts mentioned before in [1] and [2]:
In example [1/4,7]:
2 Yelina: Last time I came here three months ago. But I work here (.) like five years ago for two years
3 maybe.
→ 4 SI: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] اْخر مرة جیت هنا کان من تلات
شهور فاتت، لکن من خمس سنین جیت هنا واشتغلت سنتین.
Back Trans: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] Last time I came here was three months ago. But five years ago, I came here and worked for two years.
5 Presenter: اممم ، کنت مع الفرقة من المرة دی؟ السنة دی؟
Back Trans: Mmm, you are with the group this time? This year?
6 Yelina: I came, I joined this group three months ago. This year.
→ 7 SI: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] انضمیت تقریباً للمجموعة من تلات شهور. السنة دی؟
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
Back Trans: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] I joined the group three months ago. This year?
and in example [2/3]:
2 Anastasia: Yes, (.) yes.
→ 3 SI: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] أیوة عایشة فی مصر.
Back Trans: [In an exaggerated tone, imitating the speaker's] Yes, I live in Egypt.
the simultaneous interpreter conveys some paralinguistic features of the speaker's performance, emotionally in a tone similar to the original: 'Last time I came here was three months ago. But five years ago, I came here and worked for two years.'[1/4]; ' I joined the group three months ago. This year?' [1/7]; and 'Yes, I live in Egypt.'. A probable result is that the rendition may sound exaggerated and strange; the audience pays attention, thus, to the interpreter rather than the guest speaker. Looking into the consecutive renditions, on the other hand, any paralinguistic renditions would not be even noticed since the interpreter is the presenter herself, see the example '[laughter] It's a madra something, i.e. it wadras the dough [laughter]. Something Italian (.) it means it grows the dough there.', [6/7], where she laughs as she tries to find the right equivalent for 'yeasta madra' and its role in increasing the dough. In the first two examples, the renditions sound strange and unacceptable, while in the third one, the interpretation seems a part and parcel of the Presenter's performance, and thus is acceptable by the audience. What applies to simultaneous interpreting in this social context does not hold good to the consecutive mode, given the fact that the former is performed by a professional interpreter whereas the latter is not.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This study aimed to investigate the quality of community interpreting in social settings through studying the interpretation of talk-shows encounters from English into Arabic and to present some quality assessment criteria to this end; and it hypothesized that if a model for quality assessment is applied to this kind of community interpreting, using a multi-disciplinary approach, we can systematically account for 'ideal', 'close' and 'divergent' renditions and hence improve the practice.
Pöcchacker's assessment model (2001), in addition to a pragmatic and a cultural approach, explored the appropriateness of the interpreter's performance and behaviour and revealed the difference in assessing simultaneous and consecutive interpretations as 'ideal', 'close', or 'divergent'. The researcher started from the proposition that an ideal rendition is the one that meets the four criteria of the model: accurate rendition of source, adequate rendition of the target language expression, equivalent intended effect, and successful communicative interaction.
(204)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
The researcher found out that sometimes renditions are close interpretations of a preceding original and they are acceptable in the consecutive mode (interpreted by the TV Presenter), but unacceptable in the simultaneous one (interpreted by a professional). For instance, choosing colloquial, instead of classical, Arabic as a medium for interpreting in the samples aims to domesticate renditions and make them familiar to the audience (see examples [1], [2], and [7]). A possible psychological effect is to bring those foreigners close to the hearts of the audience at such a social setting. Colloquial Arabic sounds strange in simultaneous interpreting, but it does not on the part of the consecutive interpreter (TV Presenter), whose interpreting performance seems uninterrupted (see examples [3-6] and [8-9]). In other words, although the interpretations are generally assessed as close renditions of the source, the colloquial form of the target language negatively affects the communicative interaction in the simultaneous interpreting mode, but positively enhances the other mode. The TV Presenter seems to have some social power that entitles her to expand, reduce (example [3]), substitute (example [4]), summarise (example [5]), use two part- or multi-part renditions (example [6]), make zero renditions (example [8]), or mediate culturally (example [9]) without having any problem in her interpretation being assessed as acceptable. The professional simultaneous interpreter, having no such power, cannot perform the same role freely without being criticized, see for example her non rendition in [7]. Also, conveying features from the speaker's paralinguistic behaviour into the interpretations fails in the case of the professional interpreter (examples [1], [2] and [7]), in spite of the light nature of such a talk-show context.
A real finding of the study is that sometimes in social settings like talk-shows, not only close renditions are acceptable but also even some divergent interpretations are as well; when interpreters convey the same general message of the original (not necessarily the details), in an adequate target language, with almost the same or at least similar effect on the TL audience so that a successful communicative interaction is guaranteed. A convergent rendition, representing clear shifts from a prior original, is accepted from the consecutive interpreter, Presenter, who cleverly manipulates the rendition to achieve the intended effect and maintains the communicative interaction (examples [6/7], [9/6] and [9/10]). The professional interpreter's convergent rendition, on the contrary, is rejected (example [7/7]).
Thus, this approach to the analysis of data proves to be vital in assessing the quality of renditions and uncovers aspects that would not have been possible otherwise. And the four criteria of assessment as
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
suggested by Pöcchacker's model are applicable to professional interpreting in a social context like that of a talk-show, but they seem to be flouted, yet still acceptable, when the interpreter has some social power, like the consecutive interpreter Presenter, who is not only a celebrity but also a comedian. The standard, in addition to the criteria, is that the rendition should be 'acceptable' by the audience.
Finally, the study recommends that this assessment model is applied by interpreters, keeping in mind the standard of audience 'acceptability', in talk-show contexts. If adopted in training courses, the theoretical and methodological framework would hopefully improve the practice. Trainers can apply the model and the theoretical approach and write down their feedback so that researchers can take methodology and theory one step ahead. The study also recommends that future research on interpreting focuses on community interpreting and extends to other social settings, for the tremendous implications it potentially has for the field. Rare language combinations, like English/ Arabic, should be addressed. Furthermore, quality assessment models and other multidisciplinary approaches should be encouraged.
(206)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
References
Ahmed, Safa'a. (2015). Simultaneous Conference Interpreting and Mediation: An Application of a Cognitive- linguistics Approach to Professional Interpreting from English into Arabic (under publication). Philology, Faculty of Al-Alsun, Ain Shams University, Vol.64,June 2016.
---------- (2016). Towards an Accurate Simultaneous Court Interpreting: A Communicative, Pragmatic and Semiotic Approach to English/Arabic Renditions (under publication). Sahifat Al-Alsun, Faculty of Al-Alsun, Ain Shams University, Vol.45, June 2016.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bros-Brann, Eliane. (2002). Simultaneous Interpretation and the Media: Interpreting Live for Television. aiic. Retrieved from www.aiic.net/page/630/ simultaneous_interpretation/.
Carr, S.; Roberts, E.A.; Dufour, A. and Steyn (eds). (1997). The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Papers from the 1st International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health, and Social Service Settings, Geneva Park, Canada, June 1-4, 1995. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Catford, John. (2000). 'Translation Shifts'. In L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Reader. London: Routledge, pp.141-7.
Colin, J. and Morris, R. (1996). Interpreters and the Legal Process. Winchester: Westernside Press.
Edwards, Rosalind; Temple, Bogusia; Alexander, Claire. (2005). Users' Experiences of Interpreters. The Critical Role of Trust. In Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting,vol.7(1),77-96.
Gile, D. (1991). A Communicative Oriented Analysis of Quality in Nonliterary Translation and Interpretation. In M.L. Larsson (ed.), Translation:Theory and Practice. Tension and Interdependence. Binghamton NY,SUNY, pp.188-200.
Green, G.M. (1996). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Déjean Le Féal, Karla. (1990). Some Thoughts on the Evaluation of Simultaneous Interpretation. In D. Bowen and M. Bowen (eds), Interpreting— Today and Tomorrow, Binghamton NY, SUNY, pp.154-60.
Harris, B.(1994).A Taxonomic Survey of Professional Interpreting, Part 1. Draft for the International Conference on Interpreting, Turku, 25-26 August 1994.
Jacobsen, Bente Iness. (2002). Pragmatic Meaning in Court Interpreting: An Empirical Study of Additions in Consecutively Interpreted Question-answer Dialogues. PhD Thesis, AarhusScool of Bus.
Katan, David and Sergio-Straniero, Francessco. (2001). Look Who's Talking: The Ethics of Entertainment and Talk-show Interpreting. The Translator, 7(2), pp.213-38.
Dr. Basheer Ibrahim Elghayesh
( )
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
Kasanji, L. (1995). Let's Talk- Guideline for Government Agencies Hiring Interpreters. Te Tari Taiwhenna: Ethnic Affairs, Aukland, New Zealand.
Leech, G.N. (1985). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marrone, S. (1993). Quality: A Shared Objective. The Interpreters' Newsletter, No.5, 35-41.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 7, 43-55.
Munday, Jeremy. (2013). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Niska, H. (1991). A New Breed of Interpreter for Immigrants, Community Interpreting in Sweden. In C. Picken (ed.), Institute of Translation and Interpreting, ITI Conference 28/4/1990. Proceedings. London: Aslib (The Associatin for Information Management, 94-104.
Pöchhhacker, Franz. (2001). Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting'. In Meta: TranslatorJournal
Pöllabauer, Sonja. (2004). "Translation Culture" in Interpreted Asylum Hearings. In Anthony Pym; Miriam Shlesinger; Zuzana Jettmarová (eds). Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.151-62.
Sacks, H., Scheggloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G.(1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. Language, 50, pp.696-736.
Schweda Nicholson, N. (1994). Community Interpreter Training in the United States and the United Kingdom: An Overview of Selected Initiative. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 12, Arhus, 127-39.
Shackman, J. (1984). The Right to be Understood: A Handbook on Working with, Employing and Training Community Interpreters. Cambridge: Cambridge National Extension College.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Tebble, H. (1992). A Discourse Model for Dialogue Interpreting. In AUSIT Proceedings of the First Practitioners' Seminar. Canberra: Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators, Inc. National Office.
Tellechea, Sánchez, Ma. Teresa. (2005). El intérprete como obstáculo: fortaleci-miento y emancipación del usuario para superarlo. In Carmen Valero-Garcés. Translation as Mediation or how to Bridge Linguistic and Cultural Gaps. Madrid: Srevicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alacalá, pp.114-21.
Thomas, Jenny. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Townsley, Brook. (2007). Quality in Interpreting: the Services Providers Responsibility. Paper presented at the Critical Link5: Quality in interpreting: a shared responsibility, Sydney, 11th-15th April 2007.
(208)
Vol. 61 (Jun.2016)
Occasional Papers
Vargas-upri, Mireia. (2012). State of the Art in Community Interpreting Research: Mapping the Main Research Topics. Babel, 58(1): pp.50-72. DOI 10.1075/babel.58.1.04var
Vovo, Eugenia Dal. (2016). The Interpreter's Role in Dialogue Interpreting on Television: A Training Method. Utrecht Studies in Language & Communication, Vol. 29, pp.48-68. Retrieved from web.a.ebscohost.com/ abstract?direct=true&profiles.
Venuti, Lawrance. (2008). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Wadensjö, Cecilia. (1992). Interpreting as Interaction in Immigration Hearings and Medical Encounters. (Linköping Studies in Arts and Science 83.) Linköping: Department of Communication Studies.
----------- (1998). Interpreting As Interaction. London/New York: Longman.
----------- (2008). The Shaing of Gorbachov: On Framing in an Interpreter-mediated Talk-show Interview. Text and Talk, March, 28(1), pp.119-45. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/publication/250975653/the_shaping/
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.