More spoken or more translated?Exploring a known unknown of simultaneous interpreting
Miriam Shlesinger and Noam Ordan
Bar-Ilan University, Israel | University of Haifa, Israel
Since the early 1990s, with the advance of computerized corpora, translation scholars have been using corpus-based methodologies to look into the possible existence of overriding patterns (tentatively described as universals or as laws) in translated texts. The application of such methodologies to interpreted texts has been much slower in developing than in the case of translated ones, but significant progress has been made in recent years. After presenting the fundamental methodological hurdles—and advantages—of working on machine-readable (transcribed) oral corpora, we present and discuss several recent studies using cross-modal comparisons, and examine the viability of using interpreted outputs to explore the features that set simultaneous interpreting apart from other forms of translation. We then set out to test the hypothesis that modality may exert a stronger effect than ontology—i.e. that being oral (vs. written) is a more powerful influence than being translated (vs. original).
As advances in corpus technology allow for working with large corpora and the development of quantitative research designs, researchers in interpreting studies should consider the possibility of creating and maintaining collaborative research tools for investigations with different theoretical backgrounds.
2007Hebrew Morphological Disambiguation: An Unsupervised Stochastic Wordbased Approach. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University, Department of Computer Science, unpublished dissertation.
Alon, Itai, Shuly Wintner and Shlomo Yona
2006 “A computational lexicon of contemporary Hebrew.” Proceedings of LREC-2006, Genoa, Italy.
1995 “Corpora in translation studies: An overview and suggestions for future research.” Target 7:2. 223–243.
2004 “The treatment of variation in corpus-based translation studies.” Language matters—Studies in the languages of Africa. Special issue—corpus-based translation studies: Research and applications. 35:1. 28–38.
2002 “Resurrecting the corp(us/se): towards an encoding standard for interpreting data.” Giuliana Garzone and Maurizio Viezzi, eds. Interpreting in the 21st century: challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 47–62.[ p. 57 ]
1985 “Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing.” David R. Olson, Nancy Torrance and Angela Hildyard, eds. Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequence of reading and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2004a “Paradigm problems?” Christina Schäffner, ed. Translation research and interpreting research: traditions, gaps and synergies. 52–56. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
2004b “Beyond the particular.” Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: Do they exist?Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 33–50.
2001The manipulation of data: Reflections on data descriptions based on a product-oriented PhD on interpreting.” Daniel Gile, Helle V. Dam, Friedel Dubslaff, Bodil Martinsen and Anne Schjoldager, eds. Getting started in interpreting research. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2004De-/re-contextualizing conference interpreting: interpreters in the ivory tower?Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2000 “Synthetic and analytic possessive pronouns related to nouns in spoken Hebrew.” Hebrew linguistics 47. 21–26. [Hebrew]
Halliday, Michael A. K.
2004 “The spoken language corpus: A foundation for grammatical theory.” K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg, eds. Advances in corpus linguistics: Papers from the 23rd international international conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23). Göteborg 22–26 May 2002 Amsterdam: Rodopi. 11–38.
1998 “Creatures of habit?” What translators usually do with words.” Meta 43:4. 515–523.
1998 “Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose.” Meta 43:4. 557–570.
1997 “Investigating simplification in an English comparable corpus of newspaper articles.” Kinga Klaudy and János Kohn, eds. Transferre necesse est: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on current trends in studies of translation and interpreting. 5–7 September 1996, Budapest, Hungary. Budapest: Scholastic. 531–540.
1998 “Love they neighbour: Will parallel corpora endear linguists to translators?” Meta 43:4. 534–541.
2008 “Interpreting proper names: Different interventions in simultaneous and consecutive interpreting.” Trans-kom 1:1. 105–122.
Meyer, Bernd and Schmidt, Thomas
2008 “CoSi—A corpus of consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.” Unpublished.
Monti, Cristina, Claudio Bendazzoli, Annalisa Sandrelli and Mariachiara Russo
2004 “I in TS: On partnership in Translation Studies.” Christina Schäffner, ed. Translation research and interpreting research: traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon / Buffalo / Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 104–115.
2007 “Coping with culture in media interpreting.” Perspectives 15:2. 123–142.
2007 “On Shlesinger’s proposed equalizing universal for interpreting.” Franz Pöchhacker, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Inger Mees, eds. Interpreting studies and beyond: A tribute to Miriam Shlesinger. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press. 175–190.[ p. 58 ]
2008 “On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort.” Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrum Gerzymisch-Arbogast, eds. Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 83–105.
Sandrelli, Annalisa and Claudio Bendazzoli
2005 “Lexical patterns in simultaneous interpreting a preliminary investigation of EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” Proceedings from corpus linguistics. Birmingham.
1999Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2011 “Corpus-based interpretation studies (CIS): overview and prospects”. Alet Kruger, Kim Wallmach and Jeremy Munday, eds. Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications. London and New York: Continuum International, 33–75.
1989Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts in the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis. Tel Aviv University.
2008 “Towards a definition of Interpretese: an intermodal, corpus-based study.” Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrum Gerzymisch-Arbogast, eds. Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research. 237–253. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2000 “The language of [the] literary section in daily newspapers.” Helkat Lashon: Studies in theoretical and applied linguistics. Tel Aviv: Levinsky College. 176–196. [In Hebrew]
1980 “Implications of the oral-literate continuum for cross-cultural communication.” James E. Alatis, ed. Current issues in bilingual education. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 326–347.
2005 “Corpus linguistics methods in interpreting research: A case study.” The interpreters’ newsletter 13. 65–70.
2004 “Probabilistic explanations in translation studies. Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals?” Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: Do they exist?Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 15–32.
1987 “On comments made by shifts in translation.” Gideon Toury, ed. Indian journal of applied linguistics 13:2. 75–90.