More spoken or more translated? Exploring a known unknown of simultaneous interpreting

Miriam Shlesinger and Noam Ordan

Abstract

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).

Keywords
Table of contents

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.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Adler, Meni
2007Hebrew Morphological Disambiguation: An Unsupervised Stochastic Wordbased Approach. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University, Department of Computer Science, unpublished dissertation.Google Scholar
Alon, Itai, Shuly Wintner and Shlomo Yona
2006 “A computational lexicon of contemporary Hebrew.” Proceedings of LREC-2006, Genoa, Italy.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona
1995 “Corpora in translation studies: An overview and suggestions for future research.” Target 7:2. 223–243.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
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.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Bendazzoli, Claudio and Annalisa Sandrelli
2005 “An approach to corpus-based interpreting studies: Developing EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” Proceedings of MuTra—Multidimensional translation: Challenges of Multidimentional translation. http://​www​.euroconferences​.info​/proceedings​/2005​_Proceedings​/2005​_proceedings​.html (accessed April 20, 2010)
Cencini, Marco
2002 “On the importance of an encoding standard for corpus-based interpreting studies.” CULT2K (2002) 5.Google Scholar
Cencini, Marco and Guy Aston
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 ]Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
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.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
2004a “Paradigm problems?Christina Schäffner, ed. Translation research and interpreting research: traditions, gaps and synergies. 52–56. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2004b “Beyond the particular.” Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 33–50.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Dam, Helle
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.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Diriker, Ebru
2004De-/re-contextualizing conference interpreting: interpreters in the ivory tower? Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Dubnov, Keren
2000 “Synthetic and analytic possessive pronouns related to nouns in spoken Hebrew.” Hebrew linguistics 47. 21–26. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy
1998 “Creatures of habit?” What translators usually do with words.” Meta 43:4. 515–523.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, Sara
1998 “Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose.” Meta 43:4. 557–570.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
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.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten
1998 “Love they neighbour: Will parallel corpora endear linguists to translators?Meta 43:4. 534–541.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Bernd
2008 “Interpreting proper names: Different interventions in simultaneous and consecutive interpreting.” Trans-kom 1:1. 105–122.Google Scholar
Meyer, Bernd and Schmidt, Thomas
2008 “CoSi—A corpus of consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Monti, Cristina, Claudio Bendazzoli, Annalisa Sandrelli and Mariachiara Russo
2005 “Studying directionality in simultaneous interpreting through an electronic corpus: EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” Meta 50:4. http://​www​.erudit​.org​/revue​/meta​/2005​/v50​/ n4​/index​.html (accessed April 20, 2010)   Crossref logo
Pöchhacker, Franz
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. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Coping with culture in media interpreting.” Perspectives 15:2. 123–142.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
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 ]Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Setton, Robin
1999Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts in the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis. Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
1998 “Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies”. Meta 43:4. 486–493.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Yitzhak
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]Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
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.Google Scholar
Timarová, Šarká
2005 “Corpus linguistics methods in interpreting research: A case study.” The interpreters’ newsletter 13. 65–70.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
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.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Zellermayer, Michal
1987 “On comments made by shifts in translation.” Gideon Toury, ed. Indian journal of applied linguistics 13:2. 75–90.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael
2000 “Discourse markers in colloquial Hebrew: The case of pashut (“simple”).” Helkat Lashon: Studies in theoretical and applied linguistics. Tel Aviv: Levinsky College. 17–29. [In Hebrew]Google Scholar