16.2300, Review: Translation: Diriker (2004)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2300. Sun Jul 31 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2300, Review: Translation: Diriker (2004)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 30-Jul-2005
From: John Matthews < johnmatthews at telefonica.net >
Subject: De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:44:58
From: John Matthews < johnmatthews at telefonica.net >
Subject: De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting 
 

AUTHOR: Diriker, Ebru
TITLE: De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting
SUBTITLE: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower?
SERIES: Benjamins Translation Library, 53
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-2767.html


John M. Matthews, Facultat de Traducció i d'Interpretació, 
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

DESCRIPTION

Conference interpreters, understandably, approach debates with 
some trepidation. After a fairly uneventful passage interpreting a 
single speaker, when Q&A time comes they are suddenly thrust into 
the roaring forties of a myriad of different identities. "One speaker 
good, two speakers bad", to which we might add "more than two 
speakers - an identity crisis". How does a single interpreter cope with 
the cut-and-thrust of debate at a conference - trying to identify with a 
multiplicity of speakers raising questions, casting doubts, and crossing 
swords with -- and without -- a microphone? How does the interpreter 
react when the speaker or interpreter makes a mistake, or on hearing 
that ominous phrase "I'm not quite sure I understood your question, 
perhaps there's a problem with the translation (sic)".  It is these and 
other related issues concerning the 'presence and performance' of 
simultaneous conference interpreters that form the basis of the book 
reviewed here, itself the published version of an eponymous PhD 
dissertation presented in 2001.  

Within a field which is, according to the writer's own 
words, "dominated by cognitive, psychological and neuro-linguistic 
paradigms", Ebru Diriker offers a look into simultaneous interpreting 
(SI) as 'situated action'; i.e., "the position of conference interpreters as 
individuals and professionals working and surviving in socio-cultural 
contexts, and the interdependency between socio-cultural contexts 
and the presence and performance of conference interpreters" (p.2). 
In this sense it is a contribution to Interpreting Studies (IS) from the 
socio-cultural standpoint, more in line with the sibling field of 
Translation Studies, where the 'situatedness of translation' is seen as 
being given greater emphasis in the shape of descriptive translation 
studies, the 'skopos' theory, translatory actions, deconstructionism, 
postcolonialism, and gender studies. Nearer to home, Diriker takes 
findings and hypotheses from court interpreting and community 
interpreting (where the role of the interpreter is seen as that of a 
cross-cultural 'facilitator' and active agent in communication) and 
applies them to the sphere of simultaneous conference interpreting 
(where the interpreter is generally seen as a competent professional 
identifying with the speaker, and applying 'performance rules' 
according to professional 'norms'). 

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the current literature on the 
subject, with particular emphasis on the extent to which Interpreting 
Research has approached SI as situated action. It looks at previous 
calls for, as well as actual research on SI in relation to socio-cultural 
and interactional contexts. It also explores and comments on different 
definitions of 'context', and the difficulties in defining it. The same is 
done with 'discourse', the writer introducing the basic tenets of Critical 
Discourse Analysis (CDA), based on Fairclough and Van Dijk, that 
serves as the main theoretical framework. The conclusion is that in 
spite of calls from several quarters to look outside the 'cognitive 
paradigm', there are very few actual studies of simultaneous 
interpreting as 'situated action', the main thrust of interpreting studies 
being channelled towards the 'cognitive mechanics of processing' 
rather than on a 'holistic conception of text, situation and the entire 
course of action' in conference interpreting.

Chapter 2 provides an account of the wider socio-cultural context(s) in 
SI by studying the meta-discursive representation and self-
representation of simultaneous conference interpreters and 
interpreting.  The chapter both scans and comments on the codes of 
ethics and websites of professional organizations (interpreters' and 
users'), general reference books, academic literature, the Turkish 
press, and a popular book published by an active interpreter, with a 
view to establishing how simultaneous interpreters are represented 
and self-represented from the standpoint of expectations and 
performance, as well as ethics. The chapter finds that:  different 
professional bodies provide varying degrees of detail of what they 
regard as ethical interpreter performance; there is an apparent 
contradiction in all codes between the requirement for "impartiality and 
fidelity" (with implications of passive subservience) and the need 
to 'facilitate communication' (implying active participation). In the more 
specific/contextualised representations, where interpreters recount 
real-life events, the involvement of interpreters in shaping the meaning 
tends to become obvious. However, in their self-representation, 
interpreter decisions to eliminate such 'impurities' as grammatical 
mistakes, distinct accents, and so on are not regarded 
as 'interference' or participation in shaping the message. Where there 
is acknowledged participation, this is regarded by interpreters 
themselves as being marginal to their main responsibility -- fidelity to 
the speaker's "message".  

Chapter 3 focuses on the narrower context of a particular conference 
(2-day colloquium on topic of "Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt: 
Metaphysics and Politics", Bogaziçi University, Istanbul, 29-30 May 
2000). The aim of the chapter is to focus on simultaneous interpreters 
and interpreting in a particular event and seeks to understand how 
simultaneous interpreters are "positioned" in an actual conference 
context, and how this tallies with the meta-discursive representation 
and self-representation presented in Chapter 2. The chapter provides 
an analysis of the questionnaire-based interviews carried out amongst 
participants and interpreters, speakers, organizers and users of SI, 
concerning 'presence and performance of interpreters' at this 
particular event. The results highlight the diversity of viewpoints of 
organisers, speakers, interpreters themselves and users of SI with 
regard to the presence and performance of the interpreters. It is an 
account of the different user expectations of an SI performance 
contrasted with opinions of an actual performance; interpreter's 
impressions of organisation and speakers are also included. The 
chapter also provides an account of the raft of problems and pitfalls 
awaiting a researcher out to gather authentic material for an empirical 
study.

Chapter 4, the longest in the book, gives us a glimpse of the other 
side of the coin. It analyses the same issues mentioned in Ch. 3 using 
transcriptions of recordings of the floor and the interpreting booth, 
where two interpreters (A and B) work from English into Turkish and 
vice versa. With these transcripts as a starting point, the writer seeks 
to investigate why, when and how interpreters 'shift the speaking 
subject', i.e. change from using the 'speaker's I' (or 'alien I', the norm 
in simultaneous interpreting) in their delivery to using the 'interpreter's 
I' (i.e. speaking as themselves, and therefore diverging from the 
professional norm) or else use reported speech when referring to 
speakers. Fifty-eight instances of such shifts are reported, though the 
writer concedes there may be more and of a more subtle nature.  The 
analysis points to four "speaker positions" adopted by the interpreter 
as compared with the one according to the norm:
(1) Interpreter takes norm-based speaker position (first person 
singular, 'speaker I').
(2) Interpreter assumes speaker position indirectly by reported 
speech, paraphrase, explanatory remarks about speech on floor.
(3) Interpreter assumes speaker position implicitly (blends own 
remarks into first person of 'speaker I').
(4) Interpreter assumes speaker-position explicitly (inserts own 
remarks or comments in delivery).

The shifts themselves are not seen as random but following a clear 
pattern. They occur with: 
(a) speaker/interpreter apologies, 
(b) speaker's/interpreter's mistakes, 
(c) overlapping/semi-verbal/inaudible interaction on floor, 
(d) problems with transmission of interpreter's/speaker's voice, 
(e) ambiguous or contradictory input on the floor, 
(f) language/culture-specific discussions or difficult word-connotations 
in one conference language on the floor, 
(g) references in non-conference language on the floor, and  
(h) accusations of misinterpretation from the floor.

Chapter 5 juxtaposes and contrasts the analyses carried out in 
Chapters 3 and 4. In this sense it provides an account of how the 
meta-discourse on SI relates to the findings of actual SI performance 
at a real conference.  An account is given of what the meta-discourse 
on SI suggests, followed by participants' observations on the presence 
of interpreters, and the performance of those same interpreters as 
suggested by the conference transcripts. As a result of these 
analyses, the chapter offers tentative hypotheses on the reasons 
behind the convergences and divergences between what is said and 
what is done in simultaneous conference interpreting. The main 
conclusions reached are: the 'mythical nature' (in Barthesian terms) of 
meta-discourse on SI has been exploded by the reality of an actual SI 
performance; that this meta-discourse is purposeful in that it increases 
both the symbolic and shaping power of the interpreting profession -- 
the former providing it with value as a marketable commodity, the 
latter aiming to impose specific "performance instructions" on insiders. 
By foregrounding the "ideal" interpreter, it seeks to bring actual 
behaviour closer to the most effective (i.e. commercially most viable) 
image of the profession.  

Finally, mentioning implications for interpreting studies, the writer 
points out that the evidence challenges the widely-held view that 
conference interpreters work in homogeneous settings, even in 
technical meetings; points to the fuzziness of quality criteria employed 
in user surveys; challenges the cognitive paradigm in SI that seeks to 
explain interpreted utterances with reference to mental processes 
only; suggests that in SI we are dealing with a phenomenon 
of "meaning negotiated by the interpreter" rather than "meaning 
intended by the original speaker", thus involving the interpreter's own 
subjectivity as well as a variety of socio-cultural and interactional 
factors. The final conclusion is that the assumption that simultaneous 
interpreters access and transfer the meaning as intended by the 
speakers is too simplistic to account for the complexity of actual SI 
behaviour, and hinders more critical analysis of the process.

The Appendix contains the transcription conventions used in the 
study, and presents excerpts (original, interpreter versions into 
Turkish and English, writer translation if original in Turkish) and 
analyses of all 58 instances pointing to a "shift in the speaking 
subject" in interpreter delivery. It also provides an extensive transcript 
of the last 25 minutes of the conference to demonstrate the 
relationship between the shifts and the general flow of the conference. 

EVALUATION

This highly readable account of meta-discursive representation of the 
interpreter contrasted with a real SI performance is indeed 
groundbreaking in its approach, as described on the book's back 
cover.  It is a pioneering attempt to bring into simultaneous interpreting 
studies findings from related fields such as court and community 
interpreting. In doing so it challenges the professional 'norm' in SI of 
fidelity to the speaker via accessing speaker's intended meaning and 
transferring it 'fully and faithfully'. This study claims that there is more 
subjectivity on the part of the interpreter than meets the eye (or ear). 

Relatively jargon-free, the book can be read with profit by both 
interpreting professionals and researchers. Professionals will no doubt 
find the description of conference organisation familiar (though the 
particular conference under discussion seems to have had more than 
its fair share of problems for the interpreters). Researchers in the field 
of interpreting studies will recognise in this often disarmingly candid 
account the many problems involved in gathering real material for an 
empirical study (so exhaustive an account that it may even be taken 
as a practical check-list). However, since this book is the published version 
of a PhD thesis, comments will concentrate on the academic side. 

As regards the literature review, and as someone essentially 
unfamiliar with issues involved in court and community interpreting, I 
would have appreciated a rather more wider-ranging discussion of 
these two fields and the way the writer sees them impacting SI studies. 
Perhaps the short shrift given this section is a result of having had to 
condense this section from the original PhD dissertation, but I was left 
with a feeling of not having been provided with a solid grounding in 
the issues under discussion. If the aim of the writer is to open up a 
field which seems to be fairly well-established elsewhere (i.e. the 
interactive role of the court/community interpreter as opposed to the 
supposedly neutral positions taken by the simultaneous interpreter), it 
is not made clear what of ideas are "imported" from those fields, as is 
the tradition in Interpreting Studies (Cf. the 'heavy borrowing' in 
different interpreting paradigms mentioned in Lambert & Moser-
Mercer, 1994). In addition to this, the section could also have 
benefited from reference to discussion of the issue of 'presence and 
performance' in publications not present in the body of the book or the 
bibliography such as Pöchhacker 2004 (although the current book 
was probably in press at the same time, there is an explicit mention of 
the "guidance and support" provided by this author) or Pöchhacker & 
Shlesinger 2002 (especially Parts 6 and 7).

Whatever its merits -- and it has many -- this study faces a problem 
faced by all interpreting researchers, that of basing conclusions and 
hypotheses on a very small number of opportunistic samples -- in this 
case the performance of just two interpreters (the recording of a third 
was lost), with both inter- and intra-personal variations in the unit of 
analysis. Interpreter A is reported as being more self-effacing when 
dealing with shifts in the speaking subject; interpreter B on the other 
hand is described as being more forthcoming and prepared to shift. 
The latter is also attributed with the phrase "I don't care what comes 
out of my mouth, as long as it sounds good" (p. 74): this would be 
seen by many professionals as at the very least indicative of a fairly 
cavalier attitude towards the profession and, at worst, an un-called for 
and facetious remark. Neither is it made clear whether the two 
interpreters are actually members of any professional association, 
therefore feeling duty bound to apply ethical standards. It is a distinct 
possibility that the hypotheses and conclusions are weakened by 
these facts (the writer herself recognises the danger of extrapolating), 
especially when coupled with another statistical reality - are 58 
instances of 'shift of speaker position' -- representing perhaps 15 
minutes' interpreting time, compared with 2 whole days' of interpreting 
where there were no shifts -- sufficient to defend the hypotheses put 
forward? Or could those shifts indeed be considered as statistically 
marginal to the main activity, as mentioned by interpreters 
themselves? 

The suitability of Critical Discourse Analysis -- mentioned as the 
theoretical mainstay of the book -- in a conference setting would also 
be questioned by some. Both Fairclough's (1995) and Van Dijk's later 
work is based on representation in media or institutional discourse 
where there is an ostensible power relation.  The applicability of this 
approach to court and community interpreting can therefore be 
immediately seen; what is less clear is the ostensible power relation in 
a conference setting, where a guest speaker is usually regarded as 
a 'primer inter pares', and where debate can be vigorous and robust, 
indicating parity rather than disparity. 

Some of the conclusions do not seem to flow naturally from the 
analyses carried out in body the book. Especially, the idea that the 
meta-discursive self-representation of the interpreting profession is 
self-serving for commercial purposes is a perfectly valid point, but 
equally true of all liberal professions.

Finally, this study also raises important theoretical and ethical issues. 
The main one is the Bahktin-inspired quote which claims "Receivers 
cannot access authorial intentions completely because each instance 
of language use contains more meanings, intentions and accents that 
its formulator may have intended and any single receiver can purport 
to have accessed" (p 23).  This concept runs counter to those who 
claim that the interpreter's delivery transfers the 'intended meaning' of 
the speaker, suggesting that there is only one meaning, and that the 
interpreter is privy to it.  The fascinating aspect of the Bahktinian 
approach is that it implies that the interpreter's version is only one of 
several possibilities(and perhaps not even the best, in view of the fact 
that lack of knowledge in many cases impedes access to full 'speaker 
meaning', whether intended or not), providing further support for the 
current study's hypotheses.

Finally, the issue of norms. In the meta-discourse of self-
representation in simultaneous interpreting, emphasis is laid on 
objectivity and faithfulness. Filtering out what is 
considered 'unessential information' (mainly paralinguistic) is not seen 
as interference by the interpreter, but rather implicitly accepted as 
ethical in order to get to the 'intended meaning'. This notwithstanding, 
the very fact that the interpreter chooses to omit what is deemed to 
be 'unessential information' implies choice, and choice entails power. 
This would argue against the long-held view requiring fidelity, and 
suggests that the interpreter is in fact a much more active participant 
than is generally accepted, not only by making an obviously clear 
break by 'shifting the speaking subject', -- the object of the present 
study -- but probably in many more subtle ways, as is hinted at by the 
writer of this very welcome addition to interpreting studies.

One final comment on meta-discourse representation of interpreters in 
the Turkish media. There is a curiously intriguing comment in this 
section, describing interpreters as "Nice and virtuous ladies who 
smoke fags inside the booths" (writer's translation from the Turkish 
publication 'Milliyet', p. 40). No comment is made in the study on this, 
and none is offered here, except for the fact that the conference 
interpreting profession is predominantly female.

REFERENCES

Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of 
Language. London & New York: Longman.

Lambert, S. & Moser-Mercer, B. (Eds.) (1994) Bridging the Gap. 
Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, Amsterdam, John 
Benjamins.

Pöchhacker, (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London/New 
York: Routledge.

Pöchhacker, F., & Shlesinger, M. (2002). The Interpreting Studies 
Reader. London/New York: Routledge. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

John Matthews is 'Profesor Titular' of Conference Interpreting at the 
Facultat de Traducció i d'Interpretaciò, Universitat Autònoma de 
Barcelona, Spain. He is also a professional interpreter and member of 
AIIC. He holds an M.A. from the UAB, and has published articles on 
consecutive interpreting, and theoretical approaches to the study of 
interpreting. His academic interests are interpreter training, cognitive 
psychology and interpreting, with a special interest in the relationship 
between knowledge structures and interpreting performance, 
particularly in the medical field. He is currently on sabbatical leave.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2300