Resources versus constraints and limitations in interpreting

1. Resources versus constraints and limitations in interpreting Daniel Gile ESIT, Université Paris 3 Sorbonne-Nouvelle daniel.gile@yahoo.com www.cirinandgile.com www.est-translationstudies.com D Gile CIT 2010

2. Thanks to CIT Keynote – with little knowledge of signed-language interpreting Embarrassing D Gile CIT 2010

3. Good vibes Excited at the prospect of learning a lot from you Met some of you in Salt Lake City earlier this year Impressed by the human “vibes” I felt… In Salt Lake City earlier this year Here since I arrived! Your work is important and makes a difference in the life of many people. D Gile CIT 2010

4. Signed Language Interpreting… Something to be proud of …and training signed-language interpreters also important, you are devoting a lot of time, thought and work to the task Visited San Antonio college yesterday Every aspect of the learning environment has been carefully designed to make it efficient and comfortable (Lauri Metcalf) Creative thinking and method using technology (Tom Cox) D Gile CIT 2010

5. Topics in this talk Fairly general Based on experience of a (spoken language) conference interpreter and translator, trainer, researcher No experience or direct knowledge of public service interpreting Aware of some questions and issues discussed in SLI community Picked up a few ideas …that I hope will be of some relevance D Gile CIT 2010

6. Relevant? No money-back guarantee ! D Gile CIT 2010

7. One view of Translation/Interpreting (1) 1. A service has to be useful as such so needs to meetactual needs and expectations of users. 2. Provided with resources – Language, cognitive and technical skills, a working environment, some time, pre-existing thematic knowledge, technical equipment etc. 3. Provided under constraints – Limited time, interference from people and other action, you don’t see the screen, limited cognitive resources, limited knowledge of the context, fatigue, expectations from principals, working norms etc. D Gile CIT 2010

8. One view of Translation/Interpreting (2) Translating/interpreting always involves interpretation (in the wide sense) in particular, trying to make sense of the sounds/signs/words/situation as perceived by the translator/interpreter Translating/interpreting always involves decisions: - Decisions when trying to understand a speech/text : e.g. when interpreting images or sounds as corresponding to words or signs or some other expression of meaning - Decisions when composing one’s own response, essentially target speech/text. Choose words, sentence structure, the tactic to address a problem D Gile CIT 2010

9. A model of Translation/Interpreting Source Text Interpretation Resources Constraints Decision making Target Text D Gile CIT 2010

10. Translation/Interpreting Quality is not ‘absolute’ What is the best service for a user? - Full and ‘faithful’ conveying of information? - Clarification? - Simplification? - Explanation? Tutoring? (in educational settings) What if for same assignment, different expectations? (the accused, her/his counsel, the prosecutor, the judge) Is ‘standard’ ASL the best for a deaf client who generally uses a regional variation of ASL? Is ‘standard’ ASL terminology better than an ad-hoc sign in specific settings? D Gile CIT 2010

11. A Translator/Interpreter’s ‘quality’ • Can you expect the same quality from an interpreter who is given background information as from one who has to start interpreting without it? • Does an interpreter understand a client who signs in a variation of ASL s/he is not familiar with as well as a client who signs in a variation known to her/him? • Does an interpreter provide the same quality of service in fields s/he is familiar with as in fields s/he is not familiar with? • Can an interpreter provide the same quality when s/he sees the speaker well/screen and when s/he does not? More generally: high variability in the difficulty of speeches. …partly unpredictable D Gile CIT 2010

12. The Interpreter’s Role – the adequacy of the Conference Interpreting Model (1) Much of the pioneering work in establishing - The professional status of interpreters - Interpreter training methods - The academic discipline of Interpreting Studies was done within Conference Interpreting Principles developed by conference interpreters are often viewed as a model But the Conference Interpreting model Is not necessarily the most appropriate for SLI Or for Public Service Interpreting Or for some other types of interpreting D Gile CIT 2010

13. The Interpreter’s Role – the adequacy of the Conference Interpreting Model (2) Conference Interpreting generally applies to situations where The principals in the communication process are: - Educated - Socially at similar levels (though there can be power differentials) - Represent collective entities or teams - Are not facing personal crises/problems in the interpreted event In such situations, the neutral conduit model has justification What about other situations, Especially those encountered in SLI? D Gile CIT 2010

14. In other settings… In SLI, there are many cases where the neutral conduit role is clearly not the best to serve the interests of the users Examples : In educational settings, it is in the interest of both teachers and deaf students to have the interpreter not only transfer the information, but also help the students in other ways: inter alia clarify, explain, even give moral support Some research in court interpreting and health care interpreting shows that some principals, including judges, consider some ‘interventionism’ of the interpreter acceptable D Gile CIT 2010

15. Cooking ingredients for the interpreter’s role A tentative model of the cooking components: 1. ‘Core: language-barrier related needs’ (non-controversial, because the principals do not understand each other’s language) Cultural barrier as well? Sometimes 2. Further situation-specific communication needs/norms 3. Further wishes of the parties (generally) more from clients and principals Less from interpreters Role ←{Core} + {Specif. Needs/Norms } + {Wishes} Relative strength of wishes: a major determinant D Gile CIT 2010

16. The interpreter’s role: results from a balance of power? Can/should there be an ‘absolute’ definition of the interpreter’s role and working conditions, applicable to all cases? They are determined to a large extent by ‘negotiation’ between: Clients, principals in the communication interaction, interpreters Historically speaking, conference interpreting started out in a strong position Conference Interpreters were in a position to determine their role themselves This is not the case of other types of interpreters, and in particular court interpreters and signed language interpreters D Gile CIT 2010

17. Can/should SLIs determine their own role(s)? (1) Complex issue – mostly because components of the role are sometimes difficult to disentangle… but Different attitudes towards different components of the role: Core needs (associated with lack of linguistic communication) - They need to be understood and discussed/clarified with clients and principals - Instructors and professional bodies could have an important role to play Are there cultural core needs in SLI? Legal norms Cannot be negotiated… though clarification with court officers may be required D Gile CIT 2010

18. Can/should SLIs determine their own role(s)? (2) Wishes Some can be considered abusive: interpreters are interpreters, not secretaries, not reporters, not waiters… Professional organizations may be able to do something to protect their members Some could be negotiated Interpreters may accept to take on the role of interpreters-cum-tutors, interpreters-cum advisors etc. but perhaps with further professional qualifications …and for higher compensation? Such roles are beyond Core needs! Is it feasible to negotiate??? D Gile CIT 2010

19. Role, Fidelity and Ethics Service quality should be assessed largely as a function of the ‘local’ definition of the interpreter’s role (and of local working conditions) (in the particular situation, on the basis of previously accepted norms) This applies in particular to ‘informational fidelity’, i.e. to the degree of ‘equivalence’ considered best between informational content of the source speech And informational content of the target speech (what information to add/to delete/to change) Also note, (will be discussed later), that maximum informational fidelity depends on available cognitive resources D Gile CIT 2010

20. Information and utterances: general ‘laws’ General ‘laws’ for your consideration, which have implications on fidelity strategies: 1. Generally, there is more information in an utterance than the information that the utterer wanted to convey 2. Generally, utterers are not fully aware of all the information carried by their utterances 3. Generally, in spoken languages (and in signed languages?), inter-speaker and intra-speaker variability is expected (inter-speaker variability: different speakers tend to produce different utterances for the same idea intra-speaker variability: it is not unusual for the same speaker to produce two utterances for the same idea at different times) D Gile CIT 2010

21. Evidence for the general ‘laws’ (1) Situation: In a conversation with you, a friend says he wants to know the date and place of birth of Woody Allen. You ask him to wait a second, switch on your computer and find the following on the internet: “Woody Allen was born December 1, 1935 in Brooklyn, New York” You want to convey the information to your friend. What exactly would you say, in English or in ASL? D Gile CIT 2010

22. Evidence for the general ‘laws’ (2) Probably… nearly every speaker’s utterance will be different Try it out in your classes Other examples Clinton → Bush → Obama → ? D Gile CIT 2010

23. Evidence for the general ‘laws’ (3) In all experiments conducted so far (dozens, with a total of hundreds of participants and many languages) 1. Almost as many different utterances as there were utterers 2. In repeat utterances, frequent variability (the 2nd time, people did not say the same things as the 1st time) 3. People tended not to be fully aware of variability in their own utterances D Gile CIT 2010

24. Examples of inter-individual variability (1) Paris is 50 kilometers away (2) We are still 50 kilometers from Paris (3) 50 more kilometers (4) We will be in Paris in 50 kilometers D Gile CIT 2010

25. Informational differences: general (1) Paris is 50 kilometers away (2) We are still 50 kilometers from Paris (3) 50 more kilometers to go (4) We will be in Paris in 50 kilometers (2) and (4) indicate there are at least two people involved (3) does not indicate the destination (1) does not indicate that Paris is on the speaker’s route (1) does not indicate a specific event (that the speaker and at least one person is moving toward Paris) … D Gile CIT 2010

26. Informational differences: Framing Information (1) Paris is 50 kilometers away (2) We are still 50 kilometers from Paris (3) 50 more kilometers to go (4) We will be in Paris in 50 kilometers Some information is selected Consciously or not To help the addressee understand the Message (the Message: the information the utterer wishes to convey) If you just said “fifty”, the Message would be difficult to understand Unless… the other person just asked “How many more kilometers?” D Gile CIT 2010

27. Informational differences: Linguistically and Culturally Induced Information (1) (1) Paris is 50 kilometers away (2) We are still 50 kilometers from Paris (3) 50 more kilometers to go (4) We will be in Paris in 50 kilometers Paris is: present, singular We are: present, plural In Japanese: Indication of tense optional, personal pronouns optional, singular/plural indication generally absent… But indication about social relationship between speaker and addressee mandatory Sometimes, mandatory indications about the speaker’s attitude and feelings Sometimes, mandatory indications about position of objects close to speaker or addressee or away D Gile CIT 2010

28. Informational differences: Linguistically and Culturally Induced Information (2) In signed languages: Indication of gender? Of time? but relative positions in space, directionality of movement, etc. Sometimes, the language (or culture around language) requires us to provide some information beyond the information we want to convey, even in a simple statement which is only intended to provide a small amount of information LCII is not the same in different languages and cultures D Gile CIT 2010

29. LCII and fidelity (1) How should we deal with this LCII when interpreting? Failing to reproduce it = unfaithful to the speaker? When you meet someone you do not know and greet that person “Bonjour mademoiselle!” → “Hi!” Missing information: - You are talking to a woman - That woman is not (yet) married So, is “Hi!” unfaithful? D Gile CIT 2010

30. LCII and fidelity (2) Should you translate the greeting as: “Hi, unmarried woman!” ??? Why not? Because the additional information is not only irrelevant, but also (potentially) damaging to the interaction D Gile CIT 2010

31. LCII and fidelity (2a) “Hi, unmarried woman!” ↓ D Gile CIT 2010

32. LCII and fidelity (3) In many situations where a speaker’s intention is to provide information, explain or convince the addressee, LCII are natural in one language …but unnatural in the other If you introduce them in the other, you may distract the attention of the addressee from the actual message you want to get across, and even generate misunderstandings about the speaker’s intentions Therefore, as a rule, LCII need not be reformulated when interpreting D Gile CIT 2010

33. LCII and fidelity (4) Other situations may arise where a speaker wants the addressee to learn more about his/her language and culture In such a case, LCII is part of the message – the ‘exotic’ part D Gile CIT 2010

34. PI and fidelity (1) Signed-language interpreters report that when signing for the deaf, they tend to include information about the signer and his/her features as a speaker (pronunciation defect, regional accent, language errors) “because the deaf person does not have access to it” But Does this ‘Personal Information’ help achieve the speaker’s objectives? Could it not distract the attention of the deaf person from the actual Message? Could it not actually produce an unfavourable impression of the speaker and thus reduce the impact of his/her utterance? D Gile CIT 2010

35. PI and fidelity (2) When asked whether they also tell the hearing person about a signer’s features as a speaker, many SLIs say “no”. Why not? The hearing person does not have access to such information, does s/he? By the way, I never heard a spoken language interpreter say s/he reports to each of the principals in an interpreted dialogue about the features of the other. Why not? What is the difference in terms of access to such information between two principals using different spoken languages and two principals, one who uses a signed language, and the other a spoken language? D Gile CIT 2010

36. Framing Information and fidelity LCII is ~imposed by the language of expression No special reason to keep it in the target speech Framing Information is selected to help understand the Message If it is useful in the target speech, keep it If it is not, discard it (both LCII and FI may have to be added in the target speech as well) D Gile CIT 2010

37. Cognitive constraints – fundamental ideas (1) Speech production Speech comprehension (both spoken and signed) require much processing in the brain At any time, the brain has finite resources for processing Sometimes, competition from other activities takes away part of these resources and speech production/comprehension suffers D Gile CIT 2010

38. Cognitive constraints – fundamental ideas (2) Such competition can come from Trying to make sense of a situation with insufficient background knowledge, From decision making: What should I do/say? What is appropriate? … D Gile CIT 2010

39. Cognitive constraints – fundamental ideas (3) Potential effects of insufficient processing capacity on speech production: - Speech production becomes slower (you need more time to access the words and rules and to combine them into utterances) - Speech quality suffers: Diction, pronunciation, clarity of signing (?), grammar, style, appropriateness of words… In speech comprehension, insufficient processing capacity leads to non-comprehension Ex. You ‘know’ the signs, but at a certain speed, You do not understand the utterance at all D Gile CIT 2010

40. Cognitive constraints – fundamental ideas (4) Potential effects of insufficient processing capacity on speech comprehension: - Words are “missed” though you heard them/saw them - The utterance does not make sense to you D Gile CIT 2010

41. SPEAKER HIGH AVAILABILITY LOW AVAILABILITY WM span time t1 t2 t3 At t1, high availability listener (HAL) has finished processing more than 2 words and keeps one in WM – low availability listener (LAL) has finished processing 1 word At t2, speaker is uttering 7th word, HAL has finished processing 6 words – LAL has finished processing 2 words, and must keep 5 words in WM. At t3, LAL is probably saturated D Gile CIT 2010

42. Cognitive constraints – fundamental ideas (5) Speech production and comprehension are highly dependent on background knowledge: In particular, you require less processing capacity (and less time) to understand an utterance if you know about the people, the context, the stakes involved in a situation You require more processing capacity (and time) If you do not have this knowledge D Gile CIT 2010

43. Cognitive constraints – the Tightrope Hypothesis (1) In interpreting: speaking and listening ‘at the same time’ Actually: Speaking + Listening + Short-term Memory (‘Effort Model of simultaneous interpreting’) So you need more processing capacity than if you only listened or if you only spoke … plus you need to make sense of the situation …plus you need to take decisions The Tightrope Hypothesis says that as a result, you tend to work close to saturation, i.e. Close to a situation where you may run out of processing capacity at various moments D Gile CIT 2010

44. Cognitive constraints – the Tightrope Hypothesis (2) The Tightrope Hypothesis offers an explanation for: - most errors and omissions encountered in the field - many infelicities encountered in the field In order to reduce the number of e/os and infelicities it would make sense to reduce proc. capacity requirements of interpreting tasks starting with the requirements of speech comprehension and speech production D Gile CIT 2010

45. Reducing processing capacity requirements One way of reducing such requirements is to acquire background knowledge - about the needs of clients, - about professional situations - about behaviour norms (best practices) to prepare for each interpreted event as thoroughly as possible But this is not enough Language availability is paramount D Gile CIT 2010

46. Language availability (1) Setting aside context-dependent variations in processing capacity requirements for interpreting, one major determinant of such requirements is language availability In a nutshell: You may “know” various components of a language and how to use them… But using them for comprehension and production May require more or less processing capacity and time, depending on their availability D Gile CIT 2010

47. Language availability (2) Language availability: Some kind of basic attribute of each language component you know (word, rule of grammar, of style, of pragmatic use, spelling, sign, pronunciation…) With respect to the time and effort (processing capacity) you will need to use it for effective comprehension/production (some kind of ‘fundamental’ level that can change with circumstances) D Gile CIT 2010

48. THE GRAVITATIONAL MODEL OF LINGUISTIC AVAILABILITY (1) Relative availability The closer to the center, the less time and effort required for production/comprehension D Gile CIT 2010

49. THE GRAVITATIONAL MODEL OF LANGUAGE AVAILABILITY (2) DYNAMIC, NOT STATIC EVERY LANGUAGE COMPONENT: 1. DRIFTS OUTWARDS IF NOT USED 2. GOES INWARDS IF USED 3. ESCORT EFFECT 4. INTERFERENCE EFFECT 5. WRITTEN AND ORAL SYSTEM NOT IDENTICAL 6. PROD. AND COMPREHENSION NOT IDENTICAL D Gile CIT 2010

50. Language availability (3) On the basis of these general rules: High language availability in one’s working languages requires repeated, frequent use of the relevant language components In production, evident In comprehension, note that frequent encounters with various ‘accents’ (and personal/regional variations of signing) are necessary for good comprehension (this lowers processing capacity requirements for decoding the sounds/visual signals) D Gile CIT 2010