272
SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION: QUALITATIVE AND LINGUISTIC DATA*
HENRI C. BARIK The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto
This paper presents qualitative data in relation to a previously reported study on simultaneous interpretation (Barik, 1973). The interpreter’s version of a passage may reveal omissions, additions and substitutions or errors of translation. Several categories of each type of event are noted and related to temporal and grammatical attributes of the input material. Other linguistic observations are also made. One critical factor in interpretation is the interpreter’s ability to segment the incoming message at linguistically appropriate locations. Failure to do so can lead to a number of difficulties and to inadequate performance. Examples are given.
previous paper we presented temporal and quantitative data on simultaneous interpretation, the process of orally converting a message from one language into another as the message is being received (Barik, 1973). In this report we consider some qualitative and linguistic aspects of the process. In simultaneonus interpretation, the interpreter’s or translator’s (T’s) version may depart from the original or speaker’s (S’s) version in three general ways: the T may omit some material from the original version, add some material, or substitute material which, if it is at considerable variance with the original version, may constitute an error &dquo; of translation. We present here data relating to the incidence of these events and their relationship to various characteristics of the input materials, i.e., the texts being translated. In
a
&dquo;
.
&dquo;
METHOD
.&dquo;
AND INPUT DATA
’
’
&dquo; .
design of the study is described elsewhere (Barik, 1973). Briefly, two experienced or professional conference Ts, two &dquo; student &dquo; Ts (recent graduates of a program in interpretation) and two amateur &dquo; Ts (thoroughly fluent bilinguals active in the area of language but with no experience in interpretation) were required to do the simultaneous interpretation of several texts from either their weaker The
&dquo;
* This paper is based
on part of an unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department ofPsychology ofthe University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill. Thanks are expressed to Dr. Samuel Fillenbaum for his helpful advice. The study was supported by United States Public Health Service Research Grant M-10006 from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on December 26, 2015
273 into their dominant (native) language (W to D their dominant into their weaker language (D to W translation). In each category of T, one was English-dominant, with French as his/her weaker language, and the other French-dominant, with English as his/her weaker language. The texts translated represented four types of material: spontaneous speech, semiprepared material (a non-technical lecture), prepared material intended for oral delivery (a non-technical formal speech), and prepared material intended for the written medium (the reading of a non-technical article). There were two instances of spontaneous speech; in one the speaker elaborated a story around a picture presented to him, in the other he discussed a film. The prepared speech and written text were identical in content in French and in English, but the spontaneous (story and film discussion) and semi-prepared (lecture) texts differed in the two languages, though the two language versions were roughly comparable in nature. The Ts listened to the texts on tape, and translated them as they went along. Their translations were recorded on a second track of the tape, permitting subsequent simultaneous monitoring of both original and translated versions. Of eight passages, the T translated five (each of the 5 texts described above) from his weaker into his dominant language, and three from his dominant into his weaker language (the dominant-language versions of the story, lecture, and second half of the written text, the first half of which was used for W to D translation), i
(second or acquired) language translation) or vice-versa, from
,
Temporal characteristics
of
source
texts
,
A few words may be said about the temporal characteristics of the input texts, which qualitative data will subsequently be related. A detailed presentation of the temporal data is to be found elsewhere (Barik, 1973). Among both English and French texts, the lecture exhibited the highest speech proportion, the S being engaged in speaking during 75% (in the English text) to 80% (in the French text) of the time. Similarly high proportions (65% to 70%) were associated with the written texts, which were translated equivalents in French and English. The other common text, the speech, exhibited a considerably higher speech proportion in French (67%) than in English (55%), due most likely to the different contexts in which the two versions were delivered, the English speech being taped &dquo; live &dquo; whereas the French version was recorded in the absence of an audience. Of the two spontaneous texts, the story ranked lowest on speech proportion among all texts in both English (51% speech) and French (44%), while the film to
1
sample oftranscripts (original and translated versions of the W to D story and speech and the D to W lecture) and set of tables presenting quantitative and qualitative data for each T in relation to each text are available from Microfiche Publications, 305 East 46th Street, New York, New York 10017. (Order NAPS document No. 02171, price $1.50 for microfiche or $5.60 for photocopy. Make cheque payable to Microfiche Publications.) A
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on December 26, 2015
=
274 discussion varied, being quite
high
in
English (71 % speech)
but lower in French
(57%). A pattern of relationships emerges among temporal variables. Thus, as might be expected, the more fluent texts (higher speech proportions) exhibit generally longer speech bursts and shorter pauses than the less fluent texts, with correspondingly greater variation in the duration of speech bursts and lesser variation in the duration of pauses for more fluent texts relative to less fluent texts. More fluent texts also quite expectedly exhibit higher speech rates (number of syllables uttered per minute of elapsed time) but, interestingly, there appears to be a reversal in relation to articulation rate (number of syllables uttered per minute of actual speaking time), the more fluent texts exhibiting lower articulation rates, a finding which may be attributable to certain rhetorical considerations applying to the specific ensemble of texts used in the study and which does not reflect a general characteristic of speech production. (For further details on temporal data, see Barik, in press.) Locus
of pauses
’
Another factor to consider, which enters into subsequent discussion, is the locus of pauses in the texts. Performance in translation might well depend in part on the degree of availability for the T of breaks in the speech flow of the S, during which T can possibly crowd some of his own output and thereby reduce the extent to which he is simultaneously engaged in speaking and listening, as happens when T’s delivery is coincident with S’s. The point is made by Goldman-Eisler (1967), who points out that the &dquo; intermittent silence between chunks of speech [in the speaker’s a very valuable commodity
SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION: QUALITATIVE AND LINGUISTIC DATA*
HENRI C. BARIK The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto
This paper presents qualitative data in relation to a previously reported study on simultaneous interpretation (Barik, 1973). The interpreter’s version of a passage may reveal omissions, additions and substitutions or errors of translation. Several categories of each type of event are noted and related to temporal and grammatical attributes of the input material. Other linguistic observations are also made. One critical factor in interpretation is the interpreter’s ability to segment the incoming message at linguistically appropriate locations. Failure to do so can lead to a number of difficulties and to inadequate performance. Examples are given.
previous paper we presented temporal and quantitative data on simultaneous interpretation, the process of orally converting a message from one language into another as the message is being received (Barik, 1973). In this report we consider some qualitative and linguistic aspects of the process. In simultaneonus interpretation, the interpreter’s or translator’s (T’s) version may depart from the original or speaker’s (S’s) version in three general ways: the T may omit some material from the original version, add some material, or substitute material which, if it is at considerable variance with the original version, may constitute an error &dquo; of translation. We present here data relating to the incidence of these events and their relationship to various characteristics of the input materials, i.e., the texts being translated. In
a
&dquo;
.
&dquo;
METHOD
.&dquo;
AND INPUT DATA
’
’
&dquo; .
design of the study is described elsewhere (Barik, 1973). Briefly, two experienced or professional conference Ts, two &dquo; student &dquo; Ts (recent graduates of a program in interpretation) and two amateur &dquo; Ts (thoroughly fluent bilinguals active in the area of language but with no experience in interpretation) were required to do the simultaneous interpretation of several texts from either their weaker The
&dquo;
* This paper is based
on part of an unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department ofPsychology ofthe University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill. Thanks are expressed to Dr. Samuel Fillenbaum for his helpful advice. The study was supported by United States Public Health Service Research Grant M-10006 from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on December 26, 2015
273 into their dominant (native) language (W to D their dominant into their weaker language (D to W translation). In each category of T, one was English-dominant, with French as his/her weaker language, and the other French-dominant, with English as his/her weaker language. The texts translated represented four types of material: spontaneous speech, semiprepared material (a non-technical lecture), prepared material intended for oral delivery (a non-technical formal speech), and prepared material intended for the written medium (the reading of a non-technical article). There were two instances of spontaneous speech; in one the speaker elaborated a story around a picture presented to him, in the other he discussed a film. The prepared speech and written text were identical in content in French and in English, but the spontaneous (story and film discussion) and semi-prepared (lecture) texts differed in the two languages, though the two language versions were roughly comparable in nature. The Ts listened to the texts on tape, and translated them as they went along. Their translations were recorded on a second track of the tape, permitting subsequent simultaneous monitoring of both original and translated versions. Of eight passages, the T translated five (each of the 5 texts described above) from his weaker into his dominant language, and three from his dominant into his weaker language (the dominant-language versions of the story, lecture, and second half of the written text, the first half of which was used for W to D translation), i
(second or acquired) language translation) or vice-versa, from
,
Temporal characteristics
of
source
texts
,
A few words may be said about the temporal characteristics of the input texts, which qualitative data will subsequently be related. A detailed presentation of the temporal data is to be found elsewhere (Barik, 1973). Among both English and French texts, the lecture exhibited the highest speech proportion, the S being engaged in speaking during 75% (in the English text) to 80% (in the French text) of the time. Similarly high proportions (65% to 70%) were associated with the written texts, which were translated equivalents in French and English. The other common text, the speech, exhibited a considerably higher speech proportion in French (67%) than in English (55%), due most likely to the different contexts in which the two versions were delivered, the English speech being taped &dquo; live &dquo; whereas the French version was recorded in the absence of an audience. Of the two spontaneous texts, the story ranked lowest on speech proportion among all texts in both English (51% speech) and French (44%), while the film to
1
sample oftranscripts (original and translated versions of the W to D story and speech and the D to W lecture) and set of tables presenting quantitative and qualitative data for each T in relation to each text are available from Microfiche Publications, 305 East 46th Street, New York, New York 10017. (Order NAPS document No. 02171, price $1.50 for microfiche or $5.60 for photocopy. Make cheque payable to Microfiche Publications.) A
Downloaded from las.sagepub.com at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on December 26, 2015
=
274 discussion varied, being quite
high
in
English (71 % speech)
but lower in French
(57%). A pattern of relationships emerges among temporal variables. Thus, as might be expected, the more fluent texts (higher speech proportions) exhibit generally longer speech bursts and shorter pauses than the less fluent texts, with correspondingly greater variation in the duration of speech bursts and lesser variation in the duration of pauses for more fluent texts relative to less fluent texts. More fluent texts also quite expectedly exhibit higher speech rates (number of syllables uttered per minute of elapsed time) but, interestingly, there appears to be a reversal in relation to articulation rate (number of syllables uttered per minute of actual speaking time), the more fluent texts exhibiting lower articulation rates, a finding which may be attributable to certain rhetorical considerations applying to the specific ensemble of texts used in the study and which does not reflect a general characteristic of speech production. (For further details on temporal data, see Barik, in press.) Locus
of pauses
’
Another factor to consider, which enters into subsequent discussion, is the locus of pauses in the texts. Performance in translation might well depend in part on the degree of availability for the T of breaks in the speech flow of the S, during which T can possibly crowd some of his own output and thereby reduce the extent to which he is simultaneously engaged in speaking and listening, as happens when T’s delivery is coincident with S’s. The point is made by Goldman-Eisler (1967), who points out that the &dquo; intermittent silence between chunks of speech [in the speaker’s a very valuable commodity
