Article published In:
Target
Vol. 36:3 (2024) ► pp.445–480

More spoken or more translated?

Exploring the known unknowns of simultaneous interpreting from a multidimensional analysis perspective

ORCID logo | Beijing Institute of Technology
| Beijing Institute of Technology
This article explores the features of simultaneous interpreting (SI) from a multidimensional (MD) analysis perspective (Biber 1988), drawing on a newly built comparable intermodal corpus, the LegCo+ corpus. The corpus incorporates Cantonese speeches that are both interpreted and translated into English, as SI and written translation (WT), respectively. Additionally, a third English corpus consisting of English native speeches (NS), without mediation, serves as a benchmark comparison. We aim to examine the extent of similarities and differences between SI, NS and WT in terms of the linguistic patterns they display. Our findings show that: (1) SI is a hybrid language mode, exhibiting features that lie between those of non-mediated spoken language and mediated written language; (2) in terms of its spoken nature, SI resembles NS in certain dimensions where typical features are associated with orality, suggesting a strong modality effect; and (3) in terms of its mediated status, SI demonstrates similarities with WT, despite their perceptibly distinct modalities, pointing to a potential mediation-specific effect. These empirical findings emphasize the necessity of understanding the multidimensionality inherent in interpreted language.
Keywords: linguistic features, simultaneous interpreting, multidimensional analysis, LegCo+ corpus, mediation, modality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Studies on ontology versus modality
    • 2.1The effect of ontology
    • 2.2The effect of modality
    • 2.3The effects of ontology and/or modality from a multidimensional perspective
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Introducing the LegCo+ corpus
    • 3.2The MD analysis approach
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Dimensions extracted from factor analysis
      • 4.1.1Dimension 1: Involved versus Informational Production
      • 4.1.2Dimension 2: On-line Information Elaboration with Stancetaking Concerns
      • 4.1.3Dimension 3: Precise versus Simplified Description
      • 4.1.4Dimension 4: Narrative versus Abstract Focus
      • 4.1.5Dimension 5: Lexical versus Functional Concerns
      • 4.1.6Dimension 6: On-line Persuasion
      • 4.1.7Dimension 7: Coordinating versus Possessive Functions
    • 4.2Language varieties across dimensions
      • 4.2.1SI — More spoken than translated/mediated?
      • 4.2.2SI — More translated/mediated than spoken?
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22028.xu
References (66)
References
Agrifoglio, Marjorie. 2004. “Sight Translation and Interpreting: A Comparative Analysis of Constraints and Failures.” Interpreting 6 (1): 43–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avner, Ehud Alexander, Noam Ordan, and Shuly Wintner. 2016. “Identifying Translationese at the Word and Sub-word Level.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31 (1): 30–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.” In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” In Terminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, edited by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, Marco, and Silvia Bernardini. 2006. “A New Approach to the Study of Translationese: Machine-learning the Difference between Original and Translated Text.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 21 (3): 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, Adriano Ferraresi, and Maja Miličević. 2016. “From EPIC to EPTIC: Exploring Simplification in Interpreting and Translation from an Intermodal Perspective.” Target 28 (1): 61–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1986. “Spoken and Written Textual Dimensions in English: Resolving the Contradictory Findings.” Language 62 (2): 384–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “The Multidimensional Approach to Linguistic Analyses of Genre Variation: An Overview of Methodology and Findings.” Computers and the Humanities 26 (5–6): 331–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Eddie A. Levenston. 1978. “Universals of Lexical Simplification.” Language Learning 28 (2): 399–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cencini, Marco. 2002. “On the Importance of an Encoding Standard for Corpus-based Interpreting Studies Extending the TEI Scheme.” In CULT2K, edited by Silvia Bernardini and Federico Zanettin, special issue of InTRAlinea. [URL]
Chafe, Wallace, and Jane Danielewicz. 1987. “Properties of Spoken and Written Language.” In Comprehending Oral and Written Language, edited by Rosalind Horowitz and S. Jay Samuels, 83–113. London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1982. “Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature.” In Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, edited by Deborah Tannen, 35–54. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chang, Chia-chien, and Diane L. Schallert. 2007. “The Impact of Directionality on Chinese/English Simultaneous Interpreting.” Interpreting 9 (2): 137–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Jiansheng, and Yani Cui. 2010. “A Corpus-based Study on Lexical Features in the English Translation of Report on the Work of the Government.” Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies 61: 39–43.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2017. Reflections on Translation Theory: Selected Papers 1993–2014. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, and Eline Vermeire. 2020. “Grammatical Optionality in Translations: A Multifactorial Corpus Analysis of That/Zero Alternation in English Using the MuPDAR Approach. In New Empirical Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting, edited by Lore Vandevoorde, Joke Daems, and Bart Defrancq, 24–51. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, and Marie-Aude Lefer. 2020. “On the Need for a New Research Agenda for Corpus-based Translation Studies: A Multi-methodological, Multifactorial and Interdisciplinary approach.” Perspectives 28 (1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, Bart, Koen Plevoets, and Cédric Magnifico. 2015. “Connective Items in Interpreting and Translation: Where Do They Come From?” In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: Current Approaches to Discourse and Translation Studies, edited by Jesús Romero-Trillo, 195–222. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, Bart. 2018. “The European Parliament as a Discourse Community: Its Role in Comparable Analyses of Data Drawn from Parallel Interpreting Corpora.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 231: 115–132.Google Scholar
Evert, Stefan, and Stella Neumann. 2017. “The Impact of Translation Direction on Characteristics of Translated Texts: A Multivariate Analysis for English and German.” In Empirical Translation Studies: New Theoretical and Methodological Traditions, edited by Gert de Sutter and Marie-Aude Lefer, 47–80. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, Adriano, Silvia Bernardini, Maja Petrović, and Marie-Aude Lefer. 2018. “Simplified or Not Simplified? The Different Guises of Mediated English at the European Parliament.” Meta 63 (3): 717–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2001. “Consecutive vs. Simultaneous: Which is More Accurate?” Interpretation Studies 1 (1): 8–20.Google Scholar
. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumul, Ewa. 2006. “Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Strategy or a By-product of Language Mediation?” Across Languages and Cultures 7 (2): 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, Kaibao, and Qing Tao. 2009. “A Corpus-based Study of Explicitation of Textual Meaning in Chinese–English Conference Interpreting.” PLA International Studies University Journal 32 (5): 67–73.Google Scholar
Hu, Xianyao, Richard Xiao, and Andrew Hardie. 2016. “How do English Translations Differ from Nontranslated English Writings? A Multi-feature Statistical Model for Linguistic Variation Analysis.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 15 (2): 347–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2015. “Parliamentary Discourse”. In Parliamentary Discourse, edited by Karen Tracy, 1–15. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, and Ilmari Ivaska. 2020. “A Multivariate Approach to Lexical Diversity in Constrained Language.” Across Languages and Cultures 21 (2): 169–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, and Łukasz Grabowski. 2021. “Formulaicity in Constrained Communication: An Intermodal Approach.” In Reflexión crítica en los estudios de traducción basados en corpus / CTS Spring-cleaning: A Critical Reflection, edited by María Calzada and Sara Laviosa, special issue of MonTI 131: 148–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta. 2012. Interpreting Universals and Interpreting Style. PhD diss. Adam Mickiewicz University.
. 2015. “Simplification in Interpreting and Translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 16 (2): 233–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “An Intermodal Approach to Cohesion in Constrained and Unconstrained Language.” Target 34 (1): 130–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotze, Haidee. 2022. “Translation as Constrained Communication: Principles, Concepts and Methods.” In Extending the Scope of Corpus-based Translation Studies, edited by Sylviane Granger and Marie-Aude Lefer, 67–98. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotze, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy. 2024. “Introduction: The Constrained Communication Framework for Studying Contact-influenced Varieties.” In Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings, edited by Bertus van Rooy and Haidee Kotze, 1–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy. 2012. “Register and the Features of Translated Language.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 33–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Constrained Language: A Multidimensional Analysis of Translated English and a Non-native Indigenised Variety of English.” English World-Wide 37 (1): 26–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Register Variation in Written Contact Varieties of English: A Multidimensional Analysis.” English World-Wide 39 (2): 214–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, and Gert de Sutter. 2018. “Alternations in Contact and Non-Contact Varieties: Reconceptualising That-Omission in Translated and Non-Translated English Using the MuPDAR Approach.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1 (2): 251–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee. 2019. “ That Again: A Multivariate Analysis of the Factors Conditioning Syntactic Explicitness in Translated English.” Across Languages and Cultures 20 (1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lanstyák, István, and Pál Heltai. 2012. “Universals in Language Contact and Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 99–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, Sara. 1998. “Core Patterns of Lexical Use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose.” Meta 43 (4): 557–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Dechao, and Kefei Wang. 2012. “A Corpus-based Study on Lexical Patterns in Simultaneous Interpreting from Chinese into English.” Modern Foreign Languages 41: 409–415.Google Scholar
Liang, Junying, and Qianxi Lv. 2020. “Converging Evidence in Empirical Interpreting Studies: Peculiarities, Paradigms and Prospects.” In New Empirical Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting, edited by Lore Vandevoorde, Joke Daems, and Bart Defrancq, 303–332. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lv, Qianxi, and Junying Liang. 2018. “Is Consecutive Interpreting Easier than Simultaneous Interpreting? A Corpus-based Study of Lexical Simplification in Interpretation.” Perspectives 27 (1): 91–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nini, Andrea. 2014. The Multidimensional Analysis Tagger. [URL]
Olohan, Maeve, and Mona Baker. 2000. “Reporting That in Translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?” Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Antony. 2015. “Translating as Risk Management.” Journal of Pragmatics 851: 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qin, Hongwu, and Kefei Wang. 2009. “A Parallel Corpus-based Study of Chinese as Target Language in EC Translation.” Foreign Language Teaching and Research 21: 131–136.Google Scholar
Russell, Debra. 2002. Interpreting in Legal Contexts: Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpretation. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok.Google Scholar
Sandrelli, Annalisa, and Claudio Bendazzoli. 2005. “Lexical Patterns in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Preliminary Investigation of EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series 1 (1): 1–18. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. [URL]
Scott, Mike. 2012. WordSmith Tools (Version 6). Lexical Analysis Software. [URL]
Shlesinger, Miriam, and Noam Ordan. 2012. “More Spoken or More Translated? Exploring a Known Unknown of Simultaneous Interpreting.” Target 24 (1): 43–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1989. Simultaneous Interpretation as a Factor in Effecting Shifts in the Position of Texts in the Oral-Literate Continuum. MA thesis. Tel Aviv University.
. 1995. “Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting.” The Translator 1 (2): 193–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Corpus-based Interpreting Studies as an Offshoot of Corpus-based Translation Studies.” Meta 43 (4): 486–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Towards a Definition of Interpretese: An Intermodal, Corpus-based Study.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, edited by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun G. Arbogast, 237–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus, Lize Terblanche, Christoph Haase, and Joseph Schmied. 2010. “Register Differentiation in East African English: A Multidimensional Study.” English World-Wide 31 (3): 311–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volansky, Vered, Noam Ordan, and Shuly Wintner. 2015. “On the Features of Translationese.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30 (1): 98–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Baimei, Andrew K. F. Cheung, and Xing Jie. 2021. “Learning Chinese Political Formulaic Phraseology from a Self-built Bilingual United Nations Security Council corpus: A pilot study.” Babel 67 (4): 500–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, Xiaoyan. 2015. On the Oral-Literate Continuum: A Corpus-based Study of Interpretese. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press.Google Scholar
Xu, Cui. 2021. Identification of L2 Interpretese: A Corpus-based, Intermodal, and Multidimensional Analysis. PhD diss. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.