in hungarian translation studies …€¦ · translation studies is a young discipline, but...

----

----

--

----

----

--

----

----

--

----

----

--

Translation Studies is a young discipline, but Hungarian Translation Studies is even younger, since it only dates back to the autumn semester of the 2003–2004 academic year, when the first and only PhD Pro-gramme in Translation Studies was founded at ELTE University. It is interesting to note that while the first PhD dissertations focused mainly on the written form of language mediation, today, interpreting is be-coming a very frequent subject of PhD research within the framework of the programme. This volume reflects this emerging phenomenon: the majority of its articles deals with different modes and aspects of in-terpreting, while others present research results in the field of revision, terminology and project work. The underlying characteristic of the pa-pers lies in the fact that these aspects are being investigated for the very first time in the Hungarian context.

Latest Trends in Hungarian Translation Studies is the result of a unique endeavour since it presents the research findings of seven PhD students of ELTE University’s Department of Translation and Interpreting, to-gether with those of two trainers and the CEO of the Hungarian Office for Translation and Attestation. It may be of interest to Translation/In-terpreting Studies scholars and PhD students, applied linguists, inter-preter and translator training programme administrators and trainers, as well as to professional language mediators.

ISBN 978-615-00-1370-1

LAT

EST

TR

END

S IN

HU

NG

AR

IAN

TR

AN

SLAT

ION

ST

UD

IES

EDITOR:

ILDIkó HORváTH

Latest Trends inHUNGARIAN

TRANSLATION Studies

horvath_translation_borito.indd 1 2018.03.02. 13:36:28

LatestTrendsinHungarianTranslationStudies

HORVATH_Latest_Trends_BELIV.indd 1 3/8/18 7:06 AM

IldikóHorváth(ed.)

LaTeSTTrendSIn HungarIanTranSLaTIonSTudIeS

Courtinterpreting,conferenceinterpreting,terminology,audiovisualtranslationandrevision


SupportedbytheHungarianofficeforTranslationandattestationLtd.

ProofreadbyPaulMorgan

©authors,2018©editor,2018

ISBn978-615-00-1370-1

executivePublishers:directoroftheHungarianofficeforTranslationandattestationLtd.andtheHeadofthedepartmentofTranslationandInterpretingofeötvösLoránduniversityeditorialManager:JúliaSándorLayout:ManzanaBt.Cover:IldikóCseleKmotrikPrintedby:MultiszolgBt.


5

Contents

Foreword................................................................................................................................ 7

ÉvaPataky:ThePrestigeofInterpretersinHungary.............................................................. 8

KristófandrásMóricz:TheusageofICTToolsasCaIToolsinInterpreting...................... 33

Borbálarohonyi:SimultaneousInterpretingwithTextfromenglishintoHungarianPreliminaryresults........................................................................................................ 52

HenriettSzegh:anticipationinSimultaneousInterpretingbetweenLanguageswithSimilarMorphosyntacticStructure........................................................................ 78

MártaFarkasnéPuklus:CourtInterpretingresearchinHungary–Judges’expectations................................................................................................... 99

gabriellanémeth:dilemmasandContextsofJudicialethicsinCourtInterpreting............122

JuditSereg:TheImpactofaudiovisualTranslationsontheLanguageuseoftheTargetLanguageaudience........................................................................................................131

edinarobin:a ClassificationofrevisionalModifications....................................................155

dóraMáriaTamás:ChallengesofTeachingLegalTerminologyinTranslationTrainingCourses–theBackgroundtoeditinga Textbook...........................................164

dorkaBaloghandMártaLesznyák:ProjectWorkintheLegalTranslationClassroom–FirstresultsofanempiricalInvestigation..................................................................173


7

Foreword

Latest Trends in Hungarian Translation Studies istheresultofa uniqueendeavoursinceitpresentstheresearchfindingsofsevenPhdstudentsofeLTeuniversity’sdepartmentofTranslationandInterpreting,togetherwiththoseoftwotrainersandtheCeooftheHungarianofficeforTranslationandattestation.Furthermore,thisvolumeispublishedtocoincidewithandincelebrationofthe20thanniversaryofourannualtranslationstudiesconference.Thisan-nualconferencehastraditionallybeena highprofileeventforHungarianinterpreters,trans-latorsandtheircommunity.The2018eventisa specialoccasionsinceeLTe’sdepartmentofTranslationandInterpretingiscelebratingthe45thanniversaryofitsfoundation.

TranslationStudies isa youngdiscipline,butHungarianTranslationStudies isevenyounger,sinceitonlydatesbacktotheautumnsemesterofthe2003–2004academicyear,whenthefirstandonlyPhdProgrammeinTranslationStudieswasfoundedbyProfessorKingaKlaudyateLTeuniversity.althoughitisa relativelynewprogramme,ithasprovedextremelypopularwithyoungresearchers,whichiswellreflectedinthefollowingfigures:todatealtogether38studentshaveearnedtheirPhd(thefirstin2009),19havecompletedtheirstudiesandareworkingonthedissertationand18arecurrentlyfollowingtheirfirstorsecondyearPhdstudies.ItisinterestingtonotethatwhilethefirstPhddissertationsfocusedmainlyonthewrittenformoflanguagemediation–translation,revision,termi-nology–today,interpretingisbecominga veryfrequentsubjectofPhdresearchwithintheframeworkoftheprogramme,asninestudentsarecarryingoutempiricalresearchinthisfield.

Latest Trends in Hungarian Translation Studiesreflectsthisemergingphenomenon:thema-jorityofitsarticlesdealwithdifferentmodesandaspectsofinterpreting.Fourpapersfocusonconferenceinterpreting:ÉvaPatakyanalysedprestigeandstatuswhileKristófandrásMóriczexaminedtheuseofICTsbyconferenceinterpretersinHungary.Borbálarohonyicarriedoutresearchonsimultaneousinterpretingwithtext,HenriettaSzeghonanticipationinsimultane-ousinterpreting.asforcourtinterpreting,MártaFarkasnéPuklusexploredjudges’expectationstowardscourtinterpretersandgabriellanémeththeissueofjudicialethicsincourtinterpret-ing.JuditSereg’sarticlefocusesonHungarianaudiovisualtranslationintermsofitsimpactonlanguageuse.edinarobinprovidesuswitha translationrevisiontypology.Thelasttwopapersofthisvolumeanalysethepedagogicalchallengesinvolvedintranslatortraining:dóraMáriaTamásfocusesontheteachingoflegalterminology,whiledorkaBaloghandMártaLesznyákonprojectwork.TheunderlyingcharacteristicofthesepapersliesinthefactthattheseaspectsarebeinginvestigatedfortheveryfirsttimeintheHungariancontext.

Ildikó Horváth


8

the Prestige oF interPreters in hungary

Éva Pataky

[email protected]

abstract: TheaimofthepresentpaperistoexploretheoccupationalprestigeofinterpretersworkinginHungary.aftera briefoverviewoftheconceptofoccupationalprestigeandhowtheoccupationalpres-tigeofthetranslationalprofessionsisevaluated,I presentthefindingsoffourfocusgroupdiscussionsconductedwithinterpretersworkinginHungary,onissuesconnectedtotheoccupationalprestigeofinterpretersinHungary,withtheparticipationof14professionals.Keywords: occupationalprestige,conferenceinterpreters,interpreters,focusgroupdiscussions,status

1. the standing oF translational ProFessions and soCial researCh in the Field oF oCCuPational Prestige

Thegeneralstandingofthetranslationalprofessionsinsocietyisreferredtoinliteraturebya varietyofterms,e.g.status, prestige, position, etc.Itisoftenlamentedthattheoccupationalprestigeofthetranslationalprofession(includingtranslatorsandinterpreters)islow,despitetheimportantroletranslatorshaveasculturalmediators(Sela-Sheffy2008:2,Katan2011:65).Forexample,Simeoni(1998)talksaboutthetranslator’s“subservience”(Simeoni1998:7)andPrunč(2007)mentionsthecontrastbetweenthe“marginalstatusoftranslatorsandtheircen-tralroleintheconstructionofmeaningintransculturalexchange”(ibid:40).Furthermore,ithasbeenshownthatalthoughthestatusofconferenceinterpretersmightbehighercomparedtothatoftranslators(damandZethsen2013:241–242),itisstillnotashighasonemightex-pectfromtheearlydescriptionsofa verydifficultand“lofty”profession(Herbert1952:3).

Therehavebeena numberofinquiriesintotheoccupationalstatusandprestigeofinter-pretersandtranslatorsalike(damandZethsen2008,2013,gentile2013,amongothers).Theconceptofoccupational status oroccupational prestige israrelydefinedinTranslationStudiesliterature,veryoftenauthorsblurtheboundarybetweenthetwoconceptsanditisnotentirelyclearwhatthesetermsmean(damandZethsen2008:74,damandZethsen2013:234).

ThesameseemstobetrueinSociology.Therehavebeenquitea numberofoccupationalprestigesurveys(reiss1961,nakaoandTreas1990,theHarrisPolls2014in:griswold2014,justtonamebuta few),however,noneofthemattempttodefineoccupationalprestige:oc-cupationalprestigeorstatusinthesesurveysisdeterminedbasedonthehierarchyofoccupa-tionsgiventothesurveyparticipants,whowereaskedtorankthemaccordingtotheir“socialstanding”(nakaoandTreas1990:1)orhow“prestigious”theyare(theHarrisPolls)ortheir“generalstanding”(reiss1961:19).

InHungary,thelatestprestigesurveywasconductedinnovember2016,whentheCentralStatistical office of Hungary (KSH) made a new occupational prestige survey (previoussurveyswereconducted in1983and1988), in the frameworkofwhich10percentof the


9

ThePrestigeofInterpretersinHungary

Hungarianpopulationwereaskedtorankaltogether173occupationaltitlesbasedontheir“standing,prestige”(Csányiandgiczi2016:83)andalsooneofthefollowingcriteria:money,power,education,usefulness,howfashionablethegivenoccupationis.Theresultsarenotyetpublished.unfortunately,neithertranslatornorinterpreterareinthelist.

Inthisarticle,I shalldescribea seriesoffocusgroupdiscussionsI heldinvolvinginter-preters,inthespringof2017,andtheresults.Withthisempiricalstudy,itwasmyaimtoexplorethe(occupational) status/prestigeofconference interpretersworking inHungary.Infourfocusgroupdiscussions,I askedinterpretersabouttheprestigeoftheirprofession.MyaimwastomapthevariousfactorstheyconsidertobeimportantregardingtheprestigeoftheiroccupationandtofindoutthatifinthenextHungarianoccupationalprestigesurveythetranslationalprofessionsweretobeincludedinthelistofoccupations,whatthenameoftheoccupationtobeincludedshouldbe.

2. the researCh questions and the best tool to be used

InordertofindoutabouttheoccupationalprestigeofconferenceinterpretersinHungary,I havedecidedtoorganisefocusgroupdiscussionswithrepresentativesoftheprofessionandaskthemhowtheyperceivedtheiroccupationalprestigeinsociety.FinchandLewis(2003:170)discussfocusgroupdiscussionsindetail,andI chosethistoolduetothenatureoftheinformationI wantedtogain.I wantedtomapthoseconceptsandfactorswhichconferenceinterpreters themselvesconsider important inconnectionwith theirprestigeandfindouthowtheyfeltabouttheperceivedlowprestigeoftheprofession.I wantedtoknowhowtheywoulddefinetheconceptofprestige,andwhatfactorstheyconsidertobeimportantincon-nectionwithdeterminingthelevelofoccupationalprestige.Itwasalsoanadditionalgoaloftheinterviewstofindoutthatwereinthenextprestigesurveythetranslationalprofessionstoappearonthelist,exactlywhatkindofoccupationaltitlesitwouldbesensibletoinclude(translator,interpreter,conferenceinterpreter,liaisoninterpreter,courtinterpreter,healthcareinterpreter,etc.).InHungary,thetranslationalprofessionsarenotclearlyseparated,beingrarelythecasethatconferenceinterpretersonlydealwithconferenceinterpreting,manyun-dertaking liaison jobsandtranslations, too.Therefore, I alsowantedtoestablishwhere itwouldbeusefultodrawthelines;whatarethosedifferentoccupationaltitleswhichshouldbementionedseparatelyfromeachother.also,I wasinterestedinsomeaspectsofprofession-alisationaspointedoutbyKatan(2011)andPymetal.(2012),e.g.educationalattainmentandmembershipofa professionalassociation,whichmightalsobeconnectedtotheprestigefactorsdeterminedbytheCentralStatisticalofficeofHungary(2016).Finally,I wantedtoknow,iftheycanenlistsomeotherprofessionswithwhichtheythinktheiroccupationisonthesamelevel,concerningoccupationalprestige,andwhattheseprofessionswouldbe.

duetothenatureoftheinformationI wantedtocollect,focusgroupdiscussionswereusefulfora numberofreasons.asritchie(2003:40)putsit,“[t]hequalitativeworkcannotonlyidentifytheappropriatedimensionstoincludebutalsogeneratethe‘reallife’languageinwhichtheyshouldbeframed”.Inmycasethiswasespeciallytrue,asI aimedatsheddinglightonwhichoccupationalnameshouldbeusedifoneintendedtoincludeconferenceinterpretersinthelistofoccupationsusedbytheCentralStatisticalofficeofHungaryintheoccupational


10

ÉvaPataky

prestige survey.“Focusgroups [...] involve several–usually somewherebetween fourandten–respondentsbroughttogethertodiscusstheresearchtopicasa group”(2003:37).Thefocusgroupshows“howpeoplethinkandtalkabouta topic”andas“participants[...]hearfromothers”,thereisan“opportunityforreflectionandrefinement”(ritchie2003:37).

3. the FoCus grouP disCussions

ThefocusgroupdiscussionswereorganisedinBudapest,atthedepartmentofTranslationandInterpretingateLTeuniversity,Budapest.altogethertherewerefourgroupdiscussions,on the followingdates, from6p.m.until7:30p.m.:27.03.2017,03.04.2017,13.04.2017,18.04.2017 (the lengthof thediscussionsvariedbetweenca.40–100minutes), the inter-viewedinterpretersparticipatedinthefollowingdistribution:

– discussion1 (on 27/03/2017): Interpreter1, Interpreter2, Interpreter3, Interpreter4– discussion2 (on03/04/2017): Interpreter5, Interpreter6, Interpreter7, Interpreter8– discussion3(on13/04/2017):Interpreter9,Interpreter10,Interpreter11,Interpreter12– discussion4(on18/04/2017):Interpreter13,Interpreter14

HereinafterDiscussion1 is referred to asd1, etc. and Interpreter1 is referred to as I1, etc.duringtheorganisationprocessandthefocusgroupdiscussionsI hada colleaguewhohelpedme:dorottyaMokos.Thediscussionswererecordedandtranscribed,withoutthenames,onlyusingthecodeofparticipants.

Thefirststepintheorganisationprocesswastodesignandselecttheappropriatesample.I organisedtheinterviewsbasedonideastakenfromritchieandLewis’sQualitative Research Practice (ritchieandLewis2003),andwhenselectingthesample,I usedtheideasofritchieetal.(ritchieatel.2003:77–108),whichconstitutesChapter4ofritchieandLewis’sQualitative Research Practice (ritchieandLewis2003).Forthefocusgroupdiscussions,I selecteda non-probabilitypurposivesample(ritchieetal.2003:78),asbyconductinga qualitativeresearchmyprimarygoalwasnottohavea representativesample,buttomakesurethatmyrespondentsareandconsiderthemselvestobeconferenceinterpretersandworkregularlyasconferenceinter-preters.additionally,asI aimedatmappingallpossibleopinionsandconceptswhichtherepre-sentativesoftheprofessionconsideredtobeimportant,I wantedtohavea fairlydiversesample(ibid:83),asI wantedtoidentifythe“fullrangeoffactors”(ritchie et al. 2003: 83)whichmightplaya roleconcerningconferenceinterpreters’occupationalprestige.non-probabilitysamplessuitqualitativeresearchthebest.“Thesampleisnotintendedtobestatisticallyrepre-sentative”and“thecharacteristicsofthepopulationareusedasthebasisforselection”(ritchieetal.2003:78).Forme,itwasimportanttoincludepractitionerswithdifferentcharacteristicsinthesample,soastoseeifthereareanydifferencesofopinionbasedonage,numberofyearsofworkexperienceormembershipofprofessionalorganisations.

ThenI identifiedtheparentpopulation:conferenceinterpretersworkingintheHungarianmarket.afterthatI hadtoselecta sampleframe.asritchieetal.putit,a sampleframe“istheinformationsourcefromwhichthesampleisselected.Thismaybeanexistinginforma-tionsource(suchasadministrativerecords,publishedlistsora surveysample)oronewhichisgeneratedspecificallyforthestudy”(ritchieetal.2003:108).I usedanalreadyexisting


11


sourcetocreatea sampleframe(ritchieetal.2003:89),whichwasthelistofcolleagues’e-mailaddressesinmye-mailaccount.Thisis“conveniencesampling”,where“theresearcherchoosesthesampleaccordingtoeaseofaccess”(ritchieetal.2003:81).However,thereasonforusingmylistofe-mailaddresseswasnotonlythefactthatthesecolleagueswereeasilyac-cessibletome:I wantedtobesurethatpeopleinthesamplearereallyworkingasconferenceinterpretersandthereisnouncertaintywhethertheseunitscanbeincludedinthesample.ThebestwaytoensurethiswastochoosesampleunitswhomI bothknewandknewforsurethattheyweremakinga livingasconferenceinterpreters.

Thefollowingchartsummarisesthedemographicandotherdataofthoseparticipatingintheinterviews.Thenumberofinterpretingdaysina monthandthegenderoftheparticipantareindicatedafterthecodeoftheindividual,inbrackets(FforfemaleandMformale),e.g.I19(F,6–10)isa femaleinterpreterwhohasabout6–10interpretingdaysa month.also,theper-centageamountinterpretingtakesupoftheirworkingtimeisindicatedinsquarebrackets.

Table 1:dataofthestudyparticipants

work experience in years

0–5 years 5–10 years 10–20 years 20–30 years 30+ years

degree,member,primary

I13(F,11–15)[interpreting:60%]

I8(F,6–10)[interpret-ing:changingratios,around40%]

I2(F,6–10)[in-terpreting:55%];I4(M,6–10/11-15)[interpreting:50 %],I7(F,15+)[interpreting:nopercentageprovidedbythisparticipant]

I1(F,6–10)[inter-preting:65%]

degree,member,not primary

I3(F,1–2)[interpret-ing:20%]

degree,not member,primary

I9(M,3–5)[inter-preting:40 %],I10(M,6–10)[in-terpreting:65 %],I11(F, 3–5)[inter-preting:20 %]


nodegree,member,primarydegree,not member,notprimarynodegree,member,not primary

I5(F,3–5)[inter-preting:30%]

nodegree,notmember,primary


I6(M,3–5)[inter-preting:70%]


12

ÉvaPataky

work experience in years

0–5 years 5–10 years 10–20 years 20–30 years 30+ years

nodegree,notmember,notprimarydegree:hasa universitydegreeininterpreting

primary:consid-ersinterpretingtobeher/hispri-maryprofession

member:isa memberofa profes-sionalor-ganisation

FromTable 1itcanbeseenthatallagegroupsarerepresented,howeverfromagegroup40–50thereisonlyoneparticipant.Inthesample,therewere10femalesand4males.Theamountofparticipants’experienceinnumberofyearsvariesbetween0–5yearsand30+years,sofromthispointofviewthesampleisdiverseenough.asfaraseducationisconcerned,participantsinolderagegroupstypicallyhaveanMadegreeinanothersubjectandadditionallya post-graduatedegreeora so-callednationalqualificationinconferenceinterpreting,whichcanbegainedatthedepartmentofTranslationandInterpreting,eLTeuniversity,Budapest.asforthepostgraduatedegrees,thedurationofthesecoursesvariesbetweena coupleofmonthsanda year(dependingontheexistinglengthofthecourseatthetimetheydidit),andasseenfromthechart,thedescriptions(providedbytheparticipantsthemselves)arequitediverse.Thepar-ticipantswerenotaskedabouttheexactdurationandthesubjectsinvolvedinthecourse.

Inthecaseofyoungergenerations,thenatureoftheireducationissomewhatmoreho-mogeneouscomparedtooldergenerations:usuallytheyhavea Bainanothersubject,anMaintranslationandinterpreting(ateLTe,theMainTranslationandInterpretingwasestab-lishedin2006)andanadditionalpostgraduatecourseinconferenceinterpreting(eLTe’seuropeanMastersinConferenceInterpretingcourse).asfarasthenumberofinterpretingdaysina monthareconcerned,I usedthisquestionasa screeningquestiontomakesurethatonlythoseparticipantsareincludedinthesamplewhoregularlyworkasconferenceinterpret-ers.Inthesample,7respondentsweremembersofoneofthetwotranslators’andinterpreters’associationscurrentlyoperatinginHungary,oneofthemwasa formermember,and6ofthemwerenotmembersofanyofthem.CurrentlytherearetwoassociationsoperatinginHungary:MFTeistheassociationofHungarianTranslatorsandInterpreters,foundedin1989.SzoftistheassociationofFreelanceTranslatorsandInterpreters,a relativelynewassociationwitha youthfulprofile,foundedin2016.

12respondentsconsiderconferenceinterpretingtobetheirprimaryoccupation,whilstoneofthemconsideritnotanymore,butearlieritwasherprimaryoccupation.noneoftheparticipantsmakea living solely fromconference interpreting,whichcontributes to theirworkingtimeinvariouspercentages.Itisalsointerestingtomentionthatinsomecasesevenifthepercentageofinterpretingintheirworkislesscomparedtoothertypesofworkperformedbytherespondent,stilltheyconsiderinterpretingtobetheirprimaryjob,thisbeingthecasee.g.forInterpreter9,Interpreter11andInterpreter14.

BasedonTable 1we can see that the sample is quite diverse in termsof age, gender,education,etc.,andalloftheparticipantsqualifyforthesample,astheyworkasconference


13


interpretersona regularbasis.TheonlyexceptionmightbeInterpreter3,whoonlyhas1–2in-terpretingdaysa month.However,assheworksona regularbasis,I considerthatsheisa veryimportantpartofthesample,whichshouldbeasdiverseaspossible.

Thediscussionswereheldina smallbutverypleasant,sunlitroomofeLTe’sdepartmentofTranslationandInterpreting.Theinterviewer(me)andthestudyparticipantsweresittingarounda rectangulartablewhichwassmallenoughsothatitsshapedidnotdisturbus(i.e.everyonewassittingfairlycloselytooneanother).We(myhelperandI)servedrefreshmentstotheparticipantstocreatea relaxedatmosphere.

atthebeginningofthediscussionI thankedthecolleaguesforsacrificingtheirtimeandattendingthediscussion.I outlinedthegoalofthefocusgroupdiscussion,informedthemthatI wasgoingtomakea voicerecordingaboutthediscussion,thetranscriptofwhichI wasgoingtouseanonymously(allthesepiecesof informationhadbeenpreviouslysenttotheparticipantsviae-mail,too).

Beforestartingthediscussion,eachcolleaguewasaskedtoanonymouslyfillina question-naire,thedataofwhichserveasthebasisofTable 1,showingthecompositionofmysample.eachquestionnairereceiveda code,whichwasusedwhentranscribingthesoundrecordingsaboutthegroupdiscussion,thiswaymakingitpossibletoidentifytheage,gender,etc.ofpeopleexpressingcertainviews.

Myaimwastogeneratea naturaldiscussionbetweenthecolleaguesabouttheprestigeoftheprofession.ontheonehand,itwasquiteaneasytask,asmostoftheparticipantsalreadykneweachotherandwerehappytosharetheiropinioninpublic,orevenarguewitheachother.atthesametime,itwasnoteasytoguidetheconversationfortheverysamereason,assometimestheydivergedfromthetopicandstartedtotellanecdotestomeandthegroup.Here,I hadtobeverycautiousastowhentointerrupttheminordertosteerthembacktotheoriginaltopic,asoftenwhatatfirstseemedtobean‘off-topic’,laterturnedouttobea factorplayinganimportantroleintheprestigeoftheprofession.

BeforetheinterviewsI prepareda topicguidewithtopicsandquestionstobediscussed(arthurandnazroo,2003:115),whichI usedduringthediscussions.ThelanguageofthediscussionwasHungarian.I didnotstrictlyfollowthewordingofmytopicguide,andsome-timeswhen I felt itwasnecessary, I changed the order of the questions if certain topicssurfacedearlierthanplannedinthesketchofthediscussion.Thetopicguidecontainedthefollowingtopicsandquestions:

(1) occupationalprestige,whatitmeans,ifthereisa hierarchy,whatitdependson.(2) Thedefinitionofconferenceinterpreter,inwhatsituationsconferenceinterpretersare

needed,thedifferencecomparedtoothertypesofinterpreters.(3) Isconferenceinterpretera separateprofession?orinterpreter?ortranslatorandinter-

preter?Whereshouldwedrawtheline?Istheconferenceinterpreteranexpert?Why(not)?

(4) TheroleofprofessionalorganisationstodayinHungary.dotheyplaya roleintheprestigeoftheprofession?Howabouta chamberoftranslatorsandinterpreters,likethatoflawyersordoctors?

(5) Please,listsomeprofessionswhoseprestigeissimilartothatofinterpreters/conferenceinterpreters.


14

ÉvaPataky

(6) IpresentedthelistofoccupationsfromtheCentralStatisticalofficeofHungary.Theparticipantswereaskedtocircleorunderlineprofessionswhichhadsimilarprestigetothatofconferenceinterpreters.(a) Fromthepointofviewofsocietyingeneral.(b) Fromthepointofviewofconferenceinterpreters:whereinterpretersshouldreally

standintermsofprestige.(7) Howthesocietyevaluatestheprestigeofinterpreters:dotheyunderrateoroverrate

them,orvaluethemastheyshould?(8) Istherea hierarchywithinthetranslationalprofessions?Interpreters,translators,liai-

sonorconferenceinterpreters...(9) Howimportantarethefollowingfactorsinthecaseofconferenceinterpreters:

(a) Canyouearna lotofmoneywiththeirprofession?(b) Isitfashionable?(c) Isita usefulprofession?(d) doyouneedknowledgeorexpertisetopursueit?(e) doesitcomewithinfluence,power?

(10) Canwesaythattheprofessionofinterpretersisina waysecondarytootherse.g.ifwecomparethemtothespeakersata conference?

(11) I readoutthetwojokesaboutinterpreters.I askedthemiftheythoughtitreallywasthecasethata lotofjokesareattheexpenseoftheinterpreter.

(12) Wouldyourecommendtoa youngpersontobecomeaninterpreter?Why/whynot?

duetolackofspace,inthepresentpapernotallquestionsarediscussed.

4. data analysis

InthissectionI shalllisttheissuesdiscussedduringthefocusgroupdiscussions,andI alsosummarisethemainideastheparticipantsmentionedaboutthetopicsandquestionsI in-quiredabout.

4.1 the name of an occuPation

Withouta clearnameanddefinitionitisnotpossibletorefertotheoccupationitself.Mostoftheparticipantssaidthattheoccupations‘translator’and‘interpreter’areseparateprofes-sions,despitethefactthatinthemajorityofcasesinterpretersworkastranslators,too:basedonthequestionnaires,almostallrespondentsdotranslationasa certainpercentageoftheirworkingtime(however,translatorsdonotdointerpreting,asmyparticipantspointedout).WhenI askedthemwhata conference interpreter was,theysaidthatitwouldnotbeusefultodrawa linebetweeninterpreters andconference interpreters,asintheHungarianmarketitisnotreallythecasethatconferenceinterpretersonlydoconferences.I14saysthefollowing:“IthinkintheHungarianmarketthedifferenttypesofinterpretingarenotsoseparated,yet[...]likeforexampleintheuSathereare[...]healthcareinterpreters”.InTable 2I havesum-marisedtheopinionsofalltheparticipantswhocontributedtothediscussioninwithregardtothenameanddefinitionoftheprofession.


15


Table 2:Theparticipants’opinionregardingwhichoccupationaltitleshouldbeincludedinthelistofoccupations(whentheopinionsareonlysummarisedcontentwise,thesearenotquotationsfromtheparticipants)

Participant

opinion on the term ‘conference interpreter’

opinion on where to “draw the line” when talking about separate professions

I1 Ineverydaylanguage,conferenceinterpreteristhesameassimultaneousinterpreter;itmustinvolvetechnology

earlier“everybodydideverything”,thatis,thelanguageintermediariesdidtranslationaswellasinterpreting,butnowthedifferentactivitiesarestartingtoseparatefromeachother.Butthepeakissimultaneousinterpreting,ifyouembarkontheprofessionandbuildupyourcareernicely,youwillendupinthebooth.

I4 Conferenceinterpreterisa separateprofession,butthetipofa pyramid.Conferenceinterpret-erscanworkinconsecutivemodebutconsecu-tiveinterpreterscannotworkinsimultaneousmode.Interpreterscantranslatebuttranslatorscannotnecessarilyinterpret.Laterhecontra-dictshimself,sayingthatitcannotbetakenforgrantedthatinterpreterscantranslate.

I5 Theterm‘conferenceinterpreter’doesnotrefertothemodeofinterpreting,itmeansthatoneiswillingtointerpretinfrontofa biggeraudience,e.g.inconsecutivemode.

Latercontradictsherself:ifsheseestheterm‘interpreter’,thensheasksthequestion:canthispersonworkinsimultaneousmode,too?Interpretingandtranslationmustbereferredtoseparately.Seemstobesittingonthefence.

I6 Theterm‘conferenceinterpreter’ismis-leading,asfromthepointofviewoftheprofessionitisimpossibletobegrasped.Theusageoftheexpressiononlyservesasa sourceofprestige.Itshouldbe‘simulta-neousinterpreter’ifwewanttomakea dis-tinction,butnot‘conferenceinterpreter’.

Interpretingandtranslationmustbereferredtoseparately.

I7 Theexpressionmeansthatinterpretingtakesplaceata conference,anditmustinvolvetechnology.and,ofcourse,thisgivesadditionalprestige,althoughinter-pretinginconsecutivemodeinfrontofanaudiencemightbemoredifficult.

I9 Forhimconferenceinterpretingisthesameassimultaneousinterpreting.

Wecansaythatinterpreterisa separateprofession,furtherspecialisation(beita topicoranarea,e.g.courtinterpretingorfulltimeconferenceinterpretingfortheeuinstitu-tions)isveryrare.

I10 Itisconferenceinterpretingbecauseittakesplaceata conference,nomatterwhatthemodeis.Itmightaswellbeconsecutiveata conference.

Wemustseparateinterpreterandtranslator.Interpretershouldbea separateprofession.


16

ÉvaPataky

Participant

opinion on the term ‘conference interpreter’

opinion on where to “draw the line” when talking about separate professions

I11 Thesettingisimportant,thatittakesplaceata conference.

Interpreterandtranslatorshouldbeseparated.

I13 Conferenceinterpreterisaninterpreterwhointerpretsata conferenceinsimulta-neousmode.Forheritisonlysimultane-ous,andnotconsecutiveorliaison.

Interpreterisa separateprofession.

I14 Conferenceinterpretingismainlychar-acterisedbysimultaneousinterpreting,butconferenceinterpretingmightinvolveconsecutivemode,too,ifittakesplaceata conference.

Wecanputconferenceinterpretinginthesamegroupwithinterpreting,althoughnoteveryonewhodoesinterpretingwilldocon-ferenceinterpreting,too.nota lotofpeoplecanaffordtodoonlytranslationoronlyinter-pretingintheHungarianmarket.Weshouldseparateinterpretingandtranslationbutnotinterpretingandconferenceinterpreting.TheHungarianmarketisnotassegmentedastoseparatethedifferenttypesandmodesofinterpreting,buttherearesomemarketswheretheyarealreadyseparated,e.g.intheuS(healthcareinterpretingorcourtinter-preting).MaybeinthefuturethischangewillcomeaboutintheHungarianmarket,too.

FromTable 2itisclearthatnoteveryoneexpressedtheirviewsonthisquestion.Forexample,I8andI12arrivedlatetotheconversation,sotheymissedthequestionsaskingaboutthedefinitionof‘conferenceinterpreter’.I2andI3didnotreallyexpresstheiropinions,theywerelisteningtotheconversationandsometimesaddedcomments,butdidnotclearlysupportanyoftheideasexpressedbytheothers.

asfortheexpression‘conferenceinterpreter’,whichisa termusedinconnectionwiththeeMCI(europeanMastersinConferenceInterpreting)andbyaIIC,theyexpressedconflict-ingviews,anditwasnotclearevenforpractitionersthemselveswhat‘conferenceinterpreter’is.Somesaidthattheexpressionreferstothefactthatthepersonprovidesinterpretingatconferences,nomatterwhatthemodeofinterpretingis(simultaneous,consecutiveorchu-chotage)(I5,I10,I11,I14),butotherssaidthatforthemthetermissynonymouswiththeexpression‘simultaneousinterpreter’(I1,I9,I13).I7saidthatthetermmeansthattheinter-preterisabletoworkwithtechnology(i.e.ina booth,withheadsetsanda microphone),butI6emphasisedthatthetermisvague,anditisonlyusedtogainmoreprestige.I14pointedoutthatalthoughforhertheexpressionclearlyreferredtothesetting(conference),irrespec-tiveofthemode,butconferenceinterpretinginvolvesmainlysimultaneousinterpreting.

astowheretodrawtheline,whenaskedmostoftheparticipantswereoftheopinionthatintheHungarianmarket‘interpreter’shouldbea separateoccupation,separatedfrom‘translator’,butitshouldnotbefurtherbrokendownto‘consecutiveinterpreter’,‘conferenceinterpreter’,etc.,evenifnoteveryinterpreterworksinallmodesorsettings(I6,I7,I9,I10,I11,I13,I14).I5saidthat‘interpreter’mustbereferredtoseparately,butsaysthatwhenshe


17


hearstheword‘interpreter’,sheconsiderswhetherthepersoncanworkinsimultaneousmode,too. I4however thinks that ‘conference interpreters’ (which forhimmeans ‘simultaneousinterpreters’),mustbeseparatedfrom‘interpreter’,asa distinctprofession.

allinall,astheterm‘conferenceinterpreter’issomewhatvagueintheeyesofpractition-ers,andtakingintoconsiderationthefactthattheHungarianmarketisnotassegmentedasother,biggermarkets,theanswertomyquestionwouldbetousetheterm‘interpreter’,ifwewantedtoincludeonemoreentryintheprestigelistoftheCentralStatisticalofficeofHungary,andperhaps,additionallyitwouldbeusefultoinclude‘translator’,too.

4.2 the occuPational Prestige of interPreters in comParison with other jobs

next,I askedparticipantsiftheycouldmentionanyoccupationswhichtheythoughthadthesamelevelofoccupationalprestigeasinterpreters.Participantscouldcomeupwithquitea smallnumberofoccupationsasananswer:thefewcomparisonstheydrewwerebasednotonprestige,butfactorssuchasinvisibility(ofa pilot),attestation(inconnectionwitha notarypublic),brainload(ofa brainsurgeon),creativity(ofanoenologist).althoughthesefactorsmightbeconnectedtotheprestigeofa profession,prestigeisdeterminedbya numberoffactors,notonlyone,thereforethesefactorsindividuallyarenotenoughfordeterminingtheprestigeofa profession.Therefore,thistaskdidnotprovetobea usefulwayoffindingoutaboutinterpreters’occupationalprestige.

Thenexttaskwastotakea lookattheHungarianCentralStatisticaloffice’slistofoc-cupations,whichcontained173jobtitles.Innovember2016,theofficeaskedpeopletorankthesamejobtitlesbasedonhowmuchprestigetheyhadcomparedtoeachother.I askedthestudyparticipantstouse2differentcolourstomarkthosejobtitleswhichtheythoughthada similarprestigelevelcomparedtothatoftheinterpreter,accordingto:1.societyingen-eral(blue),2.interpretersthemselves,whereinterpretersshouldreallystandintheprestigehierarchyofoccupations(black).However,thistaskprovedtobeproblematic,too.Insomecases,participantsaskedfora thirdcolour,sayingthatwemustmakea distinctionbetweenthosewhoknowwhatinterpretingisaboutandthosewhodonot.Thisshowsthatmyinitialassumptionaboutwhatdetermineshowtheprestigeofinterpretersisevaluated,provedtobewrong:thedifferenceisnotthatbetweentheopinionsofdifferentgroupsofsociety(interpret-ersandsocietyingeneral)inrelationtotheinterpreters,butbetweenthosewhohaveenoughknowledgeofinterpretersandthosewhodonot.Thisisa veryimportantaspectstudypar-ticipantsenlightenedmeon,andthiswasonlypossibleintheframeworkofthefocusgroupdiscussion,notina questionnaire:myaimtomapalltheaspectsandopinionswasachieved,andthefocusgroupprovedtobeusefulinreachingthisgoal.

Table 3 belowlistsdifferentcommentsfromthestudyparticipantsconcerningtheissueofwhetheroneknowswhatinterpretingactuallyinvolves,andhowthisaffectstheprestigeoftheprofession.


18

ÉvaPataky

Table 3:opinionsofstudyparticipantsconcerninghowthelevelofprestigeofinterpretersisinfluencedbywhetherthepublicknowswhatthejobisaboutornot

Participants opinions on the link between the knowledge about a profession and the level of prestige attributed to it

I3 “Formehereitisa problemthatwhatI seeisthatnoteveryoneknowswhata conferenceinterpreteris.a miner,a judgeora workerata crechewillbemuchmoreknown,andpeopleknowmuchbetterwhatthesejobsinvolve.”

I5 “Itdependsonthesituation[wherepeopleplaceinterpretersinprestigehierarchy].”Shewasthinkingaboutthedifferentpeoplewithdifferentjobstowhomshealreadyworkedinherlifeandsaidthatthosewhohaveheardinterpreterswillrespectthisprofessiontothesameextentastheirownprofession.

I7 “IfI goandworkfora TVstudiothenI amgoingtoplacemyselfatthesamelevelwiththeTVpresenterbecauseI amsittingnexttotheTVpresenter.”

I8 “IdonotcarehowmuchsocietyingeneralrecognisesmyworkuntilthoseforwhomI workwillrespectmyjob.”

I12 “Myproblem[withthistask]isthatherewehavetodifferentiatebetweentwogroups.onegroupisthosewhodonothavea cluewhoaninterpreterisandtheywillhavedifficultyclassifyingus.andthosewhoknowwhatsimultaneousinterpretersdo,forthemourprestigewillbeveryhigh,atleastthisiswhatI think.[Forthosewhodon’tknowwhatinterpretersdo],ourprestigewillnotbeveryhigh.However,thosewhoknowwhatsimul-taneousinterpretersdo,willplaceusonthesamelevelasbrainsurgeonsandastronauts.”

I13 “Therearealsoclientswhoaskforinterpretationforthefirsttimeandwillnotknowwhatitisabout.Butfromthepointtheylearntoknowwhatitis,theywillrespectit.”

I14 “Itisdifficulttoanswer[thequestiononwherepeoplewouldplaceinterpretersontheprestigehierarchy],becausewhiletheclient[askingforaninterpreter]knowswhatwedo,theaveragemanonthestreetwillnotnecessarilyknowwhatitisabout,maybetheydonotevenknowthatinterpretersinterpretbetweentwolanguages.”

FromTable 3itisclearthataccordingtothestudyparticipantsitistruethatoftenpeopleunderratetheprestigeofinterpreters,butthisismainlyduetothefactthattheydonotknowwhatthejobinvolves,asinterpreters’workisnotaswidelyknownastheworkofa nurse,a doc-tor,a judge,etc.However,theypointedoutthatthosewhodoknowwhatittakestoworkasaninterpreterwillrespectinterpretersandwillattributea relativelyhighlevelofprestigetothem.Therefore,basedontheforegoing,I amnotgoingtolisttheprofessionsthestudyparticipantshavecircledonthepiecesofpaperusingdifferentcolours,asthisisirrelevanthere.

4.3 factors Playing a role in the Prestige of interPreters

InthissectionI collectandanalyseallthefactorstheparticipantshavementionedandarethoughttobeplayinga roleintheprestigeofjobsingeneral,andintheprestigeofinterpreters.

4.3.1 Five factors from the ‘Microcensus 2016’ survey of the hungarian Central statistical office (Ksh)

asmentionedearlier,in‘Microcensus2016’,organisedbyKSH,inwhich10%ofthepopula-tionwasinterviewedabouttheprestigeofaltogether173occupationaltitles,aswellasbeingaskedtoranktheverysamejobsfromthepointofviewofoneofthefollowingfactors:

(1) howmuchonecanearnwiththatjob(money)(2) howusefulthatprofessionistosociety(usefulness)(3) howmuchpowerorinfluencethatjobyields(power/influence)


19


(4) howmuchyouneedtolearnforthatjob(education)(5) howattractiveorfashionablethatjobis(fashionable)

duringtheinterviews,I alsoaskedtheparticipantsaboutthesefactors,inconnectionwiththeirjob,butoftentheymentionedsomeofthesefactorsevenbeforeI askedthem:therefore,from the transcript I collected all the instanceswhereparticipantsmentionedoneof theaforementioned5factorswithregardstotheprestigeofprofessionsingeneralortheprestigeofinterpreters.Tables 4–8belowshowthefollowingdata:

(1) howmanytimesthefactorinquestionwasmentionedduringtheinterviews(2) whomentionedthemandhowmanytimes(3) whatkindofthoughtsoropinionstheparticipantshaveexpressedinconnectionwith

thefactorand(4) withwhatotherfactorstheylinkedthefactorinquestion(ifany).

onementioniswhena participantmentionsthefactorforthefirsttimewhenthegroupwastalkingpreviouslyaboutsomethingelse.Ifanotherparticipantrepeatsit,itdoesnotcountasa newmentioning,howeverifa participantmentionssomethingelseinconnectionwiththealreadymentionedfactor,itcountsasa newmentioningofthecriterion.Thatis,I didnotcountthenumberoftimestheyhadutteredthewordsreferringtocertainfactors(e.g.money),butI countedthenumberofinstancestheymentioneda factorforthefirsttimeortheymen-tioneda newthoughtorideainconnectionwithitnotpreviouslystated.also,iflaterontheverysameparticipantwhohadalreadymentionedthefactor,bringsitupregardingsomethingelse,thenitcountsasa newmentioning.Furthermore,ina laterpartoftheinterviewI specifi-callyaskedtheparticipantsabouteachofthefivecriteria.Thesementionsbytheinterviewerarenotcounted,butthereactionsoftheparticipantsare,basedontheaforementionedrules.Thearrowsinbracketsshowwhichotherfactorstheparticipantsconnectedthegivenfactorto,thereforethesearrowsindicatetheconnectionsbetweendifferentfactorsplayinga roleintheprestigeofinterpreters.Table 4showshowoftenmoney wasmentionedduringthediscussions.Table 4:TheissueofmoneyintheprestigeofinterpretersinHungary(iftheopinionsareonlysummarised

contentwise,theyarenotinquotationmarks)

1. PrestigeFaCtor

from ‘Microcensus 2016’

2. how many times was it men

tioned?

3. who mentioned it and how

many times?

4. any additional thoughts or opinions, and in connection with what other factors it was

mentioned

Money d1:12;d2:17;d3:14;d4:5

d1:I3(4);I1(4);I4(4)d2:I5(5)I6(4);I7(5),I8(3)d3:I9(4);I10(6);I11(2);I12(2)d4:I13(2);I14(3)

d1–I1:“ofteninHungarypeopleevaluatejobsbasedonhowmuchyouearnwithit”;I1,I3:“theseparationoftrans-lationandinterpretingortheseparationofinterpretingand‘conferenceinterpreting’oftendependsonwhetheryoucanaffordtodoonlyoneortheother”;I3:“...peopleonlyseehowmuchyougetfora daybuttheydonotthinkabouthowmanydaysyouworkina month”;I1:“this[thattheyonlyseehowmuchyougetfora day]isbecausepeopledon’tknowthisprofession”(->knowinga job);I1:“comparedtotheaveragesalaryinterpretersearnwell”;I1,I4:inHungarypre-parationtime,travelcostsarenotpaid,incontrasttoabroad


20

ÉvaPataky

1. PrestigeFaCtor



tioned?


many times?


mentioned

d2–I6:itissadthatoftenthetranslationagenciescalltheinterpreterswhoarecheaperandtheydon’tcareaboutqual-ity(-> quality);itisstrangethattheserviceproviderhastogivea pricequoteandnottheclient;“interpreterscanearnwell,thisiswhysomanystudentscometothedepartmenttostudyinterpreting”(-> education);I5:itisnota highprestigejobaslongasthefirstcriterionfornewclientsisthepriceandnotquality(-> quality);itisnotrightthateveniftheclienthasenoughfinance,stilltheyaskfora pricequotefrommoreinterpretersandchoosethecheapest.Whydon’ttheysay:I havethisamountofmoney,doyoutakethejob?;ifthereareregulationsforcompulsoryeducation(-> edu-cation),whyisn’titpossibletoregulatepricing?;whatiftheclientwhorespects[financially]yourjobearnsmuchlessthanyoudo?;youcanearna lotbutthequestioniscomparedtowhat?;I8:youcanrefertoorganisations,whenclientsdon’tunderstandpricingorotherthings(-> profes-sionalorganisations);“Idon’tcareabouttheprestigesocietyattributestomyjobaslongasmyclientsrespectmyjobandI canhavea certainstandardofliving”;I7:inBrusselsandingeneralabroad,ourcolleaguesearnmorethanhereinHungary;youcanearnwellifyouareaninterpreter;thehighincomehasa highprice,e.g.stressd3–I9:moneyplaysa decisiveroleinprestige;I11: pro-fessionalorganisationscouldguaranteea minimumprice(-> professionalorganisations);I10:organisationsmightwanttocreateprofit;youcanonlychoosetwofromgood-cheap-fast;I11:“youcanearnwellifyouhavework”;I12: “20yearsagoyoucouldearnbetter,nowyouearnasmuchasyourworkisworth,westrikea balance”;I9:youcanearnwellcomparedtotheaveragesalary;I10:clientsareoftenshockedbecauseofthepricebutonlybecausetheydonotknowwhatthejobinvolves(-> knowinga job);I9:thedailyfeeincludespreparation;I9:youhaveto beanentrepreneurwhichinvolvesadditionaltasksd4–I13:“Ifpeoplerespecta profession,theylinkitwitha certainstandardoflifeandincome,whichmightnotbethesameasinreality”;organisationscouldprovidea platformtodiscussquestionsliketerminology,pricingorethics;I14:ifwewantedtoestablisha chamber,wemightnotendupina favourablesituation,concerninge.g.pricingorworkingconditions;yes,youcanearnwellwithinterpreting(-> professionalorganisations)

Themoneyfactorwasmentionedduringthe4discussionsaltogether47times.Thesecondcolumnshowswhomentionedthetopicandhowmanytimes.Column3displaysthediffer-enttypesofviewsandideasexpressedinconnectionwiththetopicofmoney, andalsowhomentionedtheseideas.Inbracketsafterthe->signwecanreadothercriteriawhichwerementionedinconnectionwiththemoney factor.


21


Itisinterestingthatinall4discussionsmoneywasmentionedwithoutasking,towardsthebeginningofthediscussion.Ind1thequestionofmoneywasfirstmentionedat02:16,ind2at10:21,ind3at04:40,andind4at03:10,thatisinallfourcasesitwasmentionedbytheparticipantsontheirown,andrelativelyearlycomparedtotheotherfactors.Bycon-trast,thefirsttimeusefulness wasmentionedwas06:40ind2,ind1,d3andd4itwasnotmentionedatalluntiltheinterviewerbroughtupthetopicdeliberately.educationwasmentionedat02:37ind2,at05:26ind3andat03:52ind4forthefirsttime,withoutasking,but ind1itwasnotexplicitlymentioneduntil the intervieweraskedabout it,ata laterstageofthediscussion(part9).However,thecriteriaofpower andbeingfashionable werenotmentionedinconnectionwithprestigewithoutasking.Thisshowsthatfromthepointofviewofoccupationalprestigemoney (aswellaseducation)arequiteimportantforpractitioners.It isalsointerestingthattheparticipantshaveconnectedmoneywithothercriteriawhicharepartlyinanoverlapwiththeKSH-criteria:thenameoftheoccupation(wheretodrawtheline,e.g.betweeninterpreterandtranslatororinterpreterandconferenceinterpreter),knowingthejob,quality,education,professionalorganisations.

allinall,theparticipantswereoftheopinionthatitispossibletoearnquitewellifsome-oneworksasaninterpreter,comparedtotheaverageHungariansalary,whichplaysa roleintheprestigeoftheprofession.However,noteveryonecanaffordtoonlyundertakeinterpret-ingwithouttranslationatall,asitdependsonhowmuchinterpretingjobsonecangetina month.Therefore,a lotofpractitionersareforcedtoworkastranslators,too.asherequitea lotofconnectionsweremadewithotherfactors,Figure 1showstheconnectionsbetweenthemoneyfactorandotherfactorsparticipantsmadewhiletheyweretalkingaboutthemoney factor,andalsowhichparticipant(s)establishedtheconnection.

Figure 1:Connectionsmadebytheparticipantsbetweenmoneyandotherfactorsinfluencingthe occupationalprestigeofinterpreters

Ingeneral,theparticipantsconsideredthatthejobofinterpretersisuseful,andthatthis“goeswithoutsaying”(I4).Therefore,herethisfactorisnotdiscussedindetail.

Table 5showsviewsexpressedinconnectionwithpower and influence.


22

ÉvaPataky

Table 5:Thepowerandinfluencefactor(iftheopinionsareonlysummarisedcontentwise,theyarenotinquotationmarks)

1. PrestigeFaCtor



tioned?


many times?


mentioned

Power,influence

d1:3;d2:5;d3:5;d4:2

d1:I4(3)

d2:I5(3);I7 (1);I6(1)

d3:5;I9(4);I12(1)

d4:2;I13(1);I14(1)

d1–I4:“Idon’tthinkthatthisconcernsonlyinterpreters,a lotofpeoplehavetodoa goodjobtogeta conferencego-ing,andinterpretersareamongthesepeopleofcourse;thecontentsofthenegotiationsdonotconcerntheinterpreter,butitisnotdegradingfortheinterpreter,asinterpretersareresponsibleforthesmoothcommunication,nottheresultofthenegotiations;sometimeswhentheclientasksforadviceconcerningmeaningorinterpretation,itisamongtheresponsibilitiesoftheinterpreter.”d2–I7:“itisinfluencewhentheinterpreterdoesnottranslatethesameaswhatthespeakersays”;I6:“Iteachthatitisnotallowedtointerfere,weareserviceprovidersandwhentheyaskforouropinion,weshouldsayno.”I5:“...wedon’thaveanyinfluenceandpoweratall;butsome-timestheinterpretercanavertdiplomaticscandalsiftheyintervenewhensomeonesayssomethingtheyshouldnothavesaid...”;“Butthefactthatinterpreterschoosetostayinthebackgroundandnottohaveanypowerdoesnoterodethejob’sprestige,onthecontrary,itincreasesourprestige.”d3–I9:“...wedonothavepowerorinfluence;wehavere-sponsibilitybutitisdifferentfrompower;orweareinsid-erssometimes,butitisnotpower,either...”;I12: “some-timeswehearstoriesfromhistorythatinterpreterslaterbecameinfluentialpersons.”d4–I13:“...powerhasa negativemeaningforme,I thinkthatinterpretersdon’thavepowerorinfluence,asweonlyrepeatwhathasbeensaidandwedon’tinfluenceanythingwithouropinion”;I14:“Formepowerisevenmorenega-tive,asitmeansthattheinterpretertriestoinfluencetheinfluentialpeopletheyareworkingfor.”

asfarasthequestionofpowerandinfluenceisconcerned,participantsgenerallywereoftheopinionthatinterpretersdonothavepower,andthisissomethingpositiveintheircase(e.g. I5),astheirtaskistoberesponsibleforsmoothcommunicationandnotchangingthemessage.Pym(2012)mentionsthatinthecaseofa translator,powerorcontrolisnotdefi-nitelysomethingthatshouldplaya rolewithtranslators(Pym2012:87),andinthismightbetrueforinterpreters,too.However,inconnectionwithcommunicationtheymaybeauthor-isedtoinfluencethingsinordertoavoidcommunicationproblems,bychangingthelanguageused(e.g.I5,I4).Fromtheanswers,itturnsoutthatalthoughconcerningotherprofessionstheconceptsofpowerorinfluencemaybeimportant,inthecaseofinterpreterstheseconceptsdonotplaya role.onthecontrary,itispositiveiftheinterpreterisabletodistancethemselvesfromthecontents.Whatismore,atcertainpoints(e.g.ind1)theparticipantswerenoteven


23


abletointerpretwhattheinterviewermeantwhensheaskedaboutthepowerorinfluenceofinterpreters.atfirstI4thoughttheinterviewerwasaskingabouthowthequalityofinterpret-ers’workcaninfluence thesuccessofa conference.Studyparticipantsdidnotevenmentionpowerorinfluenceinconnectionwithjobprestigeatall,onlywhentheintervieweraskedaboutit.Here,thereareno->signsinthechart,indicatingthatnoneoftheparticipantshaveconnectedthisfactortoanyoftheotherfactors.

Whileind1andd2theparticipantstalkedaboutthefactthatitisabsolutelya positivethingiftheinterpreterdoesnotinfluencethecontentsofthecommunication,ind4partici-pantsdrewtheinterviewer’sattentiontotheverysameidea,onlyfroma differentangle.I13andI14agreedthatiftheinterpreterinfluencesthecommunicationprocess(i.e.contentwise),thisissomethingverynegative.Clearlyintheinterpretationoftheparticipantsinfluenceandpowermeantinfluencingtheinterpretingevent.

Itturnedoutthataccordingtoparticipants,inthecaseofinterpreters,lackofpowerandinfluencedoesnoterodeprestige,onthecontrary,itincreasesjobprestige.Itdoesnotneces-sarilymeanthatthethirdKSH-criteriondoesnotplaya roleininterpreters’jobprestige,butthedifferenceisthatinthiscasetheremightbeaninverserelationshipbetweenpower/influ-enceandoccupationalprestige,duetothenatureoftheprofession.

Table 6 below showsknowledge, expertise and education andwhat ideas participantsbroughtupinconnectionwiththeseconcepts.However,hereI havetopointoutthatunfor-tunatelymyquestioninthetopicguidedidnotquiteoverlapwiththefourthprestigefactormeasuredbyKSH.WhereasKSHemphasisedhowmuchonehadtolearninordertobeabletodoa particularjob,I askedfromtheparticipantshowmuchknowledgeandexpertiseoneneedstodothejob(i.e.interpreting).Thisisa problemofmethodologywhich,unfortunately,I haverecognisedtoolate:althoughexpertiseandknowledgeisobtainedthrougheducation,inthecaseofinterpretingthiswasnotsountilnotlongago,as40or50yearsagotherewasnotraining,interpretershadtolearnonthejob.Therefore,havingtheknowledgeandtheskilldidnotnecessarilymeanthatonelearnedtheseina course.

Yeteventhiswaytherewerequitea fewstudyparticipantswhoemphasisedtheimportanceofstudyingifonewantstobecomeaninterpreter.ThereforeTable 6consistsoftwoparts:(1) education,studyingand(2)knowledgeandexpertise.Table 6:Theeducation/knowledgeandexpertisefactor(iftheopinionsareonlysummarisedcontentwise,

theyarenotinquotationmarks)

1. PrestigeFaCtor



tioned?


many times?


mentioned

education d1:4d2:1d3:6d4:2

d1:I4(2);I3 (1);I2(1)d2:I5(1)d3:I10(4);I11(2)d4:I13(1);I14(1)

d1–I4:“youcanlearneverythinguptoa certainlevel,butafterthatyourinnateabilitieswilldecide”;T3:“afterlearningyouhavetoreacha certainnumberofhoursworkedtohavethenecessaryconfidencethatyoucandoit”;I2:“youhavetohavea degreeinsomethingelseasa foundationandthenyoucanstartinterpreting”;I4: “youcannotgotoaninterpretingcourseimmediatelyaftergraduatingfromsecondaryschool”


24

ÉvaPataky

1. PrestigeFaCtor



tioned?


many times?


mentioned

d2–I5:“thisisa professionwhichrequiresa qualificationanda permit,butunfortunatelytheclientsstilldonotaskfortheinterpreters’qualifications,forthemitisnotimportant[itisratherthepricewhichisimportantforthem]”(->money)d3–I10:forcertainprofessionsthenecessaryuniversitycoursealsoaddstoprestige;I11:“...andalsohowdifficultthatcoursewas”;I10:“onceI workedfora lawyerwhoaskedmewhereI didmydegreeinlaw[ofcourseI don’thaveone,I havea degreeinconferenceinterpreting]”;“a degreeinarchitecturewasa degreeinarchitectureeven50yearsago”(->quality)I11:“althoughonehasto havecertainabilities,onehastostudytobecomean interpreter,e.g.ifonewantstoworkasa graphicdesigner,thentheyhavetocompletea graphicdesigncourse”d4–I13:educationisobviouslyveryimportantanditmakesa differenceintheprestigeofprofessions,e.g. thereisa differenceindeedbetweena shopassistantanda doctor;I14:interpretingrequiresspecialexpertisewhichtodayistaughtininstitutions,todayitisnotthesameassay40-50yearsago,wheninterpretershadtolearnonthejob

Knowledgeand expertise

d1:2d2:2d3:4d4:2

d1:I1(1);I4(1)d2:I7(1);I5(1)d3:I9(1);I10(1);I11 (2)d4:I13(1);I14(1)

d1–I1:“interpretersknowa techniquewithwhichtheyareabletotranslatefromonelanguagetoanotherina minimaltimeframe”;I4:“youneedpractice,youneedtechnique,youneedtobeabletocopewithstress,andwhatpeopleoftenforget,youneedtohavegeneralknowledge”d2–I7:“youneedtohavea certaintypeofproficiencythatallowsyoutounderstandwhattheyaretalkingabout[thetopicoftheeventyouareinterpreting]”;I5: thewill-ingnesstolearnisveryimportant,thisislifelonglearningd3–I9:interpretingrequiresspecialskills;I10:thereisa differencebetweenhorizontalandverticalknowledge,weneedhorizontalknowledge,asweknowabouteachofthefieldsa littlebit;I11:“interpretingrequiresa tech-nique,howyoudoit;youneeda lotofthings,e.g. lan-guageknowledge,interpretingtechniquesanditisnota disadvantageifyouknowthetopic”d4–I13:“interpretershavetohaveexpertiseininterpret-ing,buttheyarenotexpertsinthesensethattheyknowa fieldverywell,however,theyhavetobeabletousetheskillsandabilitiesnecessaryfortheirjobina givenfield”;I14:interpretingrequiresspecialexpertisewhichtodayistaughtininstitutions,todayitisnotthesameassay40-50yearsago,wheninterpretershadtolearnonthejob

Inthecaseofthisfactoronlytwoconnectionsweremadetoanotherfactor(withan-> sign),thereforeI havenotprepareda figureshowingconnections.Itisveryinterestingtoseethatwhilefortheyoungergenerationofinterpreters(I9,I10,I11,I13andI14)educationisveryimportant,forthemthisisequaltothesourceofknowledge/expertise,whileoldergenerations


25


tendtoemphasisetechnique,e.g.certainskillswhich,theysay,onecanlearnonlytoa certainextent,otherwisetheymustbeinnate(I4).Thisisespeciallyinterestinginviewofthefactthatinthesampleevenmembersoftheoldergenerationhada training,althoughthesecourseswereshortercomparedtotoday’suniversitycourses.

I14alsopointsoutthisdifferencebetweenolderandyoungergenerations:a specialexper-tiseisnecessaryforinterpreting,buttodaythisistaughtininstitutionsanditisnotlearntonthejobanymore,like40-50yearsago.Sotodayexpertise/knowledgecanbeattainedthroughtraining,whereasearlierthislearningprocesstookplacewhileworkingasaninterpreter.Itisinterestinghowever,thatalthoughI5isfromtheoldergenerationofinterpreters,she,too,stressestheimportanceofeducationandhavinga training,andshealsocomplainsthatclientsdecidebasedonthepriceoftheserviceandtheydonotaskfortheinterpreter’sdiplomaordegree.ThereasonforthismightbethefactthatsheteachesinterpretingatthedepartmentofTranslationandInterpretingateLTe.I3isalsoa teacheratthedepartment:shesaysthatbe-sidesthetraininga certainnumberofhoursworkedisimportant,butdoesnotexplicitlystressthe importanceof training.However,I10stresses somedifferencesherebetweendifferentprofessions:“adegreeinarchitecturewasa degreeinarchitectureeven50yearsago”,meaningthatqualificationsinsomeotherprofessionsrepresentqualitywhichismorereliable;asunlikeinthecaseofarchitecture,forinterpreting,universitytrainingbecameavailablemuchlater,anditstillcountsassomethingrelativelynew.Thismaybeduetothefactthatinterpretingisatanearlystageofprofessionalisation(Pym2012),notlikelawyer,architect,etc.

allinall,accordingtothestudyparticipantsexpertiseandknowledgeareveryimportant,andarepartoftheprestigeoftheprofession,howeverinthecaseofinterpretinginstitution-alisededucationandqualificationsaresomewhatnew.earlierthisexpertiseandknowledgecameexclusivelywithpractice,andwaslearntonthejob,buttodayitisalreadyavailableoncourses,thereforeeducationandlearningisalreadypartoftheoccupationalprestigeofinter-preters,too,althoughhavinga diplomamightstillnotbea guaranteeforquality.

Table 7:Thefactorofbeinga fashionablejob(iftheopinionsareonlysummarisedcontentwise,theyarenotinquotationmarks)

1. PrestigeFaCtor



tioned?


many times?


mentioned

Fashionable d1:3;d2:4;d3:5;d4:

d1:I4(1);I3 (1);I2(1)d2:I5(3);I7(1)d3:I11(3);I10(1);I9(1)d4:I14(2);I13(1)

d1–I3:“Ihearfroma lotofsecondaryschoolstudentsthattheywouldliketocometotheTranslationandInterpretingMa,itissomethingwhichseemsexotic”(->education);I2:“Iwouldrathersaythatitismoreandmorepopular[insteadoffashionable]”d2–I5:“...unfortunatelyitisfashionable[referstothefactthata lotofnewinterpreterstrainedeachyearbuttheHungarianmarketcannotabsorballofthem]”;I7: “Butwheredotheygoiftheycannotfindwork?”;I5: the ma-jorityofMastudentsarenotworkingasinterpreters,butthosewhograduatefromtheconferenceinterpretingcourseandwanttopursuethiscareerwillfinda way;“I wouldrathersaythatitisanattractivejob[insteadoffashionable]”(->education)


26

ÉvaPataky

1. PrestigeFaCtor



tioned?


many times?


mentioned

d3–I11:itisfashionable,a lotofstudentscometothecourse(->education);I10:“Itisnotbecausethejobisfashionable:theygotothefacultyofarts,astheyarenotinterestedinscience:theydoa languageBaandnoteve-ryonewantstobecomea teacher,sothisisanemergencysolutionforthemtostudyinterpreting”;T9:yesbutthisisa fashionablecourseamonghumanitiescourses;I11: butifsomethingisfashionableitdoesnotmeanthatitispopu-lar;afterthetrainingveryfewstudentswillreallybecomeinterpreters;I10:[recallsthatduringthetrainingwhenoneofhisteacherssawhowmanystudentsweresittinginthehall,shesaidthattheworlddidnotneedsomanyinterpreters](->education)d4–I14:“Ithasbecomefashionablesincewejoinedtheeu,aspeoplethinkitiscooltoworkfortheeuinstitu-tions”;I13:ithasbecomefashionablebecause[witheuaccession]ithasgotintothepublicconsciousness

generally,participantsthinkthatinterpretingisa fashionablejob,asa lotofstudentsapplyforthecoursesofferedbyuniversities,buttheparticipantsdidnotexplicitlysaythatthisaddstotheprestigeofthejob.

4.3.2 some additional factors playing a role in the occupational prestige of interpretersIt is interestingthatbesidestheabovefivefactorsa lotofparticipantsmentionedtwoad-ditionalfactorswhich,theysaid,alsoplaya roleintheprestigeoftheirjob:(1)exclusivity(otherscannotperformthesamejob),aninsiderrole;(2)regulations.Theysaidthatitaddstotheprestigeofa jobifonlya certainpersoncanperformthatwork,orifitisdifficulttobecomethepractitionerofthatjob,oroneneedstohavespecialtalentsorqualifications(seequotationsfromI3,I5andI7below):

I3:Howdifficultitistogetintothatcircle[thecircleofpractitioners];whatarethecriteriaofthatprofession,howI gotin,howI madeit;howmuchpeoplethinkthatyouneedtalent,e.g.inHungarypeopleoftenthinkthatifyouspeaklan-guagesthenyouarea rocketscientistandyoubelongtoa privilegedcircle[...].I5:Themoreyoufeelthatthisjobcouldnotbedonebyothers,onlythatpersonoronlythepersonwhohasthatqualificationortalentsandnotothers,thenmaybethehighertheprestigeis.(->education)I7:[...]withoutyouanimportantpieceofcommunicationcouldnottakeplace[...].(->usefulness)

Thisfactorisconnectedbyparticipantstoeducationandalsousefulness,aswitheducationonecanattaincertainskillstobeabletoperforma job,andusefulnessis importanthere,too,asthefewerthepeoplearewhocandoa certainjob,themoreusefulthesefeware.


27


Inconnectionwithhowfashionablea jobis,participantsmentionedthat“unfortunately”interpretingcoursesaremoreandmorefashionableorpopular(e.g.I5).Thiswaytheyreferredtothefactthatitisbecominglessexclusivetoworkasaninterpreter,sincewiththeappear-anceofcoursesininstitutionsmoreandmorestudentslearntheartofinterpreting,anditisnotthesameasintheCommunistera,whenitwaspracticedonlybya privilegedfew,whospokeWesternlanguages,somaybealthoughestablishedcoursesaddtoprestige,theresult−thatinterpretingis“lessexclusive”today−maytakea littleawayfromjobprestige(I11).

Someparticipantsmentionedthatinterpretershavea certaininsiderroleincommunica-tion.I7andI9referredtothisfactor:

I7:[...]youcangaininsightintocertainthings,youaretreatedasanequalandtheyshareinformationwithyou,whichyouofcoursewillnotsharewithothers,[...]andyoucangettoplaceswherea shopassistantwouldneverbeabletogo,andyoucanseeconnections[whichotherswillnot].I9:[...]I thinkthatthereisa certaininsiderposition,butthisdoesnotinvolvepower.

Besidesexclusivity,participantsalsomentionedtheroleofregulations:I6states,forexample,thatifregulationswerebetter,thentheprestigeofinterpreterswouldalsobehigher.I6alsocomplainsthatthisisthereasonwhytheclientsdecidebasedontheprices,andnotthequal-ityoftheservice.

[...]theprestigeoftheprofessioncouldbemuchhigherifa lotoffactorschanged[...]I triedtopushtheprofessionintherightdirection,butthiswasnotsuccess-ful,andoneofthereasonsisthathereinHungarytheprofessionisregulatedinthewrongway.

asa replytothis,I5pointsoutthatnoteventheexistingregulationsareobserved:

Iwouldbehappyifthecurrentregulationsineffectwereactuallyenforced.Itiswrittendownthatthisisa professionforwhichyouneedtohavea qualificationanda permit,butI don’tknowhowmanyclientsyouhadwhoaskedforyourinterpreterIdforexample.(->education)

I6stressedthatifinterpretershadadditionalfunctionsinsociety,e.g.thepreservationoftheclarityoflanguageandtheroleoftransliteratingforeignwordsintoHungarian,thiswouldsignificantlyincreasetheprestigeofthejob.

Whenaskedabouttheroleofprofessionalorganisations,I6pointsoutthattheycouldtakeupa significantroleintheregulationoftheprofession.Hementionsthatearlierhehadbeena memberofMFTe,howeverhewasimpatientandhefeltthattheorganisation’srolewasnotsignificantenoughandsoheleft.Hesaysthattheassociationsalreadyhaveanimportantroleinprotectingtheinterestsofpractitioners,butthisisnotenough:


28

ÉvaPataky

[...]notenough,thereshouldbemore.andthiscouldbeconnectedtoregula-tions.They[theassociations]shouldpickonthelegislatorsandtheregulatorstodothisandthat.[...]what’smore,theycouldevenregulatethedistributionofwork.Theaustrianscandothat.

I12alsosaysthatanassociationwhichworkswellcouldprotecttheinterestsofinterpretersandcouldbea guaranteetowardsthemarketandtheclients.Therefore,itseemsthattheques-tionofregulationsiscloselyintertwinedwithprofessionalassociations.

4.4 ‘sPecial’ measurement tools of interPreters’ Prestige

Therearesomeremarkablefactors,whichparticipantsmentioned,andwhicharenotcompo-nentsofinterpreters’prestige,butmayprovidecertainwaysofmeasuringprestige.Ind1I4saidthefollowing:

[...] maybe it shows the prestige of a profession whether people address thepractitionerofthatprofessionusingthenameoftheprofession.I haveheardforexamplepeoplesaying‘Mrengineer,please...’,butI haveneverheard‘MrInterpreter,please,thisisthespeechofthenextpresenter’1.

This,hethinks,isanindicationoflackofprestige,asinHungaryholdersofprestigiousjobsareoftenaddressedas‘Msdoctor’or‘Mrarchitect’.

anotherveryinterestingpointwasmadebyI12.Shesaysthattheplaceoftheboothalsosaysa lotabouthowmuchinterpretersarevaluedinthatparticularevent:“SometimesI measureourprestigethroughwhereourboothisplaced.Sometimesitseemstomethattheyforgotaboutthefactthathumanbeingsaregoingtoworkinthebooth.”I9stressesthathospitalitytowardstheinterpretersisanotherindicatorofprestigeatanevent:

[...]nowthatwearetalkingaboutfood...maybeitsoundssilly,butI thinkthatthisissomethingthroughwhichyoucanmeasurethis[prestige],onwhatlevelyouaretreated.BecausesofarI haveseenthreetypesofsituations:therearesomewhoespeciallyinviteyousaying,ofcourse,comeandhavelunch,eatwithus;thereisthecategorywhocompletelyforgetsaboutthefactthatI wasthereorthatI amthereandI amgoingtostayfortheafternoon,sohowshouldwesolvethis;andthethirdtypeisthetypewhomakesmesitinthecanteenfortheworkers,togetherwiththeservicestaff.ofcourse,formeitisallthesame,becausethestewisexcellentinthecanteen,butthisismaybelinkedtoprestigea littlebit.

However,itisimportanttopointoutherethattheaforementionedfactorsareusedasindicators ofprestigebytheparticipants(thatis,theyaretheresultofprestigeorlackofprestigeina certainway),andnotasfactorswhichinfluencetheprestigeofinterpreters(thatis,cause).

1InHungarian,thisformulaisusedforexampletoaddresslawyers,doctors,engineers,teachers,butitisnotverycommonwithotherjobs.


29


Theymightbea measurementtooloftheinterpreters’prestigeincertainworkingsettings,butnotnecessarilycomparedtotheprestigeofotheroccupationaltitles.

4.5 the role of Professional associations

Therespondentsgenerallywereoftheopinionthatfromthepointofviewofensuringa certainlevelofqualityandprice,associationscanplayanimportantrole,andalsointermsofprotect-ingtheinterestsofprofessionals.However,somethinkthatforthemembershipfeeonedoesnotreallyreceiveanything,e.g.jobsora guaranteedminimumprice.I11saidthefollowing:

[...]inthecaseofa professionalassociationyoupaya certainamount,andthisishowyoubecomea member.Then[mycolleaguefromBrussels]asked:whatdoyougetinreturn?andsookay,youpaythemembershipfeeandyouareallowedtosaythatyouarea memberofwhatever,butactuallytheydonotguaranteeanythinginreturn.

I5pointedoutthat“itcouldbepossibletoregulatethepriceorthepricing”(->money),andI6addsthateven“thedistributionofwork”couldberegulatedbyassociations.

Thequestionofregulatingtheminimumpriceisveryinteresting,asthevastmajorityofinterpretersinHungaryworkasfreelancers,thatis,entrepreneurs.Fromthispointofviewa minimumpricewouldmeana cartelanderosionofcompetition,asenterpriseswouldagreeona priceofwhichtheycouldnotchargeless.However,inthediscussionstheparticipantwho(I6)vehementlysupportedtheideaofensuringa minimumjobfeevieweditasa minimalsalary,which,ifinterpreterswereemployedbyanemployer,wouldbereasonable.However,due to their formof employment thiswouldbeproblematic, so this remains a question.WhenI askedaboutthepossibilityofa chamberofinterpreters,similarlytolawyersorphysi-cians,I14mentioneda coupleofdrawbacks,andpointedoutthatalthoughitwouldclearlyincreasetheprestigeoftheoccupation,atthesametimeitwouldentaila serviceprovisionobligationandalsoitwouldsignificantlydecreasethepricesofinterpreting,whichisquiteaninterestingconnection,ashere,a chamber,whichwouldincreaseprestige,mighthavetheeffectofreducingremuneration,whichisalsoconsideredtobea sourceofjobprestige.

generally,alloftheparticipantswereoftheopinionthatmembershipofprofessionalas-sociationsgivesa certainlevelofprestige,e.g.I11stressedthatonecanincludethemintheirelectronicsignature,anditlooksgood,andI8referredtothefactthattheyhaveanethicalcodewhichcanbereferredto,ifthereareanydisputeswithclients.However,somerespond-entsemphasisedthattheycoulddomorefortheprofession.

4.6 the issue of jokes

Ialsoaskedtherespondentsaboutjokes.InhisarticleSimeoni(1998)complainsthatveryoftenjokesandanecdotescomeattheexpenseofthetranslator.asheputsit,

[i]na folkloreoftranslationwhosereasonedhistoryshouldbewrittenabout,anecdotesrealorapocryphalabound,ofthetranslator’scommittingmistakes,misunderstandingobviousreferences,alteringthe‘true’meaning


30

ÉvaPataky

willedbytheauthor.Moreoftenthannot,thosestoriesendwitha joke,ora jab,atthetranslator’sexpense.Thislowerstatushasbeenacknowledgedinwritingandtranslatorsfullyassumeit(Simeoni1998:7).

Iwantedtofindoutifinterpretersthoughtitwastrueforthem,too,andhowtheyfeltaboutit.I readouttwojokesfortheminHungarianaboutinterpreters,andI posedthequestion:“Inwhatlightdothesejokespresenttheinterpreter?”

afterlisteningtothem,andbeingaskedaboutinterpreterjokesingeneral,inallofthefourfocusgroupdiscussionsinterpretersweregenerallyofoneoftwoopinions:(1)Thejokesdidnotpresenttheinterpreterina badlight;(2)althoughthejokespresentedtheinterpretersina badlight,participantsagreedthatitistypicalofjokestopresenttheircharactersina badlight,anditisnottheinterpretersingeneralwhoaretargetedbythesejokes.

5. ConClusion

Ingeneral,accordingtotherepresentativesoftheprofession,money, education, usefulness andfashionability playanimportantrole,althoughusefulnesswassomethingtakenforgranted,sotheparticipantsdidnotdelveintoitverydeeply.However,thefourthcriterionofKSHisnotquitevalidinthecaseofconferenceinterpreters,asuponhearingthewordspower orinfluence, theyimmediatelythinkofsomethingnegative,meaningthattheinterpreterisnotneutralandisinflu-encingtheeventwheretheyareworking.onlyinsomecasesdotheythinkitacceptable,namelyforthesakeofmakingcommunicationsmoother(e.g.whentheinterpreteraverteda diplomaticcrisis).

additionally, it turnedout tobevery important thatpeopleareonlyable toattributea highlevelofprestigetotheprofessioniftheyknow what it is about,whattheprofessionalsdealwith.Thisisa cardinalquestionforinterpreters,asinterpretingisnotaswellknownase.g.theworkofa nurse,judge,etc.

Figure 2:Theconnectionsmadebyparticipantsbetweendifferentfactorsinfluencingtheoccupationalprestigeofinterpreters


31


Furthermore,participantsthoughtthatinthecaseofinterpreters,exclusivityanda certaininsiderrolealsoaddtojobprestige.Moreover,someparticipantsthoughtthatregulationsandprofessional organisationscanplayanimportantroleinadvancinga profession’srole,insucha waythatassociationscantakeontheresponsibilityofkeepingcontactwiththelegislator.

asfarasthenameoftheprofessiontobeincludedinthelistofprofessionsisconcerned,thebestoptionwouldbetousetheterminterpreter,withoutanymodifierssuchasconference,healthcare,liaison,court, etc.,asinHungarythedifferenttypesofinterpretingarenotclearlyseparated.

Concerningjokes,theparticipantsrejectedthenotionthatjokeswouldspecificallytargetinterpretersorwoulddeliberatelypresentthemina negativelight,instead,jokesusuallymocksomeoneora situation,asistypicalofjokes.

asfarastheconnectionsbetweentheaforementionedfactorsinfluencingtheoccupationalprestigeofinterpretersareconcerned,themostconnectionsweremadewiththemoney factor(Figure2).

regarding fashionability, the only connection was education, as this is how peoplemainlylearnaboutthejob.asforeducation, besidesmoney,quality wasalsomentioned.Withregardtoexclusivity,connectionsweremadewitheducation andusefulness.Theroleofregulations wasmainlyconnectedtotherole of professional organisations.

ThemostimportantresultisthatI havemanagedtoelicita namefrompractitionerswhichcouldbeusedincomparisonwithotheroccupationsontheHungarianprestigelist.also,I havemanagedtomapthosefactorswhich,accordingtointerpreters,arethemostimportantindeterminingtheprestigeofinterpreters(money,insiderrole),furthermore,itbecameclearthatitisimportantthatsocietyknowswhata jobinvolves,inordertoallocatea higherlevelofprestigetoit.However,italsoturnedoutthatnotallfactorsintheKSHsurveyareimportantinthesamewayforinterpreters’occupationalprestigeasforotheroccupations’prestige(e.g.havinga lotofinfluencemayerodeinterpreters’prestige),thereforethequestionariseswhethertheprestigeofalljobscanbeevaluatedbasedonthesamecriteria.

aftermappingopinionsandfactorswhichcomeintoquestionwhentalkingabouttheprestigeofinterpreters,inthenextstageofmyresearchI willimplementa qualitativestudyintheframeworkofwhichI intendtoaddressa largernumberof interpretersworkinginHungary,andmeasurewithstatisticaltoolstowhatextentthedifferentopinionselicitedinthepresentqualitativestudyareprevalentamongthem.

references

arthur,S.,nazroo,J.2003.designingFieldworkStrategiesandMaterials.In:ritchie, J.,Lewis,J.(eds)Qualitative Research Practice. London/Thousandoaks/newdelhi:SagePublications.109–137.

Csányi,g.,giczi,J.2016.a foglalkozásipresztízsésmérése.[occupationalprestigeanditsmeasurement.]In:A 2016. évi Mikrocenzus témakörei. Háttértanulmányok a mikrocenzus programjáról és témaköreiről. [Thetopicsofthe2016Microcensus.Backgroundstudiesabout theprogrammeand topicsof themicrocensus.] Budapest:KözpontiStatisztikaiHivatal.72–86.

dam,H.V.,Zethsen,K.K.2008.Translatorstatus.a studyofdanishcompanytranslators.The Translator Vol14.no1.71–96.


32

ÉvaPataky

dam,V.,Zethsen,K.K.2013.Conferenceinterpreters—thestarsofthetranslationalprofes-sion?a studyoftheoccupationalstatusofdanisheuinterpretersascomparedtodanisheutranslators. Interpreting Vol.15.no2.229–259.

Finch,H.,Lewis,J.2003.Focusgroups.In:ritchie,J.,Lewis,J.(eds)Qualitative Research Practice. London/Thousandoaks/newdelhi:SagePublications.170–198.

gentile,P.2013.Thestatusofconferenceinterpreters.a globalsurveyintotheprofession.Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione: International journal of translation Vol.15.63–82.

griswold,a.2014,September10.TheamericanConceptof“Prestige”HasBarelyChangedin37Years.[ontheHarrisPolls].Moneybox. retrievedfrom:http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/09/10/most_prestigious_jobs_in_america_the_short_list_has_barely_changed_in_37.html

Herbert,J.1952.The interpreter’s handbook: how to become a conference interpreter (2nded.)geneve:Librairiedel’université.

Katan,d.2011.occupationorprofession.a surveyofthetranslators’world.In:Sela-Sheffy,r.,Shlesinger,M.(eds)Identity and status in the Translational professions,amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.65–87.

nakao,K,Treas, J.1990.Computing 1989 occupational prestige scores. retrieved fromthegeneral Social Survey website: http://gss.norc.org/documents/reports/methodological-reports/Mr070.pdf

Prunč,e.2007.Priests,princesandpariahs.Constructingtheprofessionalfieldoftransla-tion.In:Wolf,M.,Fukari,a.(eds)Constructing a sociology of translation, amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.39–56.

Pym, a., grin, F., Sfreddo, C., and Chan, a. L. J. 2012. The status of the translational profession in the European Union: Final report. Luxembourg: european Commission.retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/publications/studies/translation_profession_en.pdf

reiss,a.J.Jr.1961.Occupations and social status. newYork:TheFreePressofglencoe,Inc.ritchie,J.2003.TheapplicationsofQualitativeMethodstoSocialresearch.In:ritchie, J.,

Lewis,J.(eds)Qualitative Research Practice. London/Thousandoaks/newdelhi:SagePublications.24–46.

ritchie,J.,Lewis,J.(eds)Qualitative Research Practice. London/Thousandoaks/newdelhi:SagePublications.

ritchie,J.,Lewis,J.andelam,g.2003.designingandSelectingSamples.In:ritchie, J.,Lewis,J.(eds)Qualitative Research Practice. London/Thousandoaks/newdelhi:SagePublications.77–108.

Sela-Sheffy, r. 2008. On the status and professional self-perception of translators in Israel.retrieved from theTelavivuniversitywebpage:http://www.tau.ac.il/~rakefet/papers/rS-IsraeliTranslators%5BIstanbul2008%5d.pdf

Simeoni,d.1998.Thepivotalstatusofthetranslator’shabitus.Target Vol.10.no.1.1–39.Treiman,d.J.1977.Occupational prestige in comparative perspective. newYork/SanFransisco/

London:academicPress.


33

the usage oF iCt tools as Cai tools in interPreting

kristóf andrás móricz

[email protected]

abstract:Thisarticlepresentstheresultsofa surveyontheinterpreters’ICTusageworkingintheHungarianinterpretingmarket,conductedin2017.InthefirstpartofthepaperI givea literaturereviewabouttherelevantpartsofarticlesandbooksdealingwiththerelationshipbetweenICTandinterpreting.InthesecondpartI presentananalysisofmysurveywhichisbasedonanelectronicques-tionnaireconsistingof13+5questions,answeredbyconferenceinterpretersactiveontheHungarianmarket.Thestudyexamineswhichtoolstheyuse,towhatextent,whatexpectationsorgoalsinterpret-ershavetowardsICTtools,andalsowhattheresultsandeffectsofusingsuchtoolsare.Furthermore,I alsodealwith the issueofCaI (Computerassisted Interpreting) software and the expectationstowardsthem.Byusingthestatisticalmethodofcorrelationthisstudyalsolooksforpossibleconnec-tionsbetweentheindividualresults,andalsocomparesthemwithresultsofpreviousresearch.Keywords:ICTs,conferenceinterpreting,remoteinterpreting,CaT,CaI

1. introduCtion

Withthespreadofnewinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICT)veryfewprofessionshaveremainedunaltered.Interpretingisnoexception,either.Itcanclearlybeseenthatthepro-fessionofinterpretinghasbeensubstantiallychangedbytheevolutionofmoderntechnologies.Laptopsappearedinthebooth,remoteinterpretingisgettingmoreandmoreoftenrequested,andmachineinterpretingisa frequentpubliclydiscussedtopic.researchersexaminedtherela-tionshipofICTsandinterpretingindifferentways.Theaimofthispaperistogiveanintroduc-tiontowhathasbeenfoundsofarabouttheuseofICTininterpretingasassistancetoolsandtopresenta surveyresearchonthetopicconductedamongHungarianconferenceinterpreters.

2. literature review

2.1 the definition of ictalthoughtheterminformation and communication technologydescribesa widespreadconcept,thedefinitionofitisnotsoobviousbecausetherangeofpossibledefinitionsisquitebroad.Myresearchintothetopicshowedthatthereisnowidespreadandunanimouslyusedscien-tificdefinitionofICT.Forthisreason,I triedtofinda definitionwhichwasasdetailedandcomprehensiveaspossible,andthedefinitionprovidedonthewebpageoftheunitedStatesaccessBoardwasonewhichfulfilledmycriteriathemost:

anyinformationtechnology,equipment,orinterconnectedsystemorsubsys-temofequipmentforwhichtheprincipalfunctionisthecreation,conversion,


34

KristófandrásMóricz

duplication,automaticacquisition,storage,analysis,evaluation,manipulation,management,movement,control,display,switching,interchange,transmission,reception,orbroadcastofdataorinformation. examplesofICTareelectroniccontent, telecommunications products, computers and ancillary equipment,software,informationkiosksandtransactionmachines,videos,ITservices,andmultifunctionofficemachineswhichcopy,scan,andfaxdocuments(unitedStatesaccessBoard).

ofcourse,ICTtoolsarementionedanddefinedintranslationandinterpretingstudies,too.BerberIrabien’sdissertationusesthedefinitionofwhatis.com,whichisalsoa non-scientificbutcommercialwebsite,incontrasttotheunitedStatesaccessBoard’swebpage:

[…]anumbrellatermthatincludesanycommunicationdeviceorapplication,encompassing:radio,television,cellularphones,computerandnetworkhard-wareor software, satellite systems,andsoon,aswellas thevariousservicesandapplicationsassociatedwiththem,suchasvideoconferencinganddistancelearning(Whatis.com2008)(BerberIrabien2010).

However,I wouldliketosticktotheformerdefinitionbecauseitcontainseveryaspectrel-evantfor interpretingresearch.Thisis importantconsideringthenextpoint,whichisthetypologyof ICTs in interpreting, inorder tobeable tomakea cleardistinctionbetweenthe categories.While inthefieldoftranslationtheuseofICTsisa well-researchedtopic,in thecaseofinterpreting,scientificresearchstartedsomewhatlater.Ininterpretingresearch,themostimportantICT-relatedresearchtopicsweremachineinterpretingandterminologi-calaidforinterpreters.Froma historicalpointofviewICTshavealwaysbeeninfluentialintheprofessionofinterpreters:simultaneousinterpretingcouldbeintroducedbyestablishingappropriateaudiosystems,makingitpossiblefortheinterpretertoworkina separatedbooth.

2.2 the tyPology of ict usage in interPreting

Thereisa widerangeofICTsmanyofwhicharealsousedbyinterpreters.Inconnectionwithinterpreting,ICTscouldbeclassifiedbasedonthefollowingthreemaincategorieswhichI setupin2016(Móricz2016):

– ICTsformachineinterpreting:toolswhichexisttotakeovera partorthewholeofinterpreters’work.

– ICTsas transfer tools (voiceandpicture):deviceswhichfacilitate theworkof theinterpreters,suchasaudiodevices,screens,headphonesetc.

– ICTsasinterpretingtools:toolsusedbyinterpretersinordertobridgetheknowledgegap(Will2009)betweeninterpretersandparticipantsofa conference.

Thistypologyisnecessaryinordertodistinguishthethirdcategoryfromthefirstandsecondones:inmystudyI shalldealwiththosetoolswhichhelptheinterpretertodelivera betterinterpretationperformancebyprovidingtheminformation,thusservingasCaI(computer-assistedinterpreting)tools.


35

TheusageofICTToolsasCaIToolsin Interpreting

Intheliterature,therearealsoothertypologiesused.BerberIrabienmakesa distinctionbe-tweeninternalandexternalICTs.WhileinternalICTsareavailableonthecomputer,externalICTsarelinkedtootherdevices(cameras,televisionsetc.).HerdefinitionforexternalICTsisasfollows:

alltheaidsmeanttoimprovetheprocess,preparationorfunctionoftheprod-uctoftheinterpreterthatarenotusedwith,oravailablewithin,thecomputer.Theyareexternal,suchascameras,audio-visualrecorders,television,cellulartelephones,microphones,headphones,andpocketelectronicdictionariesnotconnectabletothecomputer(BerberIrabien2010).

Thisdefinitionmightneedrevisioninthenearfutureasmoderntechnologiesbecomemoreandmoreintegrated,i.e.smartcombineddevicestakeovertheroleofseparatetools.BerberIrabien(2010)alsomentionsyetanothertypology(originatingfromTorresdelrey):informa-tiontechnologyversuscommunicationtechnology.Theformercategoryconsistsofsoftwareandhardware,whilethelatterrefersmainlytotheInternet.Theproblemwiththistypologyissimilartothatof internalandexternalICTs,asduetorecentdevelopments inmoderntechnologycleardistinctionsarebecomingincreasinglyimpossible.

2.3 sPecific tyPes of ict tools in interPreting

FromthethreemaincategorieslistedearlierI wouldliketodealwiththethirdone(ICTasinterpretingtool).WithinthisthirdcategoryICTtoolscanbedividedintotwosubcatego-ries,softwareandhardware.ofcourse,there’sa directrelationbetweenthetwo:hardwarearetheretocarrythesoftwarewhichareusedbyinterpreters.ItisimportanttomentionthathereI amnotdealingwithequipmentwhichhasnosoftwareinterface.Therecouldbesomespecialexceptionsinthiscategory:forexample,a torchcouldhelpinterpretersreadsomethingfroma bookora printeddictionary,butthesetoolsdonotactuallyperforma directfunctionthathelpsinterpretersbridgetheknowledgegap.

Thisisa listofthemostwidespreadICThardwareusedbyinterpreters:– PC(personalcomputersathome-usedforpreparationorworkaftertheinterpretingevent)

– portablecomputers(laptops,tabletswhichcanbeusedinallphasesoftheinterpretingtask)– smartphones,– othervideo/audiodevices.

Thisisa listofsoftwareusedbyinterpreters:– texteditors,– browsers,– electroniconlinedictionaries,– parallelcorporainanelectronicformat,– terminologysoftware,– smartphoneapps,– communicationapps/chats,Whatsapp.


36


Itisclearthatmostofthesetoolswerenotdevelopedspecificallyforinterpreters,buttherearesomewhichcouldbeanexception,e.g.terminologysystems,astheyaredesignedtoprovidedirecthelpforinterpretersinterminologicalquestions.

Therearevarioussystemsservingasa terminologytoolforinterpreters.Someonlyassumethetasksofformerpaper-basedtools(suchasvocabularies,presentationmaterials),whileotherscanbebuiltupascomplexsystemswhichnotonlydealwiththelistofthewordsneededfortheparticularinterpretingjobs,butalsomanageinterpretinghistory(wordsfromperviousjobsinthesametopic)andhavedifferentfunctions,makingtheinterpreter’sworkeasier.rüttenmentionsthattherearesomeconcernsamongtranslatorsandterminologyexpertsastowhetherwordlistsareappropriatefroma terminologicalpointofview:

Workingwithmultilingualwordlists iswidelydisapprovedofamongtrans-latorsor terminologists.Thesesimple lists lackanykindofadditional infor-mationconcerninggrammar,meaning,reliability,etc.Theyoftenevenseeminconsistentandunstructuredordonotcorrespondtotheofficial,standardisedterms.However,severalinterpretershavealreadyunderlinedtheirusefulness,andthereareoccasionswheresuchlistsmayverywellservethespecialpurposeofconferenceinterpreters,whichsimplyentailsfindingtherightwordattherightmoment(rütten2004).

Here it is important tounderline thatprogrammesusedbytranslators (CaT)andtermi-nologistshavea completelydifferentstructurecomparedtocomputerassistedinterpretingsoftware.Themainreasonforthisisthesituativityoftheinterpreter’swork:there’snooppor-tunityforlookinguplongdefinitionsora completesetofwords,interpretersworkingintheboothneedhelprightaway.Sofarthereisa verysmallselectionofCaItools.Theonesthatal-readyexistareverydiverse(Fantinuoli2016).rüttensetupa softwaremodelbasedonwhichanidealCaIsystemcouldbebuiltup.Sheidentifiedfiveimportantstepswhichhavetobedirectlylinkedtothemainpage.onlineandofflinesearchisthefirstimportantfunction,thesecondoneisdocumentmanagement:atthisstage,miscellaneousdocumentscanbeputintothesystem(wordlists,documentsfromthecustomer,etc.)ThethirdphaseisTerminologyextractionandanalysis:analysesdocuments(module2),extractspotentialtechnicaltermsandtheirequivalentsina differentlanguagewhenparalleltextsintherespectivelanguagesareavailableoritispossibletoconsultelectronicdictionariesorencyclopaedias.Thefourthmoduleisthereforterminologymanagement,dealingwithterminologyfrommodule3andexternalsourcesaswell.Thefifthmoduleisthetrainer,facilitatingbettermemorisationofwordsandexpressionssavedinmodule4(rütten2004).

FantinuolidistinguishestwotypesofCaItools,theso-calledfirstgenerationandsecondgenerationones.Whilefirstgenerationtoolscanonlymanagewordlistsandvocabulariesinaninterpreter-friendlyway(seethefirsttwomodulesofrütten’smodel),secondgenerationtoolsarealreadyabletoprovideterminologyandknowledgemanagementorgobeyondthat:organisetextualmaterial,retrieveinformationfromcorporaorotherresources,learnconcep-tualdomainsandhavemoreadvancedsearchfunctions.underthecategoryfirstgeneration,FantinuolimentionsInterplex,Interpreters’Help,Terminus,LookupanddolTerm,butonly


37


thefirsttwoarecommerciallyavailableandmaintained.InterpretbankandIntraglossbelongtothecategoryofsecondgenerationtools(Fantinuoli2016).

Inhis articleWill discusses systemswith an appropriate scientificbackground.Thesemeetsimilardemandstorütten’ssystem,theynotonlyexistashelpduringtheinterpretingwork,butalsoforthepreparationandthepost-interpretingphase:LookupProfessionalandInterpretbank3(Will2009).

2.4 asPects of using ict tools

Consideringthesesystemsit’salsointerestinginwhichphaseofaninterpreter’sworkthereisthemostdemandforICTtools(before,duringorafterinterpreting).TheresultofBerberIrabien’sresearch(2010)showedthatthehighestlevelofICTtoolusageistobeseenintheprepara-tionphase,whileworkingwithICTtoolsduringinterpretingtakessecondplace.Thelowestfigureswereregisteredinthepost-interpretingphase.a problemwiththesefiguresisthatthereareseveralICTsinthelistoftoolsexaminedwhichcannotbefullyusedineachphaseoftheinterpretingjob.MyresearchontheHungarianinterpretingscene(2017)showssimilarresults.However,theuseofICTsduringworkhasreacheda higherproportionthaninthecaseofBerberIrabien’sstudy.also,theresultsofBerberIrabien’sstudyaswellasmysurveyshowthatsimilarCaIsoftwareareuseful,astheyareutilisedbyinterpretersbefore,duringandafterwork.

anotherimportantquestionishowtheevolutionoftechnologycaninfluencethefutureofinterpreting.Therearealreadytechnologieswhichcanprovidea basiclevelinterpreting:thesearetranslationenginescombinedwithsoundrecognitionsoftware.Thereisa consensusamongexpertsthatmachineinterpretingwouldn’tbeabletoreplacehumaninterpretersintheshortterm.accordingtoprognosesinthefutureinterpretingjobswillbedividedintotwocategories:thefirst,simpleronescouldbetakenoverbymachines,whilemorecomplicatedtasksremaininthe‘hands’ofhumaninterpreters(Horváth2016).

2.4.1 The benefits and drawbacks of iCt usage in interpretingWhilenearlyeveryauthordealingwiththetopicofICTsininterpretingacknowledgestheimportanceoftheICTtoolsininterpreting,todatetheimpactofthesetoolsisnotclear.Themainquestionisthefollowing:istheextensiveusageofmodernelectronictoolsreallythatusefulordotheside-effectsoutweightheirpotentialbenefits?ThestrongestcriticismisvoicedbyTripepiWinteringham:

Theoretically, thesetoolsshouldrepresentthemosteffective informationin-terfacewheninterpreting,butistheirpracticalusefeasibleanddoesrenditionbenefit?Themaindrawbackoftheuseofthesetoolsisthatitisstillconsidered,at least in thebooth, to someextent asunnatural (donovan2006:5),pre-sumablybecauseitmaybetime-consuminganddistractinginanactivitythatrequiresconcentrationandfast-paceddecodinganddelivery.Theinterpreteratworkmaynothavethetimeorthecognitiveabilitytolookupa wordonlineorinhis/herelectronicdictionary,ordetectandchoosethecorrecttranslationofa specifictermamongthemyriadofpossiblesolutionsthataregenerallyofferedbydictionaries(TripepiWinteringham2010).


38


TripepiWinteringham’smostimportantargumentisthattheusageofICTtoolsincursanextraeffortfortheinterpreters.anotherargumentisthattheconstantuseofelectronicdevicesdistractsnotonlytheinterpreterbutalsothecustomer.Furthermore,itisdisturbingforthemtoseetheinterpreterfocusingontheirgadgetinsteadofthecommunicativesituationitself.SimilarpointsweremadebyJoneswhounderlinestheimportanceoftherightpriorisation,sayingthattheprimarytaskoftheinterpreteristofocusonthecommunicativesituation:

Many colleagues now work with a laptop in the booth. This can of coursebea boon.Itcanhelponetocallupdocumentsreferredto inthemeeting.Itenablesinterpreterstosearchglossariesandterminologydatabases.Buttheconcentrationontextandterminology–whilstofcourseI shouldneverdenythatusingcorrectterminologyisanessentialpartoftheinterpreter’sjob–canleadtheinterpretertolosesightofthefirstaimofinterpretationaswelearnit,namelyconveyingmeaningandfacilitatingcommunication(Jones2014).

ItisimportantnotonlywhethertheinterpreterusesICTtoolsornot,butalsowhichonestheyprefer,iftheyusethematall.WillemphasisesthatICTtoolsusedbyinterpretersareoftenverysimilartoCaTtools,butthesearenotsufficienttosupportinterpretingtasksduetotheirstruc-ture(Will2015).anotherimportantquestionisthetimewheninterpretersusetheirtools.ofcourse,theonthespotusagehasitslimitations,butwell-developedtoolscanalsoprovidemuchhelpinthepreparationphaseandaftertheinterpretingaswell(rütten2004).afterall,ICTtoolshavebecomeaninseparablepartofinterpreters’work:inthepreparationphase,during,aswellasafterwork.Hereportabledevicesplaythemostimportantrole(Horváth2014).

anotherinterestingquestionisifthereisanyconnectionbetweentheage,sexorothercharacteristicsofthepersonandhowtheyuseICTsinconnectionwiththeirwork.BerberIrabienexaminedthesequestionsaswell,suchasquestionsabouta possibledifferencebe-tweenfreelanceandinternalinterpreters:

freelanceinterpretersareusingproportionallymoreICTsthantheirin-housecounterparts,contrarytowhatthestereotypewouldleadonetobelieve.Thestereotype is that in-house interpreterswouldhaveaccess tomoreICTsandwouldthereforeuse themmoreoften.In fact,duringan informalconversa-tion,itwasmentionedthatinsomeinstitutionsthereisnoInternetconnectionavailableforfreelanceinterpreters;onlythein-houseinterpretershaveaccess.ThiscommentwouldsupporttheviewthatthereshouldbemoreactiveuseofICTsbyin-houseinterpreters,butwhichis,however,rejectedbythesefigures(BerberIrabien2010).

anotherquestion is inwhichphase interpretersuse ICT toolsduring theirwork:BerberIrabienshowsthatICTsareusedthemostinthepreparationphase,whileusageduringworkcamesecond.ICTsareusedtheleastafterwork.BerberIrabiendoesnotelaborateonthequestionwhethertheuseduringtheworkonthespotalsocontainspreparatoryworkoritISonlytheICTusedduringinterpreting(probablyhelpingboothmates).


39


2.4.2 side glance to remote interpretingremote interpreting isnot a subjectof thispaper.nevertheless, some researcheson thetopicactuallyrevealedtheattitudeofinterpreterstowardsmoderntechnology,thereforeitisworthtakinga lookatit.remoteinterpretingemergedasa newformofinterpretinginthe1970s.oneofitsfirstformswasusedinaustralia:refugeeinterpretingstartedin1973viatelephone.oneoftheimportantfactorsinvolvedinthefastspreadingofremoteinter-pretingwastherapiddevelopmentofinformationtechnology.Withremoteinterpreting,itwasalsopossibletocutcostsandsavetime.(TripepiWinteringham2010).accordingtoBerberIrabienwecandistinguishbetweenthreeformsofdistanceinterpreting:telephoneinterpreting,videoconferencingandremoteinterpreting(BerberIrabienusesdistancein-terpretingasanumbrellatermandremoteinterpretingforthecasewheninterpretersaresittingina separateroomfromthespeakersandlisteners.Invideoconferencing,interpretersaresittinginthesamelocationassomeoftheparticipantswhileothersareina differentlocation.)

Sincethe introductionofremote interpretingseveral researcheshavebeenconductedwhichexaminedthelinkbetweenremoteinterpretingandinterpreters,aswellasinterpret-ers’attitude.earlystudiesshowedthatalthoughremoteinterpretingisefficient,interpretersfeltverystronglyaboutit.In1999theunconcludedanexperimentintheframeworkofa two-week conferencewith six languages.Questionnaireswere distributed amongpar-ticipantsand interpretersaswell.Theresults showedthat interpretersperceivedthenewsituationasmorestressfulandcomplicatedthanconventionalinterpreting:theyfeltmoreexhaustedandlessmotivated.Theyfoundthevoicetransmissiontobe“okay”,butnottheimagetransmission(andreasandFalk2009).It is importanttopointoutthattheaudi-encewasactuallycontentwiththeworkoftheinterpreters.Intheverysameyearanotherexperiment,organisedby the InternationalTelecommunicationunionand theecoledeTraductionetd’Interpretationtookplacewhichincludedtwoboothsperlanguage,oneatthesiteandoneremotebooth.

asintheunexperiment,theaudiencewassatisfiedwithinterpretationquality.Thesalivatestsdidnotshowa substantialdifferencebetweenthelevelsofstresshormonesoftheinterpretersintheboothinsidetheconferenceroomandthosedoingremoteinterpreting.Buttheinterpretersthemselvesagaindescribedtheexperienceofremoteinterpretingasnegative.Theyfelta physicalandpsycho-logicaldistancetotheconferenceproceedings,whichmadethemexperiencea feelingoflossofcontrol.accordingly,theyfelttheirstresslevelswhendoingremoteinterpretingwerehigher.Thefactthattheinterpretersweredisassoci-atedfromtheconferenceproceedingslednotonlytoa decreaseinmotivationbutalsotoa subjectiveincreaseintheoccurrenceoffatiguesymptoms.Imagesfromtheconferenceroomthatwouldhavebeenimportantfortheinterpreterstoseewerenotshown.ananalysisoftheresultsraisedtheissuewhethera lackofvisualcontactmeansthatinterpretersneedmorementalcapacitytocompen-sateforthislackofinformationwhichinturncausessymptomsoffatiguetooccurearlierthanusual(andresandFalk2009).


40


oneofthemainproblemswithremoteinterpretingisthelackofcontext,nonverbalinforma-tion,gestures,facialexpressionsandviewoftheaudience,asvisualinformationisnecessaryfortheinterpreters.andresandFalkcametotheconclusionthatthereareplentyofopenquestionsconcerningremoteinterpreting,suchasthefollowing:whenis itappropriatetouseremoteinterpretingandisitnecessarytoincluderemoteinterpretinginthetrainingofinterpreters?(andresandFalk2009).

Seresi,however,emphasisesthatintheresearchestherewasnohardevidenceorrootcausefoundforthenegativeimpressionsoftheinterpreters.remoteinterpretingisactuallyreallydifficultinthelearningphaseuntiltheinterpretergetsusedtothenewworkingconditions.aftergettingusedtothem,thenewconditionsmighteventurnouttobebetterforthein-terpreters(Seresi2016).

InesSwaneytakesa lookatotherprofessions,andwhyitisnecessarytohavea personalpresenceinhighleveldiplomacyorinthejudicialsystem.Inbothcasesthereisnoquestionthatduetotheimportanceoftheissuesdiscussed,a humanpresenceisrequired,andac-cordingtoSwaneyinterpretingsituationsdeservejustthesamelevelofimportance(Swaney1997).

ImportantissuesdescribedinthispointaboutremoteinterpretingarealsoverypresentinusingICTtoolsaswell,suchasthe(perceived)effectontheinterpreter’sperformance,theextraeffortsfortheinterpreterandthereasonwhythesenewtechnologiesareneededatall.Thesequestionsarealsoa subjectofthesurveyI presentinthenexthalfofthisarticle.

3. study oF the hungarian interPreting sCene

3.1 research method

Thecoreofthisresearchwasanonlinesurveyconsistingofaltogether18multiple-choicequestions,someofwhichalsoofferedanadditionaloption(‘other’),providingtheopportu-nitytogivefree-textanswers,too.Thesurveywassenttoa selectedgroupofHungarianinter-preters,outofwhom34filledinthequestionnaire.Beforesendingoutthefinalquestionnaire,therewasa pilotstage,too,withsixparticipants.

InthefirstpartofmyanalysisI summarisethevariousanswersI receivedfromthe34participantstomyquestions.InthesecondpartI shalltakea lookatwhethertherearecer-tainrelationsbetweenanswerstodifferentquestions,inordertogeta moreholisticpictureoftheresearchtopic.Forthispurpose,I usedthemethodofcorrelation.Correlationenablesthe researcher toexamineanypossible relationshipswithinonegroup.Twosetsof scoresfromthesamegrouparecomparedwitheachotheranda so-calledcorrelationcoefficient(r)iscalculated,whichcanvarybetween-1and1.Ifitisclosetozero,theconnectionbetweenthetwosetsofscoresisratherweak,whilehigh(orlow)valuesarea signalthatthetwoscoresarecorrelatingwitheachother.Toindicatesignificance,a so-called‘p-value’wasintroduced.Itshowswhethertheconnectioninquestionissignificantenoughtorejectthezerohypoth-esis(statingthatthereisnosignificantcorrelationbetweenthetwoscores).Ifthep-valueisbelow0.05,thezerohypothesiscanbeconsideredrejected(SeligerandShohamy1990).ofcourse,thisstatisticmethodisonlyapplicablefornumericaldata(e.g. usingthedigits0and1forbinaryinformation,likethesexoftherespondents),whileinthequestionnairethere


41


werea coupleofquestionswhichelicitedqualitativeinformation,too,byprovidinganad-ditionaloption(‘other’),wheretheparticipantscouldenteradditionalinformationthatI hadtoquantifylater,throughplainclassification:byactuallycalculatingvaluesfromtheanswers.Forexample,theattitudetowardsusingICTtoolswascalculatedbyaddingupthenumberoftextanswerscontainingpositiveandnegativeattitudestowardsICTtools.Forcalculatingthecorrelationitself,I useddaniel’sXLToolboxngwhichisa free-sourceapplication,andcanbeinstalledtospreadsheetslikeMicrosoftexcel.

3.2 general information about the ParticiPants

Thefirstfivequestionsaskedaboutpersonalinformationinconnectionwiththeparticipants.alloftheparticipantswereactiveinterpreterswhoworkontheHungarianfreelancemarketasconferenceinterpreters.Thesepeoplewerecontactedindividuallyforthepurposeofthesurvey.Whilelookingforparticipantsformysurvey,itwasimportanttofindrespondentswhoactuallyworkedontheHungarianfreelancemarketasinterpreters.duringthesurveyonewayofmakingsurethatonlyactiveinterpretersfillinthequestionnairewasthequestionaboutprofessionalexperience:heretheminimumcategorywas3 to5years, i.e.beginnerswereexcluded,too.

asI havepointedoutearlier,thepilotsurveywasansweredby6,theliveoneby34per-sons.approximately2/3oftherespondentswerefemale.Theaverageageoftheparticipantswas49.57years.Concerningprofessionalexperience,52.9%oftherespondentshavebeenworkingasaninterpreterfor11to29years,26.5%formorethanthreedecades,8.8%for6 to10yearsand11.8%for3to5years.

Thenextquestionaskedaboutthenumberofinterpretingdaystheparticipantshadina month:35.3%have1-4workingdays,44.1%5-9,14.7%10-15and5.9%(tworespondents)16ormoreworkingdaysona monthlybasis.anaverageof53%oftheparticipants’workisconsideredastraditionalconferenceinterpreting(withboothsandproperequipment),whiletherestisconsecutive,liaison,etc.However,therangewasverywideinthisrespect,assomeonlyhave2or3%,whileothersworkexclusivelyinthe‘conference’setting.asfarastheedu-cationoftherespondentsisconcerned,19havea university/collegedegreeininterpreting,16passedanexamofinterpreting(whichallowsonetoworkasaninterpreterwithoutactuallyhavingattendeda trainingininterpreting–itwascharacteristicoftimeswhentrainingsininterpretingwereonlyavailabletoa verylimitedextent),15participatedina specialisttrain-ing1,threerespondentsdon’thavea degreeininterpretingwhiletwoofthemalsohavea Phd.ofcourse,thereareobviouscorrelationsbetweensomeofthesefigures:age,experienceandnumberofworkingdaysseemtobeinconnectionwitheachother:thecalculationofthecor-relationsalsosupportsthisassumption.However,theserelationsarenotdirectlyrelatedtothesubjectofthisstudy,sotheywillnotbeanalysedanyfurther.

1Thiswasa specialpostgraduatecourseininterpretinganditwasofferedatuniversitiesbeforetherewasanopportunitytohavea universitydegreeininterpreting.


42


3.3 Questions about the ict usage

Question 1wasposedinordertoidentifywhetherthereareinterpreterswhodonotuseanyICTtoolsforworkpurposes.Thequestiondeliberatelydidnotspecifywhichphaseofthein-terpretingjobismeant,moreoverduringtheinterpretingjob,preparationandpost-interpret-ingcouldbeincludedaswell.Theresultsmatchedmyexpectations:noonechosetheoption“IhaveneverusedICTtoolsinmywork”.47.1%haveusedICTduringthewholeoftheircareers,while52.9%startedusingthemassoonasthesetechnologiesbecameavailable.

Questions 2 and 3 investigated the particular ICT tools used by interpreters on theHungarianmarket.Question 2focusesonhardware,whileQuestion 3consistsofa listofsoft-ware.unlikeBerberIrabien’sdissertation(2010),myquestionsdidnotcontainanyparticularelements(likenamesofITproducts)inordernottoconfusetherespondents.I onlynamedsomeasexamples,inordertomaketheanswerchoicesmoreunderstandable.TheresultsarepresentedinTables 1 and 2.

Table 1:electronichardwaretoolsasusedbytherespondents

i use the following electronic tools for my work (preparation and postinterpreting phase included)

Personalcomputerathome 22responses 64.7%

Portablecomputers(laptop,tablet) 34responses 100%

Smartphones 22responses 64.7%

Soundandpicturerecordingdevices 4responses 11.8%

others 0responses 0%

asforTable 1,I listedthemaintoolswhichcancomeintoconsiderationconcerninghard-ware,withoutnamingbrandsorsubtypesoftheequipmentlistedabove.Theresultsshowthatportabledevicesplaya crucialroleintheworklifeoftheinterpreters,smartphonesreceivedthesamescoreasthePCsathome.Thisalsoindicatestheimportanceofusingdevicesatthevenueoftheinterpretingjob(preparationandusageofICTtoolswhileworking).

Table 2:Softwareusedbyrespondents

i use the following software for my conference interpreting work

Texteditorsoftware(Word,openofficeetc.) 32responses 94.1%

Browsers(e.g.Chrome,Mozilla,Ie) 34responses 100%

electronicwebdictionaries(e.g.Leo,Sztaki,Linguee) 31responses 91.2%

electronicparallelcorpora(forexamplepreparationmaterialinelec-tronicformat) 33responses 97.1%

Specialterminologysoftware,databases(speciallydevelopedfortrans-lationandinterpreting) 18responses 52.9%

Smartphoneapplications(forexamplelanguageapps,translationorvocabularyapps) 14responses 41.2%

Communicationsoftwareandapps(forexamplechat,Whatsapp) 5responses 14.7%

others(installeddictionariesandgoogledrive) 1response 2.9%


43


TheresultsshowthatmostoftheparticipantsusebasicICTtoolsfortheirwork.Morethanhalfofthemalsousespecialsoftwareanddatabaseswhichweredevelopedtosupporttransla-tionandinterpreting.Thispieceofinformationisimportantbecauseitshowsthatthereisa needforsuchICTtoolsamonginterpreters.TheresultsareinsomeaspectssimilartothoseofBerberIrabien’s(2010),andmyquestionsshowedagainthatthemostwidespreadareICTtoolsusedineverydaylifeTherewasonlyonerespondentwhonamedothersoftwarewhichwerenotpartofthelist,whiletherewasnobodywhomissedanyoptionsconcerninghardware,sointhequestionaskingabouthardware,the‘other’optionwasnotmarkedbyanyone.

Table 3summarisestheresultsofQuestion 4,whichaimedatthepurposeofICTusage.TheaimofthisquestionwastodiscoverwhetherinterpreterscannameanyspecificpurposeswhytheyuseICTtools,ortheyareonlyfollowingthetrends.

Table 3:PurposeofusingICTs

i use iCt tools because... (several answers possible)

…Iwanttomakemyworkmoreprecise. 28responses 82.4%...nowadaysitisexpectedthatinterpretersusethem. 2responses 5.9%...theyareveryusefulbasedonmyexperience. 32responses 94.1%...theytaughtmesointheinterpretingschool. 3responses 8.8%other 3responses 8.8%

Thefirstandthethirdoptionsareconnectedtointrinsicmotivations,whilethesecondandthefourthoptionsrefertoexternalones.TheresultsshowthatmostoftheparticipantsuseICTsduetointrinsicmotivations.Thethirdanswerwasmarkedbymostoftherespondents(theyareveryusefulbasedonmyexperience).Thispieceofinformationisimportant,becauseitshowsthatthereisnoveryspecificbackgroundofICTusage.amongthespecificgoals(statementswhichcontaina well-formedspecificgoallike“I wanttomakemyworkmoreprecise”)onlythefirstoptiongothighscores.outofthosewhomarkedthe“other”optionaswell,thereweresomewhoclaimedthatICTtoolswereimportantbecauseinterpretersdonotalwaysseetheslidesofe.g.PPTpresen-tationsfromthebooth.othersclaimthatICTtoolsacceleratedtheirworkingpace,whileonere-spondentemphasisedtheimportanceofbeingup-to-dateaboutthenews,evenduringinterpreting.

Question 5examinedinwhichphasesinterpretersusetheirICTtools.alloftherespond-ents statedthat theyusedthetools inthepreparationphaseathome,while97.1%(everyparticipant,exceptforone)alsousethemforpreparationalsoonthespot,attheinterpretingvenue.82.4%claimedthat theyusedICTtoolswhileactually interpreting (althoughthequestiondidnotpreciselydefinewhetherthiswashelpinga boothmatewhiletheyarework-ingorusingtheICTtoolwhiletheuserisspeaking).only32.4%useICTtoolsforpost-interpretingtasks.althoughmyresultsturnedouttobesimilartothoseofBerberIrabienconcerning the rankingof thephases, there are some importantdifferencesbetweenourstudies.Firstofall,I dividedthepreparationphaseintotwocategories:preparationathomeandpreparationonthespot.althoughthedifferencebetweenthetwophasesturnedouttobeminimal,itcanbeassumedthatdifferentICTareusedforpreparationathomeandonthespot,sothetwophasescannotbeconsideredthesamesetting.Thesecondimportantdiffer-encewasthatherresultswerebelow50%inallofthephases.Thereasonforthiscouldhave


44


beenthatshecalculatedheraveragefromanswersbrokendowntosubcategories,whichalsocontainedtoolsthatwerenotwidespreadatthetimeofherstudy.

Question 6focusesontheimpactofICTtools,I summarisedtheresultsinTable 4.ThemaingoalofthisquestionwastofindoutwhatusingICTtoolsreallymeansforinterpret-ersintheirwork,andiftherearepositiveornegative(side-)effectsofusingthem,oritisjusta neutralphenomenon.

Table 4:experiencesofusingICTtools

based on my experiences using iCt tools while interpreting... (more answers possible)…divertstheinterpreterfromtheinterpretingtaskitself. 5responses 14.7%…requiresextraefforts. 10responses 29.4%…isalreadya partofmyinterpretingmethod,itcannotbeconsideredasa phenomenononitsown. 20responses 58.8%

…helpsconcentrating. 3responses 8.8%other: 3responses 8.8%

Theanswersshowa quiteversatileresult.ThemostimportantfindingisthatthemajorityofrespondentsdonotconsidertheusageofICTtoolsassomethingneworsomethingthathin-dersthem.Threerespondentsaddedtheirownremarksaswell:onewrotethatitisimportanttouseICTsforthesakeofthevisualinput(“youcanreadoutdifficulttechnicaltermsmoreeasilyifyouseethemrightinfrontofyou...”).anotherparticipantpointedouttheadvantageofhelpingboothmates,a thirdansweraddsa commentonthesameperson’snegativeresponse(extraefforts,diversion),admittingthatitcanstillbeessentialinthecaseofsearchingfora term.Thisquestionenablestheresearchertogeta firstglimpseoftherespondents’emotionalattitudetowardsICTaswell:thefirsttwoquestionsrepresentnegativefeelings,whilethethirdandthefourthonesarepositiveorneutral(inthiscaseneutralresponsescanbecon-sideredaspositive,becausetheymeanthattheinterpreterhasanadditionalskillwhichdoesnotcauseanycomplicationsforthem).Comparingthesetwocategoriesa ratioof23positiveversus15negativeopinionsshowsthatthereisnounanimouslypositiveapproachtowardsICTtoolsamongHungarianinterpreters,buttheirapproachisstillratheroptimistic.

InlightoftheanswerstoQuestion 6,answerstoQuestion 7turnedouttobequitepositive.ThequestionaimedattheparticulareffectsofusingICTtools.TheseanswersarelistedinTable 5andtheyshowhowtheusageofICTtoolsinfluencestheworkoutputofinterpreters.

Table 5:effectsofusingICTontheperformanceofinterpreters

using tools during interpreting... (more answers possible)...oftenitcanhelpsolvesuddenterminologyproblems(unknownexpressions). 30responses 88.2%...oftencontributestoa betterunderstandingofthesourcetext(e.g. throughcheckinga paralleltextduringwork). 14responses 41.2%

...oftencontributestoa bettertargettextproduction(e.g.throughcheckinga paralleltextduringwork). 14responses 41.2%

...canbeusefulbutdoesn’tproviderealhelpinmostofthecases. 4responses 11.8%

...isinmostofthecasesitisanobstacle,itdoesmoreharmthangood. 1response 2.9%other 2responses 4.8%


45


asitturnedoutfromtheresults,most(88.2%)oftherespondentsconsiderterminologicalhelptobeuseful,whilenearlyhalfoftherespondentsthinkthatitcontributestotheunder-standingofthesourcetextortheproductionofthetargettext.only11.8%thinkthatusingICTtoolsduringinterpretingisnotuseful(obviouslythiswasthe11.8%whichdidnotmarkthefirstanswer).ThemostcriticalornegativeoptionwhichclaimsthatusingICTtoolsisratheranobstaclethananadvantagewasmarkedbyonlyonerespondent.also,therewasa commentinthe‘other’option,whichclaimedthattheusageofICTtoolscanbeveryusefulindeed,ifonehastointerpreta non-nativespeaker.

Question 8examinedthefrequencyofusingICTtools.TheseresultsshowthatICTtoolsarestillnotdominantininterpreting:a largemajorityoftherespondents(73.5%)claimedthattheyuseICTonly1to3timesduringonehourofconferenceinterpreting.8.8%usethem4-7times,whileonly17.6%useICTtoolscontinuouslyormorethan13timesperhour.Thefourthoption(8-12timesperhour)wasnotchosenbyanybody.Theseresultscouldcasta cloudoverthepositiveattitudesshowninquestion7:ifrespondentsreallyconsideredICTtoolspositiveandusefulthingstheyobviouslywouldusethemmoreoftenduringtheirinterpretingwork.a plau-sibleexplanationcouldhoweverbethatICTtoolscanonlybeusedincertaininterpretingsitu-ationsorsettings,butinthesetheyproveuseful.additionally,therewasonecommentstatingthattherespondentusesICTtoolsduringinterpretinglessthanonceinanhourofinterpreting.

Questions 9 and 10examinedparticularadvantagesanddisadvantagesofICTtools.Theanswerstothesetwoquestionsconfirmedonceagainthepositiveattitudeofinterpretersto-wardsusingICTtools:theratioofpositiveandnegativeanswers(toQuestions9and10)addsupto97:43.amongtheadvantageseasy searchingachievedthehighestscore(32answers,thatis94.1%)followedbyspeed(29answers,thatis85.3%).Big amount of dataretrieved41.2%(14answers),followedbyaccuracy(29.4%,thatis10answers)andadjustability(whichcouldbecomeanimportantfeatureofcomputeraidedinterpreting,accordingtorüttenandWill).This,however,onlycameinlastwith26.5%(9answers).nobodyamongtherespondentsthinksthatICTtoolshadnoadvantagesininterpreting.Therewerethreeremarksaswell:oneparticipantsaidthatitisveryusefultobeabletosearchincontext,anotheremphasisedtheimportanceoftransparency,a thirdoneevenadmittedthatusingICTintheboothisveryusefulforamusementpurposesaswell.anothercommentmentionedtheadvantageofthelittlespacea tablettakesupinthebooth.amongthedisadvantageslistedinTable 6distracting or disturbing effectandpotential technical issuesrealisedthehighestscores.

Table 6:disadvantagesofusingICTtoolsduringinterpreting

Most important disadvantages of using iCt tools during interpreting (several answers possible)

distracting,disturbingeffect 16responses 47.1%

Technicalproblems 12responses 35.3%

Toobiganamountofdata 4responses 11.8%

Increasedexpectationsofcustomers 2responses 5.9%

Therearenodisadvantages 8responses 23.5%

other 1response 2.9%


46


23.5%oftherespondentsthoughtthatusingICTtoolshadnodisadvantagesatall.Theop-tionabouttheincreasedexpectationsofcustomersrelatestothefactthatnowadaysautomatedtranslationapplicationsarewidelyknown(likegoogleTranslate),andthisfactcouldhaveleadtoa changeintheexpectedperformancelevelfrominterpretersbecausethesetoolsarealsoused,mainlybynon-professionals.Theanswers,however,didnot support this argu-mentation,asonly5.9%reportedhavingobservedthiskindoftrend.Yetanotherinterestingquestionwaswhethertherewereanyinterpreterswhoconsiderthebig amount of dataofferedbyICTsanadvantageanda disadvantageatthesametime,butnorespondentssupportedthisview.onerespondentcommentedthatitactuallytakesmoretimetoworkwitha computerthanonpaperifyouoccasionallypressa wrongbuttonand,forexample,thePPTpresenta-tiondisappears.

ForQuestion 11itturnedoutthattherewasonlyonerespondentwhoknewspecificCaI(ComputerassistedInterpreting)tools(Phraselator)butshehasnotusedthemactively,either.Thismightbeduetothefactthattherestillaren’tanyCaItoolswhichcouldbeconsideredwidespread.Question 12examinedwhatexpectationsinterpretershadtowardsCaItools:theresultsaresummarisedinTable 7.

Table 7:expectationstowardsCaItools

My most important expectations towards Cai tools: (several answers possible)

easytooperate 33responses 97.1%

Bigamountofcomprehensivedata 10responses 29.4%

effectivemanagementofpreviousinterpretingjobs(vocabulary,backgroundmaterials,etc.) 17responses 50.0%

Quicktosearch 32responses 94.1%

other 0responses 0%

TheoptionshereareslightlydifferentfromthecategoriesofWill(2015)(adequacyandmodelbuilding,simultaneityandphasespecificusage).ThisisbecausefortherespondentsWill’scategorieswouldhavebeendifficulttorelateto,astheyarescientificterms.duetothisfactI chosestatementswhichrepresentthepracticalrealisationofWill’stypology.(1)Big and comprehensive dataandeffectivemanagementofpreviousinterpretingjobsrepresentadequacyandmodelbuilding,whiletheoptions(2)easy to operateand(3)quick searchability belongtothecategoryofsimultaneity.Therewerenooptionsprovidedconcerningthephasesofaninterpretingjob(before,during,afterinterpreting)asitwouldhaveneededa verylongexpla-nationinthequestionnaire,andwouldhavemadeittoocomplicatedforrespondentstofillinthequestionnaire.TheanswersmostlysupportWill’smodel,becausealmosteveryrespond-ent(97.1%)markedthefirstanswer,justliketheoptionquick searchability (94.1%).Halfoftheparticipantsalsoexpectstheeffectivemanagementofpreviousinterpretingjobs,whichisimportantasmanagingpreviouseventselectronicallyandcomplexinformationmanagementalreadyassumeanideaofcomplexCaIsystems.anoverwhelmingmajorityofrespondentsclaimedhoweverthattheyhaveneverseenanycomplexCaIsystems,butitislikelythattheyhavetriedoutorusedCaTsystemswhicharesimilarconcerningtheircomplexity.


47


ThelastquestionexamineswhatchangestheusageofICTtoolsinvolvedforinterpreters.Therewerethreepossibleanswerstheparticipantscouldchoosefrom:ICTtools(1)onlytookoverthetaskofold,paper-basedtools,or(2)theybroughtnewelementsintotheworkofin-terpretersor(3)bothofthestatementsarecorrect.onlytworespondentsmarkedoption(1),29.4%ofthem(10answers)choseoption(2),whilethemajority(21answers,thatis61.8%)chosethethirdstatement.Therewasonerespondentwhoclaimedtousebothelectronicandpaperbasedtoolswhichaddshim/hertothethirdgroup.Intotal,91.4%supportedclaimswhich stated thatby the introductionofnewtechnologies,newelementsor featureswereaddedtointerpreters’toolkit.Themainquestionhereiswhethertheseareadditionaltools,orwhethertheyonlyreplaceolder,paper-basedones.Basedontheanswers,91.4%thinkthatthesetoolsaddnewperspectivestotheworkofinterpreters,andtheyarenotjusta replacementforothertoolsusedearlier(e.g.paperandpen).

3.4 correlations and relations between figures

Thequestionsinthesurveydonotonlycontaininformationindividually,buttherearealsopossibleconnectionsbetweentheindividualresults.Theissueoftherelationsbetweenthe1st,2ndand3rdquestionwasalreadymentionedearlier.However,besidesquestionsaboutICTusageduringinterpreting,therearemorecomplexconnections,too,e.g.concerningpersonalinformation(introductoryquestions).Thecorrelationvaluesarepresentedinmycorrelationmatrix. I tookevery resultwhichcanbea partof a connectionandcanbeconverted toa numericform.althoughI calculatedallofthecorrelations,someoftheseelementsarenotrelevanttothetopic(e.g.thecorrelationbetweentheageandtheexperienceoftherespond-ents).Thesefieldsreceiveda differentbackgroundcolourinmycharts.Ifthereisa correlationbetweenthefactors,itisindicatedinbold.Thematrixispresentedintwotables(Tables8and9).

Table 8:Correlationmatrix,part1

age experience interpreting days simultaneous

age – r=0.792, p=0.000 r=0.565, p=0.001 r=0.16,p=0.373

experience r=0.792, p=0.000 – r=0.412, p=0.015 r=0.34,p=0.049

Interpretingdays r=0.565, p=0.001 r=0.412, p=0.015 – r=0.238,p=0.176

Simultaneous r=0.16,p=0.373 r=0.34,p=0,049 r=0,238,p=0.176 –

numberofICT toolsused r=0.061,p=0.738 r=0.069,p=0.699 r=0.121,p=0.497 r=0.039,p=0.826

FrequencyofICT usage r=0.195,p=0.276 r=0.321,p=0.064 r=0.086,p=0.627 r=0.324,p=0.062

Sex r=–0.136,p=0.451 r=–0.253,p=0.149 r=–0.145,p=0.412 r=–0.03,p=0.868

attitude r=0.286,p=0.107 r=0.35, p=0.042 r=0.184,p=0.297 r=0.43,p=0.011

Qualification r=0.199,p=0.267 r=–0.019,p=0.914 r=0.091,p=0.609 r=0.028,p=0.873


48


Table 9:Correlationmatrix,part2

number of iCt tools used

Frequency of iCt usage sex attitude qualification

age r=0.061,p=0.738

r=0.195,p=0.276

r=–0.136,p=0.451

r=0.286,p=0.107

r=0.199,p=0.267

experience r=0.069,p=0.699

r=0.321,p=0.064

r=–0.253,p=0.149

r=0.35, p=0.042

r=–0.019,p=0.914

Interpretingdays

r=0.121,p=0.497

r=0.086,p=0.627

r=–0.145,p=0.412

r=0.184,p=0.297

r=0.091,p=0.609

Simultaneous r=0.039,p=0.826

r=0.324,p=0.062

r=–0.03,p=0.868

r=0.43, p=0.011

r=0.028,p=0.873

numberofICTtoolsused – r=–0.077,

p=0.665r=–0.241,p=0.17

r=0.37, p=0.031

r=0.108,p=0.543

FrequencyofICTusage

r=–0.077,p=0.665 – r=–0.011,

p=0.949r=0.237,p=0.177

r=0.174,p=0.326

Sex r=–0.241,p=0.17

r=–0.011,p=0.949 – r=–0.303,

p=0.082r=–0.047,p=0.794

attitude r=0.37, p=0.031

r=0.237p=0.177

r=–0.303,p=0.082 – r=0.171,

p=0.333

Qualification r=0.108,p=0.543

r=0.174,p=0.326

r=–0.047,p=0.794

r=0.171,p=0.333 –

3.4.1 age, professional experience, sex and iCt usageThefirstissueinvestigatedbythisarticleiswhetherthereareanyrelationshipsbetweenage,professionalexperienceandICTusage.Inthecaseofage,I coulduseexistingnumericaldata,whilefortheexaminationofICTusageI hadtoquantifythedata.InthecaseofICTusage,I createdtwocategories:oneexpresseshowoftentherespondentsuseICTs(answerstoQuestion8),theothershowshowmanytypesofICTstheyuse.InthecaseofthissecondcategoryI addedupthenumberofmarkedanswersforthe2ndandthe3rdquestion(thatmeanssoftwareandhardwaretogether).accordingtomycorrelationcalculationmatrix,nocorrelationscouldbefoundbetweenthesefactors,soitislikelythattherearenosubstantialdifferencesbetweentheICTusageofmoreexperiencedorolderinterpretersandtheyounger,lessexperiencedinterpreters.Twocommonmythsaredispelledthisway:thefirstoneisthatonlyexperiencedinterpreterscanhandleICTtoolsreallywell;theotheroneisthattheoldergenerationcannotreallygetusedtothesetools.Thenumberofinterpretingdaysdoesnotseemtomatter,either.Workexperienceandagecanbeinterestingfactors,asBerberIrabien’sresearchhasalreadyshowedthattherecouldbeperhapstwogroupswhicharelessmotivatedaboutusingICTtoolsduringtheirwork,theseareolderandinexperiencedinterpreters,asI havealreadymentionedabove(BerberIrabien2010).althoughitwasnotpartofthecorrela-tionmatrix,I alsocalculatedcorrelationsforhardwareandsoftwaretoolsindividually,butnocorrelationscouldbefound,either.


49


3.4.2 attitude towards interpretingoneofthemostinterestingpartsofthestudyistoexaminewhetherthereareanyconnec-tionsbetweenthepersonaldataoftherespondentsoranswerstothe‘factual’questionsandthe attitude towards ICT tools.as I didnot get anynumerical answers to thequestionswhichcouldreflecttheattitudeoftheinterpreters,I appliedthefollowingmethod:I tooktherelevantquestionsaboutthegoal,theeffectofICTtoolsandtheonesreflectingontheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofICTtools,andcountedthepositiveandnegativeanswersforeveryrespondent,andsummarisedit.ThenumberI gotisofcoursenotanabsoluteone(sowecannotstatethatifitispositivetheattitudeoftheparticipantispositiveaswellbecausetherewerefewernegativeoptionsamongthequestionsthanpositive).Butstill,thisnumbershowsthedifferencebetweentherespondents.

Theresultshowsthattherearethreefactorswherea correlationcanindeedbefound,thesearethefollowing:experience,theproportionofsimultaneousinterpretingintheparticipants’worklifeandthenumberofICTtoolsused.Thecorrelationbetweenattitudeandexperi-enceshowsthatmoreexperiencedinterpretersthinkmorepositivelyaboutusingICTtools(althoughtheydonotusethesemorefrequentlyorona widerscale).

Thisfinding supportsBerber Irabien’sfindingsmentioned in2.4.1.Theproportionofsimultaneous interpretingmight reveal that thosewhomostlywork in thebooth,whichenablestheusageofICTtoolsduringwork,asopposedtotheratherlimitedopportunitiesina consecutiveorliaisonsituation,connectmorepositiveemotionstothisphenomenon.ThethirdcorrelationwiththenumberoftypesofICTtoolsused,isalsounderstandable,thoseinterpretersuse typicallya wider rangeof ICTtoolswhichshowa morepositiveattitudetowardsthesetools.

3.4.3 goals and resultsoneofthemostimportantconnections,however,istherelationshipbetweenthereasonwhyinterpretersuseICTtools,andtheresultofusingICTsintheirwork.Question 4askstherespondentsaboutthereasonswhytheyuseICTtools,anditalsocontainsanoption“…Iwanttomakemyworkmoreprecise”.Bymarkingthisoption,interpreterscanrefertotheirgeneralexperience.32outof34respondentschosethisoption(amongotheroptions).ThisshowsthatinmostofthecasesthereisatleastonedeliberategoalofusingICTtools.Itis,however,veryinterestingthatonly11outf32respondentswhoclaimedthattheywantedtomaketheirworkmoreprecise(Question4),markedtheoption“accuracy”forQuestion 9.ThismeansthatICTtoolsdidnotmeettheinterpreters’expectationsbecauseotherwisetheyshouldhavemarkedthepositiveanswerabouttheeffectsofICTtools,aswell.Thisbeingso,itmeansthatinterpreterswerequitecriticalaboutICTs,andtherefore,thepositiveim-agereflectedbyQuestions 9 and 10areslightlyovershadowed.a similarcontradictioncanbeexperiencedfromthoseanswers,whichwhileclaimingthatICTtoolshelpthema lotintheirwork,actuallygivenegativeanswersconcerningtheresultoftheusageofICTs.


50


3.4.4 other possible correlationsIalsoexaminediftherewasa connectionbetweentheusageoftoolsmadeespeciallyforme-diationbetweenlanguages,andthesepersons’attitudetowardsICTtools:therewasnocor-relationbetweenthesetwofactors.Theresultshowsthatnostrongcorrelationcanbeshowninthiscase(p=0,113r=0,277).Thenextquestionwaswhethertherewasa correlationbetweenexperienceandtheusageofspecialterminologicaltools,buttheresultsshowedthatheretherewasnocorrelation,either(p=0.149,r=–0.253).

4. ConClusion

ThisstudysurveyedtheICTusinghabitsofaltogether34interpreterswhoworkinHungary.ItwasdesignedtodiscoverthemostimportantfactorsofusingICTtools.Theresultscanbesummarisedasfollows:alloftherespondentsusesomeICTtoolsinsomephasesoftheirwork.Mostlydependingontheirage,theyeitherstartedtousethematsomepointduringtheircareer,ortheyhavebeenusingthemrightfromthebeginning.ThemostimportanthardwarearePCs,laptopsandsmartphones,whileinthecaseofsoftwaretexteditors,brows-ers,electronicandweb-baseddictionariesaremostcommonlyusedasopposedtoapplicationsorspecialterminologysoftware.ConsideringthegoalofICTusage,thewishtomakeone’sworkmorepreciseandthepositiveexperiencewithICTsarethetwomostimportantfactors.asfarastheeffectofICTontheworkoftheinterpretersisconcerned,themajorityclaimthatthesetoolsarepartoftheirworkingmethod,andtheydonotconsiderthemasa separatephenomenon.TherespondentsofthesurveyuseICTtoolsmostlyinthepreparationphasesoftheirinterpretingjobsandduringinterpreting,onlya minoritydoespost-interpretingworkaswell.TheapproachandattitudetowardsICTtoolsismainlypositive,howevertheirusagecannotbeconsideredveryfrequent,nearly75%onlyusethema coupleoftimesinanhourofsimultaneousinterpreting.easysearchabilityandspeedareperceivedtobethetwomainadvantagesofICTtools,whilethedistracting,disturbingeffectandtechnicalproblemsareconsideredthetwomaindisadvantages.CaIsoftwarearenearlyfullyunknowntothepar-ticipantsofthesurvey,themainhypotheticalexpectationsoftherespondentstowardsthemwouldbetheeasyusabilityandquicksearchability.

asforinterdependences,a correlativerelationshipcouldonlybedetectedinthreecases,namelyattitudetowardsICTtoolsshoweda correlationwiththenumberofyearsofinter-pretingexperience,theproportionofsimultaneousinterpretingandthenumberofICTtoolsused.

Furtherresearchwillbeconductedintheformofinterviewswithsomeoftherespondents,andCaIsoftwarearealsogoingtobethesubjectofthefollow-upstudies.

references

andres,d.,Falk,S.2009.InformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICT)inInter-preting–remoteandTelephoneInterpreting.In:andres,dörte,Pöllabauer,Sonja(eds).Spürst Du, wie der Bauch rauf-runter? Fachdolmetschen im Gesund heits bereich. Is every thing all topsy turvy in your tummy? Health Care Interpreting.München:MartinMeidenbauerVerlag.9–27.


51


BerberIrabien,d.2010.Information and communication technologies in conference interpreting.PHdThesis.Tarragona:universitatroviraiVirgili,departamentodeestudiosInglesesy alemanes. http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/8775/tesi.pdf. downloaded:10.20.2015.

Fantinuoli,C.2016.InterpretBank.redefiningcomputer-assistedinterpretingtools.Trans-lating and the Computer 38 (17-18november2016,London)geneva:editionsTradulex.42–52.

Horváth,I.2014.MachineInterpretation.RIELMA.Revue Internationale d’Études en Langues Modernes Appliquées Supplémentaunuméro7/2014« Commentpeut-onêtretraducteur/interprete? »Cluj-napoca,le11octobre2013.19–26.

Horváth,I.2016.InformationandCommunicationTechnologiesinInterpretingMachineInterpretation. In: Horváth, I. (ed.) The Modern Translator and Interpreter. Budapest:eötvösuniversityPress.183−192.

Jones,r.2014.Interpreting:a CommunicationProfessionina Worldofnon-Communication.Revue internationale d’ études en langues modernes appliquées.Vol.2014/4.9−18.

Móricz,K.a.2016.Információ-éskommunikáció-technológiaieszközökhasználataa tol-mácsolásban.[usinginformationandcommunicationtechnologytoolsininterpreting.] FordítástudományVol.18.no.1.50–63.

rütten,a.2004. Whyandinwhatsensedoconferenceinterpretersneedspecialsoftware? Linguistica AntverpiensiaVol.2004.no.3.167−177.

Seliger,H.W.andShohamy,e.1990.Second Language Research Methods.oxford:ouP.Seresi,M.2016.newPathsinInterpreterTraining:VirtualClasses.In:Horváth,I.(ed.)The

Modern Translator and Interpreter.Budapest:eötvösuniversityPress.219−231.Swaney,I.1997.Thoughtsonlivevs.telephoneandvideointerpretation.ProteusVol.6.no. 2.

5–6.TripepiWinteringham,S.2010.TheusefulnessofICTsininterpretingpractice.The Inter-

preters’ NewsletterVol.2010.no.15.87–99.United States Access Board: 255 Chapter 1: Application and Administration. C103 Definitions.

https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh/draft-rule-2011/255-chapter-1-application-and-administration#three.downloaded:05.01.2016

Will, M. 2015. Zur eignung simultanfähiger Terminologiesysteme für das Konferenz-dolmetschen.Trans-komVol.2015.no.1.179–201.


52

siMultaneous interPreting with text FroM english into hungarian

Preliminaryresults

borbála rohonyi

[email protected]

abstract:Simultaneousinterpretingwithtextisa widelyusedbutseldomanalysedmodeofinterpret-ing.Thepresentstudyaimedatprovidingevidenceforthebeneficialaspectsofhavingthemanuscriptofthespeechinthismode.Theliteraturewasreviewed,thenattitudes,strategiesandtheperformanceofpracticinginterpretersworkingfromenglishintoHungarianwereanalysedfirstbymeansofa fo-cusedanalyticalsurvey,thenbya hypothesis-testingexperiment.Inthefirststage,significantdiffer-enceswerefoundintheaveragerankingofthewrittentextwhenthespeakerhasa heavy/unusualaccent,andresultsshowedthatthemanuscriptisveryhelpfulinincreasing accuracyinoutput.Instagetwo,thefocuswasnarroweddowntothescenariowhereinterpretersgetthemanuscriptfiveminutesinadvance.Findingsconfirmedthehypothesisthatconferenceinterpretersrendernumbersmoreaccu-ratelyinsimultaneousinterpretingwithtextcomparedwithsimultaneous.FurtherpreliminaryresultsincludecomparisonsbetweenSIandSI+Tregardingtheperceptionof1)difficultieswitha speechthatisreadwitha heavy/unusualaccent;2)difficultieswhenrenderinga speechcontainingnamesandnumbers;and3)speedinthecaseofbothheavyaccentandinformationdensity.ThehypothesisregardingsighttranslationstrategiesinSI+Twasonlypartiallyconfirmed.Keywords:simultaneousinterpretingwithtext(SI+T),simultaneousinterpreting(SI),sighttransla-tion,heavyorunusualaccent,accuracyinoutput,names,numbers

1. introduCtion

Interpretersareincreasinglyaskedtoperformsimultaneous interpreting with textat in-ternationalmeetingsasthereislessspontaneousdebateanditseemstobeaneverincreasingtrendthatspeakersreadtheirspeechfroma previouslywrittentextanditneedstobesimul-taneouslyinterpreted(SeleskovitchandLederer2002).accordingtoCammounetal.(2009),thereasonsforthewideruseofsimultaneous interpreting with textisthatthetimeframeofthemeetingsisshorter“whiletryingtocovera widerangeofmoretechnical,sophisticatedandsensitiveissues”(Cammounetal.2009:16).Furthermore,non-nativespeakersofenglisharemorenumerous,internationalmeetingsarelessrhetorical,andwrittenpapersareusuallysubmittedinadvance(SettonandMotta2007).Thereisa particularlyhighnumberoftechni-calpresentationsthatarereadoutathighspeedatcertaininternationalorganisations,whichpresentsadditionaldifficultiesfortheinterpreter(Cammounetal.2009).

In1998gileurgedresearchersintheinterpretingfieldnottohesitatetoconductobser-vationalresearch,claimingthat“therehasbeena shifttowardsexperimentalprocedurestothedetrimentofobservationalstudies”(gile1998:71).Thepresentprojectonsimultaneous interpreting with textfromenglishintoHungarian isnoexceptiontothetrendalmost20yearslaterinsofarasitsmajorphaseisexperimentalwithstatisticalhypothesis-testing.


53

SimultaneousInterpretingwithTextfromenglishintoHungarian

InPart 2ofthepapera selectivereviewoftheliteratureispresented.Part 3describestheintroductoryobservationalphasewhichwasconductedbymeansofa focusedanalyti-calinteractivesurveyaccordingtogile’sclassification(1998)tolaythegroundworkfortheexperiment.Theresultsofthesurvey,carriedoutinapril2014,shedlightonattitudesandstrategiesofinterpreterswithHungarianintheirlanguagecombinationrelatedtosimul-taneousinterpretingwithtextandhelpedtonarrowdownthefocusfortheexperiment.Part 4describes theexperimentconsistingof twoparts,carriedout inSeptember2016:itcomparedsi+twithsiinthecaseofa heavy or unusual accentinthefirstpartanda speechcontainingmanynames and numbers inthesecond.Thisempirical stagewasperformedwitha statisticalhypothesis-testingmethodaccording togile’s classification(1998).Part 5concludesbydescribingthestagesofresearchandprovidinga shortsummaryoftheresults.

2. literature review

researchersandteachersofinterpretingdonotnecessarilyagreeonwhatexactlysimultaneous interpreting with textis,onhowtodefineitandwhethertheyplaceitbeforeorafterplain simultaneous.Thedebate is aboutwhether it is an intermediate stepbetweensight translationandsimultaneous interpreting (si)oritshouldberegardedasa complexformofthesimultaneous.Thedifferencesinviewshavetodomostlywithwhethertheythinkin-formationprocessingiseasierormoredifficultwhentheinformationisalsoavailablevisually,comparedwiththesimultaneousmode.ondifferencesinterminologyandthedefinitionsseeCammounetal.(2009)androhonyi(2015).

SeleskovitchandLederer(2002)highlightthefactthatthisinterpretingmodediffersfrominterpretingad-libbedspeechesandpresentstheinterpreterwithfurtherchallenges.gilede-finessimultaneouswithtextasa “verycommoninterpretingmodality,interaliainspeechesatinternationalconferences,whenspeakersreada textwhichhasalsobeengiventotheinter-preters”(gile2009:181).elsewherehepointsoutthatit“canbeperformedasa mixtureofsiandsight translationgoingfrom“pure”si(withoutanyreferencetothetext)to“pure”sight translation(withoutanyreferencetothesound”(gile1997:169).

Lambert(1991)referstothephenomenonofsimultaneous interpreting with textbythetermsightinterpretation.Shearguesthatit iseasierthansimultaneous interpretingandshouldbeanexercisetohelplearntointerpretsimultaneously.Shethinksthatsimultaneous interpreting with textisonestepclosertosimultaneousthanitistosight translation(Lambert2004).

accordingtoSettonandMotta(2007)simultaneouswithtextishalfwaybetweensight translationandinterpreting.Theyassertthatwheninformationisgatheredfrommultiplesources,theinterpreterisgivenmoretimetoorganiseandrestructureinformation,thereforehasa fairerchancetorenderalltheinformationandtodosomoreaccurately.Pöchhakerconsiderssimultaneouswithtexta specialandcomplexmodeofsimultaneous interpretinginthebooth“witha moreorlessimportantsightinterpretingcomponent”(Pöchhaker2004: 19).He underlinesthatmanyspeakersdepartfromthemanuscriptforasidesoromis-sions.(Pöchhaker2004).


54

Borbálarohonyi

Cammounetal.(2009)startfromtheassumptionthatsimultaneousinterpretationwithtextisoneofthemostcomplexscenariosonecanencounterininterpreting.

Themultitasking involvedpresents specialchallenges to thecognitive resourcesof theinterpreter,addinganadditionalinputandtask(visualprocessing)totheauditoryinputandseveralothersubsequenttasksinvolvedinthetransformationofa verbalmessageinthesourcelanguageintoitsequivalentinthetargetlanguage.(Cammounetal.2009:10)

Fromhereonthisarticlewillusetheconceptofsimultaneouswithtext,abbreviatedsi+tinthesenseofthedefinitionproposedbytheauthorofthisarticleatthe16thannualcon-ferenceofthedepartmentofTranslationandInterpreting,eLTeuniversityinBudapest,Hungary,heldin2014:“simultaneous interpreting with textisa typeofinterpretingwherethespeakerpresentsa previouslywrittentext,heorshemaydivertfromittoa varyingdegreeandtheinterpretershavea copyofthewrittentext”(rohonyi2015).onlyrunningtextsusedinsi+tfallunderthescopeofthisresearch.

Cammounetal.(2009)offera summaryoftheliteratureonthelinguisticaspectofsi+t.Theresearchersrefertothevariousdifferencesofwrittenandspokenspeech:writtentextscanbeontheonehand,plannedtobereadaloud,inwhichcaseboundariesgetblurredbetweenwrittenandspokenspeech,ornotplannedtoberecited,whichposesa biggerchallengetotheinterpreter.Furthersubtletiesarementioned,suchaswhetherthetextdoesordoesnottakeintoconsiderationthelisteners’needs,etc.

si+tisincludedingile’seffortmodels:thereadingeffortisaddedtothefiveeffortsal-readyatworkinsimultaneousmode,namelylisteningandanalysiseffort,productioneffort,memoryandcoordinationefforts(gile2009).Weseethatinsi+tthereadingeffort,or,inotherwords, the“additional inputandtask”ofvisualprocessing(Cammounetal.2009:10)furtherincreasesthealreadyheavycognitiveburdenofthesimultaneousinterpreter.Thedrawbacksarecompensatedforbyvariousbenefitsofferedbythewrittentext.

2.1 difficulties and advantages Cammounetal.compileda listofthecognitivebenefitsandconstraintswhichwasalmostentirelyborrowedinthefirstphaseofthepresentresearch(Cammounetal.2009).Benefitsincludedevelopingtheknowledgebaseforeachmeeting,increasedprecisionandaccuracy in output,easieranticipation,understandinga speakerwitha heavy accent.Constraintsin-cludedualinput,negativeinterferencefromthesourcelanguage,highspeedofdelivery,lackofredundancy,monotonouspresentation.

astheliteraturereviewshowsandCammounetal.(2009)convincinglydemonstrated,themajorityofresearcherssharetheopinionthatsi+tismorecomplex,andconsequently,moredifficultthanSIasa generalrule.Thisexplainswhyadvantagesareoutweighedbydif-ficultiesintheliterature.Thediscussionbelowreflectsthisimbalanceandtheexperimentalphaseoftheresearchintendstocounterbalanceitbyfocusingontheadvantagesofhavingthemanuscriptinsi+t.

SeleskovitchandLederer(2002)explainthedifficultyofmanagingdualinputbydescribingthelearningprocessofsi+t.Iftheinterpreterholdsontothetexttooclosely,soonerorlatertheycannotkeepupwithwhatisbeingheard,andtheresultisa viciouscircle.Thebestadviceistoreturntothevoiceofthespeaker.detachmentfromactualwordsisenhancedbymarking


55


elementsofthewrittenspeech,whichgraduallyhelpsthestudenttoavoidrelyingonthemanu-scriptbeyondthedesiredlevel(SeleskovitchandLederer2002).describingthemethodinmoredetailwouldgobeyondthescopeofthispaper.Formoreonhowtoteachsi+tseeIvanovetal.(2014),theirarticleoffersa newapproachtoteachingsimultaneouswithtextbasedonthefindingsoftheirstudy,oftenreferredtointhepresentpaper(Cammounetal.2009).

accordingtogile’sdefinitioncitedabove,everythinginbetween‘pure’simultaneousand‘pure’sight translationfallsintothecategoryofsimultaneouswithtextwhichisthemixtureofthesetwo.Whereasoneextreme,meresimultaneousdeprivestheinterpreterofthevisualhelp,theotherextreme,sight translation isriskyfora numberofreasons:theinterpretermightbetryingtotranslateeverythingdespitebeingoutdistanced;saturationmayoccurduetothehighspeedofthepresentation;andimportantspeechsegmentsmightbelost(gile1997,2009).

Theinterpretermayalsomissthediversionsfromthewrittentextiftheyletthespeakerrunahead(gile1997,2009).Lamberger-Felber(2001)testedthehypothesismadebygile(1995),claimingthatinterpretersworkingwithwrittentextsufferlessfrommemoryrestric-tions,thustendtokeepa longertimelag,andmightconsequentlyomitlongerpassagesoftheoriginal.Itwasshownthatindeed,“a)theaveragetimelagislongerforSIwithtextascom-paredwithSIwithouttextandb)a timelaglongerthanaverageindicatesa riskofomittinga longpassageoftheoriginal”(Lamberger-Felber2001:56).

Lambertpresumedthatthereismoreinterferencebetweensimilartaskssuchaslisteningandspeakingandlessbetweendifferentonessuchasreadingandlistening/speaking(Lambert2004).Shecomparedsight translation,simultaneous with textandsimultaneous interpreting.Herrespondentsperformedbetter inbothsight translationandsi+t comparedwithsimultaneoussosheconcludedthatsimilartaskspresenta higherdegreeofinterference.otherresearcherssuggestedthatthevisualpresenceoftheverbalsignspresentsmoreinterfer-ence(gile2009).accordingtogile,inbothsight translationandsi+t,thefactthatsourcelanguagewordsandlinguisticstructuresremainpresentbeforethepractitioner’seyesallthewayalongincreasetheriskof interferencebetweenthetwolanguagesand“callsformoreintenseanti-interferenceeffortsthanininterpreting”(gile2009:181).

Lamberger-FelberandSchneiderlookedattypesandfrequencyofinterferenceinsimultaneous interpretingandconcludedthatinterferenceistosomeextentindependentfromotherparametersofproduction(Lamberger-FelberandSchneider2009).SettonandMottaperformedanexperimentintheframeworkoftheirprojectcalledSyntacrobaticsandlookedatwhathappenswithsyntaxinsi+t,thatis,whenvisualandauditoryprocessingaresimul-taneouslyatwork.Theirresultsindicatethatvisualinformationinterfereswithwhatisheard(SettonandMotta:2007).

non-native speakersmightcompensate for theirpossible lackof satisfactory linguisticcompetenceeitherbyslowingdown,or,bywayofcontrast,speedinguptomorethana com-fortable speed for the listener, let alone the interpreter,when they readout a pre-writtenspeech.also,nativespeakersaswellasnon-nativespeakersmightchangetheirnaturalspeechratewhenreadinga textasopposed topresenting spontaneously.Horváth introduces theconceptoftempoorrateofutterancebyclaimingthatitisa factorinfluencingintelligibilityingeneral(Horváth2012).


56

Borbálarohonyi

Interpretersrespondtotheacceleratedorunusuallyslowrateofthespeakerbyanincreaseintheirstresslevel.Moser-Mercerassertsthatinputratesincreasestress,mostlytimestress(Moser-Mercer1985),whichiswhytheyuseitasa testtooltoscreenpotentialinterpreters.Itisexpectedofprofessionalinterpreterstobeabletocopewithlowandhighspeedandthecorrespondingstress.

apotentiallyincreasedstresslevelofthespeakerwhoisreciting,theirchangedintonationpatternsandtone,and,mostimportantly,alteredchunkingstrategiesmightaccountfortheperceptionoftheincreaseddeliveryrate.Chernovhighlightsthattheadditionaldifficultyofa recitedpre-writtentextisperceivedbytheinterpreterashighspeechrate,“inwhichthedis-courseseemstounfoldataninhuman,machine-likespeed”(Chernov2004:18).déjeanLeFéalshowedthatthedeliveryrateisoftennotfaster,merelyperceivedasfastbyinterpreters.Sheidentifiedtemporalpatternsofbothrecitedandimprovisedspeechesandassociatedthemwithmechanismsininterpreting.Theimpressionoffastersourcetextdeliveryrateispartlyduetospecificchunkingpatterns.Inspontaneousdelivery, thespeakerspauseaftersevenwordsingeneralandnomorethannine,whereasinrecitedspeechesthesegmentsrangefromsevenupto23words(déjeanLeFéalinChernov2004).

SeleskovitchandLedererarguethattheratethatisperceivedashighishighandisnotthereforea mereillusion.oneexplanationisthatinrecitalthespeakerdoesnotlookforideaswhilespeaking,thereforepresentsata higherrate,witherroneousprosody.additionally,someofthespeechesareoriginallymeantforsilentreading,thereforewhenreadaloudtherhythmneithersoundsspontaneousnorisita silentreadingspeed(SeleskovitchandLederer:2002).Theabovecitedworksshowthattherateofspeechandtheperceptionofitinsi+tarecloselylinkedtothestresslevelofthespeakerandtheinterpreter.othercharacteristicsofread-outspeechesonlyaddtothedifficulty.

Buttherearesignificantbenefitsaswell,thetextisnotjusta hindrance.gileassertsthatthereadingeffortandthelisteningeffortnotonlycompete,butalsocooperate.Interpretersthusbenefitfrom“thevisualpresenceofalltheinformationwhichreducesmemoryproblemsandtheeffectofacousticdifficultiesandheavyorunusualaccentsaswellastheprobabilityoffailuresduetoinsufficientprocessingcapacityintheListeningandanalysiseffort”(gile2009).Ina similarveinSettonandMotta(2007)thinkthevisualinformationhelpsrestruc-tureinformation.Viezzi(1989)stressesthebenefitofthevisualpresenceoftheinformation,referringtosight translationingeneral.

Preparation further enhances the interpreter’s performance: underlying, highlightingnamesandtitles,numbers,markingcomplexsyntax,andthelogicallinksbetweensentences,idioms,sayingsandquotationsarebuta fewexamples(Cammounetal.2009).

2.2 accent notonly isenglish a lingua francaworldwide, it “hasbecome thedominant conferencelanguageandisincreasinglybeingusedbyspeakerswithmothertonguesotherthanenglishwhose pronunciation deviates from Standard english” (Kurz 2008: 180). Internationalenglishmayvarya greatdealfromoneofthestandardvarietiestounusualformsreflectingfeaturesofthespeakers’mothertongue(Kurz2008).


57


gile’seffortmodelsshowthatthelisteningandanalysiseffortsarethemostcrucialwherethespeakerhasanunusualorstrongaccent(gile2009):

Badpronunciationbya non-nativespeakerforcestheinterpretertodevotemuchprocessingcapacitytotheListeningandanalysiseffort,andthereforeslowsdownproduction.ThisresultsinlagwhichinturnoverloadstheMemoryeffortandresultsinlossofinformationfrommemory.alternatively,memoryisnotoverloaded,butproductionbecomesverydifficultbecausetheinterpreterhastoaccelerateinordertocatchupwiththespeaker,whichresultindeteriorationofoutputqualityordecreasedavailabilityofprocessingcapacityfortheListeningandanalysiseffortandinthelossofa latersegment(gile2009:173).

Insimultaneouswithtexta heavy/unusualaccentputsanadditionalcognitiveburdenontheinterpreter,whoisalreadydealingwiththedualinput.Segmentsmightbelostbecausethereisn’tenoughcapacityfortherelevanteffortevenina passagethatundernormalcircumstanceswouldnotbedifficulttounderstandortranslate(gile2009).If“theListeningandanalysiseffortisaffectedbyelementscontainingphonetic, lexicalorsyntacticerrors,thebasisforallothereffortsisstronglycorrodedorevendestroyed.evenexperiencedinterpretersfinditdifficulttodelivera coherenttargettextinthesecircumstances”(Kurz2008:182).Insuchextremecases, themanuscriptplaystheroleofa life-belt.Forexample, thereadingeffortmightcompensatefortheinsufficientprocessingcapacityinthelisteningandanalysiseffort.Thecoordinationeffortalsoplaysanincreasedroleasreadingandlisteningshouldcooperateratherthancompete(gile2009).dependenceonthereadingeffortwillvaryaccordingtothedegreeofunfamiliaritywiththeaccentaswellasitsdegreeofdeviationfromthestandard.Cammounetal.commentedintheirseminalpaperonsi+t (2009)thatthedifficultyofa heavy/unusualaccentisperipheral,butinextremecasesthetextmightbelife-saving:

aperipheralbutsometimesvitalbenefitofhavinga textinSIistofacilitatetheinterpreter’sunderstandingofa speakerwitha heavyaccent,sincetheinter-pretercancheckwhatthespeakerissaying,orwassupposedtosay,againstthetext.Incertaincircumstances,whentheaccentisnotjustheavybutabsolutelyunintelligible,havingthetextmaybetheonlywayfortheinterpreterto‘sur-vive’by,exceptionally,sighttranslatingthecorrespondingfragmentofthetext,bearinginmindtheinherentrisksofusingsucha technique,i.e.,forgettingto‘listen’ratherthan‘read’,thusomittingadditionsandincludingomissions,rac-ingaheadofthespeaker,etc.(Cammounetal.2009:61).

Therehavebeenattemptsininterpretingstudiestoshowtheeffectofunusualpronunciationbyempiricalmeans.Kurz(2008)reportsonanexperimentthatoneofherstudents,dominikaKodrnjaperformedforanMathesisin2001.Theexperimentcomparedtheperformanceofstudentswheninterpretinganidenticalspeechpresentedbya nativeanda non-nativespeaker.“[T]henon-nativeaccentnotonlyhadanimmediate,measurableimpactonstudents’per-formance(higherlossofinformation)butalsogaverisetothesubjectiveimpressionofhigher


58

Borbálarohonyi

deliveryspeed”(Kurz2008:189).Thisfindingisparticularlyrelevantforthepresentstudysincebothaccentandrecitedtextsgivetheimpressionofhigherspeed.

Finally,theperceptionofunfamiliarity/difficultyoftheaccentmaybeverysubjectiveandthecomparabilityofsourcetextsrepresenta greatchallengetotheresearcher.asLamberger-Felber(2001)putsit“[a]ninterpreter’spersonalhistory(knowledgeofregionalaccents,tech-nicalknowledge,languagepreferences,stylisticpreferences,etc.)islikelytohavemoreinflu-enceonhis/herperceptionofdifferentsourcetextsandtheirdifficultyforinterpretersthanobjectivelyquantifiableparameterswould”(Lamberger-Felber2001:231).

2.3 names and numbers

Several studiesonsi stressedthedifficulties interpreters facewhenrenderingnames and numbers,theresultinginaccuracy,andthefactthatprocessingnames and numbersisdiffer-entfromthatofcoherentpassagesofa text,andassuchrequiresaninstantproceduralswitchaswellasa reallocationofresources,whichcanleadtoerrors(Lederer1982,gile1984,1985,Moser-Mercer1985,Lamberger-Felber2001,BraunandClarici1996).

accordingtoLederer,interpretershaveauditoryproblemswithfiguresdespitethefactthattheyusenumbersnotlessthananyparticipantofinternationalmeetings(whichcannotbesaidabouttechnicalterms)(Lederer1982).nevertheless,eveniftheinterpreterknowsandidenti-fiesthenumber,heorsheisoftenunabletograspitsmeaninginthegivencontext.However,Ledererarguesthatinsinamesthatonlyneedtobeadaptedinthetargetlanguage,technicaltermswhichonlyhaveoneequivalent,aswellasacronymsandfiguresarethehardesttohear and understand,althoughtheseshouldbetheeasiesttotranslatesincetheycanbetranscoded(Lederer1982).Moser-Mercer(1985)underlinestheunpredictablenatureofnumbers:

Froma languageinformationprocessingpointofview,theprocessingofnum-bersdiffersfromthatofcontinuoustextinthatnumbersarelargelyunpredict-able,i.e.onehastodevotefullattentiontotheincomingmessage,whereas(…)continuous text allows andeven requireshypothesizingon the input.Thus,whennumbersappearina continuoustext,theinterpreterhastoswitchhisprocessingprocedures(Moser-Mercer1985:97).

accordingtoLederer,interpretersswitchbackandforthbetweentranscodage‘transcoding’andtraduction intelligente‘intelligenttranslation’whendealingwithnames and numbers.Whenthefigureornameappears,theyswitchtotranscoding,thentheymustmakea con-scious effort todetach from the linguistic formof theoriginal and regain the intelligenttranslationmode(Lederer1982).1

BraunandClarici(1996)addsthatforthenecessaryshiftsitisinevitabletoactivatetwodifferent typesofmemory: thesemantic forverbalprocessingandtheoperational for thetranscodingofthenumeralthatoccurssuddenly.Theshiftrequiressuchaneffortthatitisveryeasytoomita numeralthatoccurssuddenly.BraunandClaricigainedinsightintotheneurolinguisticprocessingofnumeralsintheirexperimenttotesttheinaccuracyofnumerals.

1QuotesfromLedererweretranslatedfromFrenchbytheauthor.


59


Their12subjectsprocessedaltogether1,344numeralswitha 69.49%errorscoreinsimultane-ousinterpretingmodeandthusconfirmed“thehighnumberoferrorscommonlyrelatedtothisparticularkindofperformance”(BraunandClarici1996:88).

Counter-examplescanbe found in the literatureaswell.ThestudyofMeulemanandBesien(2009)onsimultaneousinterpretingperformedunderextremeconditionsproducedsomestrikingresultswithregardtonumbers.Froma totalof135figures(theirhigh-delivery-speedpassagecontained9figuresandtheirsampleincluded15subjects)75.5%havebeentranslatedcorrectly,17.7%omittedand6.6%translated incorrectly.Basedonthefindingtheysuggestthat“underextremecircumstances,interpretersarehighlyawareofthepossibleimportanceoffigures(…)andthereforefocusonthese”(MeulemanandBesien2009:30).

Inthesamewayasnumbers,namesalsorequireanimmediateintensificationofsomeeffortstothedetrimentofothers,leadingtoa potentiallossofbalance(gile1985).Compacttextsrequireanincreasedlisteningandanalysiseffort,thena renewedeffortforproductiontocatchup.Similarly,multi-wordnames(consistingofcommonnamesaswellaspropernames)constituteinformationblocksthatrequireanincreasedlisteningeffortduringwhichproduc-tioneffortisminimised,orevenstoppedentirely,whichinturnputsanincreasingburdenonthememory(gile1984,1985).

Inherdoctoral dissertation,Lamberger-Felber tested varioushypotheses on errors andomissions innumbers and names in threedifferentconditions:1) interpretersweregiventhewrittencopyofthespeechandhadtimetoprepareit,2)theyhadthemanuscriptbutdidnothavetimetoprepareit,and3)theywerenotgiventhemanuscript.Shepublishedsomeofherfindingsinenglish,subtitledExamples from a case-study(Lamberger-Felber2001)whichincludea resultthatisveryrelevantforthepresentstudy.Sheshowedthatincorrectrenditionoromissionofpropernames/numberswasreducedbytheuseofthemanuscriptinthebooth,thoughstressingthatintersubjectvariabilitywashighandhadtobetakenintoconsideration.(Lamberger-Felber2001).Shearguesthat“[w]hereasa sampleof12interpretersisratherbigcomparedtomanyempiricalstudiescarriedoutonsi sofar,itmaybetoosmallifa subdivisionofthesampleisnecessaryforthepurposeofthestudy,e.g.forcomparingperformanceunderdifferentconditions”(Lamberger-Felber2001:51).Herpieceofadvicewastakenintoconsid-erationintheplanningoftheexperimentalset-upofthepresentresearchandsubdivisionofthesamplewasruledout:animportantgainthatcameatthehighcostofhavinganordereffect.

3. stage one: the survey

3.1 PurPose of the survey Theaimofthesurveyistobroadenourknowledgeofsimultaneous interpreting with text(si+t)byexaminingattitudesandstrategiesofinterpreterswitha languagecombinationthatincludesHungarian.

Theresearchquestionandthecorrespondinghypothesisarethefollowing:doesthewrit-ten text help, rather than hinder interpreters’ performance in simultaneous interpreting?Hypothesis:Whentheappropriatestrategiesareused,visualinformationcomplementsaudi-toryinformationandhelpsconferenceinterpreterstorenderthemessagemoreaccuratelyandina moresuitableform.


60

Borbálarohonyi

Thesurveyconductedinthefirststageoftheresearchreliedona studycarriedoutbya groupoffourresearchers:Cammoun,davies,Ivanovandnaimushin(2009).Thepresentprojectadaptedtheirquestionnairebeingspeciallydesignedtorevealinterpreters’practicesandattitudestowardssi+t totheHungarianmarket.Fora detaileddescriptionofthemethodandthequestionnaireusedinthesurvey,seeannexe1.

3.2 results of the survey – discussion

Surprisingly,almosthalfoftherespondents(15interpreters)tookpartinsomekindofsi+ttrain-ing.13amongthemhadsi+texercisesduringtheirinterpretertraining.ThisresultconfirmstheearlierfindingsofCammounetal.(2009)andprovesthattraininginsi+t isnotmissingfrominterpretertraining.Thequestionnairedidnotlookintothenatureandscopeofthetraining.Intermsofbasicstrategies,thequestionnaireinquiredfirstwhethertheinterpreterchoosestousethewrittencopyofthespeechornot.Thevastmajorityofrespondents(91%)alwaysusethewrit-tentextwhentheyreceiveitwellinadvance(scenario1);a majority(79%)alwaysuseitiftheyreceivethewrittencopyatleast15minutesbeforethestartofinterpreting(scenario2).Inthecasetheyaregiventhewrittentextonly5minutesbeforethestart(scenario3),lessthanhalfalwaysuseit(42%),alsolessthanhalfsometimesuseit(45%).The‘never’optionforthesequestionsisworthmentioning:nobodydiscardsthetextinscenario1,itcamesomewhatasa surprisethatonerespondent(3%)discardsthewrittentextinscenario2,and3respondents(9%)prefernottousethetextwhentheyreceiveitlessthan5minutesinadvance(scenario3).

Inordertodeepentheanalysis,Pearsonchi2(4)correlationanalysiswascarriedouttoshowtherelationofsi+ttrainingandtheuseofthewrittentextforthethreescenarios.si+ttrainingdoesnotcorrelatesignificantlywiththedecisiontousethemanuscriptinthefirstandsecondcase(Pr=0.927;Pr=0.130).However,Table 1showsthatsignificantcorrelationwasfoundinthethirdscenariobetweentraininganduseoftext(Pr=0.063).Thosewhoreceivedsi+ttrainingwerelessinclinedtousethetextintheconstrainedsituationwheretheyhavelessthanfiveminutestopreparethetext,comparedwiththosewhodidnothaveanysuchtraining.a possibleexplanationforthisunexpectedresultcouldbethatinterpretersprefertodiscardthetextincasetheycannotprepareit“properly”.However,thishypothesisneedsfurtherstudytobeconfirmed.

Table 1:relationofSI+Ttraininganduseofthewrittentextinscenario3

do you use the text if you receive it less than 5 minutes before the start of interpreting?

Training Yes,always Yes,sometimes never Total

no 10 7 0 17

Yes 4 8 3 15

Total 14 15 3 32

Pearsonchi2(4) 5.5347Pr=0.063

Insituationswheretheyhavetimetopreparethewrittentext(scenarios1and2combined),respondentsfocusonnamesandtitlesinthefirstplace,followedbyterms,numbers,sentence


61


structureandlinks,and,finally,references.Theeffectofsi+ttrainingcanbeshown:thosewhoreceivedtrainingconsiderthepreparationofnames,titles,numbers,referencesandterms(fouroutoffivecategories)tobemoreimportantthanthosewhodidnothavetraining.

Figure 1showsthatwhenrespondentshavelessthanfiveminutes,mostprefertogetthegeneralideaofthetextbyskimmingthroughit,followedcloselyinimportancebycircling/underlying/highlightinga fewimportantelements, includingnamesandnumbers,andfi-nally,readingthefirstandlastparagraph.Thisisnotanunexpectedresult,yettheorderofpreferenceofthetwofirstoptionsisreversedcomparedwiththefindingsofCammounetal.(2009).

Figure 1:Scenario3–Lessthan5minutestopreparethewrittentext

The literature review elaborated the four benefits and five constraints conceptualised byCammounetal.(2009).eightofthesewereusedinthepresentsurvey,anda separateques-tionreferredtodualinput.

Interpretersrankedtheconceptsintermsoftheirimportanceinsi+t(theorderofprior-itywas1to8where1wasthemostimportantand8theleastimportant).Firstofall,theyconsiderthewrittentexttobehelpfulforanincreasedaccuracy ofdatain the output(2.73).Secondly,inthecasewherethedeliveryspeedisaccelerated(3.16),thirdlyasithelpsthemanticipate(3.85).Thesewerefollowedbythelackofredundancy(3.89),copingwitha heavy accent(4.03),tohavea broaderknowledgeofthetopicofthemeeting(4.43),interferencefromthesourcetext(5.81),andfinally,whenthedeliveryismonotonous(6.12).relativetotheconceptofinterferencethesamedoubthasarisenasintheresearchperformedbyCammounetal.(2009).Interferencerefersto“thedirectimpactofthesourcetextonthetargettext”(g. Láng2002: 194); or “speakers applyingknowledge from thefirst/source language toa second/target language” (Cammoun et al. 2009: 60), and the negative effect might bestrongerandmoreapparentwhenthevisualsignsarepresentinfrontofthem(gile2009).respondentsmighthaveconfusedinterferencewiththedifficultyofdualinput.Therefore,thisaspectwasnotfurtheranalysed.

Thecomparison,withthehelpofa meantest(Wald)oftheaveragerankingsoftheeightconstraintsandbenefitswithinthesi+t trainingsubgroupandothersubgroupsperyearsofprofessional experience,proved tobe fruitful.among the eight aspectsone stoodout:


62

Borbálarohonyi

therewereonlysignificantdifferencesbetweenthesubgroupsintherankingof“havingthetextwhenthespeakerhasa heavy accent”.Itsrankingwassignificantlyhigher(witha 95%confidencelevel)amongthosewhohavenotreceivedtrainingandthosewhohavemorethantenyearsofprofessionalexperience.Inviewofthesesurprisingresults,accentseemedtobea conceptthatrequiresfurtherstudy.

Figure 2:relyingontheauditory/visualinputinSI+T

Figure 2showsparticipants’preferencesintermsofthesighttranslationcomponentofSI+T.Theratioofthosewhomainly‘followtheirears’wasslightlyhigherthanthosewhofavourthedominanceofsight translation(10versus8respondents,30%versus24%).Butbasedontheresults,theoutstandingratiooftheoption“Itdepends”(17respondents,51%)isworthmentioning.Itindicatesthatmanyinterpretersdonothavea one-and-onlystrategy,orgeneralpreferenceofa strategythatworksfortheminsi+tmode.Theirstrategychangesdepending–presumably–onhowmuchtimetheyhavetopreparethetext,whattypeoftexttheyhavetodealwithandhoweasilytheycanunderstandthespeaker.Furtheranalysiswascarriedoutinthesecondstageoftheresearchtofindoutwhattheirstrategydependson.

ForanextendedanalysisoftheresultsofthequestionnaireandmoredetaileddescriptionofwhatdifferenceswerefoundfromfindingsofCammounetal.(2009),seerohonyi(2016).

4. the exPeriMent

4.1 research Questions and emPirical hyPotheses Basedontheresultsofthesurveyandtheliteraturereviewtheexperimentsetouttoexaminesimultaneous interpreting with textfromenglishintoHungarianundertwospecificcondi-tions:whenthespeakerhasanunusual/heavy accentandwhenthespeechcontainsseveralnames and numbers.

althoughstrictlyspeakingthereweretwoexperiments,eachwithitsindependentvariable,sincethetwotookplaceconsecutively,withexactlythesamesampleandunderidenticaltech-nicalconditions,theyaretreatedasoneexperimentconsistingoftwoparts.a cleardistinctionisalwaysmadebetweenthetwo.

researchquestionsandhypothesesfortheexperimentarethefollowing:


63


(1) Whatstrategydoconferenceinterpreterspreferinsi+tmodewhendealingwithdif-ferenttypesofspeeches,e.g.deliveredwitha heavyaccentorcontaininga lotofdata?Hypothesis1a:Insi+tmode,inthecasewhenthespeakerhasa heavy or unusual accent,conferenceinterpreterstendtoresorttosightinterpretationonlongpassages.1b:Wherethespeechcontainsnames and numbers,interpretersprefertolookdownbrieflyatspecificelementswhichtheyalsomighthavecircled/underlined/highlightedwhenpreparingthewrittentext.

(2) doconference interpretersomit less informationwhentheyhaveaccess toa copyofthewrittentextintheboothwherethespeakerhasa heavy or unusual accent?Hypothesis:Intheeventthespeakerhasa heavy or unusual accent,conferencein-terpretersomitsignificantlymoreinsi comparedwithsi+t.

(3) doesthewrittenversionofthespeechhelpinterpretersrenderthenumberscorrectly?Hypothesis:Conference interpretersmake fewermistakes in thenumbers insi+tthaninSI.

4.2 ParticiPants

Thepresentexperimentwascarriedoutwith15professional interpreters.Sixof thepar-ticipantsweremen,ninewomen.TheyarebasedinBudapest,Hungary.Theiragesrangedfrom29to66.13ofthemworkmainlyontheHungarianprivatemarket,twoofthemareeuaccreditedfreelanceinterpretersandalsoworkontheHungarianprivatemarket.33.3%oftherespondentshaveovertwentyyearsofexperience,boththegroupwith10to19andthegroupwith5to9yearsofexperiencewererepresentedby26.6%oftherespondents,respectively;finally,13.3%havelessthanfiveyearsofexperience.ThatmakesthesamplerepresentativeoftheHungarianmarket.46.6%ofthemclaimedtohavehadtraininginsi+t,allofthemduringtheirinterpretingstudies,oneofthem(6.6%)hadspecificsi+ttrainingaswell.

Figure 3:Thelanguagecombinationofparticipants

Figure 3showsthatallsubjectshaveHungarianastheira language,oneofthemclaimsbeinga bilingualofHungarianandrumanian(twoa languages).englishwaseithertheirBorC


64

Borbálarohonyi

language.FurtherBandClanguagesincludedrussian,ukrainian,French,Italian,german,andSpanish.allthesubjectsvolunteeredfortheexperimentuponreceivingtheinvitationletter,mostprobablythankstothemotto–ernestShackleton’sfamousadformenwantedtocrosstheantarctic:“Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success”.

4.3 Pilot

apilotwasconductedwithtwoprofessionalinterpreterson23September2016.Themainles-sonslearntfromthepilotwerethefollowing:theonehourtimespanallowsonlyfortwo,notthreespeeches;moreinformationshouldbesenttotherespondentsaboutthetopicpriortothedayoftheexperimenttomaketheexperiencemorerealistic(thesubjectsinsistedonthatpointvehemently,theywouldhavelikedtopreparemore);finally,thesecondvideorecordinghadtoberepeatedduetosoundquality.

accordingly, respondentsof theexperimentwere informedabout the topicof the twospeechesoneweekbeforetheevent,receivedpracticalinstructionsandweretoldthattheex-perimentwouldlastapproximatelyonehour,duringwhichtheywouldbeaskedtoworkfora time-spanof22minutesintotalfromenglishintoHungarian.Somemoredetailsonthetopicandterminologyweresenttothemthreedaysbeforetheactualdateanda reminderthedaybefore,allinanattempttoimitatereallifeconditions.

4.4 setting

TheexperimentwasconductedattheinterpretingfacilitiesofeLTeuniversityinBudapest,Hungary,inaninterpretingroomequippedwith6boothscompliantwithISostandards.Theexperimenttookplaceon29and30September2016,in5rounds,eachroundcomprisingtwoparts,withgroupsof1to5respondents.Thefirstspeechwasdownloadedfromtheinternetandthesecondspeechwasrecordedseparately.BothspeecheswereplayedwithPolycomvideoconferencingequipment(realpresencegroup500)directlylinkedtoboththefloorandthebooths.recordingwasperformedwitheLTe’sfourdictaphonesanda cellphone.

4.5 sPeech materials

Thefirstspeechchosenforthepurposesoftheexperimentisentitled“Healtheheart”,anauthenticspeechwithtranscriptfromTedtalks,availableontheinternet,performedfroma manuscriptbyFranzFreudenthal,a Bolivianphysicianofgermanorigin2.Thespeechisabouta specialdevicethathealschildrenwitha congenitalheartdiseasewithoutopensur-gery,andhowitwasinvented.ItisaninspirationalspeechanditcorrespondstotheadvancedlevelofsimultaneousinaccordancewiththegradingcriteriaofdgSCICintermsoftopicandstructure/contents,andtotheveryadvancedlanguagelevel insofaras it isa writtenspeech.

respondentsweresenta listofthemedicaltermsinadvance.Thespeechwasplayedintwoparts,thefirstparthas469wordsandthesecondparthas476.Thespeechlasted9minutes

2ThesourceoftheTedtalkisthefollowing:https://www.ted.com/talks/franz_freudenthal_a_new_way_to_heal_hearts_without_surgery#t-16735


65


17secondsintotalwhichcorrespondstoanaveragedeliveryrateof101.8words/minute.(Thisaveragerateisonlyanapproximateasthespeakerpausedandsloweddownfora fewsecondswhileheshowedvideoimagesofthedevicehewastalkingabout).alteredspeedandintona-tion/chunkingpatternsarea typicalcharacteristicofreadtextsasdiscussedintheintroduc-tion.a speechpresentedata relativelyslowratewasa deliberatechoiceforthisexperimentasanexampleofcompensationbythespeakerforthelackofnative-likefluency,butalsoinordernottomakethetaskdisproportionatelydifficultforthesubjectsasmayhavebeenthecasewitha fast-readpassage.

Thesecondspeechwasoriginallypresentedbyrebecagrynspan.Itisentitled“KeynoteSpeechatoxfordForumforInternationaldevelopmentonTacklingglobalPoverty:data,Policies,andaction”,availableontheInternet.Itsauthentictranscript–notdevoidoftyposandothersmallerrors–waspreparedandread(butnotadapted)forthepurposesoftheex-perimentbyPaulMorgan,a nativeenglishspeakerandmemberoftheteachingstaffattheInterpretingandTranslationdepartmentateLTeuniversity,Budapestwithmanyyearsofexperienceindeliveringspeechestointerpretingstudents.

Thekeynoteaddresscontainsseveralnumbersandpropernames.ThelevelofthespeechcorrespondstotheveryadvancedlevelofsimultaneousinaccordancewiththegradingcriteriaofdgSCIC.Thekeytechnicalterms,suchasMillenniumdevelopmentgoalsweresenttotherespondentsbeforehandtoenhancepreparation.Theselectedpassage,thefirstthreepagesofthespeechwereplayedintwoparts,724and713words,respectively.Thepassagewasdeliveredatanaveragespeedof107words/minute.IntermsofthechosenspeedofthepresentationthesameappliesasforSpeech1:anattemptwasmadenottomakethetaskdisproportionatelydifficult.

4.6 Procedure

Thefifteensubjectswerenotdividedintosubgroupstoavoidsubdivisionofthesampleandhigh intersubject variability (Lamberger-Felber 2001). In the first part of the experiment(heavy/unusual accent)thegroupof15respondentsinterpretedpartI andpartIIofa speechpresentedbythesamespeakerundertwodifferentconditions:firstinsimultaneouswithouttextmode,secondinsi+t,having5minutestopreparethemanuscriptbeforethestartofinterpreting.

order-effectisunavoidableinsucha set-up,andhastobetakenintoconsideration.Bythe time the secondpartof the speech starts, subjects areused to thevoice,presentationstyle,accent,etc.ofthespeakerandaremorefamiliarwiththetopic.However,order-effectwaspreferredtousingdifferentspeechesandthecomplexproblemsraisedbyobjectiveandsubjectivecomparabilityofdifferenttexts(seeLamberger-Felber2001).anotherreasonwastoavoidtheproblematicnatureofsupposedhomogeneityofsubgroups.Inthesecondpartoftheexperimenttheorderwasreversed:respondentscouldpreparethemanuscriptfor5minutesandperforminsi+tinthefirstpartofthespeech,andinsiinthesecondpartofthespeech(seeTable2).

Priortostartingtheexperimentrespondentswereinformedthattheywouldhavetoworkundertwodifferentconditionsinbothpartsoftheexperiment(sifollowedbysi+tPartI;si+tfollowedbysi inPartII)andweretoldthatineachsi+ttasktheywouldhavefive


66

Borbálarohonyi

minutestopreparethemanuscript.Therewasnowarm-uptotheinterpretingtasksduetotime-constraints.

Beforestarting,interpreterswereaskedtofillina shortquestionnaireofpersonalandpro-fessionaldata(e.g.languagecombination,yearsofprofessionalexperience).Post-performancequestionnairesandinterviewswereinspiredbyIngridKurz’sarticleontheimpactofnon-nativeenglish(Kurz2008):aftereachinterpretingtaskrespondentswereaskedtoassessthespeechintermsofdifficultyofterminology,speed,andaccent/informationdensityina shortpost-taskquestionnaire.afterbothspeechestherewasanadditionalquestionspecifyingun-derwhichconditionrenderingthespeechseemedmoredifficult,siorsi+t.

Immediatelyaftereachsi+tsegment(PartIIofSpeech1andPartI ofSpeech2),subjectswereaskedtoindicatewhichpartsofthetexttheyfollowedwiththeireyes(sight translation component).Theywereaskedtocircleorunderlineshorterelementsofthetextanddrawa verticallineinthemarginoflongerpassagesthattheyactually“read”duringperformance.Colourcodingwasusedtoavoidconfusionofnotestakenbeforeandaftertheinterpretingtask.Finally,a 3-minuteinterviewwasconductedwitheachsubjectafterbothSpeech1andSpeech2tolearnmoreabouttheirstrategies,difficultiesandimpressions.Theinterpreterswerealloweda breakbetweenSpeech1and2.Themanuscriptspreparedby the subjectsconstitutethemainsourceofinformationregardingsight translationandiscomplementedbytheinterviews.

Table 2:Theexperiment

timespeech 1

“heal the heart” accent

Mode timespeech 2 Poverty

names and numbersMode

10’ BriefingandfillingthePre-taskquestionnaire 5’ BreaK

4’17’ Speech1/PartI si 5’ Preparationwithmanuscript

3’ Post-taskquestionnaire1/I. 7’12 Speech2/PartI si+t

5’ Preparationwithmanu-script 3’ Post-taskquestionnaire2/I.

5’ Speech1/PartII si+t 6’15 Speech2/PartII si

3’ Post-taskquestionnaire1/II. 3’ Post-taskquestionnaire2/II.

3’ Interview 3’ Interview

4.7 the data

Therecordingsweretranscribedandconstitutea corpusof29,680words,comprising208,534characterswithspaces,withanoveralldurationof5hoursand36minutes.Thetranscriptsoftheinterviewsrepresentanadditionalcorpusof14,203words,witha durationof1hourand30minutes.Pre-andpost-taskquestionnaires,themanuscriptsandterminologypreparedbythesubjects,andthenotesparticipantstookduringtheirperformancecomprisethethirdgroupofdata.


67


4.8 Preliminary results and discussion

4.8.1 accent4.8.1.1 Perception of a heavy/unusual accent

Figure 4:PerceptionofaccentinSI

Figure 5:PerceptionofaccentinSI+T

asshowninFigure 4 and 5,thedifficultyofa heavy/unusual accentwasratedasthegreatestamongrespondentswhohavelessthanfiveyearsofexperience.Bothinsiandinsi+tmodetheaveragerankingwas5ona scaleof1to5where5isthemostdifficult.Thelackofexpe-rienceexplainstheseverityofthedifficultyfortheseinterpreters.alltheotherparticipantsjudgedtheaccenttobeeasierwhentheyhadthemanuscript:thisispartlyduetotheorder-effect.Theaveragerankingofaccentdifficultybysubjectswith10to19yearsofexperiencedroppedfrom4.75insito3.5insi+tandtherewasa similardropfrom4to3amongthose


68

Borbálarohonyi

with5to9yearsofexperience.Thedropwaslessimportantamonginterpreterswithover20yearsofexperience,theydidnotfindtheaccentverydifficulttostartwith(3.2insi+tand2.6inSI).onceagain,experienceshouldaccountforthatresult.

Whenaskedwhichpartofthespeechwasmoredifficulttointerpret,allrespondentswithoneexception(93.3%)saidthepartwithoutmanuscript(firstpart/SI).

Itcanbeconcludedthatallparticipantsexceptforonecopedwitha heavyaccentmoreeasilywhengiventhewrittentext.a closerlookallowsustoobservethesamepatternfromcolumn1to4inFigure 4 and 5(low;high;low;high).Mostpresumably,thepatternissim-plytheresultoftheinterpreters’personalhistoryandknowledgeofaccentswhichhasa largeinfluenceontheirperceptionofthedifficultyofthesourcetext(Lamberger-Felber2001).

Forchangesintheperceptiontheorder-effectmustbetakenintoconsideration.Forthesecondpartofthespeechinterpretersgotusedtotheaccentofthespeakerwhichfirstcameasa surprisetothem.Theyalsobecamefamiliarwiththesubject.Withregardtotheorderoftheconditionsunderwhichtheyworked,sifollowedbysi+tbenefittedsome:firstthewrit-tentextdidnotdistractthemandtheycouldfocusonunderstandingthespeakerdespitehisunusualpronunciation.Themajority,however,founditeasiertocopewiththeaccentwhilehavingthemanuscriptasa support.

4.8.1.2 Perception of speed in the case of a heavy accentdespitethefactthatitwasread,theaveragespeedofthespeechwas101.8wordsperminute,slowincontrasttootherexperiments.Tocitea fewincomparison:SettonandMottausedtextswitha 135and117wpmrate,respectively,thatwereread„ata speedconsideredwithintherangeoffeasibilityforSIwithtext”(SettonandMotta2007),robertaZanettiworkedwitha 120wpmspeechrateinherexperimentonanticipationinSI;theexperimentKurzdescribesworkedwithspeecheswitha 124wpmand125.3wpmrate,respectively,inSI+T(Kurz2008),andthefastdeliverypassageChrisMeulemanandFredVanBesienusedintheirstudyonextremespeechconditionscitedabove(2009)hada rateof184wordsperminuteinSI+T.

Figure 6:PerceptionofspeedwithaccentinSI


69


Figure 7:PerceptionofspeedwithaccentinSI+T

Firstly,videoimagesslowdownthepresentation.Secondly,the‘tempo’wasaffectedbytheattemptofthespeakertoexplaina medicalinventioninsimpletermstothelayman.Figure 6showsthatrespondentswhohavelessthanfiveyearsofexperiencestruggledwiththerateregardless,andfounditfast.ThisconfirmsdéjeanLeFéal’sfindingsthatinterpretersmightperceivethereciteddeliveryratetobefasterevenwhenitisratherslow(déjeanLeFéalinChernov2004).ThedropintheperceptionofspeedinPartIIcanbeexplainedbythecom-forttheseinterpretersoflittleexperiencefoundinthemanuscript:theynolongerfeltthatthespeakerwasracing.

It isnoteworthythatalltherest,thevastmajorityofparticipants(86.7%)experienceda maintainedorincreasedrate.Twoofthesubgroups(59.9%ofallthesubjects)foundthespeechratetobehigherinsi+tcomparedwithSI,andthethirdsubgroup(26.6%)thoughttheratetobeidentical.Thisisa strikingresultasthespeakerspokeatanaveragespeedof109.5wordsperminuteinthefirstpart,andslowed downnotablyinthesecondpartofhisspeechto95wordsperminute.Twophenomenadescribedintheliteratureaccountforthisfinding:theunfamiliaraccentgivesrisetothesubjectiveimpressionofhigherdeliveryspeed(Kurz2008)andrecitedtextscreate thesame illusion(Chernov2004).Whenthesewerecombinedwithincreasedanti-interferenceeffortsinsi+t, interpretershadtheimpressionofaccelerated/constantspeedevenwhenthespeakeractuallysloweddown.

4.8.2 numbers4.8.2.1 Accuracy of numbersThefollowingcategorisationwasusedtoevaluatetherenderingofnumbersinthetargetlan-guage:a)correctrenderingmeansthatboththenumeralandwhatitreferstointhecontextwasrenderedcorrectly;b)omissionmeansthatthenumberwasentirelyomittedintheoutput;c)incorrectrenderingmeansthateitherthenumber,oritsmeaningincontext,orboth,wereincorrect.


70

Borbálarohonyi

Table 3:accuracyofnumberinSIandSI+T

rendering of numbers si+t si

Correct 90% 59%

omission 6% 28%

Incorrect 4% 13%

Table 3showsthatinterpretersmade31%lesserrorsinsi+tmodecomparedwithsi mode.Thisfindingpartlyconfirmsthefirsthypothesisandfullysupportsthefourth.

Thestrikinglyhighratioofomittednumbersinsimode(28%omittedvs13%incor-rect)suggeststhatwheresaturationoccursandtheydonothavethemanuscripttorelyupon,subjects focuson theoverall coherenceof themessageevenat thecostof sacrificing thenumbers.Theinterviewssupportthefactthatthisisa consciousdecisionwheninterpreterssensetheycannotkeepthebalanceintheireffortsandprefernottotaketheriskofmisin-terpretingnumbers:insteadthey“letthenumbergo”andtrytorendera coherentmessagewithoutit.

ThisappliestooneparticularlycomplexparagraphinPartIIofSpeech2,renderedinSImode,whichcontainssixfigures,presentinganobviousriskofsaturation.Thesefiguresprovedtobelow-riskomissions(Pym2008) forrespondents.Havingomittednumbers,theyfocusedonthenarrativesecondpartoftheparagraph,tryingtorestorecoherence.Interestingly,a sim-ilarlycomplexpassage,alsocontainingsixfiguresinthefirstpartofthetext,renderedinSI+Tmode,didnotcauseanysuchproblems,presumablythankstovisualaccesstotheinformationandnotbecausetheywouldhavebeenjudgedashigherriskomissions.

Itisnoteworthythat26.6%ofrespondentsdidnotmakeanymistakeinthefigures(nei-theromissions,norincorrectrenderings)insi+t.46.6%ofthemdidnotrenderanynumbersincorrectlyand33.3%didnotomitanyfiguresinsi+t.Insimode,ontheotherhand,noneoftheinterpretersrenderedallnumberscorrectly,only13.3%didnotrenderanyfigureincor-rectlyandthelowestnumberofomissionswas1(onerespondent,6.6%).

SimilarlytothefindingsofLamberger-Felber(2001)theexperimentsuccessfullyshowedthatincorrectrenditionoromissionofnumberswasreducedbytheuseofthemanuscriptinthebooth.

Theresultsfirmlysupportclaimsbygile(2009)thatinSI+Tthereadingandthelis-teningeffortnotonlycompete,butalsocooperate.eventhoughthevisualpresenceofthelinguisticsignscallsformoreintenseanti-interferenceefforts(gile2009,SettonandMotta2007),themuchhigherratioofcorrectlyrenderednumbersinSI+Tprovethatinterpretersbenefitfromthevisualpresenceofdata(Viezzi1989)asitreducesmemoryproblemsandtheprobabilityoffailuresduetoinsufficientprocessingcapacity(gile2009),andhelpsre-structureinformationdespiteincreasedinterference(SettonandMotta2007).Finally,theinterpreterswerehighlyawareofthepossibleimportanceoffiguresandfocusedonthemsimilarlytotheexperimentbyMeulemanandBesien(2009)–inourcasemuchmoresuc-cessfullyinSI+TthaninSI.


71


4.8.2.2 Perception of information density

Figure 8:PerceptionofinformationdensityinSI+T

Figure 9:PerceptionofinformationdensityinSI

Professionalexperienceseemstobeanimportantfactorindetermininghowdifficultinter-pretersperceiveinformativesourcetextspeeches,asillustratedbyFigures 8 and 9.Inbothsi+tandsi,itwasrespondentswithlessthan5yearsofexperiencewhofoundtheinforma-tiondensityofthespeechmostdifficult(4ona scaleof1to5insi+tand4.5insi).Theperceptionofdatadensitybyalltherespondentswithmorethan5yearsofexperiencerangedbetweenanaverageof3.5and3.8ona scaleof1to5.


72

Borbálarohonyi

acoupleofrespondentsmentionedintheirinterviewthatthefirstpartcontainedmorefigures,whichiscorrect:thefirstpart(si+tmode)contained23numbers,thesecondpart(SI)contained17.Somerespondents,ontheotherhand,hadtheimpressionthattheoppositewastrue:

– “Myfirstimpressionwasthatthereweren’tasmanynumbersinthefirstpartasinthesecond.”

– “Inthepartwithoutmanuscriptthereweremorefigures,morenames,atleastthat’swhatitfeltlikeasI didn’thavethepaperinfrontofme.”

Theseimpressionsmaybeaccountedforbythefactthatinsi+tmodetheyrenderednumbersmoreeffortlesslythaninsi mode,andthegreatereffortmadethespeechlookmorecompact.

Whenaskedwhichpartofthespeechwasmoredifficulttointerpret,only20%oftherespondentsanswereditwasthepartwheretheyhadaccess tothemanuscript(firstpart/si+t).

onceagain,theorder-effectisimportantandhastobeconsidered.asoneofthesubjectsobservedwithrespect to thedifficultyofSpeech2:“I thinkthe twopartswere the same.Becausewhenwenolongerhadthemanuscript,onlythespeech,wehadthecompensationthatwewerealreadyfamiliarwiththetopicinreturnfornolongerhavingthewrittentextandI moreorlessknewwherewewereheading”.

4.8.2.3 Perception of speed in the case of a speech containing dataFigure 7showsaninterestinglevellingintheperceptionofspeedbyrespondentswhentheyswitchedfromsi+ttosi,whileinterpretinga keynotespeechcontainingdata.Interpretershaving5to19yearsofexperiencecorrectlyperceivedanincreaseddeliveryratewhenswitch-ing tosi: the speakergraduallyaccelerated in the secondpartof the speech. Interpreterswithlessthanfiveandmorethan20yearsofexperienceprobablyhadthefalseimpressionofhigherspeedintheSI+Tsectionbecausetheyattemptedtotranslateeverythingdespitebeingoutdistanced,a riskinherentinsight translation(gile:1997,2009).

Figure 10:PerceptionofspeedwhenspeechcontainsdatainSI+T


73


Figure 11:PerceptionofspeedwhenspeechcontainsdatainSI

4.9 sight translation strategies in si+tuponcompletionoftheinterpretingtask,participantswereaskedtomarkthepassageswheretheyhadfollowedthetextwiththeireyes,distinguishingbetweenfullsentences/paragraphsread(bydrawinga verticallineinthemarginofthepassages)andshorterunitswheretheylookeddown(bycircling/underliningtheseelements).

The marked passages of the manuscripts were quantified in the following way: thenumberofsentences,paragraphsandlineswerecounted.Thiswasnecessarytotake intoaccountthedifferentstructureofthetextswhenexaminingsighttranslationstrategiesinSI+T.asTable 4illustrates,thetwospeechesvariedgreatlyintermsoftheirstructure:thespeechentitled“Healtheheart”consistedoffewparagraphs(7)andmanysentences(37),whereasthekeynotespeechonpovertycomprisedlongsentences(31)andwasdividedintomanyparagraphs(15).

Table 4:PassagesreadinSI+TduringSpeech1andSpeech2

speech 1 – accent speech 2 – names and numbers

average number K1K15

total number %

average number read

K1K15

total number %

Sentences 21.26 37 57.4% 17.13 31 55.2%

Paragraphs 3.6 7 51.4% 7.93 15 52.8%

Lines 17.66 32 55.1% 29.4 54 54.4%

elementscircled/underlined 4.26 – – 9.53

average% 54.6% 54.1%


74

Borbálarohonyi

resultsshowninTable 4confirmthefirstpartofthehypothesis(1a)concerningsighttransla-tionstrategies:Interpretersdoresorttosightinterpretationforlongpassagesofthemanuscriptwhenthespeakerhasan unusual accent(onaveragetheyfollowed54.6%ofthetext).

Thesecondpartofthehypothesisclaimedthatwherethespeechcontainsnames and numbersinterpretersprefertolookdownbrieflyatspecificelements.althoughthepartici-pantslookeddownatspecificelementsovertwiceasmanytimesinthesecondspeech(tentimesonaverageversus four times in thefirst speech), this strategy ismore typicalwithspeechescontainingnamesandnumbers,however,inthisverysametextparticipantsalsoresortedtosighttranslationforlongpassages.Moreover,thenumberofsentencesreadwasmuchhigherthanthenumberofspecificunits.Itcanthereforebeconcludedthat inter-pretersdonotpreferbrieflylookingdownatelements,theyusethisstrategyin addition tofollowinglongerpassageswiththeireyes.Thesecondpartofthehypothesisisthereforenotconfirmed.

Theaverageratioofsighttranslationofpassageswasverysimilarinthetwocases,speech1and2:54.6%and54.1%,respectively.Basedontheresultsoftheexperimentitisthereforenotmoretypicalofinterpreterstoresorttosighttranslationforlongpassagesinthecaseofa non-nativespeakerwitha heavy or unusual accent than withspeechescontainingnames and numbers.

Inthisexperiment,thespeakerreadoutthemanuscriptofthespeech,onlycorrectinga fewtyposbutwithoutomittingoraddingtoit.FurtherstudiesshouldbecarriedouttoseehowsighttranslationstrategieschangeinSI+Twherethespeakerdivertsfromthemanuscript.eye-trackingwillbetheobviousandpreferablechoice,bothtoconfirmtheaboveresultsandprovidefurtherinputonsighttranslationstrategiesinSI+T.

5. ConClusion

Thepresentstudywasconductedtobroadenourknowledgeofsimultaneous interpreting with text (si+t)byexaminingpractisinginterpreters’attitudes,strategiesandperformancewhenworkingfromenglishintoHungarian.Thestudywascarriedoutintwostages,oneobservational,oneexperimental.

Stageoneconfirmedthatwhenapplyingtheappropriatestrategies,thewrittenversionofthespeechhelpsinterpreterstorenderthemessage(HypothesisStage1).Thesurveyinstageonebroughtaboutanunexpectedcorrelationbetweenuseofthetextandsi+ttrainingwithregardstothescenariowhentheinterpreterhaslessthanfiveminutestopreparethemanu-scriptofthespeech(scenario3).Significantdifferenceswerefoundintheaveragerankingofthewrittentextwhenthespeakerhasa heavy/unusual accent.resultsshowedthataccordingtorespondents,thewrittenversionofthespeechismosthelpfulintermsofincreased accuracyin output.accordingly,stageoneoftheresearchnarrowedthefocusdowntoscenario3,tothecasewhenthespeakerhasa heavy/unusual accentandtheroleofthemanuscriptintheaccuracy in output.

ahypothesis-testingexperimentwascarriedoutinstagetwooftheresearch.Preliminaryresultsconfirmedthefourthhypothesis,namely,thatconferenceinterpretersmakefewermis-takesinnumbersinsi+tcomparedwithSI.Furtherpreliminaryresultsincludecomparisons


75


betweensiandsi+tintermsoftheperceptionofdifficultieswitha speechthatisreadwitha heavy/unusual accent,theperceptionofthedifficultywhenrenderinga speechcontain-ingnames and numbers,andtheperceptionofspeedinthecaseofbothheavyaccentandinformationdensity.Thehypothesisregardingsight translationstrategieswithinsi+twasonlypartiallyconfirmed.

references

Braun,S.,Clarici,a.1996.Inaccuracyfornumeralsinsimultaneousinterpretation:neuro-linguisticandneuropsychologicalperspectives.Interpreter’s NewsletterVol.1.85–102.

Cammoun,r.,davies,C.,Ivanov,K.,andnaimushin,B.2009.Simultaneous Interpretation with Text. Is the Text ‘Friend’ or ‘Foe’? Laying Foundations for a Teaching Module.Seminarpaper.ÉcoledeTraductionetd’Interprétation.universitédegeneve.1–160.

Chernov,g.V.2004.Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability-prediction model.Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

déjeanLeFéal,K.1997.Simultaneousinterpretationwith‘trainingwheels’.MetaVol.42.no.4.616–621.

gile,d.1984.Lesnomspropresen interprétationsimultanée.MultilinguaVol.2.no.3.79–85.

gile,d.1985.Lemodeled’efforts et l’équilibred’interprétation en interprétation simul-tanée. MetaVol.30.no.1.44–48.

gile,d.1995.Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence.PressesuniversitairesdeLille.

gile,d.1997.Conferenceinterpretingasa cognitivemanagementproblem.In:Pöchhacker, F.,Shlesinger,M.(eds)2002.The Interpreting Studies Reader.LondonandnewYork:routledge.162–178.

gile,d.1998.observationalStudiesandexperimentalStudiesintheInvestigationofCon-ferenceInterpreting.Target Vol.10.no.169–93.

gile,d.1999.TestingtheeffortModels’Tightropehypothesisinsimultaneousinterpreting–a contribution.HermesVol.23.153–172.

gile,d.2009.Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.revised.

g.Láng,Z.2002.Tolmácsolás felsőfokon. A hivatásos tolmácsok képzéséről. [Interpretingatsuperiorlevel.aboutprofessionalinterpretertraining.]Budapest:Scholastica.

Horváth,I.2012.Interpreter behaviour. A psychological approach.Budapest:HangnyelviskolaBt.

Ivanov,K.,davies,K.,naimushin,B.2014.TeachingSimultaneousInterpretingwithtext.In:goncharov,S.,antonova,a.(eds)Fighting the Fog in Multilingualism. A Festschrift in Honour of Irina S. Alekseeva.St.Petersburg:HerzenuniversityPress.48–62.

Kurz,I.2008.Theimpactofnon-nativeenglishonstudents’interpretingperformance.In:Hansen,g.,Chesterman,a.,gerzymisch-arbogast,H.(eds)Efforts and Models in Inter-preting and Translation Research.amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.179–192.

Lamberger-Felber,H.2001.Text-orientedresearchintointerpreting.examplesfroma case-study.HermesVol.26.39–63.


76

Borbálarohonyi

Lamberger-Felber,H.,Schneider,J.2009.Linguisticinterferenceinsimultaneousinterpret-ingwithtext:a casestudy.In:gyde,H.,Chesterman,a.,gerzymisch-arbogast,H.(eds)Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. A Tribute to Daniel Gile.JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.215–236.

Lambert, S. 1991. aptitude Testing for Simultaneous Interpretation at the university ofottawa.MetaVol.36.no.4.586–594.

Lambert, S. 2004. Shared attention during Sight Translation, Sight Interpretation andSimultaneousInterpretation.MetaVol.49.no.2.294–306.

Lederer, M. 1982. Le processus de la traduction simultanée. Multilingua Vol. 1. no. 3.149–158.

Meuleman,C.,VanBesien,F.2009.Copingwithextremespeechconditionsinsimultaneousinterpreting.InterpretingVol.11.no.1.20–34.

Moser-Mercer,B.1985.ScreeningPotentialInterpreters.MetaVol.30.no.1.97–100.Pöchhacker,F.2004.Introducing Interpreting Studies.London:routledge.Pym,anthony.2008.onomissioninsimultaneousinterpreting.riskanalysisofa hidden

effort.Workingversionofa textpublished.In:gyde,H.,Chesterman,a.,gerzymisch-arbogast,H.(eds)Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. A Tribute to Daniel Gile.JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.83–105.

rohonyi,B.2015.Birkózása szöveggelszinkrontolmácsolásközben1.rész.[Copingwiththetextinsimultaneousinterpreting.Part1.]FordítástudományVol.17.no.2.23–38.

rohonyi,B.2016.Birkózásazírottszöveggelszinkrontolmácsolásközben2.rész.[Copingwiththewrittentextinsimultaneousinterpreting.Part2.]FordítástudományVol.18.no.1.31–49.

Seleskovitch,d.,Lederer,M.2002[1989].Pédagogie raisonnée de l’ interprétation.2eéditioncorrigéeetaugmentée.France:didierÉrudition.

Setton,r.,Motta,M.2007.Syntacrobatics:Qualityand reformulation inSimultaneous-with-text.InterpretingVol.9.no.2.199–230.

Zanetti,r.1999.relevanceofanticipationandpossiblestrategiesinthesimultaneousinter-pretationfromenglishintoItalian.The Interpreters’ NewsletterVol.9.79–98.

Viezzi,M.1989.Informationretentionasa ParameterfortheComparisonofSightTrans-lationandSimultaneousInterpretation:anexperimentalStudy.The Interpreters’ News-letterno.2.65–69.


77


annexe 1 Method and questionnaire used in the survey

Thesurveyaimedtorevealestablishedpracticesofsi+tinHungaryinapril2014.a focused,analytical,interactivestudywascarriedoutbymeansofa questionnaire,accordingtotheclas-sificationbygile(1998).Thesampleincluded33professionalconferenceinterpreters.Thefirststageoftheresearchreliedtoa largeextentona surveycarriedoutbya groupoffourresearchers:Cammoun,davies, Ivanovandnaimushin(2009).In2009,theydevotedanob-servational researchpaper to simultaneous interpreting with text, studying the attitudesofpractisingconferenceinterpretersatinternationalinstitutionsandtheirteachersbymeansofanemailenquiry,interviewsanda specialsi+tsurvey.Theirconclusionslaida soundfoundationfora specialsi+tmodule foradvancedstudentsofconference interpreting. (Cammounetal.2009)Theirquestionnairewasspeciallydesignedtomapinterpreters’practicesandelicitattitudestowardssi+t.Itwasthenadaptedforthepurposesofthecurrentresearch.Fora detailedanalysisofthedifferencesbetweentheoriginalandtheadaptedquestionnaireandtheresultsofthetwostudies,seerohonyi(2016).Inadditiontorevealingthepracticesofsi+t ontheHungarianmarket,the adaptedsurveyalsosetouttosharegoodpractices,suggestmoreuniformstrategies,andshowtheeffectofspecifictrainingonattitudestowardssi+tandpractices.additionally,itwasaimedatpointingoutad-vantagesanddifficultiesthemanuscriptcanpresentinsi+t,andatrevealingstrategiesassociatedwithdifferentsituationsanddifficulties.apilotsurveytookplacefrom2to4april2014withfiveinterpretersandprovedtobeveryproduc-tive.asa result,thequestionnairewasextendedfromtheinitial13to16questions.Thefinalisedquestionnairewasthensentoutandcompletedbyrespondentsfrom4to8april2014.datacol-lectionwaspurposiveandwasperformedviaemailtohavetotalcontroloverthesampleandavoidincludingsubjectswhodonotcomplywithallthecriteria(qualifiedconferenceinterpreterswithHungariana andenglishastheirBorCwhoperformsi+t ona regularbasisintheirdailywork).Thedatawerefirstrecordedandprocessedinapril2014,thenre-evaluatedinapril2016.differentstrategiesarerequiredfora successfulperformanceinsi+tdependingonwheninter-pretersreceivethewrittenspeech.Cammounetal.(2009)usedfourscenarios,onlythreewereselectedforthepurposesofthequestionnaire,representativeofthesituationinHungary:(1)idealscenario:interpretersreceivethetexthours,days,weeksbeforethejob,(2)approximately15min-utesinadvance;(3)(lessthan)5minutesbeforethestartofinterpreting.The“crisisscenario”ofCammounetal.iswhentheinterpreterisgiventhemanuscriptafterthestartofinterpreting.ItisnotlesstypicalorfrequentatmeetingsinHungary,however,itrequiresdifferentstrategiesanditsanalysiswouldgobeyondthescopeofthisstudy.Itwasthereforeex-cluded.SimilarlytothestudyofCammounetal.,onlyrunningtextswereconsidered,thatis,whentheinterpreterisprovidedwiththewrittenmanuscriptofthespeech.Powerpointpresenta-tions,videos,summaries,abstractsandotherworkdocumentsaswellascaseswherethespeechesaretranslatedandprojectedinrealtimeona screendidnotconstitutea subjectoftheresearch.nordidsight translationperseorthesimultaneousreadingoutofpreviouslytranslatedtext.Thefirstsectionofthequestionnaire(fivequestions)relatestodataoftherespondents:age,gender,professionalexperienceandstatus(freelanceoremployee);thesecondpartaddressesthequestionofspecialtraininginsi+t,strategiesusedindifferentsituations,andwhatisconsideredasanadvantageandasa difficultyinthisinterpretingmode.anopenquestioncompletesthequestionnaire.


78

antiCiPation in siMultaneous interPreting between languages with

siMilar MorPhosyntaCtiC struCture

henriett szegh

[email protected]

abstract:InherstudyRelevance of anticipation and possible strategies in the simultaneous interpretation from English into Italian (1999)robertaZanettihas shown,usingMarslen-Wilson’scohort theory(1984),thatanticipationexistseveninsimultaneousinterpretingbetweenlanguageswithsimilarmor-phosyntacticstructure.Interpreter-researchershavebeenpreoccupiedanddividedfora longtimebythelanguagespecificityofthephenomenon.ThepresentstudyaimedatconfirmingZanetti’sresultsbyreplicatingherresearch.Theintroduction,givinga briefoverviewoftheconceptandthedifferenttypesofanticipation,isfollowedbythedetailedpresentationofthepreparationandtheresultsofanexperimentaswellastheconclusionsdrawnfromthefindings.Keywords:anticipation,shadowing,simultaneousinterpreting,acousticandsemanticexpectations

1. the ConCePt oF antiCiPation

anticipationinthebroadestsensereferstothefuturedevelopmentofeventsandactions,andassuch,accordingtoaaroToomela“isaninevitablecharacteristicoflife”(2015:431).Ina narrowersense,thatis,inmonolingualcommunication,anticipationmakesiteasytopredictthepossiblecontinuationofanutterance.Certainly,everybodyknowsthesituationwhenweprocess thesentencestartedbyour interlocutormuchfaster than it isuttered.Inthiscaseweusuallysaythat“weunderstandeachotherwithoutwords”.Thistendstooccurwhenwetalktooneofourfriendsorfamilymemberswithwhomwespenda lotoftimetogetherandweknowthemwell.Itcaneasilyhappenthatwehavenevermetourinterlocutorbeforeandyetweknowexactlywhathe/shewouldliketosay.Insucha case,wecananticipatenotbecauseweknowthepersonbutbecauseweknowthelanguageorthesituation.

Thesameskillsareusedbytheinterpretersinbilingualcommunication.Basedontheirlinguistic,extralinguisticandsituationalknowledge,theyareabletopredicttheendofanutterance.VanBesienclaimsthatanticipationisa generalstrategy,nota characteristicofindividual interpretingstyle.HisstatementisbasedontheanalysisofanalreadyexistingresearchpublishedbyLedererin1981.Ina twotimes55minuteconversationinterpretedbytwoprofessionalsingermanandFrench,hefound78anticipations,thatisoneevery85seconds.

accordingtoVanBesienanticipationininterpreting“referstothesimultaneousinter-preter’sproductionofa constituent(awordora groupofwords)inthetargetlanguagebeforethespeakerhasutteredthecorrespondingconstituentinthesourcelanguage”(VanBesien:1999:253).Thisdefinitionconcentratesonthetemporalaspectofanticipation.Zanettidraws


79

anticipationinSimultaneousInterpretingbetweenLanguages…

ourattentiontothefactthatthisisjust“amacroscopicaspectofa moregeneralphenomenonwhichoccursalsoina monolingualcontext”andthat“anticipationmightpassunnoticedwhentemporalmeasurementsaretaken”(Zanetti1999:80).

2. tyPes oF antiCiPation

Professionalliteraturegenerallydistinguishesbetweentwotypesofanticipationaccordingtowhatkindofinformation,orasWilsscallsthem“cues”triggerit.Linguisticanticipationistriggeredbyco-textualintralingualnaturecues.However,extralinguisticanticipationistheresultofextralinguistic,situationalcues(Wilss1978).

Lederermakesa distinctionbetweenanticipationbasedonlanguageprediction(linguis-tic)andanticipationbasedonsenseexpectation(semantic).Intheformercase,theinterpreterisabletopredicttheappearanceofa givenlexicalitem,duetothefactthattheyknowtheidiomsofthesourcelanguageandthefrequencyoftheiroccurrence,aswell.Whereasinthelattercasetheystoreintheirmemorytheunitsofmeaningbuildinguptotheutteranceandthisenablesthemtohaveanassumptionregardingtheendofit.

Ledererhasanothertypologytoo,basedonwhichpureanticipationmeansthattheinter-preter’sspeechproductionprecedesthespeaker’s,whilefreewheelinganticipationmeansthattheinterpreteruttersthetargetlanguageconstituentlaterthanthesourcelanguageconstitu-entispronouncedbythespeaker“butsosoonafterwardsandsocorrecta placethatthereisnodoubtthattheinterpretersummoneditbeforehearingtheoriginal”(Lederer1978:330).

Lederer(1981)showsanother,a specialtypeofanticipationwhichshecallsstructuralan-ticipation.Theinterpreterusinga neutral,open-endedsentencetriestopostponethemomentwhenthesemanticallyrelevantpartofthesentenceisproducedinthesourcelanguage(Lederer1981).

gilementionslinguisticandcognitive(inhis laterstudiesextralinguistic)anticipation.“Linguisticanticipationhelpstheperceptiononthemicrodiscursivelevelofthephoneme,thewordandthephraseandisbasedonidiomaticexpressions,standardphrases,sayings,proverbsandgrammaticalrules.Cognitiveanticipationhoweveroperatesonthemacrodiscursiveleveloftheclauses,thesentencesandtheutterances”(gile1986:22).

MagdalenaBartlomiejczyk’scategorisationfocusesonanotheraspectofanticipation.Inthecaseofproblem-orientedanticipation,toomuchinformationaccumulatesintheinter-preter’sshort-termmemorywhilewaitingfora crucialelementofthesourcetextsentence(e.g.theverb).generalanticipationmeanscreatingexpectationsaboutthemessageofthesourcelanguagetextinordertofacilitateunderstanding.Thebasisofbothtypescanbeeitherlin-guisticorextralinguisticknowledgeorthecombinationofthetwo(Bartlomiejczyk2008).

3. language-sPeCiFiCity oF antiCiPation

Inthesubjectofanticipation,themostdivisiveissuewhichcreatesa lotofcontroversyamongresearchersislanguage-specificity.Inrecentdecades,a numberofstudiesfocusingspecificallyonthisareahavebeenpublished(Jörg1995,Zanetti1999,donato2003).accordingtotheadvocatesoftheschool,whichiscallednaturalsciencecommunitybyMoser-Mercer(1984),


80

HenriettSzegh

interpretationismoredifficultbetweenlanguageswithdifferentmorphosyntacticstructures(e.g.fromgermantoenglish)becauseingermanthesemanticallyrelevantelementofthesentence,theverb,isoftenfoundattheendofthesentence.Thismeansthattheinterpreterisforcedtopostponethespeechproductionuntiltheydecodethewholesentence.Thisgreatlycomplicatesthetaskoftheshort-termmemory,anditcaneasilyoccurthatasa resultofthetimedifferencebetweendecodingandencoding,informationessentialfortheunderstandingmaybelost.Toavoidthis,theinterpreterusesdifferentstrategies,forexample,paraphrasingwithoutnewinformationoranticipates(Wilss1978).Ledererandtheliberalartscommu-nity(Moser-Mercer1984)believethatsimultaneous interpretingentailsdifficulties foralllanguagesandthatanticipationis independentfromstructuraldifferencesandsimilaritiesbetweenthesourceandthetargetlanguage.

4. roberta Zanetti’s study

Thenaturalsciencecommunity’sviewisbasedontheresearchesfocusingonthetemporalaspectofanticipation.Whenthetransferintothetargetlanguagerequiresa highdegreeofmorphosyntactic conversion (ex.SoV-SVo) someelementsof the source languagemightneedtobeanticipatedinordertocomplywiththesyntacticrulesoftheTL(riccardiandSnelling1997).Insuchcasesanticipationcanbeexcellentlydetectedandmeasured.Inherstudy,Zanetti tries toprovethatanticipationdoesexistbetweenlanguageswithdifferentstructures.Languageprocessingconsistsoftwophases:decodingandencoding.decodingisbasedonthefullanalysisoftheincomingmessage,includingtheacoustic-phonological,syntactic,semanticandpragmaticlevels.Thetimeconstraintandtheefforttofacilitatethetaskforcetheinterpretertominimisetheeffortsneededfortheanalysisina waythattheyformulate some expectations regarding thedevelopmentof theutterance.The interpreteranalysesthereceivedmessageonlytotheextentnecessarytomaketheaforementionedex-pectations.Theseexpectationsthenprovidea frameworkforfurtherunderstanding(Zanetti1999).ThisissupportedbyMarslen-Wilson’scohortmodel(1984),accordingtowhich,werecognisethewordsevenbeforetheyareentirelypronounced.Whena personhearsa speechsegment,thisspeechsegmentactivatesinthementallexiconallthewordswhichbeginwiththesamesegment.asmoresegmentsareadded,morewordsareeliminateduntilonlyoneremains.Theprocessisgreatlyfacilitatedifthewordhasa context,becauseinthiscasethewordbeginningthesamewayasthepronouncedsyllablebutnotfittingthegivencontextisruledoutveryquickly.

Zanetti’s experimentwas carriedoutwith theparticipationof33 student interpreterswhosemothertonguewasItalianandB/Clanguageenglish.22ofthemwereinstructedtointerpretanenglishtextintoItalian.Thetextcontained15anomalieswhosecentralorfinalparthadbeenmodified.Theremaining11studentshadtoshadow,asa controlgroup,thesameenglishtext.

“Shadowing,ormonolingualrepetition,isthereproductionofthespokenspeechinthesourcelanguagewitha delayofa fewseconds”(g.Láng2005:192,theauthor’stranslation).accordingtoguichotdeFortis“shadowinginvolvessome80%ofneuro-linguisticoperationsinvolvedinsimultaneousinterpreting,theonlyfactormissingbeingthatoflanguagetransfer”


81


(guichotdeFortis2011).Thus,itisnotsurprisingthateventodayshadowing,asanexerciseaimedathelpingstudentsacquiretheskilloflisteningandspeakingsimultaneously,isoftenanimportantpartofinterpretertraining.However,itmustbepointedoutthatithasrecentlybeencriticisedbyseveralexperts(e.g.Kurtz1996),sayingthatverbatimrepetition(phonemicshadowing)isa mechanicalprocessthatdoesnotrequiretheprocessingoftheinputandmayleadtowronginterpretationpractice(g.Láng2005:192).

TakingintoaccountguichotdeFortis’sabovefindingsandtheconclusionofformerre-searchesonthetopicofshadowing–accordingtowhichexpectationscanbeusefulsupportforspeechrepetitioninthesamelanguage(Marslen-Wilson1973,1975,1985)–Zanettias-sumedthatinthecaseofsimultaneousinterpreting,wheretheattentionisnotonlydividedbetweenencodinganddecodingbutalsobetweentwodifferentlanguagesystems,theroleofexpectationsisevenstronger.researchresultshaveconfirmedherassumption.58%oftheanomalieswerecorrectedbytheinterpreterswhileonly49%bytheshadowers(55%interpret-ersandshadowerstogether).repetitiontookplacelessfrequently:11%ininterpretingand30%inshadowing.

Theresearchalsoshowedthatiftherearelessthanthreesentencesbetweenthewordandtheanomalycreatedfromit,thenbothinterpretersandshadowersprocesstheanomalymoreeasily.Consequently,theycorrectthemina higherproportionthanifthe‘distance’ismorethan3sentencesoriftheyarefacedwitha completelynewanomaly.

5. the exPeriMent

I foundZanetti’s studyveryusefulandworth replicating. I hoped that the resultsofmyexperiencewouldhelpustogeta clearerviewoftheissueoflanguage-specificity.Inordertoensurethecomparabilityandthevalidityoftheconclusionsdrawnfromtheresults,I triedtousea similarmethodologytoZanettiduringthepreparation,therealisationoftheresearchandduringthedataprocessing,aswell.Myobjectivewastoproveandconfirmthatanticipa-tionisanoftenusedinterpretingstrategyeveninthecaseoflanguagepairs(english-Italian,French-Hungarian)withsimilarmorphosyntacticstructure.

The speech I have chosen was originally delivered by the French president, FrançoisHollandeon30november2015ontheoccasionoftheCoP21(seeannexe1).Thespeechlastedapproximately15minutes(14:58).PriortotheexperimentI intentionallyincluded15anomaliesintheoriginalspeech,thatis,I modifiedthecentralorfinalpartof15lexicalitems.Thus,inmostofthecasesI hada meaningfulwordwhichdidnotfitthecontextbutI alsocre-atedsomenonsensewords.ThemodifiedversionofHollande’sspeech(seeannexe2)wasde-liveredbya French-speakinglecturerofeLTe’sdepartmentofTranslationandInterpreting.5studentinterpretersofeLTe’seMCIcoursewhosemothertonguewasHungarianandtheirB/Clanguageenglish,participatedin theexperiment.3studentswereaskedtointerpretthisFrenchtextintoHungarian.2students,asa controlgroup,hadtoshadowthesametext.Theirperformancewasrecordedandtranscribed.

Therewas,justlikeinZanetti’sresearch,fouroptionstoprocesstheanomalies:– ’r’indicatesthecorrectionoftheanomaly:thecorrect,unmodifiedformoftheword

wasinterpreted/shadowed.


82

HenriettSzegh

– ’nr’indicatesa repetitionoftheanomaly:themodifiedwordwasrepeteadinshad-owingandthetarget languagewordcorrespondingtotheanomalywasinterpreted.

– ’o’indicatestheomission:omissionoftheword/targetlanguagewordcorrespondingtotheanomaly.

– ’IP’standsfortheparaphrasing:paraphrasing,describingthemeaningoftheword.

Theanomaliesincludedinthetextwerealsocategorised:– ’rd’anomalieswerecontainedinlexicalitemsthathadappearedintheircorrectform

morethanthreesentencesbeforetheoneinquestion.– ’rV’anomaliescontainedinitemsthathadappearedlessthanthreesentencesbefore

theoneconsidered.– ’n’anomalieswerenew,inthesensethattheyhadnoantecedent(Zanetti1999:83).

6. hyPotheses

Ihaveformulatedthefollowingfivehypotheses:1. BasedonZanetti’sfindings,thefirstandmostimportantresearchhypothesiswasthat

anticipationexists regardlessofwhether themorpho-syntactic structureof the lan-guagesinvolvedinsimultaneousinterpreting.

2. Inshadowinga lesscomplextransformation–fromauditiveintovocalmode–ofthemessagetakesplace.Inthiscasetheanalysisofthemeaningismorebyaccidentthananintegralpartoftheprocess(Carey1971).FromCarey’sstatement,I assumedthatincontrasttoshadowing,wheremostoftheexpectationsareacoustic,duringsimul-taneousinterpretingitissyntactic,semanticandpragmaticexpectationswhichhelpstudents,consequentlya higherproportionofanomalieswillbecorrectedbyinterpret-ersthanbytheirshadowerpeers.

3. Zanetti,however,alsonotesthatthankstotheaforementionedacousticrequirements,nonsensewordsareeasiertorecogniseinshadowingthaninsimultaneousinterpreting.Interpretersdonotperforma formalanalysis,sincetheywillnotusethesamewordintheirtargetlanguageproduction.Conversely,shadowersmustreproducethetargetlanguageinputexactlythesamewayas ithasbeensaid,thereforetheyconcentratemoreontheform.SoI assumedthatmorenonsenseanomalieswouldberecognisedandcorrectedbyshadowersthanbyinterpreters.

4. BasedonthefindingsofZanetti’sresearch,I assumedthatrVanomalieswouldbethemostoftencorrectedonesbecausethisisthecasewhentheleastamountoftimepasses(lessthan3sentences)betweentheoriginalcorrectandthemodifiedversionoftheword.ThechartshowsthatstudentsparticipatinginZanetti’sresearchcorrected60%ofrVanomalies.Thiswasfollowedbynanomaliesat58%andfinallytherdanomaliesat48%.

5. Sinceinterpretersdonotrepeatwordsbutinterpretthoughts,I assumedthattherateofomissionofanomalieswouldbemuchhigherinSIthaninshadowing.Ithaslessseriousconsequencesherethaninshadowing,wheretheomissionofonlyonewordmayresultina meaninglesssentence.


83


7. results

7.1 general results

Figure 1:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforSIandshadowingtogether

generallyspeaking,anomalieshavebeendetectedandcorrectedinalmosthalfofthecases(47%)whiletheratioofrepeating/interpretingthemincorrectlyisonly13%.ThisresultissimilartothatofZanetti’s(55%-11%).

Inthetwootherprocessingoperations, theratiosarereversed: in thepresentresearchparaphrasingisrepresentedmuchless(4%)thanomission(36%)unlikeinZanetti’sresearchwheretheproportionsare20%and14%respectively.

TheoverallresultsthusconfirmedZanetti’sfindings,Hypothesis 1ofthisresearch,thatthereisalsoa reasonforanticipationbetweentwolanguageswithidenticalstructures(SVo),evenifitisdifficulttomeasureorperceive.

Figures 2 and 3showthedistributionofr,nr,oandIPseparatelyforSIandshadowing.

Figure 2:distributionofr,nr,o,IPinSI Figure 3:distributionofr,nr,o,IPinshadowing


84

HenriettSzegh

Thedifferencebetweenthenumberofthecorrectionsisnegligiblebut,contrarytotheHypo-thesis 2,itisundoubtedlyhigherinshadowingthaninSI(50%vs45%).Therepetitionofanomaliesalsooccurredmorefrequentlyinshadowing(27%vs11%).

However,Figures 2 and 3supportHypothesis 5accordingtowhichtheproportionofomis-sionsishigherinSI(42%)thaninshadowing(16%).

7.2 results for rd, rv and n grouPs

TherelatedHypothesis 4,thatanticipationismorecommonincaseswhereanomaliesappearlessthan3sentenceslaterthanthepreviouslypronouncedcorrectformoftheword(rV),doesnotappeartobejustifiedonthebasisofthefollowingresultssincethehighestratioisobtainedjustintheoppositecase(rd).atthesametime,therepetitionoftheanomalyishigher(16%)whentheanomalyisclosertothecorrect,originalversion.

Figure 4alsoshowsthatinthecaseofnewanomalies,participantsintheresearchweremorelikelytohavemissed(48%)thancorrected(32%)orrepeated(20%)them.

Figure 4:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforalltypesofanomaliesinSIandshadowing

Figure 5:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforalltypesofanomaliesinSI


85


Figure 6:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforalltypesofanomaliesinshadowing

Figures 5 and 6showtheresultforSIandforshadowingseparately.Basedonthesewecanstatethatshadowersaremorecharacterisedbyacousticalprocessing,thatis,theyrecognisethatthegivenwordexists,butdonotperforma deeper,semanticanalysisduringwhichitalsoturnsoutwhetherthewordfitsthecontextornot.Theirtaskis‘just’repeatwhathasbeensaid.Thus,itisnotsurprisingthattheproportionofnrinshadowing(rd-10%,rV-30%,n-40%)ismuchhigherthanininterpreting(rd-0%,rV-7%,n-27%).

7.3 rd anomalies

Table 1belowshowstherdanomaliesfoundinthetext.rdanomalieswerecontainedinlexicalitemsthathadappearedmorethanthreesentencesbeforetheoneinquestion.

Table 1:rdanomalies

Code original anomalyrd1 nationsunies nationsmuniesrd2 développementdurable développementrurablerd3 gazàeffetdeserre gazàeffetdeterrerd4 énergiesrenouvelables énergierenoulevablerd5 avenirdelaplanete avenirdelamanette

Figure 7:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrdanomalyrdinSIandshadowing


86

HenriettSzegh

Figure 7showsthatinallcases,exceptforrd5,thereisa highproportionofcorrections(60%,60%,80%,80%,20%).However,Figures 8 and 9alsoshowthatinterpreterstypicallyusedtwosolutions:theycorrectedoromittedanomalieswhileshadowershada repetitionandtheproportionofcorrectionismuchsmaller.

Figure 8:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrdanomalyinSI

Figure 9:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrdanomalyinshadowing

7.4 rv anomalies Table 2belowshowstherVanomaliesfoundinthetext.rVanomalieswerecontainedinlexicalitemsthathadappearedlessthanthreesentencesbeforetheoneinquestion.

Table 2:rVanomalies

Code original anomaly

rV1 chefd’Étatetdegouvernement chefd’Éthiqueetdegouvernement

rV2 conférence confidence

rV3 justiceclimatique justicelimatique

rV4 accord àcorne

rV5 condition conviction


87


Mostofthecorrectionswereassumed(Hylothesis4)forrVanomalies,butthis,aspreviouslyrevealed,hasnotbeenverified.

Figure 10:Correctionsofrd,rV,nanomaliesinSIandshadowing

Figure 11showsthedataregardingrVanomaliesinSIandshadowingtogetherwhileFigures 12 and 13forSIandshadowingseparately.

Figure 11:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrVanomaliesinSIandshadowing

Figure 12:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrVanomaliesinSI


88

HenriettSzegh

Figure 13:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrVanomaliesinshadowing

ThegraphsshowthatcorrectionsweremorerepresentedinSI(53%vs40%)andthenumberofrepetitionscomparedtoshadowingresults(7%vs30%)isminimal.

ForrV1andrV2,theresultiswellexplained:thewords‘éthique’and‘confidance’despitebeingclosetothecorrectversions‘état’and‘conférence’,disturbedtheshadowerswho“weresat-isfied”withthefactthatthewordismeaningful(50%,100%).Interpreterswereagainsupport-edbytheirsemanticexpectationsandasa consequencetheyhaveneverrepeatedtheanomaly.

regardingrV3andrV4,thedifferencebetweenthecorrectwordandtheanomalyisbarelyaudible,perhapsthisisthereasonforthehighnumberofcorrectsolutionsbothinSI(33%,100%)andshadowing(100%,50%).

7.5 n anomalies

Table 3belowshowsthenanomaliesfoundinthetext.nanomalieswerenew,inthesensethattheyhadnoantecedentinthetext.

Table 3:nanomalies

Code original anomalyn1 concentrationdeCo2 concertationdeCo2n2 différentiation différencen3 recyclage restylagen4 technologie technicologien5 mondialisation mondiatisation

Figure 14:distributionofr,nr,o,IPfornanomaliesinSIandshadowing


89


Figure 14mustbeexaminedindetail.Separately(Figures15and16)theresultsdemonstrateagainthatforshadowersomissionisnotanoption,asitmakesthetextcompletelymeaning-less.Conversely,interpreterswhosespeechproductionisnotinfluencedbytheomissionofa wordarebolderinthissituation(53%vs100%).

Figure 15:distributionofr,nr,o,IPfornanomaliesinSI

Figure 16:distributionofr,nr,o,IPfornanomaliesinshadowing

8. distribution oF CorreCtions oF Meaningless anoMalies in si and shadowing

InverifyingthecorrectnessofHypothesis 2,dataofFigures 17 and 18areused.

Figure 17:distributionofr,nr,P,IPformeaninglessanomaliesinSI


90

HenriettSzegh

Figure 18:distributionofr,nr,P,IPformeaninglessanomaliesinshadowing

TheresultsconfirmZanetti’sfindingthatmeaninglessanomaliesaremoreeasilyprocessedbyshadowers(67%)thanbyinterpreters(56%),sinceformisofprimaryimportancetothem.anoutstandingexampleofthisisanomalyn5whichwasrepeatedbyallinterpreterswhileshadowerscorrecteditinthesameproportion(Figure19).

Figure 19:Correctionofn5anomalyinSIandinshadowing

9. ConClusion

Threeofthefivehypotheseswereconfirmedbytheresearch.Firstly,itconfirmedthatantici-pationexistsbetweenlanguageswithsimilarstructures,andinterpreters,evenconsciouslyorsubconsciously,usethisstrategytofacilitatetheirtask.

Thehypothesisofprocessingnonsensewords/wordcombinationshasalsobeenproved,soitcanbestatedthatshadowers,duetotheiracousticexpectations,detectandcorrectthemmoreeasilythaninterpreters.

dataontheomissionasa methodofprocessingconfirmwithoutdoubtthatthisoptionisusedmorefrequentlyinsimultaneousinterpretingthaninshadowing.duringinterpreting,theanalysisatall levelsoftheincomingmessageallowsa ‘deeper’ interpretation.It isnotprimarilytheliteralinterpretationbutratherthetranspositionofthoughtsandthemessageintothetargetlanguagewhichcomeintoview.Inthatcasethereisnoseriousconsequenceofa wordbeingomitted.


91


However, this researchhasn’t confirmed thehypothesis that simultaneous interpretersanticipatemore(betweenthetwodatatherewasonlya slightdifference:SI-46%,shadow-ing-50%)nor theotherhypothesis that thoseanomalieswhichappeared3or less than3sentencesbeforeintheircorrectformwerecorrectedinthehighestproportion.

attheendoftheresearchI finditimportanttomentionthat,althoughI triedtoreproduceallthedetailsofZanetti’sresearch,thenumberofstudentsparticipatingintheresearchwasfarbelow33.Inthe2015-2016academicyearonlysixstudentshadHungarian-French(BorC)asa languagecombinationandfiveofthemwereattendingtheresearch.Soinordertodrawfar-reachingandgeneralconclusionsfromtheresults,itwouldbeworthrepeatingitwitha largernumberofparticipants.

references

Bartlomiejczyk,M.2008.anticipation:a controversialinterpretingstrategy.Translation and Meaning Vol. 8.117–126.

Carey,Pe.W.1971.Verbalretentionaftershadowingandafterlistening.Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics Vol9.no.1.79–83.

donato,V.2003.StrategiesadoptedbystudentinterpretersinSI:a comparisonbetweentheenglish-Italianandgerman-Italianlanguage-pairs.The Interpreters’ NewsletterVol.12.101–134.

gile,d.1986.L’anticipationeninterprétationsimultanée.TraduireVol.127.19–23.g.Láng,Z.2005.Tolmácsolás felsőfokon. A hivatásos tolmácsok képzéséről. [Interpretingat

superiorlevel.aboutprofessionalinterpretertraining.]Budapest:Scholastica.Jörg,u.1995.Bridgingthegap:Verbanticipationingerman-englishsimultaneousinter-

preting. In: Snell-Hornby, M., Jettmarova, Z., Kaindl, K. (eds) Translation as Inter-cultural Communication.amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.217–228.

Kurtz,I.1996.Simultandolmetschen als Gegenstand der interdisziplinären Forschung.Vienna:WuVuniversitätsverlag.

Lederer,M.1978.SimultaneousInterpretation:unitsofMeaningandotherFeatures.In:gerver,d.,SinaikoH.W.(eds)Language Interpretation and Communication.newYork/London:PlenumPress.323–333.

Lederer,M.1981.La traduction simultanée, experience et théorie.Paris:LettresModernes,Minard.

Marslen-Wilson,W.d.1973.Linguisticstructureandspeechshadowingatveryshortlaten-cies.Nature Vol.244.522–523.

Marslen-Wilson,W.d.1975.Sentenceperceptionasaninteractiveparallelprocess.ScienceVol.189.226–228.

Marslen-Wilson,W.d.1984.Functionandprocessinspokenwordrecognition. In:Bouma,H., Bouwhuis, d. (eds) Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes.Hillsdale,n.J.:erlbaum.125–150.

Marslen-Wilson, W. d. 1985. Speech shadowing and speech comprehension. Speech CommunicationVol.4.55–73.


92

HenriettSzegh

Moser-Mercer, B. 1984. Paradigms gained or the art of Productive disagreement. In:Lambert,S.,Moser-Mercer,B.(eds)Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation.amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.17–23.

riccardia.,Snellingd.C.1996.Sintassi tedesca: vero o falso problema per l’ interpretazione?In:gran,L.,riccardi,a.(eds)Nuovi orientamenti negli studi sull' interpretazione.Trieste:SSLMIT–universitadegliStudidiTrieste.143–158.

SSLMIT,Trieste.148–164.VanBesien,F.1999.anticipationinsimultaneousinterpretation.MetaVol.44.2.250–259.Wilss,W.1978.Syntacticanticipation ingerman-englishSimultaneousInterpreting. In:

gerver,d.,Sinaiko,W.S.(eds)Language interpretation and communication.newYorkandLondon:PlenumPress.343–353.

Zanetti,r.1999.relevanceofanticipationandpossiblestrategiesinthesimultaneousinter-pretationfromenglishintoItalian.The Interpreters’ NewsletterVol.9.79–98.

web sources

guichotdeFortis,Chris.2011.“Shadowing”-what,how,when,why?http://interpreters.free.fr/misc/ShadowingFortis.pdf(lastaccessed:06.20.2016.)

Toomela,aaro.2014.TowardsunderstandingBiotic,PsychicandSemiotically MediatedMechanisms of anticipation http://www.nadin.ws/ante-study/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Toomela-Towards-understanding-Biotic-Psychic-and-Semiotically-Mediated-Mechanisms-of-anticipation-ed..docx.pdf(lastaccessed:06.20.2016.)


93


annexe 1 the original text

MonsieurleSecrétairegénéraldesnationsunies,cherBanKi-moon,Mesdames,Messieursleschefsd’etatetdegouvernement,MadamelaSecrétaireexécutivedenotreconférence,Mesdames,messieurslesministres,

C’estunjourhistoriquequenousvivons. LaFranceaccueille150 chefs d’etat et de gouvernement,desmilliersdedéléguésvenusdetouslescontinents. Jamaisuneconférencen’avaitaccueilliautantd’autoritésvenuesd’autantdepays. Jamais,jedisbienjamais,l’enjeud’uneréunioninternationalen’avaitétéaussiélevé,carils’agitdel’avenirdelaplanete,del’avenirdelavie.etpourtantilya 2semaines,icimêmeàParis,c’estlamortquesemaitungroupedefanatiquesdanslesrues. Jeveuxicivousexprimerlareconnaissancedupeuplefrançaispourtouteslesmarquesdesoutien,touslesmessages,touslessignesd’amitiéquenousavonsreçusdepuisle13novembre.Cesévénementstragiquesnousaffligent,maisenmêmetempsnousobligent. Ilsnousforcentànousconcentrersurl’essentiel. Votreprésencesouleveunimmenseespoirquenousn’avonspasledroitdedécevoir,carcesontdespeuplesetdesmilliardsd’êtreshumainsquiontleregardportésurnous.Jen’opposepaslaluttecontreleterrorismeàlaluttecontreleréchauffementclimatique. Cesontdeuxgrandsdéfismondiauxquenousdevonsrelever,parcequenousdevonslaisserànosenfantsdavantagequ’unmondelibérédelaterreur. nousleurdevonsuneplanetepréservéedescatastro-phes,uneplaneteviable.L’annéequenousvenonsdevivrea étél’annéedetouslesrecords:recorddetempératures,recorddeconcentration de Co2,recorddunombred’événementsclimatiquesextrêmes:secheresse,in-ondations,cyclones,fontedesglaces,hausseduniveaudelamer,acidificationdesocéans. Lesvic-timesdecesphénomenessecomptentparmillionsetlesdommagesmatérielsparmilliards. aucunpays,aucunerégionn’estàl’abrideseffetsdudéreglementclimatique.Commentaccepterquecesoientlespayslespluspauvres,ceuxquiémettentlemoinsdegazàeffetdeserre,ceuxquisontlesplusvulnérablesquisoientencoredavantagetouchés.C’estaunomdelajusticeclimatiquequejem’exprimeaujourd’huidevantvous. C’estaunomdela justiceclimatiquequenousdevonsagir. Prenonsconsciencedelagravitédelamenacesurleséquili-bresdumonde. Leréchauffementannoncedesconflitscommelanuéeportel’orage,ilprovoquedesmigrationsquijettentsurlesroutesplusderéfugiésquen’engénerentlesguerres. desetatsrisquentdenepluspouvoirsatisfairelesbesoinsvitauxdeleurpopulationavecdesrisquesdefamine,d’exoderuraloud’affrontementspouraccéderàcebiendeplusenplusrarequis’appellel’eau.oui,cequiestencauseaveccetteConférencesurleClimat,c’estlapaix. etpourtant,unees-pérances’est levéeavec lapréparationdelaCoP21. Lacommunautéinternationales’estdotée,enseptembredernier,d’unagendacompletàtraverslesobjectifsdedéveloppementdurablequiontétéadoptéslorsdel’assembléegénéraledesnations unies,etjeveuxenféliciterlesecrétairegénéralBanKi-moon.190etats,c’est-à-direlaquasi-totalitédespaysdelaplaneteontformulédesplansd’actionpourréduirelesémissionsdegaz à effet de serreets’adapteraudéreglementclimatique. ettouslesacteursdelasociétémondiale,lescollectivitéslocales,lesentreprises,lesinvestisseurs,lescitoyensdetouteslesgrandesrégionssesontégalementengagéspourleclimat.


94

HenriettSzegh

acetteprisedeconscience,àcettemobilisations’ajoutentlesprogresfulgurantsréalisésdanslesénergiespropresetrenouvelables,quiouvrentlaperspectived’uneéconomienoncarbonée. alorspourréussircetteconférence,laFrance ajetétoutessesforcesetmobilisél’ensembledesongou-vernement,àcommencerparleministredesaffairesétrangeresLaurentFaBIuSquivaprésidercetteconférence.J’aimoi-mêmevisitélesrégionslesplusaffectéesparlechangementclimatique,j’ensuisrevenuaveclamêmeconvictionquenousdevonsassurerundéveloppement durableetéquitablesanspourautantcompromettrelesressourceslimitéesdenotreplanete. Telleestl’équationquenousavonsàréglerensemblependantcetteconférence.J’aivouluqueleschefsd’etatetdegouvernementdumondeentiersoientrassemblésdesledébutdenostravaux,pourdonneràcetteconférenceunsouffleetuneambitionàlahauteurdel’enjeu. Carle12décembre,unaccorddoitêtretrouvéàParis. aquellesconditionspourra-t-onestimerquec’estunbonaccord,quec’estungrandaccord,quec’estunaccordquicorrespondvéritablementàl’attentedespeuplesetpourlongtemps ? Ilya 3conditionspourquenouspuissionsdirequelaConférence deParisseraouneserapasunsucces.Lapremierecondition,c’estquenousdevonsdéfinir,dessiner,unetrajectoirecrédiblepermettantdecontenirleréchauffementclimatiqueendessousdes2°Coumêmedes1,5°Csic’estpossible. Ilfaudra,pourquenoussoyonssûrsd’êtresurcettetrajectoire,prévoiruneévaluationrégulieredenosprogresauregarddesconclusionsdelascienceet,donc,mettreenplaceunmécanismederévisionàla hauteurdenosengagementsavecdesrendez-voustousles5ans.Ladeuxiemecondition,c’estquenousapportionsaudéficlimatiqueuneréponsesolidaire. aucunetatnedoitpouvoirsesoustraireàsesengagements,mêmesiunmécanismededifférenciationpourraprendreencomptelesniveauxdedéveloppementetlessituations. aucunterritoirenedoitêtrelaisséseulfaceaudéreglementclimatiqueet,notamment,lespayslesplusvulnérables.Jepenseàcesîlesquipeuventàbreveéchéancepurementetsimplementdisparaître. Jeveuxiciêtreleurporte-parole,parcequec’estlabiodiversitéetladiversitémêmedelaplanetequisontencause.Tirons-enlesconclusions,l’accorddoitêtreuniversel,différenciéetcontraignant. Lespaysdéveloppésdoiventassumerleurresponsabilitéhistorique,cesonteuxquiontémispendantdesannéesleplusdegazàeffetdeserre.Lespaysémergentsdoiventaccélérerleurtransitionénergétique,lespaysendéveloppementdoiventêtreaccompagnésdansleuradaptationauximpactsclimatiques. d’oùlanécessitédedégagerlesfi-nancementspourfaciliterlestransfertsdetechnologie. nousavionsfixé–c’étaitàCopenhague –l’objectifdes100milliards,aujourd’huicen’estpasunobjectifquenousdevonsfixer,cesontdesressourcesquenousdevonsdégageravecdesgarantiessurleurorigineetsurleuraccessibilité.enfinlatroisiemeconditionpourqu’ilyaitunaccordàParis,c’estquetoutesnossociétésdansleurgrandepluralité,diversitésemettentenmouvement. L’ensembledesdirigeantslocaux,desin-vestisseurs,desacteurséconomiquesetsociaux,descitoyensetmêmedesgrandesconsciences,desreligions,tousceuxquicontribuentàcequifaçonnel’espritpublicmondial,toutcemouvementdoitcomprendrequeladonnea changé. Làestlaclépourreleverledéficlimatique.Jeveuxrendrehommageàcetinstantàtouslespionniersdelacauseécologique,àtouslespré-curseursqu’iln’ya passilongtempsdevaientaffronterl’incrédibilitéouledédainpourleursalertesetleurspropositions. enquelquesannées,lesespritsontprofondémentévolué,lesentreprisesetlesacteursfinanciershierréticentssontdésormaisprêtsàs’engageretàmodifierleurcomportement.Faut-ilencoreleurenvoyerlessignauxindispensables ? C’estl’enjeudel’introductionprogressiveduprixducarbonepourquelesémissionsdegazàeffetdeserreaientuncoûtquicorrespondeaux


95


dommagesinfligésàlaplanete ;etpourqueleschoixd’investissementsoientpeuàpeumodifiés,afinquetouteslestechnologiespuissentêtreaccessiblesàtous.Mesdamesetmessieursleschefsd’etatetdegouvernement,pourrésoudrelacriseclimatique,jevousledisfranchement :lesbonssentiments,lesdéclarationsd’intentionnesuffirontpas, noussommesaubordd’unpointderupture. Parisdoitêtreledépartd’uneprofondemutation,nousnepouvonsplusconsidérerlanaturecommeunvul-gaireetinépuisableréservoirderessourcesdestinéànotreseuletpleinaccomplissement.Cettetransformationestàlafoisuneobligationmoraleetuneopportunitémondiale,parcequ’ellenousouvredespossibilitésdedéveloppementavecdesénergies renouvelables,desmodesdetransport propres, le recyclage des déchets, l’agro-écologie, la préservation de la biodiversité,l’accesdetousauxbienspublicsmondiaux.ainsi,enrendantl’électricitéaccessibleàtousetnotammentenafrique,c’estplusquelalumierequiseraapportée,c’estlaconnaissance,c’estl’éducation,c’estledéveloppement.noussommesence1erjourdelaConférenceaupieddumur,cemurestfaitdel’additiondenoségoïsmes,denos appréhensions,denos résignations. Cemur, est construit sur l’indifférence,l’insouciance,l’impuissance. Cemur,n’estpasinfranchissable. Toutdépenddenous.Mesdamesetmessieursleschefsd’etatetdegouvernement,survosépaulesreposel’espoirdetoutel’humanité. Jemesuremoi-mêmedanslatâchequej’accompliscombiencombinerl’impératifdel’urgence-aveccequ’elleimplique,ycomprisaveclesévénementstragiques-etleschoixdulongterme,oui,combiencetéquilibren’estpasfacileàtrouver. Maislàencore,ilnousoblige.notreplusgranddéfi,c’estdepasserd’une mondialisationfondéesurlacompétitionàunmodelebasésurlacoopération,oùilseraplusrentabledeprotégerquededétruire. nousdevonspenserlaplanetecommeunespaceunique,établirunpacted’équitéentrelenordetleSudetunparte-nariatentrel’hommeetlanature.C’estpourquoinoussommesréunis,nouslesdirigeantsdelaplanete,c’estpourquoiParisestunrendez-vousexceptionnel. nousallonsdéciderenquelquesjourspourquelquesdécennies. Leplusgranddangern’estpasquenotrebutsoittropélevéetquenouslemanquions. Leplusgranddanger,c’estqu’ilsoittropbasetquenousl’atteignions.alorsplaçons-nousauplushautniveaupourqu’aumoins,nouspuissionsapprochercetteambi-tion,carils’agitdedécidericiàParisdel’avenir même de la planète. Merci.

annexe 2 the text used For the exPeriMent

MonsieurleSecrétairegénéraldesnationsunies,cherBanKi-moon,Mesdames,Messieursleschefsd’etatetdegouvernement,MadamelaSecrétaireexécutivedenotreconférence,Mesdames,messieurslesministres,

C’estun jourhistoriquequenousvivons. LaFranceaccueille150 chefs d’ethique et de gouvernement (rv1), desmilliersdedéléguésvenusdetouslescontinents. Jamaisuneconférencen’avaitaccueilliautantd’autoritésvenuesd’autantdepays. Jamais,jedisbienjamais,l’enjeud’uneréunioninternationalen’avaitétéaussiélevé,carils’agitdel’avenirdela planete,del’avenirdelavie.etpourtant il y a 2 semaines, icimêmeàParis, c’est lamortque semaitungroupede fana-tiquesdanslesrues. Jeveuxicivousexprimerlareconnaissancedupeuplefrançaispourtoutesles


96

HenriettSzegh

marquesdesoutien,touslesmessages,touslessignesd’amitiéquenousavonsreçusdepuisle13novembre.Cesévénementstragiquesnousaffligent,maisenmêmetempsnousobligent. Ilsnousforcentànousconcentrersurl’essentiel. Votreprésencesouleveunimmenseespoirquenousn’avonspasledroitdedécevoir,carcesontdespeuplesetdesmilliardsd’êtreshumainsquiontleregardportésurnous.Jen’opposepaslaluttecontreleterrorismeàlaluttecontreleréchauffementclimatique. Cesontdeuxgrandsdéfismondiauxquenousdevonsrelever,parcequenousdevonslaisserànosenfantsdavantagequ’unmondelibérédelaterreur. nousleurdevonsuneplanetepréservéedescatastro-phes,uneplaneteviable.L’année que nous venons de vivre a été l’année de tous les records : record de températures,recorddeconcertation de Co2 (n1),recorddunombred’événementsclimatiquesextrêmes :secheresse,inondations,cyclones,fontedesglaces,hausseduniveaudelamer,acidificationdesocéans. Lesvictimesdecesphénomenessecomptentparmillionsetlesdommagesmatérielsparmilliards. aucunpays,aucunerégionn’estàl’abrideseffetsdudéreglementclimatique.Commentaccepterquecesoientlespayslespluspauvres,ceuxquiémettentlemoinsdegazàeffetdeserre,ceuxquisontlesplusvulnérablesquisoientencoredavantagetouchés.C’estaunomdelajusticeclimatiquequejem’exprimeaujourd’huidevantvous. C’estaunomdela justice limatique(rv3)quenousdevonsagir. Prenonsconsciencedelagravitédelamen-ace sur les équilibresdumonde. Le réchauffementannoncedesconflits comme lanuéeportel’orage,ilprovoquedesmigrationsquijettentsurlesroutesplusderéfugiésquen’engénerentlesguerres. desetatsrisquentdenepluspouvoirsatisfairelesbesoinsvitauxdeleurpopulationavecdesrisquesdefamine,d’exoderuraloud’affrontementspouraccéderàcebiendeplusenplusrarequis’appellel’eau.oui,cequiestencauseaveccetteConférencesurleClimat,c’estlapaix. etpourtant,unees-pérances’est levéeavec lapréparationdelaCoP21. Lacommunautéinternationales’estdotée,enseptembredernier,d’unagendacompletàtraverslesobjectifsdedéveloppementdurablequiontétéadoptéslorsdel’assembléegénéraledesnations munies(rd1),etjeveuxenféliciterlesecrétairegénéralBanKi-moon.190etats,c’est-à-direlaquasi-totalitédespaysdelaplaneteontformulédesplansd’actionpourréduire lesémissionsdegaz à effet de terre(rd3)ets’adapteraudéreglementclimatique. ettouslesacteursdelasociétémondiale,lescollectivitéslocales,lesentreprises,lesinvestisseurs,lescitoyensdetouteslesgrandesrégionssesontégalementengagéspourleclimat.acetteprisedeconscience,àcettemobilisations’ajoutentlesprogresfulgurantsréalisésdanslesénergiespropresetrenouvelables,quiouvrentlaperspectived’uneéconomienoncarbonée. alorspourréussircetteconférence,laFrance ajetétoutessesforcesetmobilisél’ensembledesongou-vernement,àcommencerparleministredesaffairesétrangeresLaurentFaBIuSquivaprésidercetteconfidence (rv2).J’aimoi-mêmevisitélesrégionslesplusaffectéesparlechangementclimatique,j’ensuisrevenuaveclamêmeconvictionquenousdevonsassurerundéveloppement rurable (rd2)etéquitablesanspourautantcompromettrelesressourceslimitéesdenotreplanete. Telleestl’équationquenousavonsàréglerensemblependantcetteconférence.J’aivouluqueleschefsd’etatetdegouvernementdumondeentiersoientrassemblésdesledébutdenostravaux,pourdonneràcetteconférenceunsouffleetuneambitionàlahauteurdel’enjeu. Carle12décembre,unaccorddoitêtretrouvéàParis. aquellesconditionspourra-t-onestimerque


97


c’estunbonaccord,quec’estungrandà corne (rv4),quec’estunaccordquicorrespondvéri-tablementàl’attentedespeuplesetpourlongtemps ? Ilya 3conditionspourquenouspuissionsdirequelaConférence deParisseraouneserapasunsucces.Lapremierecondition,c’estquenousdevonsdéfinir,dessiner,unetrajectoirecrédiblepermettantdecontenirleréchauffementclimatiqueendessousdes2°Coumêmedes1,5°Csic’estpossible. Ilfaudra,pourquenoussoyonssûrsd’êtresurcettetrajectoire,prévoiruneévaluationrégulieredenosprogresauregarddesconclusionsdelascienceet,donc,mettreenplaceunmécanismederévisionàla hauteurdenosengagementsavecdesrendez-voustousles5ans.Ladeuxiemeconviction (rv5),c’estquenousapportionsaudéficlimatiqueuneréponsesol-idaire. aucunetatnedoitpouvoirsesoustraireàsesengagements,mêmesiunmécanismededifférence (n2) pourraprendreencomptelesniveauxdedéveloppementetlessituations. aucunterritoirenedoitêtrelaisséseulfaceaudéreglementclimatiqueet,notamment,lespayslesplusvulnérables.Jepenseàcesîlesquipeuventàbreveéchéancepurementetsimplementdisparaître. Jeveuxiciêtreleurporte-parole,parcequec’estlabiodiversitéetladiversitémêmedelaplanetequisontencause.Tirons-enlesconclusions,l’accorddoitêtreuniversel,différenciéetcontraignant. Lespaysdéveloppésdoiventassumerleurresponsabilitéhistorique,cesonteuxquiontémispendantdesannéesleplusdegazàeffetdeserre.Lespaysémergentsdoiventaccélérerleurtransitionénergétique,lespaysendéveloppementdoiv-entêtreaccompagnésdansleuradaptationauximpactsclimatiques. d’oùlanécessitédedégagerlesfinancementspourfaciliterlestransfertsdetechnicologie (n4). nousavionsfixé–c’étaitàCopenhague–l’objectifdes100milliards,aujourd’huicen’estpasunobjectifquenousdevonsfixer,cesontdesressourcesquenousdevonsdégageravecdesgarantiessurleurorigineetsurleuraccessibilité.enfinlatroisiemeconditionpourqu’ilyaitunaccordàParis,c’estquetoutesnossociétésdansleurgrandepluralité,diversitésemettentenmouvement. L’ensembledesdirigeantslocaux,desin-vestisseurs,desacteurséconomiquesetsociaux,descitoyensetmêmedesgrandesconsciences,desreligions,tousceuxquicontribuentàcequifaçonnel’espritpublicmondial,toutcemouvementdoitcomprendrequeladonnea changé. Làestlaclépourreleverledéficlimatique.Jeveuxrendrehommageàcetinstantàtouslespionniersdelacauseécologique,àtouslespré-curseursqu’il n’y a pas si longtempsdevaient affronter l’incrédibilité ou ledédainpour leursalertesetleurspropositions. enquelquesannées,lesespritsontprofondémentévolué,lesentre-priseset lesacteursfinanciershierréticentssontdésormaisprêtsàs’engageretàmodifier leurcomportement.Faut-ilencoreleurenvoyerlessignauxindispensables ? C’estl’enjeudel’introductionprogressiveduprixducarbonepourquelesémissionsdegazàeffetdeserreaientuncoûtquicorrespondeauxdommagesinfligésàlaplanete ;etpourqueleschoixd’investissementsoientpeuàpeumodifiés,afinquetouteslestechnologiespuissentêtreaccessiblesàtous.Mesdamesetmessieursleschefsd’etatetdegouvernement,pourrésoudrelacriseclimatique,jevousledisfranchement :lesbonssentiments,lesdéclarationsd’intentionnesuffirontpas, noussommesaubordd’unpointderupture. Parisdoitêtreledépartd’uneprofondemutation,nousnepouvonsplusconsidérerlanaturecommeunvulgaireetinépuisableréservoirderessourcesdestinéànotreseuletpleinaccomplissement.Cettetransformationestàlafoisuneobligationmoraleetuneopportunitémondiale,parcequ’ellenousouvredespossibilitésdedéveloppementavecdesénergies renoulevables (rd4) ,desmodes


98

HenriettSzegh

detransportpropres,lerestylage (n3)desdéchets,l’agro-écologie,lapréservationdelabiodiver-sité,l’accesdetousauxbienspublicsmondiaux.ainsi,enrendantl’électricitéaccessibleàtousetnotammentenafrique,c’estplusquelalumierequiseraapportée,c’estlaconnaissance,c’estl’éducation,c’estledéveloppement. noussommesence1erjourdelaConférenceaupieddumur,cemurestfaitdel’additiondenoségoïsmes,denos appréhensions,denos résignations. Cemur, est construit sur l’indifférence,l’insouciance,l’impuissance. Cemur,n’estpasinfranchissable. Toutdépenddenous.Mesdamesetmessieursleschefsd’etatetdegouvernement,survosépaulesreposel’espoirdetoutel’humanité. Jemesuremoi-mêmedanslatâchequej’accompliscombiencombinerl’impératifdel’urgence-aveccequ’elleimplique,ycomprisaveclesévénementstragiques-etleschoixdulongterme,oui,combiencetéquilibren’estpasfacileàtrouer. Maislàencore,ilnousoblige.notreplusgranddéfi,c’estdepasserd’unemondiatisation (n5) fondéesurlacompétitionàunmodelebasésurlacoopération,oùilseraplusrentabledeprotégerquededétruire. nousdevonspenserlaplanetecommeunespaceunique,établirunpacted’équitéentrelenordetleSudetunpartenariatentrel’hommeetlanature.C’estpourquoinoussommesréunis,nouslesdirigeantsdelaplanete,c’estpourquoiParisestunrendez-vousexceptionnel. nousallonsdéciderenquelquesjourspourquelquesdécennies.Leplusgranddangern’estpasquenotrebutsoittropélevéetquenouslemanquions. Leplusgranddanger,c’estqu’ilsoittropbasetquenousl’atteignions.alorsplaçons-nousauplushautniveaupourqu’aumoins,nouspuissionsapprochercetteambi-tion,carils’agitdedécidericiàParisdel’avenir même de la manette (rd5). Merci.


99

Court interPreting researCh in hungary – Judges’ exPeCtations

márta farkasnÉ Puklus

[email protected]

abstract: ThisstudypresentssomeresultsofanexploratoryresearchconductedinHungary.First,I givea shortoverviewofthedefinitionsofcourtinterpretingintheliteratureandoftheroleofcourtinterpreters,thenI examinethearticlesaboutcourtinterpretinginHungarianinterpretingstudies.Inthemainpartofthestudytheresearchonthecommunicativesituationofcourtinterpretingisde-scribedfromlanguage-specific(linguistic)andnon-linguistic(extra-linguistic)aspects.I trytoexplorehowinterpretationiscarriedoutincourtroomproceedingsandwhatkindofexpectationsjudgeshavetowardscourtinterpreters.Theexpectationsofjudgesregardingcourtinterpreterswereinvestigatedwitha questionnaireinwhichjudgeswereaskedaboutdifferentaspectsofcourtroomcommunication:appointingtheinterpreter,preparationforthetrial,seatingoftheinterpreter,interpretingmodesusedinthecourtroomandtheiropiniononfaultyinterpreting,amongothers.Theresultsofthequestion-naireareanalysedanddiscussedinthearticle.Keywords: courtinterpreting,roleofthecourtinterpreter,righttointerpretationandtranslation

1. introduCtion

asBerk-Seligson(1990)states,“[t]hepresenceofa foreignlanguageinterpretertransformsnormalcourtroomproceedingsintobilingualevents”(Berk-Seligson1990:1).Shepointsoutthat“[t]heproblematicalroleofthecourtinterpreterisnotlimitedtothedifficultiesinherentintheinterpretingprocess,butrestsonthemorefundamentalcontradictionbetweenhowtheinterpreterdefinesherroleandhowothercourtpersonnelandcourtclientsperceiveit”(Berk-Seligson1990:2).

Court interpreting is becoming a more and more interesting and challenging field ofresearchontheinternationalandalsoontheeuropeanlevel.directive2010/64/euoftheeuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilontherighttointerpretationandtranslationincriminalproceedingsclearlydefinestheobligationsoftheeuropeanmemberstates.Itstipu-latesthataccusedorsuspectedpersonswhodonotspeakthelanguageofthecriminalpro-ceedingsmustbeprovidedwithinterpretingservicesofanappropriatestandardduringthemaintrialaswellasduringallinterimhearings,policequestioningandforcommunicationwiththeirlegaladvisors(art.2ofthedirective).Itfurthermoreestablishestherighttoa writ-tentranslationofallessentialdocumentsnecessarytoexercisetheirrightofdefence.Inordertoprotectthehumanrightsoftheindividualssubjecttocriminalproceedingstheeuropeanunionalsointroduceddirective2012/13/euontherighttoinformation.Thisdirectivehastheaimtoensurethatsuspectsandaccusedpersonspromptlyreceiveinformationabouttheirrights.TheeuropeanunionagencyforFundamentalrightsissueda researchreportthatoutlinestheMemberStates’legalframeworksandpoliciesregardingtheserightsandreflects


100

MártaFarkasnéPuklus

the implementationofbothdirectives, identifyingpromisingpractices (Fra2016:3; forfindingsofthereportseeSection7ofthispaper).duetothesedirectivesandtotheincreasednumberofmigrantstheroleofcourtinterpretinghasbecomemoreimportantandapparentinHungaryaswell.Thispaperaimstogiveanoverviewofthefindingsofa questionnaireprepared forHungarian judges regarding court interpreting and tries todetermine courtjudges’perceptionsoftheroleofthecourtinterpreter.

2. deFinitions: Court interPreting, CourtrooM interPreting, legal interPreting

Theinternationalliteraturereferstothiscommunicationeventascourtorcourtroom interpret-ingandexpressions likecommunity interpretingarealsooftenused(angelelli2004;Berk-Seligson1990;Hale2004,2010;Jacobsen2003;Morris1993,1995,2010).

Therearevarious–sometimessimilar,sometimesdifferent–rulesinthedifferentcoun-tries for the provision of legal interpreting services, therefore an ISo Standard on LegalInterpretingwasprepared(instatusdIS20228,seeKatschinka2016,2017).Inthisstandard,alsothetermlegal interpreting isusedforinterpretinginanylegalsetting.

accordingtoHorváth(2013)legal interpreting isthewidestcategory,includingallinter-pretingeventsina legalcontext.Inthiswidersense,wecandistinguishbetweencourt room interpretingandinterpretingatotherinstitutions(e.g.police,customs,immigrationoffice),whichiscalledpublic service interpreting(Horváth2013:25).gamal(2008)referstothelat-terasnon-courtroom interpreting,focusingoncourtroom interpretingintheresearch(gamal2008:63).

Therearedifferentcategorisationtraditionswhereinterpretingisdividedintoconferenceinterpretingandinterpretingoutsidea conferencesetting,suchaspublic serviceorcommunity interpreting.Kalina(2002)suggeststhetermnCI(non-conference interpreting)forthepur-posesofherarticle,whereshearguesthatnon-conferenceinterpretersarenotlessimportantthanconferenceinterpreters,andshepleadsformorescientificresearchinthisfieldofstudy(Kalina2002).Legalinterpreting(interpretinginthecourtroom)issometimesincludedinthisfield,whilesometimescourtinterpretersareregardedasa separatecategory.accordingtoMorris:

Inmodernstudiesofinterlingualinterpretingoutsidethetraditionalconferencesetting,themainfocushasbeenonthosesettingsinwhich“publicservice”or“community”interpretingisrequired.Sometimeslegalsettings,whetherinthenarrowcontextofthecourtroomorwithinbroaderframeworks,areincludedinthisfield;inothertraditionsorapproaches,legal−alsoknownascourtorjudicialorjudiciary−interpretersareconsidereda breedapartfromtheirnon-legalcolleagues,andassuchsubjecttoa specificsetofconstraintsuniquetothelegalsphere(Morris2010:21–22).

asshownabove,itisnotsoeasytonametheexactfieldofstudyofthedifferentresearchesconductedina legalenvironmentandin legalsettings.Formyresearch,I usetheoverall


101

CourtInterpretingresearchinHungary–Judges’expectations

expressionoflegal interpretingforthedifferentareaswhereaninterpretercanbeusedinordertoprovidehelpfora participantwithoutsufficientlanguageproficiency(atthepolicestation,legalconsultations,etc.)andI usethetermcourt interpreting toreferspecificallytothecom-municationsituationinthecourtroom.I preferthetermcourt interpretingbecauseitobviouslyreferstothecommunicationeventwhereaninterpreterneedstobeinvolvedinthecourtroom,thereforeI willusethistermhereafter.

3. who is a Court interPreter?

Forinterpretersandlinguists,theanswertothisquestionmightbeevident.However,therearedifferentmetaphorsusedintheinternationalliteratureforcourtinterpretersthatreflectmostlytheopinionoftherepresentativesofthelegalprofession.Theyoftenlookatthecourtinterpreterasaninstrumentratherthana humanbeing.

Jacobsen’s(2003)investigationsdepartfrom“[t]heconflictbetweenontheonehand,theofficialperceptionofthecourtinterpreterasa kindof‘translatingmachine’,whichsimplytransferslanguageproductsfromonelanguagetoanother,and,ontheother,therealityoftheinterpretingsituationinthecourtroom,wheremechanicaltranslationsmayresultinmiscom-munication”(Jacobsen2003:237).

Berk-Seligson(1990)arguesthatcourtinterpretersplaya farmoreactiveverbalrolethanisallowedbythelegalsystem.Herinvestigationshaveshownthata courtinterpreterisneithera conduitnora translatingmachine,butplaysanactiveroleinthecommunicationprocessandthatthecontentofthelegalproceedingsisaffectedbytheinvolvementofcourtinterpret-ers(Berk-Seligson1990).

Basedonherresearchconductedatcourtsinaustralia,Hale(2010)statesthatinterpretingmightseemtobea mechanicalactivityduetothemisconceptionthatinterpretersperforma purelymechanicalfunction,likea microphoneora typewriter.Thisidea“[r]emovesfromthemainspeakersanyresponsibilitytohelptheinterpreterunderstandandrenderthemessageaccurately”(Hale2010:441).

asformulatedbyMorris(2010),“[t]oday’slegalsystemgenerallydemandsthattheinter-preterfunctionasa ‘facelessvoice’,a conduit,thatis,ina ‘neutral’andnon-intrusiveway”(Morris2010:20).

Fromtheabovequotations,wecanseethatlegalprofessionalsthinka courtinterpretermayfunctionasaninstrument.researchers,however,wouldprobablyagreethatthesemeta-phorsdonotgiveanexactpictureofa courtinterpreter’stasksatall.Thiscanbeoneofthemaindifferencesbetweenhowthelegalprofessionlooksattheinterpreterandhowtheinter-preterswouldliketobeperceived.

aphotocopiercopiesexactlythesamepaperwiththesamewordingorpicturethatweputinit.Ifaninterpreterrenderstheforeignparty’swordsverbatimthenthismightleadtomisunderstandingsandmightresult incommunicationproblems.Haleemphasises theimportanceofpragmatics:accurateinterpretingcanonlybeperformediftheinterpreterun-derstandsthemessageatthediscourselevel.Interpretingwordforwordorinterpretingthesemanticmeaningisnotenough;thepragmaticmeaningofutteranceshastobeconveyed.Shestatesthatinterpretersmustfirstbecomeawareoftheirresponsibilitiesasprofessionals,


102


theymustunderstandandrecognisetheimportanceoftheirroleandontheotherhand,law-yersmustbecomeawareofthedifficultiesoftheinterpretingprocessandrecognisethatitisanactivitythatrequiresfullyqualifiedprofessionals.Haleevenarguesthatthesystemmustchangetomakepre-serviceuniversitytrainingcompulsoryandensureadequateremunerationandproperworkingconditions(Hale2004:2–5).

Hale(2010)expressesheropinionquiteexplicitlyasshewritesthat“[u]ltimately,legalprofessionalsneed towork togetherwith interpreters toachieve theirgoaland recognisethemasexpertparticipants,ratherthan‘mere’translationmachines.onlywhenthebarisraisedoncourtinterpreting,willqualityservicesbeguaranteedandjusticeserved”(Hale2010:453).

4. Court interPreting in hungarian interPreting studies

researchcombininglanguageandlawisrelativelyuncommoninHungary.oneimportantstudywascarriedoutinMiskolc,Hungarybetween2000and2003withthecooperationoflawyersandlinguists.Itfocusedonintralingualinterpretationthatis,“[i]nterpretationofverbalsignsbymeansofothersignsofthesamelanguage”(Jakobson1959:233)inpoliceinterrogations,inwhichlaynarrativesaretranslatedintofactsphrasedinthelegalregister.asa result,a databaseofmorethan18hours’recordingenabledbothlinguisticandlegalresearcherstoexaminethelanguageusedina legalprocess(seemoredetailsinSzabó2010;Vinnai2014a,2014b).Muchofmymethodologyformakingandanalysingrecordingsisin-formedbythatresearch.Thesecondpartofthisresearchprojectisrunningnow(2014–2018),andinthiscontextwearemakingrecordingsofcourtproceedingsattheMiskolcdistrictCourtandattheMiskolcregionalCourt.

Thesignificanceoflanguageasa meansofcommunicationisevenmoreapparentatcourthearingswhereaninterpreter isneeded.Court interpretingintheclassicsense–betweenlanguages–isa newresearchfieldinHungary.onlya fewobservationshavebeenmadeatinterpreter-mediatedcourtproceedingswithinHungariancourtrooms(mainlybyinterpreterstudents,seealsoHorváth2017).notmuchresearchhasbeenconductedyetandtherearerelativelyfewstudiesofcourtinterpretinginHungary.

InoneofthepublicationsCsörgő(2013)writesthatcourtinterpretershavetotransferbe-tweendifferentculturesaswell.Hewritesaboutoneofthebasicprinciplesofcourtinterpret-ing:impartiality.a courtinterpreterisappointedbythecourtfortheforeign-languageparty,buttowhomandtowhatshouldthecourtinterpreterbeloyal?Thatmightnotbeevidenteitherfortheforeign-languagepartyorfortheinterpreter.Thereareconflictinginterestsandexpectationstowardstheinterpreter,whosetaskisreallycomplex:theyhavetomakelotsofdecisionsandfaceroleconflicts(Csörgő2013).

Horváth(2013)statesthatinterpretersactaslanguageexperts:ofcourse,theyneedtobeimpartial.However,thisisnota questionoflanguagebutofbehaviour.Interpreterscannotmakedecisionsregardingthelegalcasebutthisdoesnotmeanthattheymaynotdecideincommunicationalquestions.Infact,astheyarecommunicationexperts,itisworthcountingontheiropinioninlanguage-relatedissues(Horváth2013:34).Theauthorgivesanoverview


103


ofthetheoreticalandpractical issuesofcourt interpreting,withspecialregardtothehis-toricalbackgroundofcourt interpretingandtotherightstointerpretationacrosseurope,worldwideandinHungary.Inthepracticalpart,shegivesa summaryofthedefinitionofcourtinterpreting,thedifferentinterpretingmodes,thebasicprinciplesandtheinterpreter’sroleandskills.

another article byHorváth (2014) gives anoverviewof the right to interpretation ineurope,worldwideandinHungary,beginningwithhumanrights(Theunitednationsinarticle11 (1)of theuniversaldeclarationofHumanrights,1948), and thedeclarationfromtheCouncilofeuropeontherighttolibertyandsecurity(article5oftheeuropeanConventiononHumanrights,1950).Inarticle14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalrightsoftheunitednations(1966)theminimumguaranteesforpersonscrimi-nallychargedhavebeenspecified:“[T]obeinformedpromptlyandindetailina languagewhichheunderstandsofthenatureandcauseofthechargeagainsthim;[…]tohavethefreeassistanceofaninterpreterifhecannotunderstandorspeakthelanguageusedincourt”(fora detailedoverviewabouttherighttointerpretationandtranslationseealsoFra2016).aftertheoverviewtheauthordescribesthenewtrainingcourseforcourtandcommunityinterpretingthatwasestablishedateLTeuniversityatthedepartmentofTranslationandInterpretingandlaunchedin2014/2015(Horváth2014).

FarkasnéPuklus(2016)dealswiththeprinciplesofcourtinterpretingandthedifferentexpectationstowardscourtinterpreters.TheauthoranalysesthedifferentinterpretingmodesusedinHungariancourtroomswithinthecourseofa criminalproceeding.Severalinterna-tionalcasesandresearcharequotedandtheneedforresearchinthisfieldofstudyinHungaryisformulated(FarkasnéPuklus2016).

anotherarticlebyFarkasnéPuklus(2017)describestwocasesinHungarywhereinter-preterswereinvolvedandwhereaccordingtotheexaminationsofwrittenprotocolsthecourseoftheproceedingshadbeeninfluencedduetotheactivityofcourtinterpreters.Inoneofthecasesa newproceedingneededtobeopenedbecausetheinterpretationwasnotsatisfactoryandintheothertheroleofthecourtinterpreterhadbeenextendedandtheinterpreteractedasa competentlanguageexpert(FarkasnéPuklus2017).

Vinnai(2017)sharesheropinionontheimportanceofcourtinterpretinganddescribestheHungariansituationinthisfieldfromthelegalresearcher’sside.Theauthortriestoraiseawarenessofthisfieldofstudyinlegalresearchersandexperts.

Iconsidertheresearchofthisfieldofstudyimportant:myinterest isontheonehanda personalonebecauseI ama court interpreter inHungary.ontheotherhand, theear-liermentionedconflictsofinterestandconfusionaboutrolesledmetotheinvestigationofthisarea.researchersinHungaryhavestatedthatnotonlylanguageissuesbutalsoextra-linguisticfeatureshaveanimpactonthecommunicationsituationthatmayplayanevenmoreimportantroleina judicialcontextwheremimic,gesturesandinterculturaldifferencesalsomatter(Csörgő2013,Horváth2012,Klaudy2003,Szabari1999).Myresearchontheexpectationstowardscourtinterpretersandonthelinguisticandextra-linguisticaspectsoftheinterpretingprocessisthefirstofitskindinHungary.


104


5. Court interPreting researCh in hungary: Judges’ exPeCtations

5.1 research design

Myobjectivewasto“lookbehindthescenes”andgetsomeinformationfromthelegalside,fromthejudgesastowhattheyexpectfromaninterpreterandfromaninterpreter-mediatedsituationinthecourtroom.Theprocedureandtheinstrumentswereselectedaftera shortpilotstudyperiod(see5.2),afterwhichI wasabletoclarifythequestionsofthequestionnaire.Forthiskindofresearch,a qualitativeresearchmethodissuitablebecauseI aminterestedintheopinionofjudgesandintheobservationanddescriptionofcourtroomsituations.Thisresearcharea,asstatedabove,isa complexinterdisciplinaryfield,andfortheinvestigationoftheinterpreter-mediatedcommunicationinthecourtroommethodologicaltriangulationneedstobeapplied(denzin1978).aftertheresearchinstrumentofthequestionnaireprotocolsofinterpreter-me-diatedcourtroomproceedingsaretobeanalysedasthesecondpartoftheresearch(FarkasnéPuklus2017)andinthethirdpartinterpreter-mediatedcourtroomhearingswillberecorded.

oneofthebiggestdifficultiesinthisresearchareaistogainthecooperationofcourtsinHungary.ThedifferentcourtlevelsarecentrallysupervisedbytheHungariannationalofficefortheJudiciaryandresearchersneedtoaskforpermissioninordertoconductinvestigationsatHungariancourts.Itnotonlytakestimebutseveralroundsofnegotiation,anda detailedresearchplanisneededaswell.

Istartedtheprocessofgettingtherequiredpermissionsandco-operationatthebegin-ningof2016forthefirstversionoftheresearchquestionnaireinMiskolc.Inthesummerof 2016 I prepared thedetailed researchplanbuilt upof threemain researchparts.TheHungariannationalofficefortheJudiciary(oBH)expressedgreatinterestinmyresearchprojectandfortunatelyI gottheoverallpermissioninnovember2016,whentheresearchcouldbestarted.

Inthispaper,I wouldliketofocusonthequestionnaireforjudgesandontheevaluationoftheresponses.

5.2 the Questionnaire

Thequestionnairewascompiledinseveralsteps.First,I tooktheVademecumGuidelines for a more effective communication with legal interpreters and translatorsofeuLITa,theeuropeanLegal InterpretersandTranslatorsorganisation. In theseguidelines, the followingpointsbasedonpracticalexperiencearementioned:

– theimportanceofselectinglegalinterpreters,– theinterpretershouldbegiveninformationonthecasebeforetheproceeding,– anassignedplaceisrequiredfortheinterpreterinthecourtroom,– actorsshouldbepresentedatthebeginningoftheproceeding(emphasisingthatthe

interpreterisa neutralperson),– writtentextsshouldbehandedouttotheinterpreterforsighttranslation,– interpretingthehearinginwhisperinginterpretingmodeshouldbeallowed,– interpretationshouldnotbeinterrupted,– shortbreaksshouldbescheduledafterapproximatelyonehour,


105


– judicialtasksshouldnotbetransferredtotheinterpreter,– culturalcharacteristicsshouldbediscussedoutsidethecourtroom.

Basedonmy experience as a court interpreter inHungary I find thesepoints importantbecausethroughthefulfilmentoftheseguidelinesthequalityofcourtinterpretingcanbeimprovedandthetasksoftheinterpretersclarified.

Second,I lookedattheresearchofKadrićconductedinViennain1998–1999(Kadrić2009:105–148).Kadrićprepareda detailedquestionnaireforjudges,towhich133judgesresponded.Itcontainedvariousquestionssuchashowoftenjudgeshavetofacecommunica-tionproblemswithforeignparticipantsintheproceedings;whotakespartasforeignpartiesintheseproceedings(migrants,managers,tourists,etc.);andwhattheirmothertongueis.Kadrićaskedabouttheappointmentoftheinterpreter,aboutthefunctionandtasksoftheinterpreterduringtheproceedingsandabouttherequiredcompetences,itemsI haveincor-poratedintomyownresearch.

Third,asa pilotstudyI requestedthehelpoflegalprofessionals(threejudgesanda researcher),twolinguists,aninterpreteranda sociologistwhoallgaveimportantfeedbackonthequestion-naire.I askedthemtolookthroughthequestionstojudgewhethertheyareclearandunderstand-ableandrequestedfurtherremarks.Theyallcontributedtotheimprovementofthemeasuringinstrument(seeannexe1;thequestionnairewasconductedinHungarian,thetranslationofthequestionswasmadebytheauthorofthisstudy).duetothefeedbackofthelegalprofessionals,thelinguistsandtheinterpreterI wasabletoclarifytheexpressionsusedininterpretingstudies(e.g.interpretingmodes).asa resultofa discussionwiththesociologistsuggestivequestionscouldbeavoidedandtheformofthequestionnairerestructured.asa firstphase,withthepermissionandhelpoftheMiskolcregionalCourt,judgesinthenorthHungarianregionwereaskedtofillintheonlinequestionnaire.ThirtyjudgesinandaroundMiskolcresponded,theresponserateis18.4%(163judgesworkintheterritorialcompetenceoftheMiskolcregionalCourt).

6. data analysis – PartiCiPation and saMPling

Thequestionnaireasa research instrumentwasfilled inonananonymousbasis,andtheresultsareusedexclusivelyformyresearchpurposes.Itwasanonlinequestionnaireandthedatawerecollatedautomatically.

First,I askedtheageandthesexoftherespondentsandhowlongtheyhadbeenworkingasa judge.ThirtyrespondentsansweredthequestionsinJune2016,agedbetween36-61,19maleand10female(oneoftherespondentsdidnotanswerthisquestion),andwithatleastfiveyearsofexperienceasa judge.afterthisshortintroduction16questionswereasked:15closed-endedquestionsandoneopen-endedquestion.Myintentionwiththeclosed-endedquestionswastogaininsightthrougha specificsetofresponsesandtogatherfactsfromtherespondents.Inthecaseoftheclosed-endedquestionsthedatawerecollectedandpresentedwiththehelpofdiagrams.oneofthemostimportantquestionsofthequestionnairewastheopen-endedquestion,which isuseful forgatheringdetailedopinion fromthe judges.In this casetheresponseswerereadthroughandkeywordswereselected.Withthehelpofthiskeywordextractiontechniquetheresponsesweregroupedtotherespectivekeywords.


106


6.1 Question 1: how many Proceedings do you have in a month? asFigure 1shows,thenumberofproceedingsthatjudgestakepartinmonthlyvariescon-siderably,fromundertwentytodoublethatamount.outof28respondents11haveusually10-19proceedings,7respondents20-29proceedings,sixjudges30-39proceedingsandfourofthemeven40-49proceedingsina month.

Figure 1:numberofproceedingsjudgeshaveina month

6.2 Question 2: what tyPes of cases, ranges of issues do you mostly deal with?Fourteenjudgesoutofthe30respondentsansweredthattheydealwithcriminalcases,14judgeswithcivilcasesand1-1withlabourandminoroffences.

6.3 Question 3: have you ever Presided over a hearing in which the involved Parties/witnesses did not sPeak or understand hungarian?

Thirtyrespondentsansweredthisquestionand26judgeswrotethattheyhadhadcaseswithforeignlanguageparticipants;onlythreejudgeshadnothadthisexperience.oneofthemwiththeanswernodidnotcontinuewiththequestionnaire,andthereforethenumberofrespond-entsinthefollowingquestionsis29unlessotherwisestated(seeannexeafterquestion3.If your answer is “No”, you do not need to answer the following questions. However, if you would like to share your experiences regarding court interpreting, feel free to continue with the questionnaire).

6.4 Question 4: Per month, how many hearings do you have where foreign Parties are involved?

allrespondentstothenextquestionansweredthattheyhave1–5proceedingswithforeignparticipantsina month.

6.5 Question 5: how do you select an interPreter for court Proceedings?Thereweredifferentoptions,oneofwhichwasthatinterpreterscanbeappointedfromtheregisterofcourtinterpreters(Figure2.).InHungary,wedonothavea registerofcourtin-terpretersbutjudgescanchooseexpertsfroma registerofexperts.I wantedtoknowwhether


107


thejudgesknowpreciselythatthereisnolistofcourtinterpreters.Therewereotheroptionslikechoosingtheinterpreterbasedontherecommendationofcolleaguesoracquaintances,withthehelpofa translationagencyoraskinganacquaintancewhospeakstheforeignlan-guageinquestion.Twelverespondentsgavemorethanoneanswertothisquestion.18judgesmentionedthattheyappointaninterpreterbasedontherecommendationofcolleaguesoracquaintances.Tenjudgesansweredthattheychooseaninterpreterfromtheregisterofcourtinterpreters.Thatmightseemtobea logicalanswer,howevernosuchlistofinterpreterswhomightbeselectedforcourtproceedingsinHungaryhasbeendrawnup.Twojudgesgaveotheranswers:oneofthemsaidthatthePublicProsecutor’sofficehastoappointtheinter-preterbutthatisnotanexactansweraccordingtotheprovisionofHungarianlaw,sincetheprovisionsdonotspecifywhichauthorityhastoappointtheinterpreter(forfurtherdetailssee7.1)andanotherjudgewrotethatheselectsaninterpreterwiththehelpoftheInternet.

Figure 2:Selectionofaninterpreter

6.6 Question 6: do you usually Provide the interPreter with any document related to the given case Prior to the hearing?

Figure 3:Providingdocumentsfortheinterpreter


108


asFigure 3shows,22judgesgavea negativeanswer.Threejudgesansweredwithsometimesandfourrespondentswroteyes,theyprovidedocumentsfortheinterpreter.Sixrespondentsspecifiedthetypeofdocumenttheycanprovideforpreparation.Theanswersincluded:sum-mons,submissionsoftheparties,thechargeorindictment,expertreports,protocolsandthetestimonyoftheaccusedperson.

6.7 Question 7: do you introduce the interPreter at the beginning of the hearing?outofthe29respondents26judgesintroducetheinterpreteratthebeginningofthehearing,onlythreeofthemansweredwithno.

6.8 Question 8: where is the interPreter seated in the courtroom? Therewere21answersfortheoptionthattheinterpreterisseatednexttotheforeignlanguageparticipant(Figure4.).Sixjudgeswrotethatthereisnoassignedseatfortheinterpreterandtworespondentsaddedtheremarkthattheinterpreterusuallysitsnexttotheprosecutorornexttotheaccusedperson.

Figure 4:Seatingpositionofthecourtinterpreter

6.9 Question 9: are the written texts which are read out at the Proceedings handed to the interPreter just before the hearing or during the hearing so that the interPreter can sight-translate them?

Therewerethreeoptionsfortheanswers:yes,writtentextsareprovidedjust before the hearing oryes, during the hearingorno.Twentyonerespondentsansweredthattheyhandwrittentextstotheinterpreterduringthehearingandsixjudges’answerswerenegative.onlytwojudgesprovidethedocumentsfortheinterpreterjustbeforethehearing,oneofthemansweredthattherehadnotbeena casewheretheinterpreterhadtosight-translatea documentandoneaddedremarkwasthatitdepends,onlyinthatcasewherethedocumentisinconnectionwiththestatementofthepersontobequestioned.


109


6.10 Question 10: in your view, during a hearing what are the most effective tyPes of interPreting?

allrespondentsstatedthatconsecutive interpretingisthemosteffective,oneofthemaddeda votealsoforthesimultaneousmodeandanotherjudgeforchuchotage,orwhisperingtotheforeignlanguageparticipant(Figure5).

Figure 5:Themosteffectiveinterpretingmodes

Tothequestionwhat themosteffective interpretingmodesareonerespondentchose thefurtheroptionthatsimultaneousinterpretingwiththehelpofa technicaldeviceisthemosteffective.

6.11 Question 11: are there any technical devices for interPretation Provided in the courtroom?

according to theanswers to thisquestion,Hungariancourtroomsarenotequippedwithboothsorbidules.allrespondentsansweredwithno.

6.12 Question 12: during the course of a hearing, are there any scheduled short breaks?

asFigure 6shows,17respondentsansweredwithyesand15judgesspecifiedtheiranswers:mostlyeverytwohours(threeanswers),every1anda halftotwohours(twoanswers),everyhour(twoanswers)anditdependsonthecourseoftheproceedingandonthepartiesinvolved(eightanswers).onerespondentexpressedthata shortbreakcanbeinitiatedbytheinterpreteraswell.However,12judgesrespondedthattherearenoshortbreaksduringthehearing.


110


Figure 6:Shortbreaksduringtheproceeding

6.13 Question 13: at the beginning of a hearing an interPreter’s attention is drawn to the conseQuences of Perjury or faulty interPreting (that both of these are Punishable acts). what do you think faulty interPreting means? Please exPlain.

Theonlyopen-endedquestionofthequestionnairewasrelatedtothefactthatsometimesin-terpretingcangowrong.Withthehelpofthekeywordtechniquetheanswerscanbegroupedaccordingtothefollowingkeywords:not adequate rendering,translation, intentionalityandrelevant facts(Table1).

Table 1:KeywordsinresponsestoQuestion13

question 13. keywords

number of responses where the keyword was mentioned examples (quoted responses)

notadequaterendering 17 “Faulty: if he/she does not translate what is said by the

speaker adequately into Hungarian.”

translation 14 “If the interpreter does not translate what the foreign language participant says.”

intentionality 8 “It means that the interpreter intentionally does not translate the meaning of what is said in Hungarian.”

relevantfacts 3 “He does not translate what is said regarding relevant facts.”

Twenty-onerespondentsgavea detailedanswer.asseeninTable 1,theimportanceofadequate, equivalentandprecise renderingwasmentionedby17judges.eightofthemregardintentionalityasanimportantfeatureandthreejudgeswroteregarding relevant factsasa keywordtotheirunderstandingoffaultyinterpreting(seealsoSection7.6).Itisworthmentioningthatfourteenanswersincludedtheexpressiontranslationandnotinterpretationofwhatissaidinthecourseoftheproceedings,asseeninthefollowingdetailedresponse:


111


Theattentionoftheinterpreterisofcoursedrawntotheconsequences.Inmyview,falseinterpretationmeansthattheinterpreterdoesnottranslatewhatissaidandwhatishappeningduringtheproceedingsinsufficientdetailand/ortranslates ina deliberatelyambiguouswayforthedefendantorwitnesswhodoesnotspeakHungarian.

6.14 Question 14: how would you describe the function of a court interPreter?

Thereweredifferentoptionsand7respondentsmarkedmorethanoneoption(Figure7.).Thefunctionasa language mediatorwasmentionedby16judges,sevenrespondentsthinkthatinterpretersarehelper of a foreign language participantandalsoseventhattheyareforeign language experts.Fivejudgesfeelthatcourtinterpretersactascourt assistants.Twovotedforthefunctionofforeign language and cultural expertandoneforintercultural communication expert.

Figure 7:Function(s)ofa courtinterpreter

6.15 Question 15: which Parts of the Proceedings are interPreted for the foreign-language ParticiPant?

asshowninFigure 8,themajorityofrespondentsoptedforthe whole proceeding beingin-terpreted,whileotherschoseonlyrelevant parts of the proceedingorevenjustquestioning of the foreign language participant.Inaddition,onejudgespecifiedthatinthecaseofa foreignlanguagepartythewholeproceeding,inthecaseofa witnessonlythequestioningpartshouldbeinterpreted.


112


Figure 8:Interpretedpartsoftheproceeding

6.16 Question 16: are you satisfied with the current Practice of interPretation within the courts?

Tothelastquestioninthequestionnairemostofthejudges,20respondents,reportedthattheyaresatisfiedwiththecurrentinterpretationpractice,oneofthemistotally satisfied,oneofthemisnot satisfiedandsevenjudgesexpressedthattheyaresomewhat satisfiedwithhowinterpretationoccursatcourtsnowadays.

Figure 9:Satisfactionwiththecurrentpracticeofcourtinterpretation


113


7. disCussion oF the data

InthispartofthepaperI wouldliketohighlightsomedatafromthequestionnaire,pointingtosixaspectsofcourtinterpreting,andreflectonfindingsoftheinternationalliteratureofcourtinterpreting.

7.1 how to choose an interPreter?asshowninFigure 2,tenrespondentsreportedthattheychooseaninterpreterfromtheregisterofcourtinterpreters,whichhasnotactuallybeenofficiallydrawnupinHungary.Judgeshavea listofexpertstheycanchoosefromanda registerofcourtinterpreterswouldhelpthem,too.directive2010/64/eurequiresmemberstatestotakemeasurestoensuretheproperqualityofin-terpretationandtranslationandmemberstates“shallendeavour”(butarenotrequired)toestab-lisha registerofappropriatelyqualifiedtranslatorsandinterpreters.accordingtothereportoftheeuropeanuniononimplementingdirectives2010/64/euand2012/13/eu,seventeenmemberstateshaveprovidedsucha registerandineighteuropeancountriesthathavea register,courtsareobligedtouseitwhenchoosinga legalinterpreter(Fra2016:46–47).oneofHungary’sneighbours,austria,hasa registerofcourtinterpretersandasseenintheresearchofKadrićconductedinVienna, judgestreatthisregisterasa guaranteeofquality(Kadrić2009:118).

oneoftherespondentsgavea differentanswertothisquestion:intheiropinionthePublicProsecutor’sofficeshouldappointtheinterpreter.accordingtoSection60oftheHungarianactCXLof2004onthegeneralrulesofadministrativeProceedingsandServices

(1)Iftheofficerinchargedoesnotspeakthelanguageoftheclientoranyotherpartytotheproceeding,an interpreter shall be engaged.(emphasisbytheauthor)

accordingtoSection114oftheHungarianactXIXof1998onCriminalProceedings

(1)Ifa personwhosenativelanguageisnotHungarianintendstouseinthecourseoftheproceedingstheirnativelanguage,or–pursuanttoandwithinthescopeofaninternationalagreementpromulgatedbylaw–theirregionalorminoritylanguage,an interpreter shall be employed(unofficialtranslation,emphasisbytheauthor).

Itis,however,notspecifiedwhichauthorityneedstoemploytheinterpreter.anotherrespond-ent’sanswerwasthattheylookforaninterpreterontheInternet.Intheeventa registerofcertifiedcourtinterpreterswereavailableontheInternet,itcouldbeanappropriateanswer.notonlytheinterpretersbutalsothecourthastheresponsibilityforensuringtheproperqualityofinterpretation.Thisisonlyachievablewhenjudgesareabletoappointa qualifiedinterpreter.aswritten inthegermanliterature, the interpreterhas togivea faithfulandcompleterenderingbutthisisonlypossiblewhentheinterpreterisqualifiedandpreparedfortherespectiveproceeding(driesenandPetersen2011:6).Seealsomyinvestigationofwrittenprotocolswhereduetotheinterpretingmistakesofanunqualifiedinterpretera newproceed-inghadtobeopened(FarkasnéPuklus2017:173–176).


114


7.2 is an interPreter according to the Provisions an exPert or not?Ingermanyandinaustria,interpretersarenotexpertsbecausetheycannotaddanycontenttotherelevantcase.However,thecourtcanappointtheinterpreterasa languageexpertifthereisa forensicissuetobedecidedon(driesenandPetersen2011:6,Kadrić2009:49–51).accordingtotheHungarianprovisionstherulesforexpertsshallalsobeappliedforinter-preters(seealsoFarkasnéPuklus2016,Horváth2013)but interpretersusuallydonotgetaccess todocuments.Court interpretersare rarelyable toconsultdocumentsandpreparefortheproceedings,althoughthiswouldbeessentialandwouldcontributetothesuccessofinterpreting.

Whenaskedaboutprovidingdocumentstointerpreterspriortothehearing(Question6.,Figure3.),75%ofthejudgesrespondedthattheydonotdoso,meaningthatinterpretersareunabletoprepareforthatspecificcase.Thisleadstothequestionofwhetheraninterpreterisreallyregardedasanexpertornot.

However,thisisthecasenotonlyinHungary:“manylegaltranslationandinterpretationassociationsstatedthattherearenoproceduresinplacetoprepareinterpretersortranslatorsforspecificcases”(Fra2016:58).ThedanishresearcherBenteJacobsen(alsovice-chairmanoftheassociationofdanishauthorisedTranslatorsandInterpreters)mentionsthat“[i]nter-pretersareassumedtoneednopreparationfora trial.Therefore,theyrarelygetpriorinforma-tionaboutthecase,includingtheallegedoffenceorthetypeofoffender/victim.Interpretersaremainlyregardedas[…]individualswhoseonlyjobistocopywordsfromonelanguageintoanother(alinguisticphotocopier)”(Fra2016:58).

7.3 where is the interPreter seated?Mosttypicallytheinterpreterisseatednexttotheforeignlanguageparticipantorinthecaseofquestioningsuspectedoraccusedpersonsorhearingwitnessestheinterpreterstands(seeFigure4).Sixjudgeswrotethatthereisnoassignedseatfortheinterpreterandthreerespond-entsaddedtheremarkthattheinterpreterusuallysitsnexttotheprosecutor(twoanswers)ornexttotheaccusedperson(oneanswer).Thesituationisquitedifferentforexampleinaustria,wherecourtinterpretersusuallysitnexttothejudge.Thishasa symbolicalimportanceaswell:courtinterpretersareappointedbythecourtandtheyrepresentneutrality.Iftheysitnexttothejudgeitmightimplicatethattheyarepartofthehierarchicalsystemofthecourtaswell.InHungaryseatingassignmentsmightconveythemeaningthatinterpretersaretherefortheforeign-languagepartyandthiscouldraisequestionsofloyalty,too(seealsoCsörgő2013).

7.4 interPreting modes and interPreted Parts

Whenjudgeswereaskedaboutthedifferentinterpretingmodes,allofthemansweredthatconsecutiveinterpretingisthemosteffective(seeFigure5).Therewasonlyoneaddedanswerforthesimultaneousmodeandanotherforchuchotage,orwhisperingtotheforeignlanguageparticipant.

InordertoachievesufficientinterpretingMikkelson(2000)arguesthattextpassagesofmaximum100words(oneortwosentences)shouldbeinterpretedconsecutively,asinterpret-ersneednotonlyrememberfactsandcontentbutall theextra-linguisticelementsaswell(Mikkelson2000:71).


115


angermeyer (2015)also states that “[i]f thegoal is toputnon-english speakersonanequalfootingwithenglishspeakers,theconsistentuseofshortconsecutiveinterpretingap-pearsmorelikelytoguaranteeequalityofaccesstoinformationproducedduringthetrial”(angermeyer2015:214).

IntheHungarianliteratureFarkasnéPuklus(2016)considersthefluencyofcommunica-tionandthespeedoftheproceedingandthereforearguesinsomepartsoftheproceedings–especiallyatthebeginningofthehearing(openingstatement)–forwhisperinterpreting.

Kadrić(2004)admitsthattheinterpretingmodesusedinaustria–usuallyconsecutiveorsummaryinterpreting(althoughit isnotclearwhatismeantbythisterm)–shouldbereviewedinordertosecureequalrightsforforeign-languageparticipants.Forexample,shepointsoutthatinthecaseofsummaryinterpretingtheforeignparticipant’srighttoaskques-tionsatanystageoftheproceedingmightbeviolated.

Themajorityofjudgesreportedthatinterpretationoftheentirehearingtakesplace(Figure8.),althoughinsomecasesitwasmorelimited.ItisthestanceofTheHungariannationalofficefortheJudiciary(oBH)thatthejudgehasnosayastohowmuchofthehearingisinterpreted,andthereforeaftertheoBHreviewthequestionwasremovedfromthesecondversion.

7.5 function and role of the interPreter

respondingtoQuestion 14onthefunctionofinterpreters,judgesbelievedthatcourtinter-pretersactaslanguage mediators,helpers of a foreign language participant, court assistants, foreign language experts, foreign language and cultural expertsorintercultural communication experts.Itisimportantthatnotonlytheinterpreterbutalsojudgesandlawyersshallbeawareoftheroleandfunctionthataninterpreterplaysinthecourseoftheproceeding.Hale(2004)formulatesthat“[i]nterpretersmustfirstbecomeawareoftheirresponsibilitiesasprofessionals,”and

Secondly, lawyers must become aware of the difficulties of the interpretingprocessandrecognisethatitisanactivitythatrequiresfullyqualified,trainedprofessionals;theymustfullyunderstandtheroleoftheinterpreter;takere-sponsibilityfortheirownspeechratherthanexpectinterpreterstoclarifytheirutterancesorensurethecomprehensionisreached;andtheymusttreatinter-preterswiththerespecttheydeserve,asequalprofessionals(Hale2004:2).

asseenfromtheresponsesinFigure 7,somejudgesexpecttheinterpretertohelpthecourt,toprovideassistancetothecourtortohelptheforeignlanguagespeaker.However,thein-terpreter’staskisactuallytoremovethelanguagebarrierandtotransformtheutterancesina pragmaticallycorrectformandnotwordforword(Hale2004:12).asMikkelsonstates,the “[i]nterpreter’s task is not to ensure that thedefendantunderstands theproceedings”(Mikkelson1998:22).Interpretersarenotmachinesor“partofthefurniture”ofthecourt-room,becausetheyareanactiveparticipantofthecommunicationprocess(Berk-Seligson1990:55).Interactionwilloccurduetothepresenceoftheinterpretertriadic(Hale2004:10)andinterpretersmightplayanevenmoreactiveroleandhavemoreinfluencethanexpectedbytheparticipantsofthecommunicationprocess(Jacobsen2003:239).


116


7.6 faulty interPreting

IfwelookatthesummoningoftheinterpreterusuallyusedinHungary,wecanfindthatcourtinterpretersarebeingappointedbythecourttoprovideprofessionalandaccuratetrans-lationandtheirattentionisdrawntotheconsequencesoffaultytranslation.Intheanswersofthejudgestothequestionastowhatfaultyinterpretingmeanstheexpressiontranslationwasusedby14respondents(SeeTable1).Morrissaysthattypically“[c]ourtinterpretersarenottointerpret –thisbeinganactivitywhichonlylawyersaretoperform,buttotranslate –a termwhichisdefined,sometimesexpresslyandsometimesbyimplication,asrenderingthespeaker’swordsverbatim”(Morris1995:26).althoughinHungarianwehaveourownexpressionforinterpreting(tolmácsolás)andyetanotherforinterpretation(értelmezés)judgestendtousethetermtranslation( fordítás)forbothoralandwrittenrenderings.

ItisformulatedintheHungarianactCof2012ontheCriminalCode(Perjury,Section272)that

(1)anywitnesswhogives falsetestimonybeforetheauthorityconcerning an essential circumstance of a case,orsuppressesevidenceisguiltyofperjury.

(2)Theprovisionsrelatingtoperjuryshallbeappliedtoanypersonwho:a)givesfalseopinionasanexpertorfalseinformationasa specialadviser;b)falselytranslatesasaninterpreterora translator…(unofficialtranslation,

emphasisbytheauthor).

TheadjectivefalselywasusedinthewordingoftheCriminalCodebutitisnotfurtherspeci-fiedwhatthatmeans.Intheanswersofjudgesastowhattheythinkfaultyinterpretingmeansrelevant factswerementionedthreetimes(e.g.“He does not translate what is said regarding relevant facts.”)andtheimportanceofadequate rendering(expressionslikeinterpreting or translating according to reality, verbatim if possible, text-true)appearedin17answers.Itisoftentheexpectationoflegalprofessionalsthatliteral,verbatiminterpretationshalltakeplaceinthecourtroom.Verbatiminterpretationismostlyimpossibleintheinteractionoftwolanguagesbecauseofthedifferencesofthelanguagestructureandasa consequenceoftheinterpreta-tionprocess(gonzálezetal.1991:17).Someresearchersarguefor“accuracyofmessageandintention”andconsider“[a]ccuracyasa pragmaticreconstructionofthesourcelanguageintothetargetlanguage”(Hale2004:3,House1977).

Ineightanswersofthejudges,intentionalitywasalsomentioned(e.g.“It means that the interpreter intentionally does not translate the meaning of what is said in Hungarian.”),whichimpliestheimportanceofa deliberateactionbeforethecourt.Intheexhaustiveanswerofoneoftherespondentsthereisevena detailedexplanationgiven(withmoredetailsthanintheapplicablelegalprovision):

Therulesapplicabletoexpertsshouldalsoapplyforinterpreters,theyarewarnedabouttheconsequencesoffaultyinterpreting–itistheobligationofthejudgelaiddowninlegalprovision.Inmyopinion,faultyinterpretingmeansthattheinterpreterintentionallymistranslateswhatissaidduringtheproceedings.Iftheinterpreterstatesthatheorshedoesnotunderstandcertainlegalexpressions


117


orisnotawareoftheircontentthenthisisnotfaultyinterpreting:inthiscasethejudgeneedstosupplytherelevantinformationandifthisisnotsufficient,anotherinterpreterneedstobeappointed.

Inthispartofthepaper(chapters7.1–7.6)I discussedsixaspectsofcourtinterpretingthatmightbeimportantfromtheinterpreter’spointofviewandrelevantforthecommunicationalcontext.otheraspectsaretobeanalysedinthelightoffurtherresearchdata.

8. ConClusion

Themaintargetofmyresearchistoinvestigatewhatthelegalside–especiallyjudges–expectsfromtheinterpreterandhowthecommunicationeventwiththeinterpreterinthecourtroomcanbedescribedwithallitslinguisticandextra-linguisticaspects.Theresearchconsistsofthreeparts:FirstI investigatetheexpectationstowardscourtinterpretersthrougha questionnairethatwasansweredintwophases.Secondly,I consultwrittenprotocolsofinterpreter-mediatedcourtroomproceedings.andthirdlyI analyserecordingsfromcourtroomproceedingswhereaninterpreterisinvolved.duetotheresultsofthethreeresearchpartsI hopetogainmoreinsightintotheroleofthecourtinterpreter“[w]hotakespartinaninteractionthatisconstrainedbytheinstitutioninwhichitisembedded”(angelelli2004:83).Thisarticleanalysestheresultsofthefirstpart:theopinionofthejudgeswhorespondedtothequestionnaireinitsfirstversion.

althoughtheresultscannotberepresentativeduetobeinglimitedtooneregion,I triedto showsome interestingaspectsof the interpreter-mediatedcommunicationevent in thecourtroom.Theanalysedanswersandtheshownaspectsdemonstrate that the interpreteroftenneedstoseekfora balancebetweentheexpectationofjudgesandhisorherknowledgeoftheroleandresponsibilityofaninterpreter(angermeyer2015:100).

accordingtotheresultsofthefirstversionofthequestionnaire(territorialcompetenceoftheMiskolcregionalCourt)andtothenegotiationswithtwolegalexpertsoftheHungariannationalofficefortheJudiciary(oBH),thequestionshadbeenspecifiedanda secondversionprepared(onequestionneededtoberemoved,seechapter7.4andone–Question13.–modified).regardingthesecondversiona germanarticlewillbepublishedsoon(FarkasnéPuklus2018).

ThisarticleandtheongoingresearchareanattempttoraiseawarenessofthelegalsideinHungarytocourtinterpretingandtoargueforfurtherresearchandimprovedconditionsforinterpretersinHungariancourtrooms.

references

angelelli,C.2004.Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico and United State.amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

angermeyer,P.S.2015.Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. newYork:oxforduniversityPress.

Berk-Seligson,S.1990.The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process.universityofChicagoPress:Chicago.

Csörgő,Z.2013.Kihezésmihezlegyenlojálisa bíróságitolmács?[Towhomandtowhatshallthecourtinterpreterbeloyal?]Fordítástudomány Vol.15.no.2.51–71.


118


denzin,n.K.1978.The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.engle-woodCliff,nJ:PrenticeHall.

driesen,C.,PetersenH.-a.2011.Gerichtsdolmetschen – Grundwissen und -fertigkeiten.Tübingen:narrVerlag.

FarkasnéPuklus,M.2016.Bíróságitolmácsolás–alapelvekéselvárások.[Courtinterpreting–principlesandexpectations.] FordítástudományVol.18.no.2.40–52.Farkasné Puklus, M. 2017. dolmetschen im ungarischen gerichtssaal – einblick in das

ProtokollvonzweiFällen.In:Sprache und Recht. Übersetzer und Dolmetscher als Mittler zwischen Sprachen und Rechtssystemen.Berlin:BdÜFachverlag.170–180.

FarkasnéPuklus,M.2018.Sprachliche und außersprachliche Faktoren des Gerichtsdolmetschens – erste Ergebnisse eines ungarischen Forschungsprojektes. Inpress.

Fra(europeanunionagencyforFundamentalrights).2016.Rights of suspected and accused persons across the EU: translation, interpretation and information.Luxembourg:Publicationsofficeoftheeuropeanunion.

gamal,M.Y.2008.Courtinterpreting.In:Baker,M.(ed.)Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.London:routledge.63–67.

gonzález,r.d.,Vásquez,V.F.,Mikkelson,H.1991.Fundamentals of Court Interpreting. Theory, Policy, and Practice. durham:CarolinaacademicPress.

Hale,S.2004. The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Hale,S.2010.Theneedtoraisethebar:Courtinterpretersasspecialisedexperts.In:Coulthard, M.,Johnson,a.(eds)The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics.London:routledge.440–454.

Horváth,I.2012.Interpreter Behaviour. A psychological approach.Budapest:HangnyelviskolaBt.Horváth,I.2013.Bírósági tolmácsolás.[Courtinterpreting.]Budapest:eLTeeötvösKiadó.Horváth,I.2014.a tolmácsoláshozvalójogtóla bíróságitolmácsképzésig.[Fromtheright

tointerpretationtocourtinterpretertraining.]Fordítástudomány Vol.16.no.1.5–16.Horváth,I.2017.(ed.)Tolmácsolás a bíróságon. Esettanulmányok a bírósági tolmácsolás gya-

korlatából.[Interpretingatcourt.CasestudiesoncourtInterpreting.]Budapest:HVg-oraCLap-ésKönyvkiadóKft.

House,J.1977.A Model for Translation Quality Assessment.Tübingen:günternarrVerlag.Jacobsen,Bente2003.Pragmaticmeaningincourtinterpreting:anempiricalstudyofad-

ditionsinconsecutivelyinterpretedquestion-answerdialogues.Journal of LinguisticsVol.2004no.32.237–249.

Jakobson,r.1959.onlinguisticaspectsofTranslation.In:r.a.Brower(ed.)On Trans-lation.newYork:ouP.232–239.

Kadrić,M.2004.SichtbaregerechtigkeitingedolmetschtenVerhandlungen.JuridikumVol.2004.no.4.195–200.

Kadrić,M.2009.Dolmetschen bei Gericht. Erwartungen, Anforderungen, Kompetenzen.Wien:WuV.

Kalina,S.2002.InterpretersasProfessionals.Across Languages and CulturesVol.3.no.2.169−187.Katschinka,L.2016.an ISoStandard for InterpretingServices in Judicial Settings. In:

Bajčić,M.,dobrićBasaneže,K. Towards the Professionalization of Legal Translators and Court Interpreters in the EU.Cambridge:CambridgeScholarsPublishing.14–22.


119


Katschinka,L.2017.20228–eineISo-normfürdasdolmetschenbeigerichtenundBe-hörden.In:Sprache und Recht. Übersetzer und Dolmetscher als Mittler zwischen Sprachen und Rechts systemen.Berlin:BdÜFachverlag.393–400.

Klaudy,K.2003.Fordítás és tolmácsolás az ezredfordulón. 30 éves az ELTE Fordító- és Tolmács-képző Központja. Jubileumi évkönyv 1973-2003.[Translationandinterpretingattheturnofthemillenium.30yearsoftheeLTe’sTranslationandInterpretingTrainingCenter.JubileeYearbook1973–2003.] Budapest:Scholastica.

Mikkelson,H.1998.Towardsa redefinitionoftheroleoftheCourtInterpreter.Inter preting Vol.3.no.1.21–45.

Mikkelson,H.2000.Introduction to Court Interpreting.Manchester:St.JeromePublishing.Morris,r.1993.Images of the Interpreter: A Study of Language-switching in the Legal Process.

unpublishedPh.d.dissertation,departmentofLaw,Lancasteruniversity,england.Morris,r.1995.TheMoraldilemmasofCourtInterpreting.The TranslatorVol.1.no.1.

25–46.Morris,r.2010.Imagesofthecourtinterpreter.Translation and Interpreting StudiesVol.5.

no.1.20–40.Szabari,K.1999.Tolmácsolás, Bevezetés a tolmácsolás elméletébe és gyakorlatába.[Interpreting.

Introductionintothetheoryandpracticeofinterpreting.] Budapest:Scholastica.Szabó,M.(ed.)2010.Nyelvében a jog.[rightinthelanguage.]Miskolc:BíborKiadó.Vinnai,e.2014a.azelső„jogésnyelv”kutatáshazánkban.[Thefirst“lawandlanguage”re-

searchinHungary.]Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Közlemények – Interdiszciplináris tanulmányok Vol.9.no.1.60–67.

Vinnai,e.2014b.a magyarjoginyelvkutatása.[Hungarianlegallanguageresearch.] Glossa Iuridica.A magyar nyelv és a magyar jogi műnyelv megújulása Vol.1.no1.29–48.

Vinnai,e.2017.Tolmácsolása jogieljárásban.[Interpretinginlegalproceedings.]Miskolci Jogi Szemle Vol. XII.specialissue.133–142.

web sources

Thedirective2010/64/euoftheeuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilontherighttointerpretationandtranslationhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CeLeX:32010L0064

TheoriginalenglishversionofVademecumanditstranslationshttp://eulita.eu/sites/default/files/VadeMeCuM%20-%20guidelines%20for%20a%20more%20effective%20communication%20with%20interpreters%20and%20translators.pdf

euLITa:europeanLegalInterpretersandTranslatorsorganisationwww.eulita.eu

Fraeuropeanunionagency forFundamentalrights,rightsof suspectedandaccusedpersonsacrosstheeu:translation,interpretationandinformationhttp://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2016/rights-suspected-and-accused-persons-across-eu-translation-interpretation-and

actCof2012ontheCriminalCodeofHungaryhttp://thb.kormany.hu/download/a/46/11000/Btk_en.pdf


120


annexe 1 questionnaire For Judges

1. Howmanyproceedingsdoyouhaveina month?H1-1920-2930-3940-4950-59

2. Whattypesofcases,rangesofissuesdoyoumostlydealwith?Criminal:................................................................................................................... issueMinoroffences:.......................................................................................................... issueCivil:.......................................................................................................................... issueLabour:...................................................................................................................... issueadministrative:.......................................................................................................... issueother:...................................................................................................................................

3. Haveyoueverpresidedovera hearinginwhichtheinvolvedparties/witnessesdidnotspeakorunderstandHungarian?Yesno

if your answer is “no”, you do not need to answer the following questions. however, if you would like to share your experiences regarding court interpreting, feel free to continue with the questionnaire. 4. Permonth,howmanyhearingsdoyouhavewhereforeign-languagepartiesareinvolved?

1-5 6-1011-1516-20>20 5. Howdoyouselectaninterpreterforcourtproceedings?(Youcangivemorethanoneanswer.)

–I appointtheinterpreterfromtheregisterofcourtinterpreters. –Basedontherecommendationofcolleagues/acquaintances. –Withthehelpofa translationagency. –I askoneofmyacquaintanceswhospeakstherelevantforeignlanguage. –other:................................................................................................................................

6. doyouusuallyprovidetheinterpreterwithanydocumentrelatedtothegivencasepriortothehearing?YesIfyouransweris“Yes”,typeofdocuments:.................................................SometimesIfyouransweris“Sometimes”,typeofdocuments:.....................................no

7. doyouintroducetheinterpreteratthebeginningofthehearing?Yesno

8. Whereistheinterpreterseatedinthecourtroom?nexttothejudge.nexttotheforeignlanguageparticipant.Thereisnoassignedseatfortheinterpreter.other:...................................................................................................................................

9. arethewrittentextswhicharereadoutattheproceedings(correspondence,contracts,courtorders,etc.)handedtotheinterpreterjustbeforethehearingorduringthehearingsothattheinterpretercansight-translatethem?Yes,justbeforethehearing.Yes,duringthehearing.noother:...................................................................................................................................


121


10. Inyourview,duringa hearingwhatarethemosteffectivetypesofinterpreting?(Youcangivemorethanoneanswer.)Consecutiveinterpreting.Whisperinterpretingtotheforeignlanguageparticipant.Simultaneousinterpretingwiththehelpofa technicaldevice(ina booth,witha microphone)other:...................................................................................................................................

11. arethereanytechnicaldevicesforinterpretationprovidedinthecourtroom?Yes,‘bidule’equipment(witha microphoneandanearphone):Yes,aninterpreter’sbooth:noother:...................................................................................................................................

12. duringthecourseofa hearing,arethereanyscheduledshortbreaks?YesnoIfyouransweris“Yes”,howoften:........................................................................................

13. atthebeginningofa hearinganinterpreter’sattentionisdrawntotheconsequencesofper-juryorfaultyinterpreting(thatbothofthesearepunishableacts).Whatdoyouthinkfaultyinterpretingmeans?Pleaseexplain..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

14. Howwouldyoudescribethefunctionofa courtinterpreter?(Youcangivemorethanoneanswer.)ForeignlanguageexpertInterculturalcommunicationexpertForeignlanguageandculturalexpertLanguagemediatorCourtassistantHelperofa foreignlanguageparticipantother:...................................................................................................................................

15. Whichpartsoftheproceedingsareinterpretedfortheforeignlanguageparticipant?QuestioningoftheforeignlanguageparticipantrelevantpartsoftheproceedingThewholeproceedingother:...................................................................................................................................

16. areyousatisfiedwiththecurrentpracticeofinterpretationwithinthecourts?Yes,I amtotallysatisfied.Iamsatisfied.Iamsomewhatsatisfied.Iamnotsatisfied.


122

dileMMas and Contexts oF JudiCial ethiCs in Court interPreting1

gabriella nÉmeth

[email protected]

abstract: Inthisstudy,I willtrytopresenttowhatextentthepersonalactivityoflanguageprofes-sionalsactingincourthearingsdoesandcaninfluencepublictrustinjustice,ingeneral.I willalsopointoutthemoralexpectationsoftheprofessionalandlegalsupervisorybodiestowardsthetechnicalserviceproviderfulfillingpublicdutybyvirtueofthepowersdelegatedbythestatearisingthereof.Interpretersandtranslatorsthusshoulderhugeresponsibility,ofthatthereI nodoubt.Finally,I willpresenta fewspecifictranslationagencysolutionsthatsupporttheworkoflanguageprofessionalspro-vidingcourtinterpretingandattestedtranslationswithhighprofessionalstandards,allinthegrandhopethattheymeeteventhemostdemandingethicalchallengesinthefieldofjustice.Keywords:courtinterpreting,ethics,responsibilityofthelanguageprofessional,publictrustinjus-tice,attestedtranslation

1. the PubliC trust role oF Court interPreting in JudiCial ProCeedings

Thetrustworthinessofcourtinterpretingisa fundamentalissueofjudicialethicsatalltimes,whichalwaysdependsontheethicalresponsibility-takingofthelanguageprofessional in-volved,which(orthelackofsuch)mayhavespecificconsequencesinthegivenlegaldispute.

Courtinterpretinghasseveralparticipants.atthesametime,allparticipantshavetotallydifferenttechnicalprioritiesintheseproceedings:thejudge,theinterpreter,thepartyorwit-nesstotheproceedingsandotherparticipantsinvolvedifany(forexample,forensicexperts)infactallwantdifferentthings.

The interpreter wishes toperform the languagemediation taskflawlessly to thebestoftheirabilities,todecideonlinguisticissuesindependently,andattheendofperformingsucha servicefaultlessly,rightfullyexpectstoreceivenotonlythecertificateofperformance,butfollowingthat,alsothepaymentoftheinterpreterfeeinduetime.Thus,basedoncivillawcommissionorundertakinglegalrelations,theinterpreterisa serviceproviderwhohas

1Theauthorholdsa degreeinlaw,wasHeadoftheCivilLawandCodificationdepartment(CIKFo)of the Ministry of Justice between 2014 and 2015, earlier the Head of the department for JudicialSupervision(IFFo),andChairoftheSupervisoryCommitteeoftheHungarianofficeforTranslationandattestationLtd.(IFFoandCIKFoareresponsibleforthelegalsupervisionofbailiffsandforensicexperts,forkeepingtheregister,andthelegalbasicandfurthertrainingsandexaminationsandcodifica-tionofthelawspassedinthisfield.)asof2015theauthoristheCeoofoFFILtd.,appointedbytheMinisterofJusticeasthepersonexercisingfounder’srightsandcurrentlyholdssaidpositionwhenthisarticleiswritten.oFFILtd.isa 100%state-ownedbusinessentitythatmakesattested(legal)translationsforprivatepersons,companiesandgovernmentbodiespursuanttothelaws.See:www.offi.hu.


123

dilemmasandContextsofJudicialethicsinCourtInterpreting

beenresortedto,providinga serviceandthusbecomesentitledtoremuneration.The judge,whoshallresolvethedispute,requirestheassistanceoftheethicalinterpretertokeepperfectcontactwithoneormoreforeignparticipantsoftheproceedingsandtofacilitateunderstand-ing.Inaddition,thejudgerequiressmoothprocedure,i.e.theinterpreterdoesnothinderthecourseoftheprocedure,butisinvisiblypresent(asa secondaryfigure)inthecourtcase,sothatitcanrunjustassmoothlyasinthecaseswhereinterpretingisnotrequired.asclient,thejudgewouldliketoobtaingoodvalueformoney,lowpricedfeesasquicklyaspossible.andalthoughtheroleofjudgesinlegalproceedingsismostlydeterminedbytheruleslaiddownintheCodeofCivilProcedure2,thiscannotberegardedasa standardclientposition.Butunquestionably,thisaspectexistsandfeedsjudges’needsforflawlessandprofessionalperformance.onthesideofthequasi-principalthereisalsotheactualclientwhoselanguagecompetencenecessitatedtheintermediaryservicenecessary,asafteralltheywillmakespecificuseoftheinterpretingservice,translationiscarriedoutforthem.The party or witness orotherparticipantto the proceedings,whosemothertongueisotherthanHungarian,basi-callyyearnsfora helpfulassistantinspiringa senseofsafety,whowillaidthemineverythingsothattheforeignlanguageproceedingsrunsmoothlyfromtheirpointofviewtoo,withoutaddingextrastress;andshouldthesaidpersonhaveanyconcernorquestion,theissuewillberesolvedonthespot intheirownmothertongue,hencewithin their own comfort zone.Furthermore,theunderlying legal case beforethecourtalsohasitsowninterest(butcannotberegardedasa participantasitisnota person):interpretingortranslationshouldnotcauseanyerrors,interpretationmisunderstandingsordelaysinthedeadlinesimplybecauseexercis-ingtherighttousethemothertongueofthepersonsconcernedrequiresanextraparticipantintheproceedings, i.e.theinterpreter.Thereconciliationoftheseinterests isquitea hugeethicalchallengeforthelanguagemediator,thecourtinterpreter.Thesituationisparticularlycomplicatedbythefactthatall cases differ.Thus,evenifaninterpretergainsexperienceincourtcases,theycanneverclaimthattheyareabletoprovidecourtinterpretingandthatnosurprisescanoccuraftera certainpoint.Theonlycomfortinthissituationisthatthesameappliesforthejudge,thelawyersandtheforensicexperts,too.Irrespectiveofhowmanyyearsofpracticea lawyerhas,therearealwaysnewsituationswhichrequirenewlegalsolutions.giventheinfinitevarietyoflegalsolutionsexisting,thechallengefortheinterpreteristofindevernewlinguisticsolutionsforthenextlegalcase,aswell.

anotheraspectthataddstotheimportanceofthetopicofcourtinterpretingisthatcourtinterpretingitselfhasa roleinandmayinfluencethepositiveornegativechange3ofpublic trust in justice4.Today state(certifiedorlegal)translatorsandinterpretersareneitherlistedina reg-isternorbelongtoa publicbody(chamber),insteadcourtinterpretingandattestedtranslation

2actCXXXof2016onCivilProcedure 3Forexample,similarlytotheroleoftheothercourtroomparticipant,thatoftheforensicexpert. 4MinisterofJusticeProf.dr.LászlóTrócsányihashimselfformulatedthegoalofinstitutingmeasures

thatreinforcegeneralpublictrustinjusticeandthelaunchofthelegislativeworknecessaryalongwiththestrengtheningoftheconstitutionalidentityofHungary.Theextensivejudicialreformbetween2014and2017isa resultofsucheffort,thusthebirthoflegislativenotionsaffectingthementionedbailiff,expert,andcivil,criminalandpublicadministrativeproceedings,too.Theroleofinterpretersincivilandcriminalproceedingshasbeentackledasa separateissue,alsointhecourseoflegislativework.


124

gabriellanémeth

areperformedbya businessentityoperatingintheformofa state-ownedlimitedliabilitycom-pany5.Inexceptionalcases,thecourtsmayresorttootherinterpretingortranslationbureaus.

Therearenumerous internationalexamplesofdifferentmodels,where the interpreter isa registeredpersonwhoassumespersonalresponsibilityforthequalityoftheirtranslationandinterpretingactivityandwhoeven takesanoathbeforecommencing theactivity, theverycircumstancedefiningtheframeworkoftheirethicalworking6.In2016theformerlytwo-tierchamberstructureoftheotherfrequentparticipantsofcourtproceedings,theforensicexperts,waschangedintoa unifiednationalchamberofexperts.otherjudicialserviceproviders,forexample,publicbailiffs(independentcourtbailiffs)earlierhadtheirownpublicbody7butthischamberofbailiffswastransformedintothebodyofbailiffsasa resultofthejudicialreformsinrecentyears.Lawyersandpublicnotariesalsohaveseveralpublicduties,whiletheregisteroflawyersisanexistingestablishmentthatismaintainedbytheBarassociation.aswehaveseen,thestatecanevenfoundpublicbodiesforcarryingoutcertainpublicduties,ifitsowishes.Thismeanspassingonpublicduty.Ifitdoesnotwishtodoso,onepossibilityistodelegatethepublicorjudicialdutytoa 100%state-ownedbusinessentitythroughlaw,asinthecaseofoFFILtd.However,theconceptofpublicduty,itsprecisedefinitiondoesnotappearinthelawitself8.

Inmyopinion,whenregardedfromtheaspectofethicaloperation,ithasnofundamentalrelevancewhethera givenpublicdutyorserviceisperformedbyanauthorisedpublicbody,chamber,orexpertsortranslatorslistedina specificregisterofprofessionals,oremployeesorsubcontractorsofa 100%state-ownedbusinessentity,becausewhenviewedfromtheside of the client requiring such a service,therearethreeexpectationsthatalwaysapply.

– flawlessandethicalperformanceofqualityservice,– bytheagreeddeadline,and– atfairandproportionateprices.

Itisnottheformoftheprovidingorganisationthatleadstothefulfilmentofthesecriteria.Withpublictaskperformance,shouldthestateserviceprovidersmakemistakesinthecourseofful-fillingtheirduty,inpricedeterminationorhandlingcomplaintsorvoluntarylegalcompliance,orsimplyimpolitecommunication, public trust in justice itself may suffer damage.Thisalsoholds forcourtandpublicserviceinterpreters,sincetheyactasserviceprovidersinthefieldofjustice.Thiscanalsobecausedbythefactthatthelegalenvironmentisnotclear,nottrans-parent,toocomplexandnotsimple,butratherfragmented,overstretchingontovariouslevels,

5HungarianofficeforTranslationandattestationLtd.(oFFILtd.),www.offi.hu. 6For example, see thegerman,austrian,French,estonian,PolishorSwedishmodels,where entry in

theregisterisusuallysubjecttoanexaminationinlanguageandlawandcleancriminalrecord,andtheregisterissupervisedbythestate(forexampletheMinistryofJusticeorCourtsofappeal),butcertainmodelsmaydifferinthisrespect.

7HungarianChamberofCourtBailiffs(MBVK) 8dr.gabriellanémeth:azIgazságügyiSzakértőkésa BíróságiVégrehajtók[ForensicexpertsandCourt

Bailiffs].In:andrásJakabandgyörgygajduschek(szek.)2016A magyar jogrendszer állapota[Statusofthe Hungarian Legal System]. Budapest: MTa Társadalomtudományi Kutatóközpont JogtudományiIntézete [Institute forLegal Studies of the Centre for Social Sciences of the Hungarian academy ofSciences].641−642.


125


appearsintoomanylawsorisjustobsolete.(Forexample,lawsregulatingpublicprocurementareoftencriticisedformakingthecontrollablespendingofpublicmoneyunbelievablycompli-cated.Priortobailiffandexpertreforms,thelawspassedbackinthe90shavebecomeobsoleteinthepast20yearsandthisiswhathappenedtothedecreeoftheCouncilofMinistersregulat-ingattestedtranslations,datingbacktothelate80sandnotupdatedtothisday)9.

2. ethical dilemmas from the judicial viewPoint of Professional and legal suPervision

Inthecourseofperformingpublicdutiesinthefieldofjustice,a numberofethicalquestionscontinuouslyarise.Inthesystemofjustice,thereislegalandprofessionalsupervisionofthoseperformingjudicialservicesintheformofsupervisorypowerslaiddowninthelaws10.Wecanthusstatethat,inthissense,ethicscanalsobeinterpretedasthepossibleframeworkof public trustin justice.Takingthegeneralmeaningofethicsasa basis,thesensiblytaken,optimal(thesolutiondeemedthebestofallexistingoptions)andrightdecisionsbasedonsoundjudge-mentshouldbecharacteristicofallspecialfields,astheyareessentialinourprivatelifeaswell,inadditiontomanyotherpersonalandinstitutionalvalues(likeopenness,cost-effectiveness,environmentalawarenessoreveninnovation).Therefore,thefollowingethicalstandardsshouldcharacterisenotonlyforensicexperts,bailiffs,lawyersandpublicnotaries,butalsothetransla-torspreparingattestedtranslations,andcourtinterpreters,togetherwithmanyotherjudicialserviceprovidersperformingpublicdutiesinthecourseofperformingpublicdutyorstateserv-iceentrusteduponthembythestate(includingbutnotlimitedto):voluntarylegalcompliance,honestwork,constantlyhighlevelofproficiency,honestyandintegrity,facilitatingthereinforc-ingofpublictrusttowardstheirownprofession,cooperation,neutralityandimpartiality,con-flictofinterest,compliancewithstandardsofconductlaiddownbyothercodesofethics,etc.

InthedailyoperationoftheHungariansystemofjustice,severalmembersofthelegalandnon-legalprofessionsparticipatewhoseactivitiesI havealreadyreferredtoearlier,andinadministrativeorcourtproceedingsseveraltechnicalquestionsrequiringspecialtechnicalknowledgeoftenneedtobedecided.

Inour legal system, the legalprofessionals typically functionasmembersofa certaimpublicbodyandarealsolistedintheregisterkeptbythepublicbodyortheorganexercisinglegal supervision11.Incontrast,professional supervision oftherepresentativesoftheabove

9Pursuant todecree24/1986 (VI.26) of theCouncil ofMinisters on technical translation and inter-preting:„§5. unlessotherwisestipulatedbythe law,attestedtranslations,attestationof translations,andforeign languagecertifiedcopiesmayonlybedonebytheHungarianofficeforTranslationandattestationLtd.§6(1)Thecentralsectoralcontrolofthetechnicaltranslationandinterpretingactivityshallbecarriedoutbytheministerofjustice.Thiscontrolactivityshallcoveralltechnicaltranslationandinterpretingactivity,irrespectiveoftheorganisationalframeworkororganisationalsubordinationinwhichthebodyorpersoncarryingouttheactivityoperates.”

10Forexample,thecentralsectoralcontrolofthetechnicaltranslationandinterpretingactivityandthelegalsupervisionofforensicexpertsandbailiffsshallbecarriedoutbytheministerofjustice.

11apartfromthelegalprofessionalsworkingatcourtsandauthorities,thebarassociations,notarialcham-bersandforensicexpertchambersandthebailiffpublicbodyconsolidatetheprofessionalstypicallytak-ingpartinjudicialproceedings.PursuanttothesubstantivelawsestablishingthechambersitisalsotheMinistryofJusticethatexerciseslegalsupervisionoverthelatterfourpublicbodies.


126

gabriellanémeth

professionsisusuallyexercisedbytherelevantchamberitself.ThementioneddecreeoftheCouncilofMinisters12stipulatesthatthecentralsectoralcontrolofthetechnicaltranslationandinterpretingactivityshallbecarriedoutbytheministerofjustice.Somepublicbodieswereestablishedthroughlawforthepurposeoffulfillingcertainpublicdutiesdelegatedbythestate13.Basedontheoutdatedlawinforcesincethe80s,legaltranslationsarestillcarriedoutbyoFFILtd.asthesolelyandexclusivelyentitledprovider;theeducationalsystemofHungariancertifiedtranslatorsandinterpretersisfragmented,andthesupervisionofthepro-fessionisnotsupportedbya chamberorprofessionalregister,supervisioncurrentlybeingtheresponsibilityoftheministerofjustice14.atthesametime,itisworthyofnotethatoFFILtd.,asserviceprovider,hasmovedinthelastfewyearsinlinewiththemodernexpectationsandrequirementsofitsowner.Ithasextendeditsfocus,notonlytoclient-friendlysolutionsandtheflawlesshandlingofclientcomplaints,butalsotothequalityassuranceoflanguageserviceproviders,togetherwithexpandingtheirtrainingpossibilities.Furthermore,thefocusnowex-tendstopricingdevelopmentsintheinterestofthemorefavourabledeterminationoftheabovementionedfairandproportionateprices.ThethreespecificclientrequirementsapplytooFFIaswell:flawlessandethicalperformance;induetime;atfairandproportionateprices15.

aneuralgicpointofalmostalljudicialserviceareas,whenviewedfromtheethicalaspect,isthe manner ofcertaininternalcomplaint procedures16 regulatingthe handlingofclientorobligorcomplaints.Theanomaliesofethicalandcomplaintproceduresmayberootednotonlyinorganisationalsystemdeficiencies,butalsoinotherissuesrelatedtojudicialrelations.Insomeareas,theunderfinancedmodeldidnotpermittheinvolvementofadequatelegalexpertiseinethicalprocedures(seethefunctioningofforensicexperts),whereasinanother

12decreeno.24/1986(VI.26)oftheCouncilofMinisters§6.13dr.gabriellanémeth,page641.14Thissupervisionisrathera narroworganisationalsupervision,carriedoutbythesupervisorycommittee

standingabovethecompanyortheauditorsupportingthesupervisionofpropertymanagementandtheministry’sbudgetcontrolunit.

15naturally,a 100%state-ownedtranslationbureaugeneratingandspendingpublicmoney,andhavinga budgetofHuF1.7billionin2016asperitspublicbalancesheetdata,withapprox.160employees,op-erates26officesnationallyandfulfillingmorethan80,000ordersannually,canneverbeasflexibleasanopenmarkettranslationagency.Thelatterpresumablyhasfewerregulationstoobserve,whiletheowner(sometimesjust1or2privatepersons)canemploya muchmoreflexibledecision-makingmechanismgivenitsfewhundredmillionbudget,comparedtothepossibilitiesoftheStateasownertobecarriedoutinthefieldofpublicadministration.Forthisreason,smallbusinessflexibilitycannotbeanethicalexpectationtowardsanoFFI-sizeserviceproviderwitha strictbudgetbasedonpublicmoney.atthesametime,itisanethicalexpectationtowardsthestate-ownedtranslationbureauasa serviceproviderthatitoperatesthesamewayasanopenmarketbusinessheavilyrelyingonitsclientsasregardsitsat-titudeandalwaysstrivingtoprovidethebestqualityandservice.Weknowthatunhappycustomerswalkaway.Thisisnotanoptioninthecaseofattestedtranslations,ashere“walkingaway”fromoFFIisnotpossible,butneithercanoFFIrefuseincomingorders.Forthisreason,thetranslationbureau’sassumedresponsibilityforthehighqualityofitsservicesandthequalityofitscustomer-handlingishuge.

16Inthepast15-20yearsseveralcontradictionsandanomalieshaveemergedinthecomplaintproceduresoftheChamberofForensicexpertsandtheChamberofBailiffs,anditwasconfirmedonthebasisofpro-fessionalcontrolcarriedoutthroughthepowerofsupervisionoftheMinistryofJusticethatthechamberstructuresformedinthe1990shadnotfullyfulfilledthelegislatorgoalsformulatedinthelegislationofthetimeduringthepast20yearsormore.


127


areathosejudicialplayershavingacquiredexcessivewealthdidnotpaydueandjustatten-tiontoproperexecutionbefore2014(seethediminishedsocialtrusttowardsbailiffsthatwastraceableinseveralpressarticlesofthetime).Forthisreason,examiningtheethicalrelationsofcourtinterpretingandlanguagemediationactivityinthejudicialfieldandconveyingthesefindingstothelanguagemediationprofessionconcernedviaallpossiblechannels(education,trainings,seminars,conferences,scientificpublications,workshopsetc.),isverytimelywhenviewedfromtheperspectiveofthesejudicialreforms.

Theearliermentionedhonestwork,honestyand integrity,neutralityand impartiality,conflictofinterestorotherrequirementsofcompliancewithstandardsofconductarespheresofregulationtypicallylaiddownintheethicalcodes.IntheethicalCodeapprovedpursuanttothenewactonforensicexperts17,thereformedchamberofexpertsregardsa committedactasethical misdemeanourinthecaseofintentionalornegligentbreachofthegeneralrulesofconduct.Suchthingsmayoccurnotonlyaftertheacceptanceofthecommissionorappoint-ment,butalsopriortoit.Theobligationofconfidentiality,theobligationofinformation,therequirementofimpartialityandkeepingcontactina politeandneutralmanner,theobliga-tionofbeingavailable,andregardingexpertopinion,thequalitiesofclarityandverifiability,andtherequirementsofobjectivityandjustificationspecificallyappear.Someoftencomparetheroleofcourtinterpreterstothecourtroomroleofforensicexperts,becausetheytooarefacilitatingthecourseofthehearingandthepassingofjudgement,ina sense.atthesametime,whileexpertshavetoexpresslypresenttheirownexpertopinionintheproceedings,usuallycompiledinadvanceinwriting,interpreterscannothaveopinionsoftheirown,theyhavetobeinvisibleandconveyfeelings,wordsandcultureina neutralwayfromthesideofthesource-languagespeakerintothetarget-languagesphereofculture,promptlyandlive.

Thestate-ownedtranslationbureaualsohasitsCode of ethics for attested language services18whichaimstoconsistentlyrecordtheprinciplesandexpectationsthatthe100%state-ownedcompanysetstowardsitscollaboratorsinorderthatthehighqualityservicecri-terialaiddowninthemedium-termorganisationaldevelopmentstrategyofattestedlanguagemediationservicesbemet.ThisTranslators’Codeofethicseffectivelyprovidesa not toonarrowbutsufficientlyspecificframeworkandlaysdowntherequirementsofhonesty,profes-sionalismandconfidentialitythatmustbeobservedbyallstakeholderswhohaveworkrelatedcontractualrelationswiththetranslationbureau.TheTranslators’Codeofethicsincludesimpartial,diligentwork,ethicalandtruthfulconveyanceoftheoriginaltextinthecourseoftranslationandinterpreting,theobligationtoavoidpersonalconflictofinterest,togetherwithmeetingtheagreeddeadlineandregularlyacquiringthelatestprofessionalrequirementsata highlevel.Theconfidentialhandlingofinformationanddataisa basicethicalexpectationtowardstranslatorsandinterpreters,andsuitableattireandadherencetocertaincustoms,justasinthecaseofbailiffs,appearshereasa fundamentalcriterion.expressionofopinion,spreadingofrumours,andanystatementdamagingreputationalsoappearintheinternalreg-ulationsoftherenewedtranslationbureau.ThetranslatorsestablishingcontractualrelationswithoFFILtd.acceptthisregulationaspartofthecontractingprocess,andforthepurpose

17Section62(1)f)ofactXXIXof201618hereinafter:Translators’Codeofethics


128

gabriellanémeth

ofaccountabilityfortheirwork,thisalsoconstitutesthecontractualagreementassumedbythepartiesvoluntarily.giventhatinHungarythereisnosuchregisterofprofessionals,thenon-registered(certified)translatorsandcourtinterpretersdonothavetotakeanoath.ThisTranslators’Codeofethicscurrentlyconstitutestheparties’voluntaryundertakingandthemutualandunanimousintentionofoFFILtd.andthesubcontractororappointedtranslatorina contractualframework,thusitsacceptanceinaccordancewiththecontractcontributestoa broaderapplicationofmoralaspectsinthecourseofperformingpublicservicelanguagemediationonbehalfofoFFI.

Wecanestablishthattheframeworkofbehaviouralstandardslaiddownintheprofes-sionalcodeofethicsleadstoconstantoperationaldevelopment,resultingintrust towardsthe state provider and state services thatisessentialintheactualactivity.Inmyopinion,andbasedonmypersonal legal experiencegained in the judicial reformprocesses, I canstatethattheethicalregulationsworkedoutwiththeactiveparticipationoftheprofession-alsofthegivenfieldsarealwayseasytoobey,andcanthusresultina highdegreeofloyaltyofthetrainedmembersofsuchprofessionstowardstheirown,andevensupervisorybodies.Furthermore,theresultingstrongpublicserviceattitudemayalsoresultinhigh social appreciation through ethical duty performance. Ifthe ethics-consciousnessoftheworkerswhotakepartinjudicialservicesishigh19andtheydevelopa permanentandpersonalneedformandatoryorvoluntarytrainingsandfurthertrainings20,theservicescharacterisedbyquality knowledge resultin moreethical dutyperformanceatalllevels,whichleadtoa decreaseinthenumberofcomplaintsandimprovedcustomersatisfactionaswell21.Ifthecomplaintsstillarisinginlessernumberleadtofasterandfairerhandling,beita clientcomplaintagainstbailiffactivityperformedbya bailiff,ora courtinterpretingmistakeinthecourtroom,cli-entsatisfactionentailssocialappreciationandthestrengtheningofpublicservice.Letusnotforgetthatinthecourtroomthejudgehimself/herselfisa principal,a ‘client’whowouldliketoobtainmaximumsatisfactionwhenaccessingtheservicesofthecourtinterpreter,andthis

19Inthecaseofcourtinterpretingorattestedtranslationthisshallnotonlyapplytothetranslatororinter-preter,butalsototheclientservicecolleaguesresponsibleforoFFIcomplaints.

20Todaytheso-called“lifelonglearning”approachoftheemployeeorcollaboratingpartnerisunavoidablein all professions regardless of specialisation, and this is particularly trueof the translator and inter-preterprofessions.The state-owned translationbureauplaces special emphasison the encouragementand support of this attitude in its Hr strategy for years 2016-2017. The Ministry of Justice formedtheLegalacademyofJudicialServiceProvidersincooperationwiththeuniversityofSzegedin2016,whereexperts,bailiffsandliquidatorsundergocontinuousandmandatorylegalandjudicialtrainingsandfurthertrainingsarerepeatedeveryfewyears.Judicialethicsasa subjecthasappearedasa separateeducationalblockinthereformededucationsince2014,conveyingprofessionaldilemmasina practicalandeasilyintelligiblemannerandevendemonstratedwithsituationalpracticestostudentsoftherelevantprogramme.

21a livepractice,forexample,fromoFFILtd.’sattestedtranslationarea:ifa clientraisesa complaintthatcannotbesolvedimmediatelyonthespotorisnotsatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofthecomplaintexamina-tionprocedure,thentheclientappliesdirectlytotheMinistryofJusticeforresolvinghiscaseassoonaspossible.ItisanothermatterthatinsuchcasesthecomplaintisredirectedtooFFI,butthefactofthecomplaintreachestheleaderheadingthesector.Thisalsomeansthatitisa commoninterestofallpartiesconcernedthatthenumberofcomplaintsbereducedandthattheybehandledwithanequitableandfairoutcome,preferablyattheplacewhereraised.


129


isregardlessofthefactwhethertheinterpreterisanentrepreneurorcommissionedbythestate-ownedtranslationbureau.

3. translation agenCy resPonses and solutions to the Challenges oF JudiCial ethiCs

oFFILtd.’squalifying body for translation and interpreting, establishedin2015,istheadvisoryandconsultativepanel22oftheCeo.Thisbodyisledbya chairelectedbyandfromitsmembersandoperatesasanindependent,decision-preparatory,proposal-makingbody.onetask,amongothers,isto“formulateanopinionontherecommendationsdrawnupforthepurposeofqualityassuranceof translation, revisionand interpreting,and the ratingsformedonthebasisthereof”23.ThisBodyhasalreadyformulatednumerousopinionsregard-inginternalorganisationalandregulationreformsaimedattherenewalofthestate-ownedtranslationbureau.naturally,thisBodyhasalsoexpressedopinionsontheTranslators’CodeofethicsofoFFILtd.,whichwasthusformulatedwiththeparticipationofexpertswitha leadingroleintheeducationoftranslatorandinterpreterprofessions.Itwashighlyinforma-tiveforthemembersoftheBodyandfortheemployeesofoFFILtd.,bothtogettoknoweachother’sstandpointsastotheissuesanddilemmasarisingfromtheperspectivesofscience,educationandactualperformanceofpublicdutyasa serviceprovider,andthecomparisonandclashofsuchstandpoints.Theadaptationofprofessionalandethicalconsiderationstotheextremelyhighvolumeactivityperformance24characteristicofoFFIandtherelateddutyperformanceobligation,anditsintegrationintoitsinternalworkprocesseshaveattimesposedspecificallydemandingchallenges.

The state translation bureau has its own internship and mentoring programme fornewlyhiredfreshgraduatetranslators(orexperiencedtranslatorswhohavenotyetworkedforoFFI),wherethemostup-to-datespecialistknowledgerequiredforattestedtranslationandspecialoFFIworktechniquescanbeacquired.Theaimandresultofthisprogrammeisthatinthiswayinexperiencedtranslatorsandinterpretersoruniversitystudentsfinishingtheirrelatedstudiescanbeintegratedintheworkofthetranslationbureau,withoutanyrisk.Throughthisprofessionallysupportivemethodology,clientinterestscannotsufferanyharm,thepossibilityofmakinga mistakeisminimal,andacquiringspecialknowledgeina realop-eratingsystem,notmerelyreadingtheoreticalstudies,presentsanextraordinaryopportunity.asoFFIwishestodevoteseriousattentiontotheefficientfuturesupplyoftranslators,revis-ers,terminologists,itiscrucialtointroduceoFFI’sspecialactivityandprofessionalrequire-mentstogiftedyoungpeoplefinishingtheirinternship,andtocareerstartersorexperiencedandqualifiedprofessionalswhohavesuccessfullyappliedforexternaltranslator/interpreter/reviserpositions.Hereinlaythereasonforestablishingthementoringprogrammein2016.

22TheorganisationalandoperationalregulationofoFFILtd.stipulatessince2015thatthebodyshallconsistoffiveexpertmembersdelegatedbyprestigioushighereducationinstitutions(associateprofes-sors,headsofdepartmentsassuminganesteemedroleintranslatorandinterpretereducation),theopera-tionofwhichisassistedbya separateorganisationalunitwithinoFFI.

23TheorganisationalandoperationalregulationofoFFILtd.inforcesince2015,SectionV/624onanannualbasis,ordersforattestedtranslationmayreachthefigureof80,000.


130

gabriellanémeth

Thedirectpassingonofexperiencebymentoringreviewersandterminologiststhroughper-sonal,liveandprofession-relatedexamplesisthebestwayforthementoreetolearnabouttheethicalaspectsreferredtointhisstudyandthemagnitudeoftranslators’orcourtinterpreters’personalresponsibilityineachgiventranslationcaseorscenario.

Through oFFi academy25, the state-owned translation bureau places great emphasisontrainings.TrainingsapplytoalloFFIcollaborators,andpersonaldevelopmentcanbeachievedintheformoftrainings,workshops,conferences,studytripsabroad,anddepart-mentmeetings.Theinstruction of project managersworkinginthefieldofinterpretingisextremelyimportant,asfindingtherightinterpreterfortherightcase(forexampleina caseinvolvinga child:a particularlykindindividualforthechildconcerned;ina seriouscriminalcase:a colleaguewhoworkswellunderintensepressureetc.)requiresadequatecommunica-tionskills,properattitude,a high levelofproblem-solving, instantdecision-makingskillsanda consensus-seekingattitudethatcanbedevelopedviatrainings.WithinoFFIacademy,apartfromdevelopmentinlanguage,grammarandlinguisticissuesviaconferencesorinter-nalworkshops, interpretersalsohavetheoccasionalopportunitytoattendso-calledsafetytrainings.Forletusnotforget:theinterpreterprofessionisa sensitiveandpotentiallyriskyfieldtoo26,whichbyallmeansmayrequireextraattentionfrominterpreterswhowishtoactethically.

Ihope that theabove thoughtsof a legalprofessionaloncertainprofessions fulfillingpublicduties inthefieldof justiceshallcontributetoconcludingthat:court and official interpreting in the judicial system is a highly responsible activity,andifanydamageissufferedintheprocess,thesocialtrustinjusticemaybedirectlyaffected.Thus,itisa specialpleasuretohavethepossibilityinthisvolumeofstudiestohighlighttheresponsibility of translators and interpretersparticipatinginlegalcases,andtheimportanceofquestionsandriskspertainingtoprofessionalandethicalresponsibilityarisinginthefieldofjustice,notonlythroughtheexamplesofotherprofessionsinthefieldofjustice,butalsothoughpre-sentingoFFILtd.’sorganisationalfeatures,togetherwithsomesolutionsandgoodpracticesappearinginitsmedium-termorganisationaldevelopmentstrategy,approvedfortheperiod2016-2018.

25oFFIacademyisaninternalbrandofoFFILtd.,withitsowntrainingactivityfocus,basicallyconsist-ingof3pillars:i)trainingofallworkers(forexampleclientservices,projectmanagers),ii)trainingofleaders(headsoforganisationalunits),iii)trainingoflanguageprofessionals(employeesoftherelevantdepartment).

26See,forexample,migrationaffairsthatareevertopicalnowadays,orinterpretingatbiginternationalstateconferences,etc.


131

the iMPaCt oF audiovisual translations on the language use oF the target

language audienCe

judit sereg

[email protected]

abstract: Inthispaper,a researchispresentedwhichwasconductedin2016in6primaryschoolsinBudapest.Morethan300studentsfilledouta questionnaireconsistingof11questionsrelatedtotherespondents’consumptionoftranslatedaudiovisualmaterialsandtheirlanguageuse.Theaimoftheresearchwastoprovethatthelanguageofaudiovisualtranslationscanhaveanimpactonthelanguageuseofthetargetlanguagepopulation,canaddnewmeaningstowords,makepreviouslyincorrectorunnaturalexpressionsincreasinglyacceptableandinstallnewexpressionsintothetargetlanguage.Theresearch’stheoreticalbackgroundisprovidedbythepolysystemtheoryofeven-Zohar(1978)whichwasappliedtothefieldofaudiovisualtranslation(aVT)bydiazCintas(2004).Theresultsoftheresearchcorroboratethehypothesisthattranslations(includingaudiovisualtranslations)infacthaveanimpactonthedevelopmentofthetargetlanguage,althoughtheextentandin-depthexaminationofthisimpactmaybethesubjectoffurtherresearch.Keywords: audiovisual translation, dubbing, language use, polysystem theory, audience-focusedresearch

1. introduCtion

asa practisingaudiovisualtranslatorI havebecomeincreasinglysensitivetounnaturaltrans-lationsandmistranslationsindubbedandsubtitledtelevisionprogrammes.However,whentalkingwithmembersoftheoldergeneration,I startedtorealisethatwe,theyoungergenera-tionaremoreacceptingofcertainlinguisticelementscomingfromforeignlanguagesthantheyare,butwhenlisteningtothelanguageuseoftheyoungergeneration(thoseinprimaryandsecondaryschoolespecially),I sometimesfeelshockedhearingtheforeignexpressions,borrowedinunchangedformfromanotherlanguage,beingusednaturallyintheiroraldis-courses.Thatwastheinitialobservationwhichmademewanttoconducta researchwhichmightbeabletoshowhowtranslations–especiallyforeignisingtranslations–mightshapethelanguageuseofthenewgenerations,whoaremuchmoreexposedtoaudiovisualcontentsandtranslatedlanguagethanthepreviousgenerations.

Iconducteda questionnaire-basedresearchwithstudentsbetweentheageof13and16years,andassessedtheirtelevisionviewinghabitsandlanguageusethrougha fewlinguisticphenomenaidentifiedbymyselfandotherexpertsofTranslationStudiesthroughourday-to-dayexperiences.Myresearchisbasedonthepostulatesofthepolysystemtheoryandthecharacteristicsoftheaudiovisualtranslationmodes,especiallydubbing,whichisthemostcommonlyusedmethodofaudiovisualtranslation(aVT)ontheHungarianmarket.


132

JuditSereg

Inthispaper,I presentthetheoreticalbasisformyresearch,thedesignandcircumstancesoftheresearch,whichwasconductedin6primaryschoolsinBudapestin2016,andthere-sultsofthequestionnairesfilledoutbymorethan300students.

2. the PolysysteM theory in audiovisual translation

accordingtothepolysystemtheoryoutlinedbyeven-Zoharbetween1970and1977“semi-oticsystems[…]co-existdynamicallywithina particularculturalsphere”(diazCintas2004:22),takinga centralorperipheralpositionwithinthesystem.Translationshavea placewithintheliterarysystemofa givenculture.While“original”literatureistheresultof“primary”activitywhichis“presumedtobethatactivitywhichtakestheinitiativeincreatingnewitemsandmodelsfortherepertoire”(even-Zohar1978:7),translatedliteratureistheresultof“sec-ondary”activitywhich“isconceivedofasa derivatory,conservatoryandsimplificatoryactiv-ity”(even-Zohar1978:7).Basedonthisdichotomy“thewholecorpusoftranslatedliterature[can]beconsideredsecondarysystems”(even-Zohar1978:16).

Theliteraturepolysystemwasfurtherdichotomisedintocanonisedandnon-canonisedsystems:

By“canonised”literaturewemeanroughlywhatisusuallyconsidered“major”literature:thosekindsofliteraryworksacceptedbythe“literarymilieu”andusuallypreservedbythecommunityaspartofitsculturalheritage.ontheoth-erhand,“non-canonized”literaturemeansthosekindsofliteraryworksmoreoftenthannotrejectedbytheliterarymilieuaslacking“aestheticvalue”andrelativelyquicklyforgotten,e.g.,detectivefiction,sentimentalnovels,westerns,pornographicliterature,etc.(even-Zohar1978:15).

even-Zoharrealisedthenecessitytoincludetranslatedliteratureinthepolysystemandinhis1976essayonthesubjecthewrote“Iconceiveoftranslatedliteraturenotonlyasa systeminitsownright,butasa systemfullyparticipatinginthehistoryofthepolysystem,asanintegralpartofit,relatedwithalltheotherco-systems”(even-Zohar1978:22).Translatedliteraturecanmaintainprimarya positionwithintheliterarypolysystem–thefactthatoftenthemostac-knowledgedliteraryauthorsarealsotranslatorsofimportantforeignliteratureandtheprocessofselectingwhichliteraryworksaretranslatedareshapingtheliterarypolysystem.even-Zoharenumeratesthreepossiblesituationswherethetranslatedliteraturecanhavea primaryposition:

(a)whena polysystemhasnotyetbeencrystallised,thatistosay,whena litera-tureis“young,”intheprocessofbeingestablished;(b)whena literatureiseither“peripheral”or“weak,”orboth;and(c)whenthereareturningpoints,crises,orliteraryvacuumsina literature(even-Zohar1978:24).

Inotherinstances,translatedliteratureholdsa secondaryplacewithinthepolysystemand“hasnoinfluenceonmajorprocessesandismodelledaccordingtonormsalreadyconvention-allyestablishedbyanalreadydominanttype”(even-Zohar1978:25).


133

TheImpactofaudiovisualTranslationsontheLanguageuse…

However,itdoesnotmeanthattranslatedliteratureiseitherwhollyprimaryorwhollysec-ondarywithinthepolysystemsince“[o]nesectionoftranslatedliteraturemayassumea primaryposition,anothermayremainsecondary”andusuallyitisthe“portionoftranslatedliteraturederivingfrommajorsourceliteraturewhichislikelytoassumea primaryposition”(even-Zohar1978:25).However,even-Zoharsaysthathisownresearch“indicatesthatthe“normal”posi-tionassumedbytranslatedliteraturetendstobethesecondaryone.”(even-Zohar1978:26)

Buthowcanweapplythepolysystemtheoryforthespecificfieldofaudiovisualtranslation?JorgediazCintasappliesthetheoryofpolysystemstothefilmpolysystemofSpainwhich“ismadeupofthenationalproductsandthetranslatedones−dubbedorsubtitled”(diazCintas2004:23), and alsopoints out an importantdifferencebetween the literary and thefilmpolysystemsofthecountry:whileintheliterarypolysystemtranslatedliterature’s“normal”positionisthesecondaryone,itisnotsointhecaseofthefilmpolysystem.asheputsit,

[g]iventhefactthatinSpainuSatranslatedfilmsaremorenumerousthanthenationalones,attractlargernumberofspectatorsandgeneratemorerevenue,itseemslegitimatetosaythattheyoccupya primarypositionandtheSpanishfilmsa secondaryposition(diazCintas2004:25).

ItisanimportantstatementespeciallywhentalkingaboutlanguagesoflesserdistributionandeconomiesfarsmallerthanthatoftheuS(orinthatcaseSpainitself),wherethenationalfilmmakingindustryissmallerbeyondallcomparisonthanthedistributionofforeignfilms–whichisdefinitelytrueinthecaseofHungary.

anotherimportantremarkofdiaz-Cintasisthefactthata similardichotomyofcanon-isedandnon-canonisedgroupsofaudiovisualproductscanberecognisedwithinthefilmpolysystemandthroughtheresearchconductedonaudiovisualtranslation.Heremarksthat“filmorcinematographicpolysystemistoolimitedtofilmsandneglectsotherproductsoftheaudiovisualworldthatarealsotranslatedsuchasTVseries,documentaries,cartoons,soapoperas,commercialsorcorporatevideos”(diaz-Cintas2004:25).

3. audienCe-FoCused researChes in audiovisual translation

Basedontheabovewecanassumethattranslatedaudiovisualproductsarepresentandhavesomekindofimpactonthenationalcultureofa certaincountry.Butwhatkindofimpactarewereallytalkingabout?Itissurprisinglyhardtofinda concreteanswertothisquestion.audiovisual translation itself has been researchedwidelywithin the scopeofTranslationStudiesinthelastfewdecades.Itisa currentandpopularsubject,andvariouspublicationsdealwithquestionsofnorms,cultural transfer, translationstrategies inaudiovisualtrans-lation(tonamebuta few).Inthe Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation StudiesBakerandHochelevenstatethat“anyformofaudiovisualtranslation,includingdubbing,ultimatelyplaysa uniqueroleindevelopingbothnationalidentitiesandnationalstereotypes”(BakerandHochel1998:76).Still,thenumberofpublicationsdealingwiththeimpactofaudiovisualtranslationsonthetargetlanguagesystemandonthetargetlanguageaudiencesislimitedbothinnumbersandinscope.


134

JuditSereg

Thisimbalanceinresearchisstressedingambier’s(2009)paperinwhichheproposesa differentiationbetweenthreetypesofreception:response,reactionandrepercussion,al-thoughthefirst twoarerelatedtosubtitles(notdubbing)dealingwith issuesof legibilityandreadabilityandthethirdisa kindofattitudinalissueandsocioculturaldimensionofthereception.Thepossiblelinguisticimpactofthelanguageoftranslatedaudiovisualproductsisnottakenintoconsideration.However,gambierproposesrelevantmethodsfortheresearchofreceptionincludingtheuseofquestionnaires,interviewsandexperimentalmethods–butagain,thesuggestionsaresolelyrelatedtothereceptionofsubtitles.

ChaumeVarelapresentsa “possiblesetofqualitystandards”fordubbing“motivatedbytheimplicitpresenceofanidealviewerorspectatorinthetargetpolysystem”(ChaumeVarela2007:71).Whilehisapproachtothequalitystandardsandnormsoftranslationfordub-bingisdefinitelyanaudience-orientedone,inhispaperhedealswith“anidealviewer,anabstraction”(ChaumeVarela2007:73)andonlymentionstheimportanceofconductingtrueresearchonaudiencegroups.Whenlistingtheexpectationsofthis“idealviewer”,ChaumeVarelamostlyenumeratesphenomenarelatedtothe“technical”characteristicsofdubbing(e.g.respectforarticulationandbodymovement,coherencebetweenwhatisheardandwhatisseen,technicalconventions)andmentionsonlyoneexpectationstrictlyrelatedtothetargetlanguage,thatis“writingofcredibleandrealisticdialogues,accordingtotheoralregistersofthetargetlanguage”(ChaumeVarela2007:74).Healsodefines“theultimateaimofdub-bing”whichis“tocreatea believablefinalproductthatseemsreal,thattricksusasspectatorsintothinkingwearewitnessinga domesticproduction,witheasilyrecognisedcharactersandrealisticvoices”(ChaumeVarela2007:75).Moreinterestingly,hementionsthatthetranslateddialogue“mustbeacceptableaccording to thecanonical standardsofanaudiovisual texttranslatedintothetargetlanguage”(ChaumeVarela2007:79).Bythishemakesaninterest-ingassumption:whiletheaimofthedialogueoftranslatedfilmsistocreateacceptableandrealisticlanguage,itseemsthatthisacceptableandrealisticlanguageisnotthesameasthe“real”targetlanguageineverydayoraluse.Itis“aprefabricated,artificial,non-spontaneousoralregister”(ChaumeVarela2007:82)which“shouldsoundasthoughithasnotinfactbeenwritten”(ChaumeVarela2007:79).

authorsdifferonwhatthegoalofdubbingis.Baker(1998)appliesHouse’sterminology(House1981)todubbingandsaysitcanbeviewedasa “primeinstanceofovert translation […]”.Inotherwords,“adubbedfilmorprogramisalwaysovertlypresentedandperceivedasa translation”(BakerandHochel1998:76).Howeverotherauthorsarguethatthemostimpor-tantgoalofdubbingistocreateanillusion:theillusionofauthenticlanguage,asifitwasorigi-nallywritteninthetargetlanguage.asdries(1995)putsit,it“shouldbeabsolutelyconvincingtotheaudience.dubbingshouldcreatetheperfectillusionofallowingtheaudiencetoexperi-encetheproductionintheirownlanguagewithoutdiminishinganyofthecharacteristicsoftheoriginallanguage,cultureandnationalbackgroundoftheproduction”(dries1995:9).accordingtoParini(2009),“[t]hepurposeofthetranslationcanbeinterpretedasanattempttoproduceinthespectatorswhowatchthefilminthetargetlanguagethesameresponseasthespectatorswhoviewthefilminthesourcelanguage”(Parini2009:293).Butthroughthedifferencesinapproachonenecessarycharacteristicismentionedinalmosteverypaperdealingwithdubbing:thatisthe need to create the impression of natural language.


135


Whitman-Linsenremarksthat“artificialityisoneofthemainfaultspilloriedindenounce-mentsofdubbedversions:theaudiencecanhear thatisnotanoriginal.dubbedlanguagesimplydoesnotcorrespondtothewaynormalpeopletalk”(Whitman-Linsen1992:118).Thisviewleadstothenotionof“dubbese”,thespecificlanguageofdubbingproducts,definedbyIaia(2015):

dubbing is supposed tocreate and spreada peculiar, artificial language,de-fined“dubbese”[…].Thetermdenotesaneasily-recognisableformoflanguage,whosepeculiarfeatureshavecausedtheaudiencetoperceiveitasan“estranged”meansofcommunicationthatdoesnotcorrespondtothatusedineveryday,face-to-faceconversations,butwhichisnonethelessacceptedandrecognisedastypicalofaudiovisualtexts(Iaia2015:11).

4. PraCtiCal researChes on the audienCe oF audiovisual translations

as for practical research conducted on the audience of translated audiovisual products,I wouldliketohighlightfoursuchresearches.BucariaandChiaro(2007)conductedanex-perimentshowinga corpusofclipsfromamericanTVseriesdubbedintoItaliantosamplesofviewersmadeupofcinemaandTVexperts,linguists,practitionersofdubbingandlaymenofthegeneralpublic.Theclipsincludedproblematicelementsfocusingonculture-specificreferencesandexamplesof“dubbese”.Theviewershadtofillouta questionnaireafterwatch-ingtheclips.Thequestionnaires’aimwastodeterminehowmuchrespondentswereabletounderstandandenjoythecontentoftheselectedclips.

Fromthepointofviewofmyownresearchthemostimportantfeatureoftheresearchwastheinclusionoflanguagespecificfeatures.Theresearchanalysedthe“audienceawarenessandperceptionof Italiandubbesewhich is heavilymarkedwith formulaic features com-monlyadoptedindubbedproduce”(BucariaandChiaro2007:110),includinglessfrequentsolutionsfortypicalenglishformsandcalquesforoftenoccurringenglishwordsorexpres-sions.respondentswereaskedtomarktheItalian,translatedversions’naturalness.Theresultsclearlyshowedthatsometargetlanguagesolutionswhicharenotatallfrequentoracceptablein“natural”spokenItalianhavebecomeacceptableinthetranslatedspokenlanguagethroughtheirfrequencyintranslatedaudiovisualproducts.asa conclusion,theauthorsremarkedthat“suchmassiveexposuretodubbese appearstobenumbingpeople’ssensitivitytowhatisandisnotreal spokenItalian”(BucariaandChiaro2007:115).Itisanextremelyimportantstate-mentwhichI hopedtoconfirmbymyownresearchaswell.

antonini(2009)conductedanotherresearchontheperceptionofculturalreferencesindubbingwitha carefullyselectedcorpusandwithrandomrespondentsofthegeneralaudienceofaudiovisualproductsandresultsshowedthattherewas“greatdiscrepancybetweenwhattheviewersthinktheyunderstandofthehugeamountofculture-specificreferencestheyareexposedtoona dailybasis,andwhattheyactuallydounderstand”(antonini2009).Itseemstoprovethattheimpactoftranslationisnotsomethingthatisa conscious,reflectedeffectonthemindoftheviewerbuta processhappeninginthebackground,mostlyunconsciously.


136

JuditSereg

TheaboveresearchwasfurtherelaboratedbyantoniniandChiaro(2009).IntheirpaperoneofthequestionstheywantedtoanswerwaswhethertheviewersofdubbedproductsareawarethatmanymediatedlinguisticformsareunusualinnaturalspokenItalian.Theyalsoexaminedtheacceptabilityof lingua-culturalshortcomingsanddifferences inthepercep-tionbasedontheage,genderandothercharacteristicsoftheviewers.asfortheviewersoftranslatedaudiovisualmaterials theymadea mostly instinctivebutdefinitelynoteworthyassumption:

Itcanbesafelyassumedthatrecipientsoftranslations,thatistosay,theconsum-ersofthesetranslations,aremainlythosewhoarenotau fait withtheSourceLanguageandthatsuchviewersperhapswouldrathernotperceivetranslationsastranslations.Presumablymostrecipientswouldliketoheara smooth,easilydigestibletextintheirmothertongueand,inthecaseofaVT,althoughwhatappearsonthescreenmaybeunfamiliar,whatisperceivedthroughtheears(inthecaseofdubbing)shouldbeidentifiableandfreeofturbulenceofanysort(antoniniandChiaro2009:100).

They conducted their research with a 300 hours’ corpus of Italian-dubbed fictional pro-grammesthrougha webquestionnaire.Therespondentshadtowatchfourvideoclipsandan-sweronequestionperclip.Inthecaseoflanguage-specificfeaturestherespondentswereaskedtodeterminehowlikelya certainexpressionwastoappear innaturallyoccurringItalian.accordingtotheresultsrespondentsabovetheageof50appearedtobemoreorientedtowardsconsideringtheappearanceofthegenerally“dubbese”expressionsunnatural,whileyoungerpeopletendedtoacceptthemmorereadily.Inthewordsoftheauthors:

TheItaliandubbingindustryappearstobeproducinga nationofviewerswhoaresufferingfroma syndromeoflinguisticbipolarity.ontheonehand,theyareawarethatTVdubbeseisunlikerealItalian,ontheotherhandtheyarewillingtoacceptitbutaslongasitremainsonscreen(antoniniandChiaro2009:111).

Thisresultisinfactanexcellentindicatorofhowconstantexposuretodubbed(andotherwisetranslated)contentmaychangetheperceptionofpeopleregardinglinguisticfeatures–a basichypothesisofmyownresearch.

Widler (2004) conducted a survey in Vienna with 100 viewers of subtitled films inViennesecinemasin2002.Thequestionsofthesurveywererelatedtotheeducationalandprofessionalbackground, languageknowledgeandageof thecinema-goersandexaminedhowoftentheviewersgotothecinemaandwhytheywatchsubtitledfilmsinsteadofdubbedversions.Basedontheresultsitwasconfirmedthatthemajorityoftheviewerswhopreferredsubtitledmovieswereregularcinema-goerswithuniversitydegree.Italsoturnedoutthattheybelievedthatwatchingsubtitledmoviesisa toolforlanguagelearningandtheyweregenerallyhappywiththequalityofsubtitles.


137


Basedontheaboveitisascertainablethatmostauthorsagreeandinstinctivelyfeelthataudiovisualtranslationshavesomekindofimpactonthetargetaudience,beitculturalorlinguistic.Itisassumedandhypothesised,buthasbeenprovenonlyindirectly.Thepresentedresearchisalsobasedonthisassumption,butitsaimwastofindevidencethatthelanguageofaudiovisualtranslations,especiallythatof“dubbese”hasa demonstrableimpactonthelanguageuseofthetargetlanguageviewers.

5. audiovisual translation in hungary

accordingtothe2016nielsenaudiencemeasurementstheaveragetimespentdailywatch-ingtelevisioninHungarywas4hoursand16minutes.ThisnumberisamongthehighestineuropeandcomesclosetothetimespentwatchingtelevisionintheuS(4hoursand47minutes)1,thelargestproducerandconsumeroftelevisionprogrammes.WecansafelysaythatforanaverageHungarianwatchingtelevisionismorethana parttimejob.

Traditionaltelevisionfacesa newchallengeinthedigitaleraeversincethenumberofdownloaded films and audiovisual contents have been on the rise. However, audiovisualtranslationisnotaffectedasmuch.Youngeraudiencesmightpreferdownloadingcontenttowatchingitona traditionalTV,butthatdoesn’tmeanthattheirforeignlanguageproficiencyisuptopartowatchprogrammesintheoriginallanguage.andforaslongasthelanguageknowledgeislacking,translationswillbeneededandusedbythem.Itisnotwithinthescopeofthecurrentpapertodiscusstheimplicationsofusingun-editedfan-subtitlesinsteadofof-ficial,editedandproof-readones,althoughitmightbeaninterestingsubjectinfurtherassess-ingtheimpactofaudiovisualtranslationsonthelanguageuseoftheyoungergeneration.

Hungary,althougha relativelysmallcountrywithrelativelysmalleconomicpower,hasbeena dubbingcountryfromthebeginningoftelevisionandthecinema.Wemightsafelysaythatitisnotduetoeconomicconsiderations,simplya forceofhabitthateventodaydub-bingisthepreferredmethodofaudiovisualtranslationforthecinemas,andalmosttheonlyusedmethodfortranslatingfictionalgenresfortelevision,whilethepreferredmethodfornon-fictionalprogrammessuchasdocumentaries,realityshowsandnatureprogrammesisvoice-over.Subtitlingsofarhasbeensolelyusedforartmoviesandblockbustermovies,butinthecaseofthelatter,almostalwaystogetherwiththedubbedversion,asa selectableoptionforthecinema-goerspreferringtheoriginalsoundtrack.asforaudiovisualtranslation–andmostlythedubbingindustry–thesituationinHungaryisquitesimilartothatdescribedbyantoniniandChiaro(2009)inItaly:

Withglobalisationdictatingthatfilmsshouldbepremieredsimultaneouslyonbothsidesof theatlantic,manyoperatorsworking inItaly’sdubbingsectorwhoarefeelingthestrainofsucha greatworkload,poorwagesandworkingconditionshavebeguntotakeissuewiththeiremployers(antoniniandChiaro2009:99).

1https://www.statista.com/statistics/186833/average-television-use-per-person-in-the-us-since-2002/


138

JuditSereg

Furthermore,theynotethat

[i]na totallyanarchicmarket,a filmwhichoncerequiredthreeweekstodubfromstart tofinish, inthenewmillenniumnecessitatesthesametasktobecompletedinfivedaysorelseitrunstheriskofbeingsenttoa smallmake-do‘doityourself ’companywillingtocomplywitha lowerfeeanda quickanddirtytranslation(antoniniandChiaro2009:100).

It istruethatqualityhastakena backseatintheworldofdubbing.InHungary,thelarg-estdubbingstudiosrecordthedubbedversionofa movieinjusta fewdays,andrecord3-445-minutevoice-overprogrammesina dayinonestudio.Workpressure,strictdeadlinesandlowwageshavea strongimpactonthequalityoftranslationsaswell.usuallythereisnotimeormoneytoproofreadthetranslations,andduetothefast-pacedrecordingmanymistakesandunnaturaltranslationsaremakingtheirwayintothefinishedandbroadcastedproducts.

anotherimportantfactoristhatHungary’sowntelevisionandfilmproductionindustryisrelativelysmall.ThenumberofHungarianmoviesproduceda yearisunder100,andmostofthemnevermakeittothebigscreen,andeveniftheydo,theiraudiencefiguresaremuchlowerthanthatof largeHollywoodproductions.onanygivendayeventhelargestcom-mercialtelevisionchannelsbroadcastforeign(thustranslated)programmesmorethan40%oftheirbroadcastingtimeandthesmaller,thematicchannelshardlyeverbroadcastanythingoriginallyproducedinHungarian.Therefore,televisionviewersandcinema-goersaremostlyexposedtotranslatedaudiovisualcontent.

BasedontheabovedatawecansafelyassumethatanaverageHungarianislisteningto“dubbese”morethan10hoursa week,whichseemstobepointingtothehypothesisthatthelanguageofdubbedaudiovisualproductsmusthavesomekindofimpactonthelanguageuseoftheviewers.Thegoalofthisresearchwastoprovethishypothesisandfindsomespecificexamplesofthisimpact.

6. the setuP oF the researCh

TheresearchwasconductedbetweenaprilandJune2016in6primaryschoolsinBudapestwiththeparticipationof318studentsin7thand8thgrade(agedbetween13and16).Thestudentswereaskedtofillouta questionnaire(seeannexe1)consistingof11numberedquestions,inperson.In4casesI wasabletoattendtheclassesinpersonanddescribetheaimofthequestionnaire,inthecaseof2schoolsI senta detaileddescriptionofthequestionnairetotheteachershelpingmyresearch.

Iconducteda pilotinoneschool,withtwoclasses(7thand8thgrade),andmodifiedmyquestionnaireaccordingtotheresultsofthequestionnairesandthestudents’feedback.Thefinalquestionnaireconsistedof11questions,3open-endedand8multiplechoicequestions.Question 1wasrelatedtotheageoftherespondent,theaimofQuestions 2 to 4wastoassesstheaudiovisualcontentconsumptionhabitsoftherespondentsandQuestions 5 to 11werequestionsrelatedtospecificlinguisticphenomena.

Whenselectingthetargetgroupoftheresearch,I wantedtochooseanagegroupwhichisequallyexposedtoaudiovisualcontentinthecinemas,ontelevisionandontheinternet,has


139


somekindofforeignlanguageknowledgeandcanbethesourceofthelanguage’sdevelop-mentbyopennesstousenewwordsandexpressionsanda lessconservativeapproachtothe“rulesoflanguageuse”.Primaryschoolstudentswithintheagegroup13−16seemedtobeanappropriatechoicebasedontheabovecriteria.

Thelinguisticfeaturesexaminedinthequestionnairewereselectedbasedonmyownex-periencewithdubbedaudiovisualcontentsanddiscussionswithotherprofessionalsfromthedubbingindustry,andfromtheTranslationStudiesPhdprogram.Thequestionsincludedinstanceswheretheoriginalmeaningofa certainHungarianwordgot“sidetracked”inaudio-visualtranslationduetoerroneoustranslationsbasedonsimilarityinform.Question 7includ-edexpressionswheretheenglishformofcertainwordsappearedmoreandmorefrequentlyintranslatedaudiovisualcontents,Questions 8 and 9includedwordswhichwereusedinnewcontextsbasedontheir similarity in formtoneologisms frequentlyappearing infictionalenglishtelevisionprogrammesandmovies,andQuestions 10 and 11wereopen-endedques-tionsaskingtherespondentstodefinethemeaningoftwoexpressionsinHungarianwhichare recognisable calques fromenglish expressions andhaven’t existed inoriginal,naturalHungarian.Thequestionsandwordsarepresentedindetailinthenextsectionofthispaperalongwiththepresentationofresults.

7. analysis

Theresultsofthequestionnairearepresentedseparately,withtheexplanationofthespecificquestionandtheexaminedexpression.

7.1 Question 1: age

Figure 1:Theageofrespondents

asdemonstratedinFigure 1withintheexaminedgroup34%oftherespondentswere13yearsold,48%14yearsoldand16%15yearsold.only2(lessthan1%)studentswereolder,16yearsold.3peopledidnotanswerthisquestion.

7.2 Question 2: time sPent watching media Programmes

InQuestion 2I examinedhowmuchtimetherespondentsspentwatchingfilms,televisionseriesandtelevisionprogrammesdaily(irrespectiveofthemediumtheyarewatchingthemon).ascanbeseeninFigure 2126(40%)oftherespondentswatchaudiovisualcontent1-2hoursperday.59(19%)watch2-3hoursperdayand16(5%)morethan3hoursa day.113(36%)oftherespondentswatchlessthan1hourofaudiovisualcontentdaily.


140

JuditSereg

Figure 2:Timespentwatchingaudiovisualcontentperday

7.3 Question 3: language Preference

InQuestion 3I examinedthepreferencesoftherespondentsregardingthetypeofaudiovisualtranslations.Theyhadtochoosehowoftentheywatchforeignmovies/televisionprogrammeswithHungariandubbing,withHungariansubtitle,withsubtitleintheoriginallanguageandwithoutsubtitles.

Figure 3:Languagepreference

Basedonthenumbersitcanbeseenthatalthoughthemembersofthegroupofrespondentsallhavesomekindofforeignlanguageknowledge(theyallstudiedenglishasa secondorthirdlan-guage),dubbingisstilltheirpreferredmethodofwatchingforeignlanguageprogrammes.17%ofthemsaidthatit’stheonlywaytheywatchaudiovisualcontent,andfor51%itwasdeemedtobethemostoftenpreferredmethod.BasedontheanswersthesecondmostpreferredaudiovisualtranslationmethodfortherespondentsisHungariansubtitles.27%oftherespondentsoften


141


watchprogrammesthisway,andonly6%ofthemansweredthattheyneverwatchtelevisionpro-grammesandmoviesthisway.Theleastpreferredmethodsaresubtitlesintheoriginallanguage,whichwasthemostpreferredmethodofonly2%oftherespondentsandneverusedby47%,andwatchingmovieswithoutsubtitles(neverusedby44%andoftenorexclusivelyusedbyonly18%).

7.4 Question 4: viewing habits

WithQuestion 4I triedtofindoutwhatkindofprogrammestherespondentswatchandhowoften.Therespondentshadtomarkhowoftentheywatchedmovies,TVseries,infotainmentprogrammes,realityshows,cartoons,talkshowstogetherwithstand-upcomedyprogrammesandmusicprogrammes.

Figure 4:Viewinghabits

Basedontheresultsitturnedoutthattherespondentswatchedfictionalprogrammes,movies,TVseriesandcartoonsthemostoften.realityshowsseemtobetheleastpopulargenreamongtheexaminedprogrammeswithinthegroupofrespondents.Infotainmentprogrammesturnedouttobea bitmorepopularwithinthegroupofrespondentsthantalkshowsandmusicprogrammes.

7.5 Question 5: translation of patetikus “full of Pathos”Question 5was thefirstquestion related to a language-specificphenomenonwhichneedsa shortexplanation.Theadjective“pathetic”isa frequentlyusedslangexpressioninfictionalprogrammes,especiallyininformalcontextwhereitisusedtosignalthatsomeoneismiser-ablyinadequateinsomeregard.InHungarian,theequivalenttranslationwouldbeszánal-mas “miserable”,howevera word similar in form is alsoexisting inHungarian:patetikus.The meaningofpatetikusisbynomeansclosetothemeaningoftheenglish word pathetic.


142

JuditSereg

It is a less frequently usedword,meaningsomethingisfullofpathosandsolemnity.never-theless,theenglishwordpatheticisveryoftentranslatedincorrectlyinTVprogrammeswiththeHungariannon-equivalentpatetikus.Wemayevenassumethattheexaminedagegroupmightcomeacrossthismistranslationmoreoftenthanthewordpatetikusinitsoriginalcon-text.InQuestion5therespondentshadtochoosethemeaningoftheHungarianword,pate-tikus.Thethreeoptionswere:szánalmas“pathetic”,ünnepélyes “fullofpathos”andellenszenves “disagreeable”.

Figure 5:Patetikus

ascanbeseenonthepiechart,121respondents,almosthalf(41%)oftherespondentshavechosenthemeaningsclosertothemeaningoftheenglishwordpathetic,andonly96(32%)ofthe298respondentshavechosenthelinguisticallycorrectanswer.Whatismoreinterestingisthefactthatthelargestnumberofrespondentshavechosenthemeaningdisagreeable,whichisnotthelexicalmeaningofpathetic,butwhichcanbederivedfromtheuseofthewordininformalcontextsinmoviesandfictionalTVprogrammes.

7.6 Question 6: translation of epikus “ePic”

Figure 6:epikus

Question 6wassimilartoQuestion 5andexamineda similarcase.Inthatquestion,I examinedtheHungarianwordepikus,whichinHungarianmeansepic,butonlyusedwhentalking


143


abouttheliterarygenre,theheroicpoem(e.g.odysseybyHomer).Inenglish,thewordepicisoftenusedininformal,oralcontexttodescribesomethingwhichislegendaryandextraor-dinaryinsomeregard.ThisusageseemstobemoreandmorefrequentinuSTVseriesandmoviesoflate.However,thisnewuseisoftentranslatedwiththeHungarianwordepikus,evenwhenusedinanothercontext.Therespondentshadtochoosefromthreemeanings:elbeszélő“heroicpoem”,érzelmes“emotional”andlegendás“legendary”.

Basedontheresultsitturnedoutthatmostoftherespondents(210,67.5%)knewthecor-rectHungarianmeaningoftheword.However,a smalldeviationcanstillbedetectable,since77ofthe311respondents(25%),havechosenthealternativemeaning,legendás/legendary.

7.7 Question 7: dna, silicon valley, uranium and morPhine

Question 7hasproventobethemostproblematicanditsresultsarethemostquestionable.Inthatquestion,therespondentshadtochoosethecorrectformoffourHungarianwordsoftenmistranslatedintelevisionprogrammes,especiallyininfotainmentanddocumentaryprogrammes.Inallfourcases,theyhadtheoptiontochoosethecorrectHungarianform,theenglish-based,incorrectformortheanswer“both”.aftertheanalysationoftheresultsofthequestionnairesitturnedoutthatthedesignofthequestionmayhavebeenmisleadingforthestudents,andsincethequestionwasnotunambiguous,theresultsmaynotbewhollyrepresentativeoftheknowledgeofthestudents.althoughtheresultsmaynotbeconsideredvalid,I presentthemherekeepinginmindtheabovereservations.

ThefirstexaminedexpressionwastheHungarianversionofdna.ThecorrectHungariantranslationofdnaisDNS,butithappensquiteoftenthatitisleftinitsenglishforminaudiovisualtranslatedprogrammes.

Figure 7:dna

Inthisquestion,aswellasinthefollowingthree,respondentswereaskedtochoosewhichformtheydeemtobecorrect:dna(whichisborrowedincorrectlyfromenglish),DNS(thecorrectHungariantranslation)orboth.asseeninFigure7,54%oftherespondentsthoughtthatbothversionsarecorrect,andlessthanhalfoftherespondents(45%)havechosenthecorrectHungariantranslationastheonlycorrectoption.


144

JuditSereg

The secondexamined expressionwasSzilícium-völgy, the correct translationofSiliconValley.SinceszilikonisanexistingwordinHungarian,meaninga typeofplasticusedforex-ampleinplasticsurgeries,SiliconValleyisoftentranslatedincorrectlytoSzilikon-völgyinsteadofSzilícium-völgyintoHungarian.

Figure 8:SiliconValley

Inthatcasethemajorityofrespondents(86%)knowthatthecorrectversionisSzilícium-völgy,andonly33%thoughtthatbothversionsarecorrect.onlya negligible3%havechosentheincorrectSzilikon-völgy.

Thecaseissimilarwiththethirdexaminedexpression,urán.Theshortversion,uránisthecorrectHungariantranslationofuranium,butitismoreandmoreoftentranslatedtoa longerformwhichissimilartotheenglishversion:uránium.

Figure 9:uranium

Inthatcase,themajorityoftherespondents(72%)thoughtthatbothversions–theshorterandlinguisticallycorrecturán,andthelongerversionborrowedfromenglish(uránium)arecorrect.

Itisalmostthesamewiththethirdexpression,morfium,whichisthecorrecttranslationofmorphine,a wordthatisoftenmistranslatedtoa formclosertotheenglishone:morfin.


145


Figure 10:Morphine

Inthislastcase,70%oftherespondentshavechosenthecorrectHungarianversion(mor-fium),only4%theincorrectform(morfin)and26%thoughtthatbothversionsarecorrect.

7.8 Questions 8 and 9: llama and geek

IexaminetheresultsofQuestions 8 and 9 inonesection,astheyaretheindicatorsofthesametypeoflinguisticinputintothetargetlanguage.Inenglishsit-comsandother(mainlyfictional)TVprogrammestheslangwordsgeekandlameareoftenusedininformaloralcontext.Geekisa slangwordmostlyusedtodescribea “peculiarperson,especiallyonewhoisperceivedtobeoverlyintellectual,unfashionable,orsociallyawkward”2.Lameinslangmeansa person“outoftouchwithmodernfadsortrends;unsophisticated”3.althoughtheyhavenorelationtotheoriginalmeaningofthewords,inHungariantheyareoftentranslatedinaudiovisualprogrammes(especiallyindubbing)withsimilarlypronouncedwords.Inthecaseof“geek”theHungariantranslationisoftengyík,whichispronouncedquitesimilarlybutinHungarianoriginallymeanslizard.Inthecaseoflame,theHungariantranslationisoftenláma,whichispronouncedquitesimilarly,butinHungarianmeansllama.

Figure 11:Llama Figure 12:geek

2http://www.dictionary.com/browse/geek 3http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lame


146

JuditSereg

Inthetwoquestions,I askedtherespondentstochoosethemeaningoftheHungarianwordsgyíkandlámaoutofthreeoptions,allowingthemtochoosemorethanoneanswer.Inthecaseoflámatheoptionswere: ügyetlen, értetlen ember“unsophisticatedperson”,emlősállat“atypeofmammal”andlomha, lusta“slow,lazy”.Inthecaseofgyíktheoptionswere:alat-tomos, sunyi“sneaky,treacherous”,kocka (ember)“nerd,sociallyawkwardperson”and hüllők egy típusa“atypeofreptile”.

Theresultshaveproventobereallyinterestingespeciallyinthecaseofgyík.Inthecaseoflámamostoftherespondents(64%)havechosenonlytheoriginalmeaningoftheword,al-though60respondents(20%)includedthemeaningderivedfromthemeaningoftheenglishwordlame,andtherewere47(16%)respondentswhounderlinedtheanswerlazyaswellasthatofmammal,whichmightbeanintuitiveanswerbasedonthecharacteristicsoftheani-mal,whichmayseemtobea bitslowandthereforelazy.

However,inthecaseoflizardsuchanassumptioncan’tbethebasisformorethanhalfoftherespondents(51%)choosingnerdasa possiblemeaningforgyíkbesidereptile.36%oftherespondentshavechosenonlyonemeaning(lizard)and13%underlinedtheanswersneakyaswell,whichagainmightbebecauseofthesneakynatureoftheanimal.

7.9 Question 10: butterflies in the stomach

Question 10wasanopen-endedquestion,andprobablypresentedthemostinterestingresults.ThequestionitselfcametomymindwhenI heardtwogirlsabouttheageof14talkingonthesubwayinBudapestabouttheirlovelife,andoneofthemsaidinHungarian“itwasnotlikehavingbutterfliesinmystomach.”ItwasreallystrangetohearthisexpressioninHungarian,asitwasnevera naturallyoccurringoneinthislanguage.TheonlywayitcouldhavebecomepartofthenaturaloralHungarianisthroughtheliteraltranslationoftheenglishversion.Inenglish,itisanoftenusedexpressiondescribingexcitement,especiallyexcitementrelatedtothepresenceofa loveinterestincasualtalk,anditisquiteoftenusedinuSTVseriesandmovies.althoughitshouldbetranslatedwithequivalentHungarianexpressions(thereareoptionsforsure),latelyitisoftentranslatedliterallyandcanbeheardinvariousTVshowsandprogrammes.

Inthequestionnaire,I askedtherespondentstodescribeintheirownwordsthemeaningoftheexpressionpillangók vannak a hasamban–whichistheliteralHungariantranslationofhavingbutterfliesinone’sstomach.Whendistributingthequestionnaire,I emphasisedthatI aminterestedinthemeaningofthisparticularHungarianexpression,butitisnotnecessarytorespond,theycanwritewhatevercomestotheirmindhearing/readingthisexpressioninHungarian.

I collected the answers and put them in groups based on keywords present in thedescriptions.

Basedontheresultswecanseethatoutofthe280responses,179(64%)listedthekeywordexcitementwhendefiningthemeaningoftheexpression.44oftherespondents(16%)alsoincludedloveintheirdefinition.29respondents(10%)connectedthemeaningtosomekindofstomach-ache(whichmightbebecausetheydidnotknowtheexpressionbuttriedtoguessitsmeaningbasedonthepicturedescribedbyit),andonly28(10%)oftherespondentshavechosenothertypesofreplies.


147


Figure 13:replies–Butterfliesinthestomach

7.10 Question 11: save the day

Thelastquestionwasanotheropen-endedquestionabouta similar expression to theonein Question 10. The english expression save the day is often translated literally in audio-visualcontents intoHungarian.Thequestionwasthesameas inthecaseofQuestion 10:I askedtherespondentstodefinetheHungarian(literallytranslated)expressionwiththeirownwords,iftheyareabletodoso.I identifiedkeywordsintherepliesandgroupedtheanswersaccordingly.

Figure 14:replies–Savetheday

oftheoverall264replies,morethanhalf,155(59%),definedthemeaningoftheexpressionasmakinga gooddaybetter.31respondents(12%)stayedclosetothisareaofmeaningbydescribingthedefinitionashelpingsomeone,doingsomethinggood.40(15%)mentionedsomekindofheroicactinthedefinition,and16(6%)wrotethattheexpressionmeanssolv-inga problem.only22(8%)oftheanswerswerecompletelydifferentfromtheother4op-tions.Inthatcaseoneinterestingreplyhassurfaced:inoneclass,threerespondentswrotethattheexpressionmeans“carryingthegame”.Thisexpressionisusedbygamers,playersofvideogames,andmeanssomeoneisspottingopportunitiestocatchanenemyandtake


148

JuditSereg

theinitiative,especiallyingamesplayedinonlinemultiplayermode.Sincethisansweronlyappearedinoneclass,butwaswrittenbythreedifferentstudents,itseemstoindicatethatexpressionscouldgainnewmeaningsinsmallsub-groupsaswell.

8. disCussion oF results

8.1 Questions 2, 3 and 4: the media consuming habits of the resPondents

InmyquestionnairewithQuestions 2, 3 and 4I examinedthemediaconsuminghabitsofa specificagegroup(studentsof7thand8thgrade).Basedontheanswersitturnedoutthatthisagegroupspentlesstimewatchingaudiovisualcontentthanthenationalaverage(basedonthe2016nielsenaudiencemeasurements),butstillspentconsiderabletimeeverydayinfrontofthetelevisionorthecomputerscreen.Therefore,mostofthemareexposedtothelanguageoftelevisionmorethan1houra day.

WithQuestion 2I examinedwhattypeofaudiovisualtranslationsthegroupofrespond-entspreferswhenwatchingmediacontent,anditbecameclearthatthisagegroup,whichismuchmoreexposedtodownloadedandon-demandcontentsthanthepreviousgenera-tions,andlearnsforeignlanguagesfroma youngage(usuallyfromthebeginningofprimaryschool), stillpreferswatchingaudiovisualcontentwithsomekindof translationaid.Thisleadstotheconclusionthatthisagegroupisstillexposedtoaudiovisualtranslations(eitherintheformofdubbingorsubtitling)quiteregularly,whichunderlinestheassumptionthatthelanguageuseofthisagegroupcanbeaffectedbythelanguageofaudiovisualtranslations,asI hypothesisedearlierinthispaper.

TheaimofQuestion 4wastogeta pictureofthecontentpreferencesoftheexaminedagegroup.Basedontheanswersitturnedoutthattheywatchedfictionalprogrammes–movies,TVseriesandcartoons–themostoften.Thesegenresareusuallydubbedorsubtitled,whichagainpointstotheconclusionthatthisagegroupisoftenexposedtosuchmodesofaudio-visualtranslations.realityshowsseemtobetheleastpopulargenreamongtheexaminedprogrammeswithinthegroupofrespondents.Infotainmentprogrammesturnedouttobea bitmorepopularwithinthegroupofrespondentsthantalkshowsandmusicprogrammes.althoughthisquestionwasnotdirectlyrelatedtoaudiovisualtranslation,thetypesofpre-ferredgenresholdimportance,becauseusuallymoviesandTVseriesaretranslatedbymoreexperienced translators andareof a higherquality than translationsof infotainmentandrealityprogrammes,whicharegenerallytranslatedbyvoice-overinHungary.Itleadsusbacktothepolysystemtheory:wecansafelysaythatmoviesandTVserieshavea centralpositionwithintheaudiovisualpolysystem,sincetheyarewatchedbythehighestnumberofviewers,andtheirtranslationisdonebythemostexperiencedtranslatorsoftheprofession.

8.2 Questions 5 and 6: new meanings through mistranslations

Therestofthequestionsexamined4distinctphenomenarelatedtotheimpactofaudiovisualtranslationsonthelanguageuseofthegroupofrespondents.Questions 5 and 6examinedtwowordsthatareoftenmistranslatedinaudiovisualtranslations,andtheresultsinonecase(pa-tetikus)confirmedthatthetranslationswereabletodeviatetheoriginalmeaningofthewordtowarda newmeaningderivedfromtheregularmistranslationoftheword.Itturnedoutthat


149


only32%oftherespondentsknewtheoriginalmeaningoftheword,and68%ofthemhavechosena meaningclosertothelook-alikeenglishversion(pathetic).a similarcasehoweverdidnotendinthesameresults,asmostoftherespondentswereabletoselectthecorrectmean-ingofanothersimilarword,epikus.Itmightbeduetothefactthattheyarestudyingliterarygenresinschool,andtheuseofepicinenglishina newkindofinformalwayisa morerecentphenomenon.Thecaseofpatetikusprovesthatmistranslationscanleadtochangesina word’smeaning.althoughwecan’tstateasa factthatthisdeviationisonlyduetomistranslationsinaudiovisualtranslations,duetotheoccurrenceofthisenglishwordinprogrammestranslatedtoHungarian,thismightdefinitelybea factorinthisinterestingchangeinlanguageuse.

8.3 Question 7: raising accePtability of english look-alikes

Question 7included4wordsoftenappearingininfotainmentprogrammesandoftenmistrans-latedintoformsmoresimilartotheenglishoriginal.unfortunately,theresultsofthequestionmightbemisleading,becausewhenI wasn’tpresentattheschoolwhenthestudentsfilledoutthequestionnaires,theteachersmighthavefailedtoclarifythatthequestionisrelatedtothecorrectHungarianform.Sincednaisthecorrectenglishformofthisword,studentsstudyingenglishmighthavechosentheanswer“both”,notbecausetheythoughtthatbotharecorrectformsinHungarian,butbecausetheyknewthatitisa correctforminenglish.Intheotherthreecases,therewerenosuchproblems,astheincorrectformsaredefinitelyHungarianwords(uránium and morfin).Ifwedisregarddnabecauseofthemisleadingnatureofthequestion,wecanseethatintwocases(SiliconValleyandmorphine)therespondentsseemedtobeawareofthecorrectformoftheHungarianversions.onlya fewofthemvotedfortheincorrectform,andonly¼ofthem(orevenlessinthecaseofSiliconValley)havereckonedbothformstobecorrect.onereasonforthatmightbethattheexaminedexpressionsarenotoftenpresentinpro-grammeswatchedbytheexaminedgroup,whichissupportedbytheresultsofQuestion 4,wheretheanswersshowedthatthestudentsrarelywatchinfotainmentanddocumentaryprogrammes.anotherpossibleexplanationisthatthemistranslationoftheexaminedwordsisnotasregularasI presumed,thereforeithadn’tbeenheardbytheexaminedgroupthatfrequently.

Thetranslationofuraniumhasbeentheonlyoneofthefourquestionswhichseemedtosupporttheideathatthefrequentoccurrenceoftheincorrectformintranslationsmightmakethisincorrectformmoreacceptable,sinceonly59ofthe310respondentshavechosenthecorrectHungarianformastheonlycorrectform,whilea largemajorityoftherespondentshavethoughtthatbothforms(theenglish-stylelongerandthecorrectHungarianversion)arecorrect.Thismightwellbeduetothefactthattheincorrectformisoftenappearingintransla-tions–althoughitmightbearguedthatitsoccurrenceisnotthemostfrequentinaudiovisualtranslations,butintranslatednewsandotherinternet-basedcontents.Therefore,itmightnotbethebestexampletoassesstheimpactofaudiovisualtranslationsonthelanguage,althoughitisstilla relevantexampleoftheimpactoftranslationsingeneralonlanguageuse.

8.4 Questions 8 and 9: new meanings from innovative translations

Questions 8 and 9presentedtwocaseswherethetranslators’innovativetranslationofnewlyemergingtargetlanguageitemsmaketheirwayintothevocabularyoftheaudienceoftrans-lations.TheresultswereunequivocalinthecaseofgeekanditsHungariantranslation,gyík,


150

JuditSereg

sincemore thanhalfof the respondents seemed toknow thenewmeaning added to thewordbytheregulartranslationofgeek.Theresultswerenotsoevidentinthecaseoflame,althoughtheanswersshowedthat20%oftherespondentshavealreadyheardthewordláma asthetranslationoflame.Thisseemstoindicatethatthenewmeaning,addedtothewordsbytranslationbasedontheword’spronunciation,isstartingtospreadamongtheviewersofaudiovisualtranslations–a newmeaningisaddedtoalreadyexistingwordsintheHungarianlanguage,andithappenedthroughtheworkoftranslators.

8.5 Questions 10 and 11: new exPressions from mirror translations

TheresultsofQuestions 10 and 11wereprobablythemostenlighteningofall.ThefactthatinthecaseofQuestion 1064%,andinthecaseofQuestion 1159%oftherespondentsexplainedtheexaminedexpressionusingthesamewordsseemstoverifytheassumptionthatnewHungarianexpressionscanbebornbymirrortranslations.Whileolderviewersmightfindsuchexpres-sionsforeignandstrange,membersoftheyoungergenerationscangetusedtohearingthemata youngerage,theycanincludetheexpressionsintheireverydayvocabularyaswell.TheresultsinthiscaseseemtosuggestthatthetwoexpressionsarespreadingamongtheHungarianyouthandstartingtobecomecompletelyacceptableinnaturalHungariandiscourseaswell.

However,a fewoftheanswerscategorisedinthe‘other’groupwerealsoquiteinstructiveandthought-provoking.oneofthemostrevealinganswerscamefromoneoftherespondentswhowrote“Iamnotusingit,butitisoftenwritteninbookswhensomeoneisinlove”.Thisinsight-fulobservationshowsthatalthoughitdoesnotcomenaturallyformostpeople,therearesomewhorealiseandareawareofinstancesof‘translationese’inwrittenandaudiovisualtranslations.

9. ConClusion

Theaimoftheresearchpresentedinthecurrentpaperwastoprovea mostlyintuition-basedhypothesisregardingtheimpactofaudiovisualtranslationsonthelanguageuseoftheaudi-enceinthetargetlanguage.Whilethepolysystemtheoryprovidesa strongtheoreticalbasisfortheassumptionthattranslatedliteraturehasa placeintheliteraturepolysystemofa cer-tainlanguage,itcouldbetakenonestepfurtheranditcouldbeassumedthatthetranslatedmovies, ormorebroadly, translated audiovisualmaterialshave a place in the audiovisualpolysystemofa language.

Theassumptionthattranslations(andbyextensionaudiovisualtranslations)haveanim-pactonthetargetcultureisnota newnotion,howeverinthepastitwasmostlyanintuitiveassumptionmadebyresearchersinthefield,andthisimpactwasmainlyconsideredasanimpactorinfluenceonthecultureofthetargetlanguage,andnotonthetargetlanguageitself.Theimpactonthelanguageuseoftheaudienceinthetargetculturewasmostlyignoredormentioneden passant.

Byanalysingtheaudiovisualcontentconsumptionofa specificagegroupinHungaryI triedtolaythefoundationsforthehypothesisthatmanymembersofthisagegroup(andthegeneralpublic)havesomekindofexposuretotranslatedaudiovisualcontent.Bythese-lectedlinguisticexamplesandtherelatedquestionsmygoalwastoprovethattheimpactoftranslatedlanguagecanbedetectedthroughempiricalresearch.I foundproofthatregular


151


mistranslationofa wordcanleadtonewmeaningsaddedtoa word(seethecaseofpatetikus),non-translationscanraisetheacceptabilityofforeignwordformsbythetargetaudience(asinthecaseofuránanduránium),innovativetranslationscanalsoaddnewmeaningstoexistingtargetlanguagewords(asinthecaseofgyík)andnewexpressionscanmaketheirwayintotheactiveandpassivevocabularyofthetargetlanguageaudience(likethemirrortranslationsof“butterfliesinone’sstomach”and“savetheday”).

ofcourse,thedevelopmentofa languagethroughitsinteractionwithotherlanguagesisa well-knownandlongexistingphenomenon,butthisresearchtriedtocaptureitinrealtime,andinsomecasesI believeithassucceeded.Byincludingthequestionsrelatedtothetelevi-sion(andaudiovisualmaterial)consuminghabitsoftheexaminedstudentsandbyselectinglanguagephenomenaoftenappearinginaudiovisualmaterials,I wastryingtoprovethatthereisdefinitelya connectionbetweenthelanguageuseandaudiovisualtranslations,althoughitisimpossibletoprovethatthesourceoftheexaminedimpactisstrictlyfromaudiovisualtransla-tions.Itismostprobablynottrue:theviewersofaudiovisualmaterialsarealsoconsumersofthetranslatedandforeignlanguagewrittenmaterialsontheinternet,translatedliteratureandforeignlanguageclasses,allofwhichcanbea sourceofnewwordsandnewmeanings.

althoughthesmallnumberofexaminedlinguisticphenomenacanbeviewedonlyasanindicatorofthisimpact,theresultsmayprovetobeusefulfordesigningwiderandmorein-depthresearchesinthefuture.onesuchresearchmayaddressa questionwhichwasnotinthescopeofthecurrentstudy,namelyawareness.Itmayprovetobeusefultoassesshowmuchthetargetaudienceisawareoftheimpactoftranslations.dotheyknowwheretheexpressionstheyarestartingtoacceptandusecomefrom?aretheyabletopinpointtheinstancesofdub-beseintelevisionprogrammes?a researchsimilartotheonedonebyantoniniandChiaro(2009)mighthelpinansweringsuchquestionsinthefuture.

Ibelieve that the researchwasable toascertain two things:one, that the languageoftranslationshasanimpactonthelanguageuseofpeople,andtwo,audiovisualtranslationisa factorinthatimpact,andmaybeshouldnotbeoverlookedasa secondary,oreventertiaryelementinthepolysystemoflanguage.

references

antonini,r.2009.TheperceptionofdubbedculturalreferencesinItaly.inTralineaVol.11.(http://www.intralinea.org/archive/article/1651)

antonini,r.,Chiaro,d.2009.ThePerceptionofdubbingbyItalianaudiences.In:diazCintas,J.,anderman,g.(eds)Audiovisual Translation.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.97–114.

Baker,M.,Hochel,B.1998.dubbing.In:Baker,M.(ed.)Routledge Encyclopedia of Trans-lation Studies. London/newYork:routledge.74–76.

Bucaria,C.,Chiaro,d.2007End-user perception of screen translation:ThecaseofItaliandub-bing.TradTermno.13.91–118.

ChaumeVarela,F.2007.Qualitystandardsindubbing:a Proposal.TradTerm no.13.71–89.diazCintas,J.2004.Insearchofa theoreticalframeworkforthestudyofaudiovisualtransla-

tion.In:orero,P.(ed.)Topics in Audiovisual Translation.amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.21–35.


152

JuditSereg

dries,J.1995.Dubbing and Subtitling Guidelines for Production and Distribution.düsseldorf:TheeuropeanInstitutefortheMedia.

even-Zohar,I.1978.Papers in Historical Poetics. Telaviv:universityPublishingProjects.gambier,Y.2009.Challengesinresearchonaudiovisualtranslation.In:Pym,a.,Perekrestenko,

a.(eds)Translation Research Projects 2.Tarragona:InterculturalStudiesgroup.17–25.House,J.1981.A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen:günternarr.Iaia,P.L.2015.The Dubbing Translation of Humorous Audiovisual Texts. newcastleupon

Tyne:CambridgeScholarsPublishing.Parini,I.2009.FunctionalequivalenceanddomesticationStrategiesinFilmTranslation.

In:dynel,M.(ed.)Advances in Discourse Approaches.newcastleuponTyne:CambridgeScholarsPublishing.290–316.

Whitman-Linsen, C. 1992. Through the Dubbing Glass: The Synchronization of American Motion Pictures into German, French and Spanish. FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang.

Widler,B.2004.a SurveyamongaudiencesofSubtitledFilmsinVienneseCinemas.Meta Vol.49.no.1.98–101.


153


annexe 1 the original questionnaire (translated into english)

dearrespondent,MynameisJuditSereg,I ama PhdstudentinTranslationStudiesateLTeuniversityaswellasanactivefilmtranslator.Mysubjectofstudyisthetranslationofmoviesandtelevisionprogrammes,andI wouldliketoaskyoutofilloutthisquestionnaireanonymously,tohelpmeconducta studyonthesubject,whichwillbeusedforwritinga paper.Thankyouverymuchforyourhelp!

1. age:.............

2. Howmanyhoursdoyouspenddailywatchingmoviesor televisionprogrammes? (Pleaseunderlineyouranswer)Lessthananhour1-2hours2-3hoursmorethan3hours

3. Howoftendoyouwatchforeignmoviesandserieswiththebelowlistedtranslationmethods?(1:never,2:hardlyever,3:sometimes,4:often,5:that’stheonlywayI watchprogrammes)Circleyouranswer.WithHungariandubbing 1 2 3 4 5Inoriginallanguage,withHungariansubtitles 1 2 3 4 5Inoriginallanguagewithsubtitlesintheoriginallanguage 1 2 3 4 5Inoriginallanguagewithoutsubtitles 1 2 3 4 5

4. Howoftendoyouwatchthebelowlistedtypesofprogrammes?(1:never,2:hardlyever,3: sometimes,4:often,5:that’stheonlywayI watchprogrammes)Circleyouranswer.Full-lengthmovies 1 2 3 4 5Televisionseries 1 2 3 4 5Infotainmentprogrammes 1 2 3 4 5realityshows 1 2 3 4 5Cartoonmovies 1 2 3 4 5Talkshow,standupcomedy 1 2 3 4 5Musicprogrammes 1 2 3 4 5

5. Whatdoestheadjectivepatetikus “fullofpathos”mean?underlinetheansweryouthinkiscorrect.underlineonlyoneanswer.szánalmas “pathetic”ünnepélyes“fullofpathos”ellenszenves “disagreeable”

6. Whatdoestheadjectiveepikus “heroicpoem”mean?underlinetheansweryouthinkiscor-rect.underlineonlyoneanswer.elbeszélő “heroicpoem”legendás “legendary”érzelmes “emotional”


154

JuditSereg

7. Whichoneiscorrect?underlinetheansweryouthinkiscorrect.underlineonlyoneanswer.dna dnS bothSzilikon-völgy Szilícium-völgy bothurán uránium bothmorfin morfium both

8. Whatdoesthewordláma “llama”mean?Youcanunderlinemorethanoneanswer.ügyetlen, értetlen ember “unsophisticatedperson”emlősállat “atypeofmammal”lomha, lusta “slow,lazy”

9. Whatdoesthewordgeek “lizard”mean?Youcanunderlinemorethanoneanswer.alattomos, sunyi“sneaky,treacherous”kocka (ember) “nerd,sociallyawkwardperson”hüllők egy típusa “atypeofreptile”

10. Whatisthemeaningoftheexpression:pillangók vannak a hasamban“Ihavebutterfliesinmystomach”?defineitwithyourownwords................................................................................................................................................

11. Whatisthemeaningoftheexpression:megmenteni a napot “savetheday”?defineitwithyourownwords.

Thankyouverymuchforyourhelp!


155

a ClassiFiCation oF revisional ModiFiCations

edina robin

[email protected]

abstract:revisionhasbecomea widelyrecognisedandessentialcomponentforthequalityassur-ance of professional translations. In order to ensure that revision is indeed performed with totalprecisionandexpertise,theworkhasbeguntocollect,synthesiseandsummarisetheknow-howoftranslationrevision,withmoreandmoreemphasisbeinggiventothetrainingofprofessionalrevis-ers. In thepresentpaper, after a briefdiscussionof revisionas a norm-governedactivity, I aim topropose a typology for the categorisationof revisional interventionson thebasisof linguistic andtranslationrules,normsandstrategies(Toury1995,Heltai2004,2005),providingexamplesforeachoperational category.With the classificationofmodifications, it becomes easier for revisers to ex-plain and justify their interventions, aswell as for translators tounderstand and acceptwhathasbeencorrectedandimproved(Mossop2001)intheirtargettexts.Separatingrule-based,norm-basedandstrategy-basedrevisionalmodificationsfromunnecessary,unjustifiablerevisional interventionsmayhopefully fostermore conscious andmoreprofessionalworkon thepart of the revisers, andresult in more harmonious cooperation between the participants of the translation process.Keywords:revision,interventions,modifications,rules,norms,strategies,preferences

1. introduCtion

revisionhasnowbecomea widelyrecognisedandessentialtoolforqualityassurancewithinthetranslationalprofession,itsimportanceandbeneficialeffectsareunderlinedbynumerousexperiencesandcase-studies(e.g.eszenyi2017).Theen-150381qualitystandard,andmorerecentlytheISo17100:20152internationalstandardontranslationservices,clearlyspecifiesthatanytranslationservicemustincludeasa minimum,translationandreview.accordingtothedefinition,revisionisdonebya personotherthanthetranslator,examiningthetargettextagainstthesourcelanguagecontentforitssuitabilityfortheagreedpurpose,andrespectfortheappropriateconventionsofthedomaintowhichitbelongs,aswellasrecommendingcor-rectionsonthebasisoftheidentifiederrorsandnoncomformities.underthestandard,qualityisguaranteednotonlybythetranslationitself,butbythefactthatthetranslationisbeingreviewedandbythespecificationoftheprofessionalcompetencesoftheparticipants.

Inordertomakesurethatrevisionisindeedperformedwithtotalprecisionandexpertise,theworkhasbegunwithintranslationstudiestocollect,synthesiseandsummarisethetheoryandmethodologicalknow-howoftranslationrevision,withmoreandmoreemphasisbeinggiven to the trainingofprofessional revisers (arthern1991,Mossop2001,Hansen2009,

1http://qualitystandard.bs.en-15038.com/ 2https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:17100:ed-1:v1:en


156

edinarobin

robin 2016,robertetal.2017,Terrynetal.2017).Inthepresentpaper,afterthediscussionofrevisionasa norm-governedactivity,I aimtoproposea typologyofrevisionalinterven-tionsonthebasisoflanguageandtranslationrules,normsandstrategies(Toury1995,Heltai2004,2005),aswellaspreviousresearch(robin2014,2015),providingexamplesfromtheHungarian–englishlanguagepairforeachoperationalcategory.Withtheclassificationofrevisionalmodifications,itmaybecomeeasierforreviserstoexplainandjustifytheirinterven-tions,aswellasfortranslatorstounderstandandacceptwhathasbeencorrectedandimprovedintheirtexts.

2. revision as a norM-governed aCtivity

Itisevidentfromtheabovedefinitionandalsofromthestudiesoftranslationrevisionthattherevisermustfulfillcertainexpectationsandadheretocertainnormswhendoingtheirjob–similarlytothetranslator.Bothprofessionalsmustabidebyso-calledpreliminarynorms(Toury1995),translationpoliciesandprofessionalnorms(Chesterman1993).Thesemainlyincludegeneralprinciples,suchasethicalconsiderations,qualitystandards,terminologicalandtranslationconventions.revisersmustalsocloselyfollowthespecificationsoftherevisionbriefasanessentialpartoftheirprofessionalbehaviour.

additionally,translatorsandrevisersalikemustkeepinmindthespecificfeaturesofthesourcetextsothattheresultingtranslationisindeedanaccuraterenderingoftheoriginalmeaning,whichfulfilstherequirementsofadequacy(Toury1995).atthesametime,revisersandtranslatorsmustachievethisgoalbymobilisingtheso-calledoperationalnorms,whichaffectthetextualmake-upandverbalformulationofthetext.Byobeyingthesystemicrulesandpatternsof the target language, revisers aim toproducea target textwhich satisfiestheneedsofmodernlanguageuse,achievingacceptability(Toury1995).Thus,therevisedtranslationbecomesequivalenttotheoriginalsourcetext,aswellasprocessable(Mossop2001)andacceptable(Toury1995)forthetargetlanguagereader.Translationandrevision,therefore,seemtobea balancingactbetweenthesourcelanguagetextandtargetlanguagenorms.

Whenthetranslatorfailstoliveuptotheexpectationsofthepotentialreader,fallingshortoftheoptimalresult–adequacy,acceptabilityandprocessability–therevisermustintervene.accordingtoKlaudy(1994),anytranslationcanonlybeequivalenttotheoriginalsourcetextifitcorrespondstothetargetlanguagenorms,justasmuchastheoriginaldoestothenormsofthesourcelanguage.Thereviser,therefore,needstobewell-acquaintedwiththetargetlanguagesystem,itslexical,grammaticalandstylisticconventions–evenmoresothanthetranslator,fortheyapproachthetextfromtheperspectiveofthetargetlanguageandthetargetlanguagereader,notcreatinga text,butmodifyingsomebodyelse’swork,applyingglobal,macro-levelstrategies(Horváth2009).Theyshouldalsobeabletojustifytheirmodificationsifnecessary,basedontheirknowledgeoflanguageandtranslationnorms,avoidingunneces-saryrevisionalinterventionsandhelpingtheprofessionaldevelopmentofthetranslator–allintheinterestofqualityassurance(robin2016).

Whendescribingtheconventionsoflanguageuse,Heltai(2004,2005)differentiatesbe-tweencompulsoryrulesandoptionalnorms.Languagenormsaredefinedasmanifestations


157

aClassificationofrevisionalModifications

ofcustomarylanguageuse,whichmayallowfora numberofalternatives.Thesealternativesarecorrectinthemselves,butina givencommunicativesituationorina giventextmaynotseemfeasible,sothetranslatororreviserlooksforothersolutions.However,rulesdonotoffera choicebetweenalternatives,sotheymayevenbeconsideredextremeversionsofprescriptivelinguisticnorms.Bothcanbefoundinbooksongrammarandstyleandbothmayentailsanctionswhentheyarenotadheredto,butthereviserconsiderstherisksinvolved,andmakesa consciouschoicebetweenthepossibilities.

Thesedecisionsregardingword-levelandsentence-levelnormsareinfluencedbyhigherlevel text building strategies (Heltai 2004: 416–417).Theymaynot always be evident,theyarenotcompulsoryinnature,anddonotresultinlanguageerrorswhentheyarenotappliedinthetext.Suchstrategiesareconnectedtotheexpectationsofthetargetreaders.Theydonotdependonthegrammaticalstructuresofthelanguage,butaimtoenhancethereadabilityandtheprocessabilityofthetargettext–keepinginmindthegeneralprinciplesof communication and cooperation, in accordancewith conversationalmaxims such asadequateandtruthfulinformation,clarity,relevance,briefandorderlymannerofspeech(grice1975).accordingtoKlaudy(1994),translatorsautomaticallyapplylinguisticrules,buttranslationsoftenseemstrangeattext-level,leavingthetasktothereviserofenhancingreadability.

3. revisional ModiFiCations

althoughtheen-15038andISo17100:2015standardsdonotspecifywhoshouldchangethetranslatedtextonthebasisofthereviser’srecommendations,inprofessionalpracticeitisgenerallythereviserwhomakestherequiredmodifications.Horváth(2009)definesrevisionasdirectinterventioninsomebodyelse’swrittentext,andtheseinterventionsmanifestthem-selvesintheformofdifferentrevisionaloperations.Thesecaneasilybeidentifiedbyfollowingarthern’s(1987:17)definition:“ByinterventionI definea pointinthetranslationatwhichthereviserhaschangedthetranslator’stext”.

Whencategorisingrevisionalinterventions,Horváth(2009:156)liststhefollowingopera-tions:rearrangement, insertion, deletion, replacement, marginal note.Thistypologyreflectshowtherevisermodifiesthewording,whatisactuallybeingdone,exceptforthelastoperation,marginalnote,whichdoesnotintervenedirectlyinthetext,butservesasa tooltoofferfurtherremarksregardingthetranslation.Horváth’scategorisationmaybecombinedwithKlaudy’s(2003)typologyoftransferoperations,sincebothtranslationandrevisionusethetoolsofmonolingualeditingfortheconstructionofthetarget languagetext.Therefore,rearrange-ment, insertionandreplacementcanincludelexicaltransposition,specification,generalisation,division,addition,compensationandreplacement,aswellasgrammaticalspecification,gen-eralisation,division,elevation,loweringandaddition,whereasdeletioncanrefertolexicalorgrammaticalomissionandcontractionperformedwithinthetargettext.

Inessence,theaboverevisionalinterventionsservethedoublepurposeofcorrectingandimproving thetargettext:“[…]thereviser isa gatekeeper,whocorrects thetextsothat itconformstosociety’slinguisticandtextualrulesandachievesthepublisher’sgoals.The[…]reviserisalsoa languagetherapist,whoimprovesthetexttoensureeaseofmentalprocessing


158

edinarobin

andsuitabilityofthetextforitsfuturereaders”(Mossop2001:1).Modificationswhichareaimedatamendingmistranslations,languageerrorsandothernonconformities–basedonthedemandsofequivalence,languagerulesandtherequirementsofthetranslationbrief–belongtothecategoryof“correction”,togetherwiththeoptional,norm-basedmodificationswhichthereviserseesfitbecauseofthegivencommunicativesituationandthefeaturesofthetext.Modificationswhichaimat“improving”thetextualmake-uparealsooptional,thereviserperformsthemtoperfectthetranslation,toenhancereadabilityandprocessability–employ-ingstylistic,structuralandcontentediting(Mossop2001).

Buildingontheabovediscussed,differentexpectationswhichmotivatethereviser’sinter-ventions,I wouldliketoproposethefollowingtypologyofrevisionalmodificationsinordertoconnectthereviser’sinterventionswiththemotivatingfactorsthatguidetheirworkandtogaina betterunderstandingofwhatrevisersactuallydowhentheydecidetomodifythetranslatedtext.Theproposedtypologyhasalreadybeenappliedinpreviousresearchfortheanalysisofrevisionaloperations(robin2014,2015):

rulebased:obligatoryoperations;motivatedby themorphologic, syntacticandsemantic rulesof the target language.Without thesemodifications, theresultingtargettextwouldbeincorrect,inadequateandunacceptableforthereaders.normbased:optionaloperations;motivatedbylanguagecustomsandstylis-ticpreferences.Without thesemodifications, theresulting target textwouldnotconformfullytotheexpectationsofthetargetaudience,andremainonly“quasi-correct”(Klaudy1994).strategybased:optionaloperations;motivatedbygeneralcommunicativeprin-ciplesandtextbuildingstrategies,employingstylistic,structuralandcontentediting,promotingtheprocessabilityandreadabilityofthetextforreaders.

TheinterventionslistedbyHorváth(2009),aswellasKlaudy’soperations,canbegroupedinto the presented categories, depending on what motivates the reviser when perform-ingthem.Thistypologymaybehelpful in justfyingthereviser’sdecisions,pointingoutthe different levels of motivations and clarifying what counts as actual mistakes, notimprovements.

Ifthedifferencesbetweenrules,normsandstrategiesbecomeevidentforthereviserandtheyperformtheiroperationsconsciously,theymayfinditeasiertoavoidunnecessaryin-terventions,whicharthern(1987:19)describesashavingnoeffectonthetextandshowupinthereviser’sworkwhen“[…]theychangedwordsorwordorderwithoutcorrectingthesenseorimprovingthestyleofthetext”.Suchmodificationsaresimplybasedonindividualpreferencesanddonotservetheprocessabilityofthetranslatedtext.Horváth(2009)seessuch interventionsasa potentialuniversalof revision,butarthern(1987)pointsout thatgreatdifferencescanbefoundbetweentheindividualrevisers–theexperienced,knowledge-ablerevisercanresistthetemptation.Mossop(2001)listsasoneoftheprinciplesofrevisionavoidingpreferentialmodificationsfortheycanintroducenewerrorsintothetargettext.Thesummaryoftheproposedtypologyispresentedin Table 1 below.


159


Table 1:Thetypologyofrevisionalmodifications

Modification basis of intervention Prescriptive force attribute effect

rule-based equivalence,linguisticrules,translationbrief

compulsory requiredcorrection positive

norm-based translationandlinguisticnorms

optional recommendedcorrection

positive

Strategy-based communicationprinciplesandtext-bulidingstrategies

optional improvement positive

Preference-based individualpreferences unnecessary pointlessintervention

noeffect/negative

Identifyingrevisionalmodificationsisprobablyeasiestinthecaseofcompulsory,rule-basedinterventions,aswithoutthemtheresultingtextwouldbeentirelyunacceptable.Thefirstexamplebelowshowsthecorrectionofa transfererrormadebythetranslator,whichmakesthereviser’sinterventionabsolutelynecessary.

(1) “a barquewouldhaveseen

her if the IngridLinde

hadkept hercourse.”

draFT “egy bárkáról látnikel-lettvolna,

hogyazIngridLinde

tartja-e az útirányát.”

a barque.aBL see.InF would

have wethertheIngridLinde

keep.3Sg the course.PoS.aCC

re-VISed “egy bárkáról látniuk

kel-lettvolna,

azIngridLindét,

haaz tartotta az útirányát.”

a barque.aBL

see-InF.3.PL

wouldhave

theIngridLinde.aCC

ifit keep-PaST.3Sg the course.PoS.

aCC

Similarly,inthesecondexample,thereviserfollowedtherulesofgrammarwhencorrectingtheerrormadebythetranslatorinthetargettext,translatingfromHungariantoenglish;thereisnoquestionastothenecessityoftherule-basedrevisionalintervention.

(2) “aszerződést

bár-mely fél három hónapos fel-

mondási idővel felmond-hatja.”

Thecontract.aCC

any party three month.adJ

cancel-lation

period.CoM.aBL

mayterminate.3Sg

draFT “Thecontract maybe termi-

natedbyeach Party bygiv-

ing 3-month’s notice.”

re-VISed

“Thecontract maybe termi-

natedbyeach Party bygiv-

ing 3-months notice.”

Fortheidentificationandjustificationofnorm-basedrevisionalmodifications,wemustrefertoHeltai’s(2004)definitionofnorms,describingthemaslessregulatory,havinglessprescrip-tiveforcethanlinguisticrules.Inthefollowingexamplesthereviser’smodificationbrought


160

edinarobin

thetextclosertotheidiomatic,customarytargetlanguageuse,eventhoughthetranslatedversiondidnotcontainanylexicalorgrammatical‘errors’assuch.(3) “[…]they began toargue about the moth-eaten pelt.”draFT “[…]miközben ők amolyrágta prémről kezdtek vitatkozni.”

while they themoth-eaten

pelt.aBouT.aBL

begin.PaST.3.PL argue.InF

reVISed “[…]miközben Ø amolyrágta prémről kezdtek vitatkozni.”

while Ø themoth-eaten

pelt.aBouT.aBL

begin.PaST.3.PL argue.InF

Inexample(3),thetranslatordidnotomitthepersonalpronounfromthetext,andwhilethesentenceisgrammaticallyaccurate,thewordingmaystillbeconsideredasonlyquasi-correct,sinceHungariandoesnotnormallyusepersonalpronouns,unlessgivenspecialemphasis.Thereviserdeletedtheredundantitem,bringingthetextclosertothetargetlanguagenorm.(4) “Főként tapasztalt fordítók értenek az alkalmazásukhoz.”

mainly experienced translator.PL know.3PL the application.PoS.

To.aBLdraFT “Mainly experienced translators know how toapply them.”re-VISed

“Itismainly experienced translators whoknow how toapply them.”

In example (4) above, the translator closely followed the original text, translating fromHungariantoenglish,andproduceda grammaticallyaccuratesentence,thereviser,however,modifiedthestructure,employinga “cleftsentence”througha norm-basedintervention.Cleftsentencesareusedtoemphasiseonepartofthesentencebyputtingeverythingintoa kindofrelativeclauseexceptthewordswewanttoemphasise;thismakesthemstandout.Theyareusefulinwritingbecausewecannotuseintonationforemphasis.

Strategy-basedmodificationsareprobablythemostdifficulttoidentifybecausetheyaremoreidiosyncraticinnature.revisersusestrategy-basedoperationswiththepurposeofop-timisingthelexicalandgrammaticalredundancy,creatinga balancedtextandenrichingthevocabulary,aimingformaximumcontextualeffect.examplesoftypicallyusedstrategy-basedmodificationsareshownbelow:(5) “It was growing colder when I left the woods.”

draFT “egyre hidegebb lett, amikor el-hagytam az erdőt.”

grow-ing

cold.CoM

become-PaST.3Sg when leave-

PaST.1Sg the wood.aCC

re-VISed

“Mi-után

el-hagytam az erdőt, egyre hide-

gebbre fordult az idő.”

after leave-PaST.1Sg the wood.

aCC growingcold.CoM.aBL

turn-PaST.3Sg the weath-

er.

Intheaboveexample,thetranslatorcloselyfollowedthesentencestructureoftheoriginalsource-text,butthereviserchangedtheorderoftheclauseswithgrammaticaltranspositionto enhanceprocessability, givingmore emphasis to the logical and temporalorderof the


161


describedevents.Inthenextexamplebelow,thereviserusedmoreexplicitwordingtofurtheremphasisethemessageoftheoriginalsourcetext.(6) “That was Maddy’s fault, of course.”draFT “ami természetesen Maddy hibája volt”

which naturally Maddy fault.PoS be-PaST.3SgreVISed “ami természetesen Maddy bűne volt.”

which naturally Maddy sin.PoS be-PaST.3Sg

apartfromenhancingreadabilityandenrichingvocabulary,revisersoftenaimtolessenthegrammaticalandlexicalredundancyofthetranslatedtextbymodifyingthetranslator’sop-erations,employingstrategy-based,editingmodifications,asshowninthenextexample:(7) “[…]as a blade of grass.”draFT “[…]mintha csak egy fűszál lettvolna.”

asif only a bladeofgrass be-PaST.Con.3SgreVISed “[…]mint egy fűszál.”

as a bladeofgrass

Thetranslatorraisedthenominalphraseofthesourcetexttoclauselevel,withgrammaticalelevation,usinga verbphrase.Thereviser,however,counteractedthetransferoperationandemployeda nominalphraseinstead,bringingtherevisedversionclosertotheoriginalversion,creatinga moreconcise,lessredundanttext.Ina similarway,therevisercreateda simpler,moreconciseversionofthetargettextinexample(8).

(8) “Improvizatív– tehát azelő-adónak nagyobb szabad-

sága, több tere van mo-zogni.”

Improvisa-tional so theper-

former greater freedom.PoS more space.

PoShave.3Sg

move.InF

draFT “Improvisa-tional means theper-

former has more free-dom, more space to

move.”reVISed “Improvisation means more freedom, more space to move.”

revisersmayalsodeleteconjunctionsfromthetranslationwhendeemedunnecessary,ifthemeaningcanbededucedfromthecontext,asshownbelow.Thefaithfultranslatorfollowedthewordingofthesource-text,butthereviserdeletedtheconjunctionfromthesentence,employingstrategy-based,grammaticalomission.(9) “But they were ready for us.”draFT “de már vártak bennünket.”

but already waitPaST.3PL usreVISed “Ø Már vártak bennünket.”

already waitPaST.3PL us

alloftheaboveexamplesshowhowrevisersmayalterthetransferoperationsemployedbytranslatorsinordertoedittheinformationcontentoftexts,reducegrammatical,aswellaslexicalredundancy,enhancereadability,enrichvocabulary,optimalisingtextualfeatures––allwiththepurposeoflivinguptotheexpectationsoffuturereaders.empiricalinvestigations


162

edinarobin

seemtoshow(robin2015)thatreviserspreferstrategy-basedoperations.Whentranslatorsdotheirjobwell,thereisnoneedforextensive‘correction’,reviserscanconcentratemoreon‘improving’thequality,usingstragy-basededitingstrategiesata higherlevel–whichtheycanstilljustifybyreferringtothegeneralprinciplesofcommunication.

Ifreviserscanrecogniseatwhichleveltheyperformtheiroperations,regardlessofwhethertheyemployrule-based,norm-basedorstrategy-basedmodifications,theymaysuccessfullyrefrainfromperformingpreference-basedinterventionsandkeepawayfromfallingintothetrapofover-revision,whichismotivatedbyindividualpreferencesratherthanconsciousandprofessionaldecisions.unnecessaryrevisional interventionscanbeidentifiedashavingnoeffectonthetargettext,asdemonstratedbythefinalexamplebelow:(10) “as fast as this little wind willpush us.”draFT “olyan gyorsan, amennyire a gyenge szél engedi.”

as fast as the weak wind allow.3SgreVISed “olyan gyorsan, amennyire a gyenge szél lehetővé teszi.”

as fast as the weak wind possible make.3Sg

4. ConClusion

Ithasbecomeessentialfortranslationstudiestoprovidetheprofessionwitha well-grounded,soundtheoreticalbackgroundandmethodologyforrevision,duetoitsgrowingimportanceintranslationqualityassurance.Inthepresentpaper,theaimwastoproposea typologyfortheclassificationofrevisionaloperations,basedonlinguisticandtranslationrules,normsandstrategies,aswellas theexperiencesofpreviousresearch(robin2014,2015), togaina betterunderstandingofwhatrevisersactuallydowhentheydecidetointerveneandmodifythetranslatedtext.Byemployingrule-based,compulsorymodifications,reviserscorrectthetranslated text, eliminating transferand languageerrors, aswell asnonconformity to thetranslationbrief.norm-basedandstrategy-basedinterventions,ontheotherhand,servetoimprovethetranslation,bringingitclosertoidiomatic,customarytargetlanguageuseandreaderexpectations.Therefore,wemaydistinguishthejustifiablemodificationsfromprefer-entialinterventions,whichdonothaveanypositiveeffectsonthetargetlanguagetext.

Thepresentedtypologymayproveusefulasa basisforanalysingrevisedtextsfortheex-aminationofrevisionmethodsandprocedures.Furthermore,itcanprovidethetheoreticalbackgroundforanobjectivediscussionoftheethicalaspectsoftranslationrevision,sheddinglightonwhereandwhyrevisershavetheauthoritytointervene.Separatingrule-based,norm-basedand strategy-based revisionalmodifications fromunjustifiableandpreference-basedinterventionsmayhopefullyenhancemoreconsciousandprofessionalworkonthepartoftherevisers,andresultinmoreharmoniouscooperationbetweentheparticipantsofthetransla-tionprocess.Similarly,theclassificationofrevisionalmodifications,withthecleardistinc-tionofcorrectingandimprovingthetargettext,canserveparticularlywellinthetranslationclassroom,whenemployingdidacticrevision,i.e.markingstudenttranslations.differentialevaluationoftheirworkhelpstranslationtraineesgaina morerealisticviewoftheirachieve-ments,givesa clearpictureofwheretheirerrorsarerootedandwherethereisstillroomforimprovement,withoutgivingthemunnecessarilyall-negativefeedback.


163


references

arthern,P.1987.FoureyesareBetterthanTwo.In:Picken,C.(ed.)Translating and the Computer 8:A Profession on the Move.London:aslib,TheassociationforInformationManagement.14–26.

arthern,P.1991.Qualitybynumbers:assessing revisionand translation. In:Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting. London:aslib,TheassociationforInformationManagement.85–91.

eszenyi,r.2016.Casestudyontranslatinga medicalrecordintoBlanguage:Howdothetranslator’s competences advocatedby theeuappear in the case of a real-life assign-ment? Procedia − Social and Behavioral Sciences Vol.231.122–128.

grice,H.P.1975.LogicandConversation.In:Cole,P.,Morgan,J.L.(eds) Syntax and seman-tics 3: Speech acts.newYork:academicPress.

Hansen, g. 2009. The Speck in Your Brother’s eye – the Beam in Your own. QualityManagementinTranslationandrevision.In:Hansen,g.,Chesterman,a.,gerzmysch-arbogast,H.(eds)Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. A Tribute to Daniel Gile. amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.255–280.

Heltai,P.2004.a fordítóésa nyelvinormákI.[ThetranslatorandlanguagenormsI.]Magyar nyelvőr Vol.128.no.4.407–434.

Heltai,P. 2005.a fordító és a nyelvinormák II. [The translator and languagenorms I.]Magyar nyelvőr Vol.129.no.1.30–58.

Horváth,P.I.2009.A lektori kompetencia. [revisioncompetence.]unpublisheddoctoralThesis.Budapest:eLTeuniveristy.

Klaudy,K.1994.Fordításésnyelvinorma.[Translationandlanguagenorms.]In:Keményg.,KardosT.(szerk.)A magyar nyelvi norma érvényesülése napjaink nyelvhasználatában. Budapest:MTanyelvtudományiIntézet.57–61.

Klaudy, K.2003. Languages in Translation. Lectures on the Theory, Teaching and Practice of Trans lation.Budapest:Scholastica.

Mossop,B.2001.Revising and Editing for Translators. amsterdam:Benjamins.robert,I.S.,remael,a.andureel,J.J.J.2017.Towardsa ModelofTranslationrevision

Competence.The Interpreter and Translator Trainer Vol.11.no.2.1–19.robin,e.2014.explicitationandImplicitationinrevisedTranslations.In:VeselovskáL.,

Janebová,M.(eds)Complex Visibles Out There. Proceedings of the 2014 Olomouc Linguistic Colloquium. olomouc:Palackýuniversity.559–574.

robin,e.2015.Fordítási univerzálék a lektorált fordításokban.[Translationuniversalsinre-visedtranslations.]unpublisheddoctoralThesis.Budapest:eLTeuniversity.

robin,e.2016.TheTranslatorasreviser.In:IldikóHorváth(ed.)The Modern Translator and Interpreter. Budapest:eLTeeötvösuniversityPress.45–56.

Terryn,r.a.,robert,I.S.,ureel,J.J.J.,remael,a.andHanoulle,S.(2017).ConceptualizingTranslationrevisionCompetence:a PilotStudyontheacquisitionoftheKnowledgeaboutrevisionandStrategicSubcompetences.Across Languages and Cultures Vol.18.no.1.1–28.

Toury,g.1995.Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.amsterdam:Benjamins.


164

Challenges oF teaChing legal terMinology in translation training Courses – the baCKground to editing

a textbooK

dóra mária tamás

[email protected]

abstract:Bridgesbetweenthetheory,i.e.researchinfrastructuresandlecturesoftranslationandtermi-nologystudies,introductorycoursesofsubjectknowledgedomainsaslawandthepractice–teachingoflegaltranslationandterminologyareessentialforthefurtherdevelopmentofthetrainingmethodsoftheprospectivelanguageserviceproviderssuchastranslators,interpretersandterminologists.TheaimofthetextbookpresentedinthisarticleistoenforcethelinkandcompletethetransitionbetweendifferentsubjectssuchasintroductorycoursesofconceptualknowledgeandcoursesforpractisinglanguageskillsheldatthedepartmentofTranslationandInterpreting,FacultyofHumanitiesateLTeuniversity.Keywords: legalterminology,translatortraining,textbook,theoryofterminology,translatorskillsandcompetences

1. introduCtion

Thethree-waycombinationofresearch,practiceandeducationhasalwaysbeentheaimofourdepartmentsinceitsfoundationin1973.Thekeystoachievingtheseobjectivesareinemployingtrainersinvolvedinpracticeandthecontinuousworkingoutoftheappropriatetheorybackground,methodsandusefullearningmaterials.

asKlaudy(2017)describesinherstudy,terminologywasnota separatesubjectofthetranslationtrainingprogramme.Thelanguagespecificeconomicandlegalterminologyprac-ticalcourseswereintroducedfrom2009forsecond-yearstudentsoftheMatranslationpro-grammes.asa result,first itbecamea requirementtoprepareterminologicalglossariesascompulsoryelementsoffinaltheses,andin2012a seriesofintroductorylectureswaslaunchedongeneralterminology.Termsandconceptsmaychangeintime,sothemainpurposeofthelecturesisnottoteachtargetlanguageequivalents,buttofamiliarisethestudentswiththeprinciplesandmethodsofterminologywhichcanbeusefultoolsforlanguageserviceprovid-ersduringtheireverydaywork.Theseprinciplesandmethodsincorporatetheconcept-orient-edapproachonthelevelofbasicconcepts,questionsofharmonisationandstandardisationoftermsasmethodsoftranslationorientedterminologyand,finally,methodsofdatamanage-mentandtheintroductiontothetermbasesastools,asmethodsofterminologymanagement.Klaudy(2017)highlightsthatthereinforcementofthetrainingofterminologyinMaandspecialised translation trainingprogrammes is a signof cooperationbetweenTranslationStudiesandTerminology,apparentforexampleintheteachingoftheuseoftermbasesinthegeneralTheoryofTerminologyandLanguageTechnologycourses.


165

ChallengesofTeachingLegalTerminologyinTranslationTrainingCourses…

oneof our recentdevelopments is the launch in2015of thepostgraduate course forcourtinterpretingandthepostgraduatecoursefortranslatorsandterminologistsspecialisedinthefieldsofeconomicsandlaw.In2016thelatterwastransformedina distancee-learningcourse,whichalsoincludesaspracticeanoptionalworkingoutofentriesintheterminologydatabase,IaTe,oftheeuropeanunionandtheuseofane-bookaboutanintroductiontotheHungarianterminologyoflawwithanoverviewofenglish,german,FrenchandItalianlegalterminology.Thispapersetsouttopresentthebackground,themethodsusedduringthedevelopmentandemphasisesthefeaturesofthisexperimentale-bookofterminology.

2. obJeCtives and ConCePts in the baCKground

ThisbookwaseditedbyeLTeuniversityPublishingHouse(eLTeeötvösKiadó)primarilyasanonlineeditionIntroduction to Legal Terminology observed through the lens of a Terminologist (Bevezetés a jogi terminológiába a terminológus szemüvegén át), themanaging editor is theHungarianofficeforTranslationandattestationLtd.:http://www.eltereader.hu/kiadvanyok/tamas-dora-maria-bevezetes-a-jogi-terminologiaba-a-terminologus-szemuvegen-at/.

Theaimofthisedition,examiningthepracticalquestionsoflegalterminology,istobeequallybeneficial in academic trainingand in trainee andmentoringprogrammesof thetranslationoffice,thereforeitisprimarilyforstudentsandnewcareerentrants.

Inacademictraining,itattemptstocreatea linkbetweenthegeneralintroductorylecturesofferedinHungarianonTranslationStudies,Terminology(Theory)andLawandthelanguagespecifictrainingandpracticeoftranslation,interpretationandterminology.accordingly,theexampleselaboratedoncanbeusedtolaythefoundationsforlegalknowledge,conceptsandtermsusedonlanguagespecificcourses,complementingthelecturesentitledIntroductiontotheTerminologyorIntroductiontoLaw.

outstanding experts working for the eLTe university or the Hungarian office forTranslationandattestationLtd.,lawyersandterminologistscontributedtothecreationofthebook,byreviewingandevaluatingtheglossary,callingmyattentiontomissingelementsorpartsthathadtobeclarified.I strovetoaccepttheiradvicewhiletakingintoconsiderationmytermi-nologicalanddidacticapproach.I assumefullresponsibilityfortheoccasionalmistake,whiletherevisersarecreditedwithallthebook’smerits.InHungary,therewereearlierworkspub-lishedinthefieldsofterminologyandlaw,forexampleabouttheterminologyoftheeuropeanunion(Trebits‒Fischer2009,Várnai‒Mészáros2011),aboutHungarianlegalterminologyinrelationwiththetrainingofcourtinterpreters(Horváth2013),inenglishrelatedtoonespe-cificareasuchascivillawandcontractlaw(Petz2014,Kovács2015).Thesepublicationsdonotparticularlyfocusongivinga generaloverview,inHungarianwithmulti-lingualreferences,ofthoselegaltermsofHungariannationallawwhichusuallyposechallengesfortranslators.

Themainpurposeofthebookistopresent,froma terminologicalpointofview,theHungarianlegalterminologywithaninternationalperspective.Thebookdoesnotaimtobeexhaustive,butpresentstermsandconceptsthatarerelevantfromterminologicalpointofview,collectedfromvariousareasoflawonthebasisoftheauthor’spracticalandeducationalexperience.Thereadercanlearnaboutthepracticaluseofprinciplesandmethodsofterminologythatcanbeusedforconveyinglegalterms,managingterminologicaldataandreliedonasreferenceforfurtherlegal


166

dóraMáriaTamás

terms.Thebookdoesnotintendtosharegenerallinguisticandlegalknowledgebutaimstopresentterminologicallegalissues.asKlaudy(2017)alsomentions,raisingthelevelofconscious-nessofthelanguageserviceprovidermayhelpthemtoprovidehigherqualityservices.

3. about the struCture oF the booK

Thebookconsistsofthreemajorparts:a professional-theoreticalintroductorystudyonlegalter-minology,a glossaryanda collectionofdocumentsintheannexe.Thetheoreticalintroductionexamineslegalterminologyfromtheperspectiveofterminologyasa moderndiscipline,whichisdifferentfromtheaspectsoflexicographyandresearchofLSPs.Theterminologicalperspectiveisobviouslyconcept-orientedanditcannotdisregardtheunityoflinguisticsignandconcept,inter-pretingtermsasrepresentationsofconceptsandfocusingontheconcept,asitappearsinthedefi-nition,asitscorecategory.ThepurposeoftheglossaryistodefinetheselectedHungarianlegalterms,todescribetheirtranslation-terminologyrelatedchallengesandtoprovideinternationalreferences.ThetermsintheglossaryfocusonHungarianlegalterms,callingattentiontothesep-arationofconceptsbutwithoutpresentingthewholeprocessofbilingualcomparisonsincetheydonotcontainforeignlanguagedefinitions,rathertheyhelptorecognisetheproblemsinherentintermsandtoteacha terminologicalwayofthinking.TheInternationaloverviewdescribingandnotprescribingforeignlanguageequivalentsismainlya referencetotheconceptsofthelegalsystemsofvariouscountries,forexamplemainlytheircountryspecificaspectsinfourlanguages(english,german,FrenchandItalian).Thedocumentsamplesintheannexecontainfourdocu-menttypesinfourlanguages:companydocuments(mainlycertificatesofincorporation),courtdecisions(judgmentsondissolutionofmarriage),a Hungarianrealpropertysalescontract,a copyofa Hungarianabstractoftitle.Thepurposeofthedocumentsamplesistopresentbasictypesofdocumentstofamiliarisenewtranslatorswiththesetexts.Thiswillmakeiteasierforthemtolocateintheiroriginalcontextsthelegaltermsanalysedinthebook,alsocontributingtotheireasierunderstanding.Fortheselectionofenglishandgermandocumentsamplesitwasalsoa requirementtoselectdocumentsfromvariouscountriesinordertorepresenta broaderscaleoftexts(e.g.documentsfromgermany,austriaandSwitzerlandarealsointheannexe).

Thecoreofthebookistheterminologicalglossary,itsstructureremindsthereaderoftheterminologicaldatabaseswithsomedifferencesfroma didacticalpointofview.Therecordshavethefollowingstructure:

term: domain: definition: notes for translators (attention!):international overview:en de Fr it

see also:Context:document type: sources:

Figure 1:Thestructureoftherecords


167


Therecordscontainvariousdatacategories,eachofthemhavingspecificfunctions.underthedatacategory termintheheadingthereisalwaysonesingletermeveniftherearemorerelatedwordsenteredunderthedatacategoriesofdefinitionorinternational overview.TermsnotlistedundertheheadingscanbefoundintheIndex.Thetermsarenounsinmostofthecasesbutnotexclusively,therearesomeadjectives,verbsoradverbsamongthem,theyareeithercon-structedofoneormoreelements.Pursuanttotheprinciplesofterminology,alltermsappearundera specificdomainasdatacategorysincetermsarealwaysunderstoodinthecontextofa certaindomain.Inonecase,thesametermappearsundertwodomains,asitreferstodif-ferentconceptsunderdifferentdomaincategories(see‘ hatáskör’–competenceundergeneral‘Law’and‘Publicadministration’domaincategories).Therearesevendomaincategoriesinthebook:law(general),court,constitutionallaw,lawofpublicadministration,criminallaw,civillaw,companylaw.ThedefinitiondatacategoryisthedefinitionofthetermreferringtotheHungarianlegalconcept,createdonthebasisoflaws,officialwebsites,textbooksandlegalencyclopaediaafterbeingreviewedbylawyersassubjectmatterexperts.Thisdatacategoryisnotalwaysfilledinwithstandardterminologicaldefinitions,oftentherearequotesfromlaws,inthecaseoforgansthedefinitionisthedescriptionofthefunctions.Thenotes for translatorsdatacategorycontainspiecesofadvicefromtheperspectiveofrevisers,translatorsandterminologiststhatcanbeusefulfornewtranslatorstomeetchallengesintherightway.Thedatacategoryentitledsee alsocontainsreferencestootherrelatedrecordsinthebook,coveringsimilarsubjectsorwherethesametermoccursinanothercontextthiscanensuretheinterconnectednessoftherecords.TheContextdatacategorycontainsshortHungarianphrases, furtherdemonstrating theuseof the termand its occurrence in some texts.Thedocument typedatacategorymaycontainusefulinformationforbeginnersespeciallybe-causetheannexecontainssomeoriginaldocumenttypeswhichcanbebrowsedfortheterms.underthesourcesdatacategorylegalandlinguisticsourcesarealsolisted.Theinternational overviewdatacategoryliststhetermsrecommendedforuseonthebasisoftheirconveyanceinfourforeignlanguages.Thelistwascompiledwiththehelpofhighlyqualifiedandexpe-riencedlawyersandlinguists.Therearemoreversionslistedasforeignlanguageequivalentssincethebookwascreatedfroma descriptiveandnotprescriptiveterminologicalperspective.Ina numberofcasescountrycodesfollowtheterms(See:uK,uSa,d,a,CH,F,I).

Inordertolisttheforeignlanguageequivalentsofthetermswetookintoconsiderationtheterminologicalprinciplethattermsshouldbeconveyedandnottranslated.Theessenceofconveyanceisthatconceptsarecomparedonthebasisoftheconceptualcharacteristicsindefinitionsanditisestablishedonthebasisofthiscomparisontowhatextentthetermscanbeconveyedtooneanother(thesocalledprocessofconceptualcomparison).asa result,thelevelsofequivalencecanbeestablishedbetweenthetermsandtheirequivalents:fullequivalence,partialequivalenceandlackofequivalence.If,asa resultofconceptualcomparisonwefindpartialequivalenceorlackofequivalencethen,dependingonthescaleofdifferences,therearetwooptionspursuanttotheprinciplesandmethodsofterminology:inthecaseofconsider-ableequivalenceuseofananalogousconcept(functionalequivalent)(withthecountrycodeifpossible)orinthecaseofminorequivalenceorlackofequivalence(e.g.becausetheconceptiscountryspecific)creationofa newlinguisticsigncalledtermcandidate.Termcandidatesareresultsofthe“harmonisationprocessdonebythetranslators”(Tamás2014: 144)from


168

dóraMáriaTamás

a terminologicalperspective,theyareeithernewlycoinedoralreadyusedtermsintheproc-essoftheprovisionoflanguageservices,asthereisa needtooffersolutionsfornewconceptsandforconceptsdemonstratingsmall levelsofequivalence.Thereareseveral references tothis in thebook,mainlybetweenbrackets (see functional equivalent, termcandidate). InTerminology,weaimatunambiguitybutinpracticethereareambiguouscasesforwhichtheuseoffunctionalequivalentsandtermcandidatesarealsoacceptable.Insuchcasesbothofthemmayappearbuttheirstatusasfunctionalequivalentortermcandidateshouldbeindi-cated.Iftheconceptualdifferencesbetweentermsareimportantthensomeshortdescriptionsorreferencesinkeywordsarealsoaddedtotheirrecords.Thedescriptionofthismethodcanbefoundinthestudyincludedinthebook.

additionalinformationisalsoaddedtotheglossaryinordertoenhancetheidentificationoftheconcepts.Themajorityofthesepiecesofinformationarepresentedintablesbutinthecaseofpublicadministration,forexample,a treediagramcontributestotheclarification.

4. on legal terMinology through the eyes oF the terMinologist: diFFiCulties and Challenges

Thebookintroducedinthispaper isbasedonthe ideaoftheauthorand,considering itsgenre,itisanexperimentalwork.Thestudyinthebookaimstogiveaninsightintotheoreti-calquestions.Itdescribesbrieflythemaincharacteristicsoflegalterminologyanditanalysesfromvariouspointsofviewtheterminologicalapproachthatmaybeusedinthisdomain.

Subject to socio-cultural changes, legal terminology shouldalwaysbeup-to-date and,asa result,conceptsandtermscontinuouslychange,disappear,emergeandre-emerge;itischaracterisedbya strongverbalityaccompaniedbyunambiguityandflexibilityatthesametime,anditisalsoembeddedina systemwhichismanifestedinthefactthatnationallegalinstitutionsarecountryspecificandcloselylinkedtolaws.asconceptsarecomplex,lawyersoftenusetheprincipleofpraesumptio similitudinisandtheypresumesimilaritybetweenlin-guisticversionsinordertoenhancesuccessfulcommunication(Villányi2016:95).However,theyhavetoaimforexactlanguageuseasitiscrucialforlegalcertainty.Let’sconsideraboutthestatusofcourtinterpreters.asnémeth(2017)states,interpretingatcourtsandforpublicauthoritiesisa responsibleactivityinthejudicialsystemthatiscloselylinkedtosocialtrustinjustice.Therefore,courtinterpretersshouldhaveanextensiveknowledgeofthebasicsoflaw(Horváth2017).

4.1 legal terms of a nation vs. the euroPean union

Itisimportanttocalltheattentionofa beginnertranslatortothefactthatthelegalterminol-ogyofa nationandoftheeuropeanunionisnotnecessarilythesame.TheLSPforlawandadministrationandterminology,createdbytheinstitutionsoftheeuropeanunioninordertooperatethesame,isusuallydifferentiatedfromthenationalLSPforlawmainlycontainingtermscorrespondingtothelocal,geopoliticalterritorywithnationalspecificities.

Thesystemoflegalconceptsandterminologyoftheeuropeanunion(thatisbasedontheacquiscommunautaire)hasdifferentfeaturesasitisnotcountry-specificbutitisbuiltonsimilar,artificial,neutralanduniformlyunderstoodconcepts.Fromtheperspectiveofcontent


169


andlanguageitaimstobehomogeneous.Legaltermsoftheeuropeanunionhavea prioriautonomousequivalences,autonomousconceptsandconceptual systems(Somssich2011).duringtheselectionprocessoftheterms,itisworthexaminingthewaytheyrelatetothealreadyexistingtermslinkedtothespecificcountries.Isitworthhighlightingthedifferencesbetweentheconceptsontheleveloftermsorisitenoughtostandardisetheuseofthealreadyexistingconcepts?Isitworthintroducinga newterm?Forexample,inHungariana newterm(héa) wascoinedforvalueaddedtaxofMemberStates,whileinothercountriestherewerenonewlinguisticsignscoinedforthesameconceptbuttheinterpretation(definition)ofvalueaddedtax(áfa)wasextended.Termcreationinthiscaseisidealif,asa result,thelegalsystemsoftheeuandthecountriescomplementeachother(Tamás2014).

4.2 challenges stemming from differences in legal systems

WhiletheLSPforlawbetweenHungarianandgermanandbetweenFrenchandItalian,togetherallmembersoftheromanCivilLawsystem,sharesimilarfeaturesforhistoricalreasons.Theseparatedevelopmentoftheenglishspeciallanguageforlawisduetothedif-ferentdevelopmentpathofCommonLaw.For this reason, it iscommonknowledge thattheuseofenglishinCivilLawaslinguafrancaisposesgreatchallenges.Thereareseveralreasonsforthesedifficulties.romanCivilLawpreferswrittenlaw,whileCommonLawisbuiltoncaselaw(precedents)anddifferencesarevisibleinmanyareas:thelegalareasaredivideddifferently,therearedifferentlegalinstitutionswithdifferentstructures,evenpartsofjudgmentsmayfollowa differentorder.Itisalsoa factthatenglishistheofficiallanguageofmanycountriesanditisnotalwaysa solutiontouse“BritishLaw”forreferencesincethereisa differentsysteminenglandandWales,whilethereisa socalledhybridlegalsysteminScotland,mixingtraditionsofromanCivilLawandCommonLaw.ThelegalsystemsofthefederalstatesoftheunitedStatesarealsodifferentfromeachotherandalsofromthefederallevel.Thelargenumberofnativeandnon-nativelanguageusersmakesthesituationevenmorecomplicated,makingcountry-specifictheuseofenglish.Theuseofenglishtermsisotherwisecharacterisedbystrongdependenceoncontextasa resultofcertainlinguisticeconomy.Inthefieldoflawthesecharacteristicsmakeparticularlydifficultforenglishtoplaytheroleoflinguafranca.

Ina situationlikethisthenon-nativeusersofenglishneedpointsofreferencetohelptheminmakingtheirdecisions.This iswhy it is important togiveanexactanddetailedpresentationofthelegalconcepts,toindicatethedocumenttypesandtoforcethelanguageuserstomakedecisions,sinceitisbeneficialforthelanguageusertochoosea specificsolutiondependingonthecontextandontheclient.anexampleforthisisinthepaper:A jogszabály terminus megfeleltetésének kihívásairól az Alaptörvény angol nyelvű fordításaiban (http://www.jogiforum.hu/blog/5/188)The Challenges of Conveying the Term “ jogszabály” in the English Translation of the Fundamental Law of Hungary thatanalysesthespecificenglishequivalentsoftheHungarianterm“ jogszabály”(laws)ina specificcontexti.e.invariousenglishtransla-tionsoftheFundamentalLawofHungary(see legislation, legal regulations, lawandotherversions).Theanalysispointsoutthatseveralaspectsshouldbetakenintoconsiderationwhenmakingthefinaldecision,thereisnoperfectsolution,themostsuitabletermmightalsobea functionalequivalentwhichdoesnotcompletelycovertheHungarianconceptbutmight


170

dóraMáriaTamás

bea suitablesolutioninthegivencontext.Theuseofa functionalequivalentworksonlyifimportantconceptualdifferencesarenothiddenand the termselected isnotmisleading.Wherethereisa needfora newsolutionitsdefinitionandthesharingofsuchdefinitionshelptokeeptherelatedconceptobviousforthelanguageusers,evenifthetermisreinterpreted.Thiscanensuretheuniversaluseofa term.

Thisbookcontainsnosimilaranalysis,itwasnotpartofitsobjectives,butsuchexamina-tionsmaycontributetothemostdetailedanalysisofenglishlegalterms.ThedifficultiesofteachingenglishLSPforlawareexaminedinthepaperofBalog(2017),whoalsohighlightsthedependenceofenglishlegaltermsoncontextsanddealswiththequestionsofcategoris-inglegalgenres.

4.3 didactical dilemmas aprimaryobjectiveduringthecreationofthebookwastomakeitusefulforthosewhoareinterestedinthetopic.Thetargetgroupofreadersisnothomogeneoussincelegalterminol-ogyclassesareattendedbystudentswithdifferentbackgroundsofconceptualandlinguisticknowledge.

Thedefinitionoflegaltermsraisesa numberofquestions,whileprofessionalknowledgeisa centralquestioninterminology,too(Fóris2008).Theprimarysourcesfordefininglegalconceptsarelawsinforce.Sincetheyareauthenticsourcestheyfollowchanges,suchup-to-datednessisnotpossibleinprintedlegalencyclopaedias.Thelawsoftenlistseparatelyundergeneralprovisionsthedefinitionsoftheirconcepts.Traditionalterminologicaldefinitionstodefinelegalconceptsarerare.Sometimestheroleofthedefinitionisplayedbythedescriptionoffunctions(i.e.courttypes).Whenthecourtlevelsareexamineditisnotworthexaminingandconveyingthecourtsseparately,ratheritisbettertothinkina system(levels,casetypes,etc.).althoughsometimesittakesmoreefforttounderstandtheoriginaldefinitionsfromlaws,theyareoftenmoreaccurateandtheycorrespondtopracticeand,asexamples,theycanprovideuswithinformationaboutfindingdefinitionsforlegalterms.

underthedatacategoryofforeignlanguageequivalentsofa singleHungariantermtherearemoreversionslisted,standardisationofthistypewasnottheobjectiveofthebook,thiswouldhaverequiredbroaderdiscussions.ThepurposeofInternationaloverviewislimitedtodescribingdifferentversions,thestudentsmaylookforreliablesourcesina foreignlanguageonthebasisofthedescriptionofthelegalconceptsandtheequivalentsandtheycancompletetheprocessofconceptualcomparison.

duringthechoiceoftermsanobjectivewastoselecttermswhichareparticularlyimpor-tantwhenlearninglegalterminologyandinpractice,too.Certainrecordswillremaincurrent(e.g.‘szándékosság’- intentionality)whileotherswilllosetheirup-to-datednessduetochangesinlaw(e.g.treediagramofpublic administration),buttheserecordsmaybeusedinthefutureasexamplesforfindingsourcesforlegalterms,describinglegalconcepts,approachingprob-lemsorforfindingsolutions.

Selectingthetypesofdocumentsalsoraisedseveralquestionsrelatedto,forexampletheirmoredetailedclassificationanddescription,aswellasfurtheropportunitiesforusingthem.Theaimwastocollectintheannexeoriginal,anonymiseddocumentsrelatedtothetermspresented in the glossary,possibly from several countrieswithin the same language area.


171


ThesedocumentsinHungarianandfourforeignlanguagesmay,ontheonehand,beusefulforstudentswitha preliminaryknowledgeoflanguagesandlinguistics,whowanttobecomefamiliarwithcertaintypesofdocumentsevenbeforetheyactuallyhavetotranslatethem,while,ontheotherhand,thecountryspecificcharacteristicsmaybeofinterestinthecontextofexploringterminology.

5. suMMary

assuggestedabove,althoughconveyinglegaltermsisa complextask,terminologyofferssomesolutionsthatlanguageserviceprovidersmayrelyonandusefororientatingtheirchoices.Studentsintranslation,interpretingandterminologyprogrammeswillmanagetolearnlegaltermsina foreignlanguageiftheyfirstbecomeacquaintedwithandunderstandtheconceptsrepresentedbyHungarianlegalterms.asa textbookintroducinglegalconceptsbasedona ter-minologicalapproach,thisworkendeavourstohelpmeetthischallenge.Inordertoachievethis, thebookpresents the theoreticalbackgroundwhile italsodemonstrates throughtheglossaryhowtheoryisputintopractice.althoughsocialchangeswillinevitablybringaboutchangesinlegalterminology,theapproachadoptedinthebookmaymaintainitsrelevance.

references

Balogh,d.2017.a jogiszaknyelvoktatásésa jogiszakfordítóképzéskapcsolódásipontjai.[Inter-facesbetween teachingLSP for lawand training legal translators.]Modern Nyelv oktatás Vol. 23.no.4.3–21.

Fóris, Á. 2008. Kutatásról nyelvészeknek. [on research for linguists.] Budapest: nemzetiTankönyvkiadó.

Horváth,I.2013.Bírósági Tolmácsolás.[Courtroominterpreting].Budapest:eLTeeötvösKiadó.

Horváth,I.2017.Bíróságitolmácsolása gyakorlatban.[CourtroominterpretatinginPractice.]In:Horváth,I.(szerk.)Tolmácsolás a bíróságon. Esettanulmányok a bírósági tolmácsolás gya-korlatából.[Interpretingatcourt.CasestudiesoncourtInterpreting.]Budapest:HVg-oraCLap-ésKönyvkiadóKft.9–13.

Klaudy,2017.egyirányúinterdiszciplinaritás:a fordítástudománykapcsolataa terminológiá-valésa pragmatikával.[one-wayinterdisciplinarity:therelationshipbetweenTranslationStudiesandTerminologyandPragmatics.]FordítástudományXIX.1.szám.5–20.

Kovács,T.2015.Contract Law. Szerződések Joga. Angol jogi szaknyelv I.[Contractlaw.Legalenglish.]Budapest:révaidigitálisKiadó.

németh,g.2017.Igazságügyietikaidilemmákésösszefüggéseka bíróságitolmácsolásban.[JudicialandethicaldilemmasandrelatedIssues.]In:Horváth,I.(szerk.)Tolmácsolás a bíróságon. Esettanulmányok a bírósági tolmácsolás gyakorlatából.[Interpretingatcourt.CasestudiesoncourtInterpreting.]Budapest:HVg-oraCLap-ésKönyvkiadóKft.14–22.

Petz,a.2014.Terminology of Civil Law.Budapest:arxofficeKft.Somssich,r.2011.Az európai jog fogalmai.[Conceptsofeuropeanlaw.]Budapest:eLTe

Állam-ésJogtudományiKar,nemzetköziMagánjogiéseurópaigazdaságiJogiTanszék(JeanMonnetCentreofexcellence).


172

dóraMáriaTamás

Tamás,d.2014a.A gazdasági szakszövegek fordításának terminológiai kérdéseiről. Fordítás-tudományi értekezések I.[Theterminologicalaspectsofthetranslationofeconomictexts.essaysinTranslationStudiesI.]Budapest:eLTeBTKFordító-ésTolmácsképzőTanszék.

Tamás, d. M. 2017. Bevezetés a jogi terminológiába a terminológus szemüvegén át. [Intro-duction to legal terminologyobserved through the lensof a terminologist.]Budapest:eLTeeötvösKiadó.(http://www.eltereader.hu/kiadvanyok/tamas-dora-maria-bevezetes-a-jogi-terminologiaba-a-terminologus-szemuvegen-at/).

Tamás,d.M.2017.a jogszabályterminusmegfeleltetésénekkihívásairólazalaptörvényan-golnyelvűfordításaiban.[Thechallengesofconveyingtheterm“Jogszabály”(laws)intheenglishtranslationofthefundamentallawofHungary.]Jogi Fórum(blog)(2017.október27.)http://www.jogiforum.hu/blog/5/188.

Trebits,a.,Fischer,M.2009.EU English – Using English in EU Contexts.Budapest:Klett.VárnaiJ.Sz.,Mészárosa.É.2011.Fordítókalauz.[aTranslator’sguide.]Budapest:Tinta

Könyvkiadó.Villányi,J.2016.egyhelyes,kétfordított.onerightandtwolefts.In:Bencze,L.(szerk.)

A pontos fogalmazás művészete.Clear writing.Budapest:MagyarnyelvstratégiaiIntézet(manysi.hu/download/69).


173

ProJeCt worK in the legal translation ClassrooM – First results oF an eMPiriCal

investigation

dorka balogh and márta lesznyák

[email protected],[email protected]

abstract: Theprojectmethod is a frequentlyquoted subject in translationmethodology,but it ismainlycasestudiesthatareintroducedandthereisa scarcityofempiricalresearchrelatedtoprojectwork.Inthispaper,weintroducetheprojectmethodfroma criticalpointofviewandsummarisetheresultsofanempiricalresearch,basedona legaltranslationprojectconductedintwodifferenthighereducation institutions inHungarywithdifferent typesof training:a postgraduate(Ma)courseatSZTe–theuniversityofSzeged,Facultyofarts,anda postgraduatespecialist trainingcourseatPPKeJÁK–PázmányPéterCatholicuniversity,Budapest,FacultyofLawandPoliticalSciences.Startingfrom2015,19groupsand84studentshaveparticipatedintheprojects,translatinga 15-pagelonglegaltextinteamsoffourorfive.Theywerealsoaskedtofillinquestionnairesandanswerques-tionsaboutthetranslatedtext,theworkflowandthecooperationbetweenteammembers.altogether79questionnaireswereanalysed.relyingbothonstudentfeedbackandonourexperiencesastranslatortrainers,wecomparetheefficiencyofteamworkandindividualwork,andintroducetheadvantagesandthepossiblechallengesposedbytheprojectmethod.Keywords:legaltranslation,translatortraining,projectmethod,empiricalresearch

1. introduCtion

Theprojectmethodisa frequentlyquotedsubjectintranslationmethodologythesedays,itisoneofthemostrecurrenttopicsatTSconferences.However,afterreviewingtheresearchpapersandarticleswritteninthetopicwefindthatinspiteofthepopularityofthesubject,thereareonlya fewpaperspresentingfindingsbasedonempiricalresearch.

Inourpaperweattempttonarrowthegapbetweenthetheoryandthepracticalapplica-tionoftheprojectmethodbyintroducingresearchresults,basedona legaltranslationprojectconductedintwodifferenthighereducationinstitutionsinHungary(SZTe–theuniversityofSzeged,FacultyofartsandPPKeJÁK–PázmányPéterCatholicuniversity,Budapest,FacultyofLawandPoliticalSciences)atdifferenteducationallevels:postgraduate(Ma)levelatSZTeandpostgraduatespecialisttrainingprogramlevelatPPKeJÁK.TheMaleveltrain-ingisa two-year,four-semestertranslatortrainingprogram,wherestudentsarenotrequiredtohaveanyspecialistlegalknowledgeatentrylevel,aslegaltranslationconstitutesonlya partoftheirtraining.Incontrast,thestudentsofthepostgraduatespecialisttrainingprogramareallqualifiedinlaw,astheentryrequirementfortheirthree-semestertrainingwasa legaldegree.

Withintheframeworkoftheprojectstudentshadtotranslatethreeinterconnectedlegaldocuments(atotalof15pages)fromenglishintoHungarianinteamsoffourorfive.The


174

dorkaBaloghandMártaLesznyák

projectwasdoneonthreeoccasions(inthespringsemesterof2015,2016and2017)atbothinstitutions,however,as thedata for2017havenotbeenprocessedyet, thepresent studyfocusesonthedataofthefirsttwoyears(2015and2016).

ourresearchhasbeendividedintotwophasessofar:whileinthefirstphasewefocusedontheprosandconsofprojectwork,inthesecondphaseweexaminedthedifferencesbe-tweenthequalityofthetranslationspreparedbystudentswithandwithoutlegalknowledge.Thepresentstudyisbasedontheresultsofthefirstphaseoftheresearch,whereourmainaimwastocollectdataonthepracticalrealisationoftheproject(conditions,timing,prosandcons,challenges,etc.)bywayofquestionnairesgivenouttothestudentsafterfinishingtheproject,andtoassessandanalysetheanswersgiventothequestionnaires.Theresearchmethodappliedwasmainlyquantitativeinbothphases,withsomequalitativeaspects.

2. the rationale For ProJeCt worK in the CurriCuluM oF the legal translator training

Theuseofprojectworkintranslationcourseshaslongbeenadvocatedbyseveralresearchersintranslationmethodology(Bieł2011,gonzález-davies2004,2016,greere2014,Kiraly2000,2003,2005,2012,Li2013,2015,Horváth2013,2016,olveraLoboetal.2007,Pralas2014,nord2005,Kovács2016,Kelly2005,Pym2007).Mostofthemagreethata project-basedmethodologywithitsstudent-centeredandreflectiveapproachnotonlyleadstoanenhancedawarenessof learning,butalsodevelopsprofessional skillsandcompetences ina complexandeffectiveway.asBieł(2011:174)seesit,“thisapproachpositionstranslationaspartofa largerwhole,a projectcycle”.nordsuggeststhatprojectworkshouldbeintroducedatad-vancedphasesoftheprogramandthateachtranslationstudentshouldtakepartinatleastoneprojectduringtheirtraining.gonzález-davies(2004)specificallyurgesthattranslatortrainingshouldtakeplaceinstudent-centredandtask-basedclasses,sincedifferenttaskscanhelpstudentsexperiencetheexplorationoftranslationprocesseswhicharedelineatedinthesyllabus,whileHurtadoalbir(2007)recommendsthattranslationtask-basedapproachesarebuiltintothecurriculumtopromotestudents’translationcompetence.

Furtherargumentsforapplyingproject-basedlearningarerelatedtothebenefitsstudentsgainfromitbygroupworkandcooperativelearning.althoughsomesuggestthatprojectsintranslationclassescanalsobedoneindividually(Lietal.2015),inmostcasesprojectworkincludesgroupwork,ortheconceptofgroupworkisfrequentlymergedwithprojectwork(gonzález-davies2016,Thelen2016).a possibleexplanationforthegrowingimportanceofgroupworkintranslationmethodologymightbethattheneedforthequicktranslationoflengthytextshasincreaseddramaticallyinthe21stcenturyandtranslationagenciescanonlymeetthisdemandbydividingthetextsamongtranslators.asa consequence,translatorsneedtolearntocooperate,atleastata minimumlevel.Translationisnota loneactivityanymore,rather,itisa cooperativeaction.accordingtoHorváth(2013),themoderntranslatorworksinonlineprojectsandteamwork,intensivelyinteractingwithothersandbuildingrelationships.Carefullydesignedandsupervisedprojectworkhelpsstudentsmanageand improvetheirindividuallearningstyles,autonomouslearningskillsandcriticalthinking,developslearnerresponsibility,evaluationandself-evaluationskills(Horváth2016).


175

ProjectWorkintheLegalTranslationClassroom…

Itisalsorelevanttonotethattheliteratureontranslationpedagogydifferentiatesbetweenpedagogicalandauthenticprojects(gonzález-davies2004).Inthecaseofauthenticprojects,studentstranslatetextscommissionedbyrealclients,whileinpedagogicalprojectsthetrainersselectthetext(s)tobetranslated,whichgivesmorescopeformethodologicalplanning.asau-thenticprojectsareofanadhocnatureandcannotbeplannedinadvance,mostoftheprojectworkappliedintranslatortrainingispedagogical,asistheprojectpresentedinthisstudy.

3. the desCriPtion oF the ProJeCt

3.1 text selection

Projectworkallowsforthetranslationofa complete,longertextinsteadofpartsoftextorpara-graphs,andthushelpsfocusontextualfeatures,suchascohesion,coherence,consistencyofterminologyandstyle.Furthermore,mostresearchers(e.g.nord2005,Kelly2005,Bieł2011,Kiraly2005,House2015)agreethatauthentictexts increasetheefficiencyofthetraining.However,inlegaltranslationtrainingitisa sensitiveissue,as,duetoconfidentialityissues,au-thentictexts,especiallyprivatelegaldocumentsarehardtofind.Someotheraspectstobecon-sideredwhenselectingthetexttobetranslatedinadditiontothelengthandtheauthenticityofthetextarethelegalgenre,thedifficultyofthetextandthedirectionofthetranslation.

asthecontractisa prototypicallegalgenre(Bieł2011)anditisalsooneofthelegaldocumenttypesmostfrequentlyorderedfortranslationattranslationagencies,wechosea fifteen-pagelongagreementmadeupofthreeparts(inwhichanItaliancompanysubcontractedanotherItaliancompanytocarryouttherenovationofa hotelinBudapest)withalltheattributesnecessarytopresentstudentswithproblemstheyalsofaceincommercialpractice,suchasthespecialterminologyofthegivenarea(thatoftheconstructionindustryinourcase)ortheoccasionalambiguityofthetext.Itwasauthenticinthesensethatoneoftheauthorshadbeenassignedwiththetranslationofthetextsomeyearsearlier.Thetextwaswritteninlinguafrancaenglish(translatedfromItalianintoenglishbyItalians),whichincreasedthelevelofdifficultyofthetext,butaswedidnothavea widerchoiceoftextstoselectfrom,wehadtocompromiseonthataspect.Thetextincludedmanyunusualphrasesandstructures,whichmadeitdifficulttounder-standandidentifylegaltermsandphrases,astheywerenotalwaysformulatedinstandardlegalenglish(examplesincludeIVainsteadofVaT,ChamberofCommerce,Industry,HandicraftsandagricultureinBudapest–aninstitutionnotexistinginsucha form)togetherwithsomeothertypesoferrors.Inaddition–astherenovationtookplaceinHungary–theapplicablelawwasHungarianandthesubjectoftheagreementrequireda certainlevelofunderstandingofarchitecturalandengineeringconceptsanda competentuseofappropriateterminology.

Froma methodologicalpointofview,thischoiceraisesa fewconcerns,asthenumberofvariablesincreasesina textthatisnotwrittenbynativespeakers.Theappropriateuseoflegaltermsandregisterisa challengeinitself(especiallyforstudentswhoarenottrainedinlaw),sowebothagreedthatthetextismoredifficultthanwhatisreasonablyjustified.ontheotherhand,Kelly(2005)andBieł(2011)arguethattextsshouldbeunmanipulated(presentedintheiroriginalform)andtheybothsuggestthatstudentstrytranslatinglinguafrancatexts,sothattheylearnthatnotallsourcetextsareperfectandtheyareforcedtodevelopstrategiestotackletheseproblems.ConsideringthefactthatourMastudentswereintheirfinalsemester


176


andthestudentsofthepostgraduatespecialisttrainingcoursewereallqualifiedlawyers,wefinallycametothedecisionthatsucha challengewouldbebeneficialforthem.

3.2 the realisation and the timing of the Project

Studentswereaskedtotranslatetheselected15-pagetextbeforea givendeadlineinteamsof4-5,andtoproofreadthetranslationpreparedbyoneoftheotherteams.astheaimwastosimulatethewholetranslationprocess,eachstudentina teamwasrequiredtoundertakeoneofthefollowingroles:

– projectmanager– terminologist– proofreader/revisor(ingroupsoffour,thesetaskswereseparated,whileingroupsoffive

theserolesweremergedandperformedbyoneperson)– editor– languagetechnologist.

Inadditiontothetext,studentsreceiveda detaileddescriptionofthetasks,therolesandtheschedule(seeannexe1)inwriting.Thetaskwasalsoconceptualised,thatis,studentswereprovidedwitha briefinformingthemaboutthebackground,therecipientsandtheaimofthetranslation.Theteamshadtoreachmutualagreementontheallocationofthetext,therolesandalsooninternaldeadlines.Theywereinformedthatthetrainersactasclients,sotheymayaskthemanyquestiontheywouldaska realclient.Theyhadtheopportunitytoaskquestions,discussthetasksandallocatetherolesduringtheorientationlesson,whentheyalsoreceivedtheinstructions(thetwo-pagetranslationbrief,seeannexe1)andthetexttobetranslated.TheyhadapproximatelyonemonthtopreparethetargettextandatPPKeJÁKanothermonthtoproofreadandrevisethetranslationofoneoftheothergroups.In2015atSZTethefinalphaseoftheprojectcoincidedwiththeendofthetermwhenstudentswererequiredtohandintheirdiplomawork,soproofreadingwasomitted.In2016,whentheschedulewasbroughtforward,theproofreadingphasewasreintroduced,butstudentshadtodoitina week.

Inordertohaveinformationonthecollaborationprocess,studentswereaskedtorecordtheirexperiencesandreflectionsina journal.Theywereinstructedtonotedownbothprofes-sional(i.e.translationrelated)andsocial(cooperationrelated)issues.Theseobservationswerepresentedanddiscussedinthelastclassroomsession,wheneachgrouphadtogivea Powerpointpresentationfocusingonmajortranslationproblems,theprocessofsolvingthem,andthead-vantagesandchallengesofcooperation.Presentationswerefollowedbythetrainers’evaluationandwholeclassdiscussions,afterwhichthestudentswereaskedtofillinthequestionnaires.

4. the researCh

4.1 the aim of the research and research Questions

afterreviewingtheliteraturewrittenonprojectworkandrealisingtherelativescarcityofempiricaldata,wefocusedourresearchquestionsmainlyonempiricalresults,inthehopethatourfindingswillgivecluestotranslatortrainerswhowouldliketoapplytheprojectmethod.Thequestionswereformulatedasfollows:


177


– Whataresomeoftheconditionsnecessaryfortheefficiencyofprojectworkintransla-tiontraining?

– Whataretheadvantagesoftheprojectmethod?– Whatchallengesdoesitposetostudentsandtrainers?

4.2 data collection methods and tools

Toanswerourresearchquestions,weusedmixedmethods(actionresearchcombinedwithsurveytechnique).

Theunderlyingobjectiveoftheresearchwastointroduceandevaluateup-to-datemeth-odology(i.e.theprojectmethod)intranslationteachingby the trainers themselves.Itistheparadigmofactionresearch(ar)thatisbestsuitedforsuchpurposes,asa resultarwasadoptedinthestudy.griffee(2012:109)definesarasa “small-scaleinvestigationbyteach-ersonspecificclassroomproblemsforthepurposeofcurriculumrenewaland/orprofessionaldevelopment”.Theresearchquestionslistedaboveareinlinewiththisdefinition:theyfocusontheprojectmethodasaninstrumentofchange.

Theprimarydatawehavefromararenotesfromthetrainers(asresearchers),bothfromtheorientationphase(beforecarryingouttheproject)andtheevaluationphase(aftertheproject).Intheorientationphase,thedescriptionoftheproject(seeannexe)promptedstu-dents’questionsandsometimesremarks.Intheevaluationphase,thefollowingsetofreflec-tionquestionswereusedasa startingpointfordiscussion:

– Howdidyouliketheproject?– Howdidyouorganisegroupwork?(Howdidyouallocateroles?Howdidyoudecide

aboutdeadlines?)– How successful do you think cooperation was in your group? (Why? Facilitators?

Problems?)– Howdidyoucommunicateduringtheproject?– Howwellcouldyoufulfilyourrolesinthegroup?(Canyoutellussomedetails?did

youhaveanyspecificdifficultiesbecauseoftherolesassignedtoyou?)– Whatwerethemostimportantlessonslearntintheproject?

Thestudents’PowerPointpresentations(fortheirstructure,seeannexe)providedfurtherinsightsintoprofessionalandsocialexperiencesduringtheproject.Inaddition,e-mailsandotherdiscussionnotesprovideinformationonhowtheprojectevolvedandhowthetrainersreportedandreflectedontheirexperiences.

However,ardesignhasseveral limitationsanddisadvantages,themostwidelyknownbeingitslessrigorous,lesssystematicandmoreinformalnature,coupledwithlimitedrepeat-abilityoftheactualdesignandthelackofgeneralisabilityofthefindings(seee.g.nunan1992,griffee2012,roseetal.2014).Consequently,wedecidedtobalancearbyusingstructureddatacollectioninstruments,specificallya questionnaire,datafromwhichcouldbequantifiedandstatisticallyanalysed.

In2015,wedeviseda questionnaireinHungariantocollectdataonstudents’experienceswiththeprojecttheyhaveparticipatedinandontheirviewsonprojectmethodandcoopera-tioningeneral(seeannexe2fortheenglishversionofthequestionnaire,translatedbythe


178


authors).Thequestionnaireincludedbothcloseditemswithfive-point-Likert-scalesandopen-endedquestions.Intheanalysisbelowwewillrelyondatacollectedin2015and2016.

Inadditiontothedatacollectedbymeansofthequestionnaire,ourreflectionsbasedonnotes,observations,discussionsande-mailsprovidedvaluableinsightsintotheworkingsoftheprojectmethod.Wewillrelyonbothsourcesofinformationwhenansweringtheresearchquestions.

4.3 ParticiPants

altogether19groupsand84 studentsparticipated in translationprojects in thepast twoyears(Table1).79questionnaireswerereturnedoutofthe84distributedforthestudy,givinga responserateof94%.ouranalysisisbasedonthese79questionnaires.

Table 1:Thesample

sZte btK Ma PPKe JÁK

2015 34students(8groups) 9students(2groups)2016 28students(6groups) 13students(3groups)Total 62students(14groups) 22students(5groups)

4.4 data analysis and discussion

Inthefollowingsections,thefindingsofthequestionnairewillbepresentedfirst,followedbya summaryofthetrainers’reflections.

4.4.1 The organisation and the management of the projectThefirstpartofthequestionnairefocusedonthecontextoftheproject,thatis,theinstruc-tionsanddescriptionsgivenabouttheprojectitselfandthetranslationtask,theperceiveddifficultyofthetext,anditsrelevanceforthecourse(legaltranslation).a questiononthetimeallottedwasincludedinthequestionnaire,too.ourfindingsaresummarisedinTable 2,wheremeanvaluesandstandarddeviationareshownbyinstitutionaswell,althoughitmustbeemphasisedthatoverall,nostatisticallysignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweentheopinionofstudentsfromthetwodifferentuniversities.nevertheless,thefiguresdeservea closeranalysis.

Table 2:Students’opiniononsomeorganisationalelementsoftheproject.Meanvaluesandstandarddeviationbyinstitutions(SZTe=Szegeduniversity,PPKe=PázmányPéterCatholicuniversity,

n.s = non-significant)

mean (sd) mean sZte (sd) mean PPKe (sd) ttestdescriptionofproject(clear?) 4.38 4.28(0.86) 4.63(0.60) n.stranslationbrief(clear?) 4.31 4.38(0.78) 4.00(1.00) n.srelevanceoftext 4.59 4.65(0.60) 4.42(0.84) n.sdifficultyoftext(1=veryeasy;5 = verydifficult) 3.90 3.86(1.25) 4.00(0.82) n.s

allottedtime(enough?) 3.94 3.94(0.50) 4.05(0.62) n.s


179


Thedatasuggestthatthedescription of the projectandthe translation briefwasclearformostofthestudents(meanvalueswere4.38and4.31respectively).Similarly,therelevance (mean=4.59)andthedifficulty(mean=3.90)of the source textwasjudgedtobeappropriateforthecourse.asalreadyindicated,nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenthestudentsenrolledinSZTeandPPKe,which,ontheonehand,suggeststhatthesameinstructionsworkeffectivelywiththetwodifferentpopulations.ontheotherhand,however,itwassomewhatsurprisingthatstudentsofhumanitiesandlegalprofessionalsdidnotdiffersignificantlywithrespecttohowdifficulttheyfoundthesource text.giventhedifficultyofthesourcetextdescribedaboveindetail,itcanbehypothesisedthatstudentsofhumanitiesdidnotrecognisethedifficultyofthetextbecauseoftheirlackofprofessionalknowledge.Thisisa well-knownphenomenonoftenreportedintranslationprocessresearch(seee.g.Jääskeläinen1999).Inaddition,thesecondphaseofourstudyhasalreadystarted,wheretranslationerrorsofhumanitiesandlawstudentsarequantifiedandcompared.ourpreliminaryresultssuggestthatstudentsofhumanitiestendedtomakemoremistakes,indicatingthatthetextwasprobablymorechallengingforthemthantheyhaverealised.

ThelackofsignificantdifferencesinsatisfactionwithallottedtimehidessubstantialannualanomaliesinSzeged.In2015themeanvaluewasonly3.36,whichroseto4.72in2016,andthechangewassignificant(F=9.29/p≤0.01/,t=–3.16/p≤0.01/).Thereasonbehindthechangeinstudents’satisfactionwasthatthetimingoftheprojectwaschangedandanextraweekwasofferedfortheproject.Thisexampleofgrowingsatisfactionshowsthatminororganisationalissuescanhavea considerableeffectontheperceptionofprojectwork.

4.4.2 The translation student: a lone wolf or the life of the party?Thequestionnaireofferedinsightsintothesocialaspectsoftranslation,too,althoughinanindirectway.Inquestion8,studentswereaskedwhethertheyfoundindividualtranslationorteamworkmoreusefulintranslationtraining.78.2%ofthemsaidthatbothmethodswereequallyuseful,whereas20.7%preferredindividualtranslationtoprojectwork.Therewasnoonewhowouldhavefavouredteamwork.Itwasalsoapparentthatstudentsofhumanitieswereclearlyoverrepresentedamongthe“individualists”(seeFigure 1).Thechi-squaretestshowedthatthedifferencesbetweenthehumanitiesmajorsandthelegalprofessionalswerestatisticallysignificant(X2 (2, N = 84) = 6.88, p <.05.).

Figure 1:Students’answerstoquestion:whichformofworkdoyoufindmoreusefulintranslationtraining?


180


Severalexplanationscanbefoundforthisfinding.Itisrelativelywell-knownthatpersonal-itytypesarerelatedtocareerchoices(see,forexample,theBigSixtheoryanditsrelationtotheBigFivepersonalitytheory–CostaandMcCrae1999,HoganandBlake1999,Mountetal.2005).asfarasweknow,thereisnoreliableempiricaldataonwhatpersonalitiesaredrawntohumanitiesandtotranslationandinterpretation(althoughtherearemanyguessesandhunches),butwecansetupa hypothesisthathumanitiesstudentsandlawstudents/legalprofessionalsmaydifferinsomepersonalityfactorsthatsurfacedintheaboveresearchfind-ing.Validatedpersonalitytestsshouldbeusedtotestthishypothesis.

also,differencesinageandexperience(legalprofessionalsbeingolderandalreadywork-ing)canexplainthedifferences(partiallyorwholly).Horváth’sresearch(2007a)surveyingthelearninghabitsofstudentsatthebeginningandendoftheirinterpreterandtranslatortrainingateLTeuniversity,Budapest,seemstojustifythisassumption:accordingtoherre-sults,freshlyenrolledstudentspreferindividuallearningmethodstoteamwork,whichmightbeexplainedbytheirbeingsocialisedinthetraditionallearningenvironmentandrejectinggroup-worksimplybecausetheyhavenotacquiredthesocialskillsnecessaryforteamwork.asforthelegalprofessionals,theworldofworkcouldhavetaughtthemhowtolearnincol-laborative,task-orientedsettings.obviously,testsonpreviousexperienceswithprojectandgroupworkcouldhelptoshedlightontheroleofthisfactor.

Whatremainsa puzzle,however,isthedifferenceamonghumanitiesstudentsthemselves.Clearly,humanitiesstudentsdonotforma completelyhomogeneousgroupeither,thus,personal-itydifferencesandpreviousexperiencesmayaccountforthedifferencesintheirgroup,too,and,assaid,thiscouldandshouldbetestedina separatestudypartlybyprofessionalpsychologists.

anotherpossibleexplanationforthedifferencesisthatstudents’socialandcommunica-tioncompetencesinfluencehowtheyperceiveindividualandproject/groupworkandhowtheyreacttoit.accordingly,weassumedthatthepro-individual-workstudentsmighthavedeficiencies intheirsocialandcommunicationcompetences,whichmayresult ina prefer-enceforlonework.In2016,humanitiesstudentsatSZTefilledouttheHungarianversionoftheICQ(InterpersonalCommunicationQuestionnaire,Buhrmesteretal.1988).TheICQmeasuresfivedimensionsofinterpersonalcommunication:initiation,negativeassertion,dis-closure,emotionalsupportandconflictmanagement.TheICQwaschosenbecauseitsdimen-sionsrepresentskillsthatareneededforsuccessfulcooperation(Lesznyák2016).

TheresultsoftheICQdidnotconfirmourhypothesis.‘Individualists’didnothavesig-nificantlyweakersocialskillsthanotherstudents,buttheyscoredsignificantlyhigher on self-assertion,indicatingthattheirpreferenceforsolitaryworkina learningsituationmighthavenothingtodowiththeircooperationskills.Itissimplya personalpreferencefora learningen-vironment.Insummary,ourresultssuggestthatindividualswithaverage social skills and high assertivenesswillprefersolitaryworkandlearningtoprojectandgroupwork.Itmustbenoted,however,thatthisisstudents’spontaneousreactiontotheirprobablyfirstexperienceofprojectwork.Itiswidelyknownthatlearningtechniquesmustbelearnt,asa consequence,students’opinionmaychangeafterhavinggainedmoreexperiencewithgroupandprojectwork.

nevertheless,therelativelyhighproportionofreluctantteam-workerscanbea warningsignfortranslationteachers,asitsuggeststhatstudentswillnotbeequallymotivatedtodoprojectsandtheprofittheygainfromteam-workmaybehighlyindividual,too.


181


4.4.3 benefits and drawbacks of teamworkInformationonthebenefitsanddrawbacksofteamworkwascollectedwiththehelpofopen-endedquestions(numbers6−7and9).Toanalysestudents’responses,contentanalysiswasper-formed.answersgivenbythestudentswerecopiedtoanexcelfiletofacilitateefficientcoding.afterreadingresponsescarefully,wordsandthemeswereestablishedascodingunits.asa nextstep,typicalwordsandthemes(keywordsandkeythemes)inrecurrentpatternsandtopicswereidentifiedandcodingcategoriesweresetuprelyingonthesekeywordsandkeythemes.Thiswasfollowedbythecategorisationofresponsesandthequantificationprocedure.

asforthebenefitsofteamwork,152answersweregiven(morethanoneanswerwasac-ceptable),themostcommonbeing

– opportunitiestolearncooperation(19%oftheanswers)– mutualhelp,consultations(13.1%)– thequalityofthetranslation(better)(10.5%)– theopportunitytogetfeedback(7.9%)– theopportunitytolearnfromeachother(7.2%)– speed(itisfasterthanindividualtranslation)(6.5%).

Thechallenges(109)thatstudentsencounteredduringtheprojectcouldclearlybedividedintotwocategories,thatis,professionalandsocial.Itisremarkablethatmanyproblemstheylistedarenotrelatedtotheproject itselfbuttotranslationingeneral.Themostcommonchallengeswereasfollows:

Professionalchallenges:– sourcetexttoodifficult(14.7%)– terms,terminology(13.8%)– proofreading/editing(11.9%).

Socialchallenges:– timemanagement(13.8%)– cooperation,communication(11%)– unsociable,non-cooperativepeers(6.4%)– allocatingtasks(3.7%).

Inconclusion,students’answerssuggestthat,althoughteamworkinprojectscanbea usefulexperienceasstudentslearnsocialskillsthisway,atthesametimeitishardworkformanyofthempreciselybecauseofthelackofsocialskillssomeoftheirpeersshow.Students’reportsofspecificconflictsimplythatitisanillusionthatprojectworkisnothingbutfunandlaughter,nomatterhowpositivestudentsusuallyareaboutitintheend.

4.4.4 The advantages of individual workWealsoaskedrespondentstonametheadvantagesofindividualwork.165answersweregivenandtheycouldbegroupedinthefollowingcategories:

– noneedtoadjust,negotiate,coordinate,etc.(24.2%)– owntimingandpace(23%)– fullresponsibility(ononlyoneperson)(16.4%)


182


– textmorecoherent;unityofstyleandtone(7.9%)– donothavetotakeresponsibilityforothers(6.7%)– noconflict,tensionorfight(3%)– faster(3%).

Themostfrequentlynamedadvantagesofindividualworkareallrelatedtoindependence.Theyreflectstudents’recognitionthatitiseasiertoorganiseworkiftheydonothavetoadjusttoothers.The“fullresponsibilityononlyoneperson”categorydeservesfurtherattention.Inthelit-eratureonprojectworkitisoftensuggestedthatprojectshelpstudentslearntotakeresponsibil-ity.ourdatasuggeststhatmanystudentsinoursampledoalreadyknowhowtotakeresponsi-bilityforthemselves.Whattheyarenotcomfortablewith,istakingresponsibilityforothers.

Thesefindings,again,suggestthatgroupworkshouldbelearnedandpractised.never-theless,wemustnotethatindividualworkwillalwayshaveitsadvantagesovergroupwork(andviceversa)–beingabletonametheadvantagesofoneandtheotherdoesnotnecessarilysuggestpreference,itsimplyindicatessoundreflectiononbehalfofthestudents.

4.4.5 The trainer’s reflections on project workInthepasttwoyears,wemadeimportantobservationsthatcouldnothavebeencollectedbyanyothermeansthanpersonalparticipationintheprojects.Fromtheperspectiveofthetrainer,projectsintranslationoffertheopportunitytostudentstotranslatelonger(oftencom-plete)authentictexts,whichresultsinthestudentsfacingproblemstheyhavenotfacedbefore(e.g.terminology,coherence,time-management).Projectsalsohelpinmakingstudentsmoreautonomousandindependent.Similarly,theymakestudentsrealisetheimportanceoftransla-tor’scompetencesinadditiontotranslationcompetences.Finally,weagreewithstudentsonthepointthattheycanlearna lotfromeachother.

our notes from the discussions in the project closing classroom sessions suggest thatprojectworkisgenerallywellreceivedwellbythestudentsanditisa positiveexperienceformostofthem.assomeofthestudentsstated,itmightverywellbethemostpositiveandmemorableexperienceoftheircourses.nevertheless,someproblemsemergedwithinthetwoyearsthatneedaddressing,aswell.Thesourcetext(itsdifficultyanditslength)andthetim-ingoftheprojectarecrucialfactors:weshouldavoidoverchallengingstudentsasmuchasunderchallengingthem.Inotherwords,thedifficultyofthetaskshouldbematchedtowhatVygotskycallsthestudents’zoneofproximaldevelopment(Vygotsky1978).Thisiseasiersaidthandoneasitvariesfromgrouptogroupwhatcountsasa difficulttextandhowmuchtimeisneededforstudentstotranslateit.

Thebiggestchallengeswefacedduringtheimplementationoftheprojectwererelatedtothecompositionoftheteamsandtheallocationoftheroleswithintheteams.groupdynamicsandthesuccessoftheachievementoftheteamsdependslargelyontheircomposition,which,accordingtoourexperience,worksbestwhentheteamisheterogeneous.Cohen(1994)statesthata grouptaskhastwocharacteristics,onebeingthattheresourcesarenotpossessedbyonesingleperson,thesuccessofachievementdependingoneverygroupmember’scontribution.Theotheristhattheinterdependencebetweenthegroupmembersisreciprocal,thatis,eachstudentisdependentonthecontributionsofallothers.Whenstudentsformteamsthemselves,


183


theytendtofollowthewell-knownprincipleofsocialpsychology,“birdsofa featherflocktogether”(aronson2008,Forgas1989,McPhersonetal.2001)thatis,theytendtoformrela-tivelyhomogeneousgroups.Thishasseveraldrawbacks:ontheonehand,somegroups(withweakerstudents)aredoomedtofail,whichevokesnegativefeelingsinitself.also,ifthereareno“moreproficient”studentsinthegroup,thereisnochancetolearnfromeachother,either.asa result,projectworklosesoneofitsmainadvantages.Inaddition,ifstudentsformgroupsspontaneously,theyaremorelikelytochoosetheirfriendsandacquaintances,thustheymissthechancetolearntocooperatewithsomeonetheyhardlyknow.Therefore,itmightseema betterideaifthetrainerselectsthemembersofeachteam,takingintoconsiderationthepersonalitytraitsoftheteammembers(ifpossible),inadditiontotheircompetences.

Theallocationof roleswithin the teamsand theunevendistributionof theworkloadprovedtobeanevenmoredifficultproblem.Theautonomyandresponsibility(andconse-quentlythemotivation)oftheteammembersaremoreeffectiveiftheycanallocatetherolesamongthemselves,providedtheyareawareoftheirownandeachother’sstrengthsandweak-nesses,aswellastheworkloadassumedbyeachrole.Wehavefoundthatinspiteoftheclearanddetailedwritteninstructionsandverbalbriefing,studentswerenotalwaysabletoestimatetheweightandquantityoftheworkattachedtoeachrole.Itmustbehighlightedthattherolesinourprojectsystemdonotrequirethesameamountofwork.Whiletheproofreaderandtheeditorareusuallyoverburdened,thelanguagetechnologisthashardlyanythingtodo,mostlybecausestudentscarryouttechnologyrelatedtasksaspartofthetranslationprocessandnothingisleftforthetechnologist.Theprojectmanagerhasa hardtaskbutitismorepsychologicallythanprofessionallychallenging,anditisnottime-consumingincontrasttotheroleoftheproofreader.Theterminologist’sworkloadishighlydependentonthesourcetextand,partly,onthetranslatorsinthegroup(sometranslatorsseemtohaveproblemswithdelegatingthetaskofterminologicalsearchtocolleagues).allthissuggeststhattheamountofthesourcetextthata particulargroupmemberhastotranslatemustvarywiththeroleac-ceptedtoavoida disproportionateworkload.

Furthermore,theattitudeoftheteammembershasa greatimpactonthequantityoftheworkload.Ifteammembersrecognisetheimportanceofcooperationandimplementthe‘oneforall,allforone’principle,thatis,theyhelptheirteammembersinneed,theresultissuc-cessfulandcooperativeteamwork.

Twoimportantconclusionscanbedrawnfromourexperienceswithprojectroles.First,itmightbenecessarytothinkthroughrolesandgroupsizeinordertocreatea projectdesignwitha roleconfigurationthatisfaironstudentswithrespecttoworkload.Second,theorienta-tionlessonmustbeextremelywell-designed,andampletimehastobedevotedtothediscus-sionofthepossiblepitfallsrelatedtotheallocationoftheroles,ontheonehand,andtoraisingstudents’awarenessofresponsibilityissuesandeffectivecommunicationwithinthegroups,ontheother.Inotherwords,studentsmustbemadeawarethattheultimategoalistheproduc-tionofa homogenousandmarketabletargettextforwhichtheteammembersaremutuallyresponsible:thesuccessorfailureoftheindividualisthesuccessorfailureoftheteam.

Conflictswithinthegroupsraisethequestionwhethertrainersshouldinterveneinsocialprocesseswhenconflictsemerge.Theteacher’s(orthetrainer’s)roleisfundamentallydiffer-entinautonomouslearning,cooperativelearningandprojectworkthaninthetraditional


184


classroom(Kagan2001,M.nádasdi2003,Horváth2007b).Thetraineractsmoreasa facili-tatorwhoensuresthatprojectworkoccursasplanned.a cornerstoneofprojectworkandco-operativelearningis,however,thatstudentssolveproblems(bothprofessionalandsocial)ontheirown.Thiscreatesa dilemmafortheteachersandtrainers:theymustdecidewhentoin-terferewithgroupwork.Storiesofpeersdoinglousywork,sabotagingwork,notkeepingdead-linesetc.doturnupinquestionnaire-answers(seethesocialchallengesofteamwork,above).aboutonegroupperyearisaffectedbyextremeinstancesofuncooperation.nevertheless,studentsnevercomplainwhilestillintheprocessoftranslating,probablybecauseofsolidar-ity.This,however,meansthatthetrainerhasa hardtimefindingoutwhetherthereisa socialconflictinthegroup.(Itisinterestingthatstudentsturntothetrainerswhentheyhavetask-relatedquestions–2-3timespertrainer/peryear).Whatisclear,however,isthat,contrarytowhatwecanreadintheliterature(Kagan2001,aronson2012),insuchextremecases,thegroupsinoursamplecouldnothandlenoncompliantindividuals,theycouldnottamethemorhelptheminanyotherways–atleast,notintheframeworkofa 5-week-longproject.

5. ConClusion

Bothourexperiencesandtheanswersonthequestionnairesreturnedbythestudentslendsupporttomostofthearguments(listedunderpoint1.)thatadvocatetheprojectmethod,whilesheddinglightonsomenewaspectsaswell.Wefoundthatprojectworknarrowsthegapbetweentrainingandtheindustrybyprovidingstudentswitha holisticapproachandmakingthemrealisetheimportanceoftranslatorcompetences(theabilitytoproducea targetlanguagetextfroma sourcelanguagetextaccordingtocertainrequirements[Koller1992]),inadditiontotranslationcompetences(competencesneededtobeabletotranslatea textfromthesourcelanguagetothetargetlanguage).

ourfirstresearchquestionfocusedonidentifyingsomeoftheconditionsnecessaryfortheefficientuseofprojectworkintranslationtraining.Basedonthequestionnairedataandtheexperiencesgainedinthetwoinstitutionsoverthepasttwoyears,wefindthatthesuccessandtheefficiencyofprojectworkisgreatlyinfluencedbythecleardefinitionofthetasksanda suitablequantityofavailabletime,therefore,itiscrucialthattrainersdevoteenoughtimetoplanningthesewhenpreparingfortheproject.

Thesecondandthethirdresearchquestion(theroleandtheimportanceofprojectworkintranslationtraining,itsadvantages,disadvantagesandchallenges)arecloselyrelated,there-fore,answerstothesequestionswillbepresentedsimultaneously,below.

Students’responsessuggestthatmostofthemconsiderprojectworkasusefulastraditionalindividualwork.Learningtocooperate,learningfrompeersandhelpingeachotherarehigh-lightedasmajoradvantagesofprojectwork.Somestudentsstressthatprojectworkisfasterandleadstoincreasedquality.Thegreatestchallengesofprojectworkaretimemanagementandcooperation.Mostofthetimethesechallengessimplypresentedthemselvesastasksthatthegroupcouldsolve,ifandwhenrequired,however,thesechallengesturnedintohindrancesthatimpededefficientgroupwork.Carelessness,nocommunication,disrespectingdeadlinesareexamplesofdisruptivebehaviourthatcanendangerthesuccessofprojectwork,eveniftheyarefarfrombeingtypical.


185


onthewhole,theadvantagesofprojectworkclearlyoutweighitspossibledisadvantages.Themostpowerfulargumentforitsuseintranslatortrainingisthatteamworkandcoop-erationarebecomingcommonrequirementsoftheprofession.Project-basedlearningoffersexcellentopportunitiestopreparefortheserequirements.

6. liMitations and questions For Further researCh

Tothebestofourknowledge,ourstudyisthefirstattempttotestprojectworkintranslationtrainingempiricallyona relativelylargesample.asa consequence,thestudyhasthetypicalshortcomingsofa pioneeringresearcheffort:thesampleisstillrelativelysmallandnotrepre-sentativeandtheresearchmethodologyisconstantlyevolving:afteranalysingthequestionnaireanditsdata,weplantomodifyit,thatis,toincludenewitemsandtochangesomeitems.actionresearchdesignobviouslysetslimits,too:althoughwecouldprovidea valuableinsightintosomeofthefactorsthatinfluencethesuccessofprojectworkandwealsoshedlightonsomepotentialproblemsandchallenges,furtherresearchisneededtodeterminehowfartheseresultsaregeneralisable.ourfindingscanserveasa basisfordevisingmoresophisticatedandefficientinstruments(e.g.questionnaireswithmoreclosedquestionsthatcouldallowforquantitativeanalysis),which,inturn,couldeventuallycontributetogeneratingmoregeneralisablefindings.

Itis,however,notonlythedatacollectioninstrumentsthatcanandshouldbemodifiedinlaterresearch.Wehaverealisedthenecessityformodifyingsomeofthevariablesoftheprojectwork(e.g.changingthetextandtheavailabletime).Intermsoftextselection,thedilemmacausedbythelinguafrancalanguageofthetexthasalreadybeendescribed,butthelengthandthegenreofthetextmightalsobemodified,sothatmoregeneralconclusionscanbedrawn.accordingly,weareplanningtoassigna newtextwithdifferentparametersfromtheacademicyearonwards.

Furthermore,wehaveconsideredwhethertoincludealltheelementsofthetranslationprojectmanagementworkflowintheprocess–currentlythepreparationofthepricequota-tion,theconfirmationoftheorder,thesigningoftheconfidentialityagreementandthebill-ingaremissing.althoughmostoftheseareusuallyarrangedonline,theinvolvementoftheseelementswouldincreasetheoveralltime-spanoftheprojectandconsequentlywouldimplystructuralchangesinthecurriculum.

anotherdilemmawefacedwaswhethertheuseofCaTtoolsduringtheprojectworkshouldbemadeobligatory.TheuseofCaTtoolsisa basicrequirementfortranslators,butveryfewtranslatortrainingsinHungaryrequiretheuseoftranslationsoftwareona dailybasis(ugrin2017).Thereasonwhywefinallydecidednottomakeitobligatorywaspartlyethical(notallstudentscanaffordtobuytheprogramevenatthediscountedrateofferedbytheserviceprovider)andpartlydidactical(atthisstageofthetrainingnotallstudentsarecomfortablewithitsuse).

Thenecessityofpeer-reviewalso remains a question toponder.especially among thepopulationofstudentsofhumanities,concernswereraisedaboutwhethertheirsubjectfieldcompetencehasreacheda levelwheretheycanconfidentlyjudgetheerrorsmadebyothers.Furthermore,therevisionphaseputsextraworkloadonstudentsandlengthenstheoveralltimeoftheproject.ontheotherhand,itisclearlybeneficialforthestudentsiftheyrevise


186


thesamepartofthetextthathasbeentranslatedbythem,itforcesthemtohavea lookatthetextagainandmakea consciousefforttoanalyseit,oreventoreviewtheirowndecisions,nottomentionthefactthatrevisionandproofreadingareorganiccomponentsofthetotalworkflowmanagement.

alreadyatthebeginningoftheprojectworkwethoughtitwouldbeanexcitingexperi-menttogetthetwodifferentstudentpopulationstocooperateinonewayoranother,probablyintheformofmixedgroups.Wefinallyrejectedtheideaduetoissuesoftimemanagementandsynchronisation,butwewerealsoconcernedabouttheagedifferenceofthetwopopula-tions.However,suchcooperationcouldprovidea solutiontotheabovementionedproblemofproofreading,withtheexperiencedlegalprofessionalsgivingadvicetotheiryoungerandlessexperiencedpeersinmattersrelatedtolegalcontent,andMastudentscontributingwiththeirmoresophisticatedlanguageproficiency.

Finally, inboth institutions, projectworkwasfirst introduced in a later phase of thecourse(2ndand4thsemesters)andina relativelydemandingclass(legaltranslation).Itmightbea goodideatointroduceprojectworkearlierinthetraining(e.g.intheveryfirstsemester),sothatstudentslearnoneasiertaskshowtodoa projectandhowtocooperatewithothers.Ifstudentscantakepartinseveralprojectsduringtheirstudies,theyalsohavetheopportunitytotryoutmoreroles,whichcanhelpthemfindoutwhattheyarereallygoodat.

references

aronson,e.2012.The Social Animal. newYork:WorthPublishers.12thedition.Bieł,L.2011.ProfessionalrealismintheLegalTranslationClasssroom:TranslationCom-

petenceandTranslatorCompetence.Meta Vol.56.no.1.162–178.Buhrmester,d.,Furman,W.,Wittenberg,M.T.,andreis,H.T.1988.Fivedomainsofinter-

personalcompetenceinpeerrelationships.Journal of personality and social psychologyVol.55.no.6.991−1008.

Cohen,e.g.1994.restructuringtheClassroom:ConditionsforProductiveSmallgroups.Review of Educational Research Vol.64.no.1.1–35.

Forgas,J.1985. Interpersonal behaviour: The psychology of social interaction.Sydney&oxford:PergamonPress.

gonzález-davies,M.2016.a CollaborativePedagogyforTranslation.In:Venuti,L.(ed.)Teaching translation: programs, courses, pedagogies.LondonandnewYork:routledge.118–131.

gonzález-davies,M.2004.MultipleVoicesintheTranslationClassroom:activities,Tasksand Projects. In: Toury, g. (ed.) Benjamins Translation Library Vol. 54. amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishing.

greere,a.L.2014.TrainingMethodologiesinProfessionally-orientedTranslatoreducation.examplesofPractice.In:erakovic,B.,Todorova,M.(eds)Topics in Trans lator and Inter-preter Training. Proceedings of the Third IATIS Regional Workshop on Translator and Interpreter Training.noviSad:FacultyofPhilosophy,universityofnoviSad.27–46.

griffee,d.T.2012.An Introduction to Second Language Research Methods: Design and Data.Berkeley:TeSL-eJPublications.

Hogan,r.,Blake,r.1999. JohnHolland’sVocationalTypologyandPersonalityTheory.Journal of Vocational Behavior Vol.55.no.1.41–56.


187


Horváth,I.2007a.autonomousLearningandInterpreterTraining.In:Muráth,J.,oláh-Hubai,Á.(eds).Interdisciplinary Aspects of Translation and Interpreting. 23–25 June 2005. Conference Proceedings. Bécs:PraesensVerlag.537–548.

Horváth,I.2007b.autonomousLearning:WhatMakesitWorkinPostgraduateInterpreterTraining?Across Languages and CulturesVol.8.no.1.103–122.

Horváth,I.2013.a fordító-éstolmácsképzésújkihívásai.[newchallengesoftranslatorandinterpretertraining.]In:Klaudy,K.(ed.)Fordítás és tolmácsolás a harmadik évezred elején. Budapest:eLTeeötvöskiadó.149–158.

Horváth,I.2016.Theroleofcooperativelearningininterpreterandtranslatortraining.in:Horváth,I.(ed.)The Modern Translator and Interpreter.Budapest:eötvösuniversityPress.

House,J.2015.Translation Quality Assessment.LondonandnewYork:routledge.Hurtadoalbir,a.2007.Competence-basedCurriculumdesignforTrainingTranslators.The

Interpreter and Translator Trainer(ITT).1/2.163–195.Jääskeläinen,r.1999.Tapping the Process. An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective

Factors Involved in Translating.Stockholm:universityofJoensuuPress.Kagan,S.2001.Cooperative Learning.SanClemente:Kaganonline.Kelly,d.2005.A Handbook for Translator Trainers. A Guide to Reflective Practice.Manchester:

St.Jerome.Kiraly,d.C.2000.A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from

theory to practice.St.Jerome,Manchester.Kiraly,d.C.2003.FromInstructiontoCollaborativeConstruction:a passingfadorthe

promiseof a paradigmshift in translator education? In:Baer,B. J.,Koby.g.S. (eds)Beyond the Ivory Tower. Rethinking translation pedagogy. JohnBenjamins,amsterdam,Philadelphia,3–27.

Kiraly,d.C.2005.Project-basedlearning:a caseforsituatedtranslation.Meta Vol.50.no.4.1098–1111.

Kiraly,d.C.2012.growinga Project-basedTranslationPedagogy:a FractalPerspective.Meta Vol.57.no.1.82–95.

Kiraly,d.C.1995.Pathways to Translation.Kent,ohioandLondon,england:TheKentStateuniversityPress.

Koller, W. 1992. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. 4th ed. Heidelberg-Wiesbaden: QuelleandMeyer.

Kovács,M.2016.newCoursesintheCurriculum:LanguageTechnology,SupervisedTranslationProjectWork. In:Horváth, I. (ed.)The Modern Translator and InterpreterBudapest:eötvösuniversityPress.207–218.

Lesznyák,M.2016.A szociális kompetencia vizsgálata fordító- és tolmácsképzésben résztvevő hallgatók körében.[Translationandinterpretationtrainees’socialcompetence.]Paperpre-sentedtotheXVI. SZOKOE Szaknyelvi Konferencia - Szaknyelvhasználat: a tudomány és a szakma nyelvének alkalmazása.Budapest,Hungary,11–12november2016.

Li, d. 2013. Teaching Business Translation: a Task-Based Method. The Interpreter and Translator TrainerVol.7.no.1.1–26.

Li,d.,Zhang,C.andHe,Y.2015.Project-basedlearninginteachingtranslation:students’perceptions.The Interpreter and Translator TrainerVol.9.no.1.1–19.


188


McCrae,r.r.,andPaulT.C.Jr.1999.a five-factortheoryofpersonality.In:John,o. P., robins,W.r.and Pervin,L.a.(eds)Handbook of personality: Theory and research.139–153.newYork:guilfordPress.

McPherson,M.,Smith-Lovin,L.andCook.J.M.2001.Birdsofa feather:Homophilyinsocialnetworks.Annual Review of SociologyVol.27.no.1.415–444.

Mount,M.K.,Barrick,M.r.,Scullen,S.M.androunds,J.2005.Higher‐orderdimen-sionsofthebigfivepersonalitytraitsandthebigsixvocationalinteresttypes.Personnel PsychologyVol.58.no.2.447–478.

M.nádasdi,M.2003.Projektoktatás.[Projectworkineducation.]Budapest:gondolatKiadóiKör–eLTeBTKneveléstudományiIntézet.

nord,C.1991.Text Analysis in Translation.amsterdam-atlanta:rodopi.nord,C.2005.Trainingfunctionaltranslators.In:MarthaTennent(ed.):Training for the

New Millennium: Pedagogies for translation and interpreting. amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.209–223.

northcott,J.,Brown,g.2006.LegalTranslatorTraining:PartnershipbetweenTeachersofenglishforLegalPurposesandLegalSpecialists.English for Specific PurposesVol.25.no.3.358–375.https://edinburgh.academia.edu/Jillnorthcott.lastaccessed:12.12.2017

nunan,d.1992.Research methods in language learning.CambridgeuniversityPress.olveraLobo,M,d.,robinson,B.,CastroPrieto,r.M.,Querogervilla,e.,MuñozMartín,r.,

Muñozraya,e.,MurilloMelero,M.,Sensoruiz,J.a.,VargasQuesada,B.anddíezLerma,J.L.2007.a ProfessionalapproachtoTranslatorTraining.Meta Vol.52.no.3.517–528.

Pralas,J.2014.usingMini-TeamProjectsinTranslationClassestoachieveCompetencesdefinedintheeMTreferenceframework.In:erakovic,B.,Todorova,M.(eds)Topics in Translator and Interpreter Training. Proceedings of the Third IATIS Regional Workshop on Translator and Interpreter Training.FacultyofPhilosophy,universityofnoviSad,noviSad.87−100.

Pym,a.2007.Professionalcorpora:Teachingstrategiesforworkwithonlinedocumentation,translationmemories,andcontentmanagement.PaperdeliveredtotheForumonTranslatorTrainingheldinBeijing,China,andorganisedbyChinaForeignLanguagePressandtheMontereyInstituteofInternationalStudies,august16–17,2007.http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/training/2007_professional_corpora.pdf,lastaccessed:12.12.2017.

rose,S.,Spinks,n.andCanhoto,a.I.2014.Management research: Applying the principles.London:routledge.

Šarčević,S.1997.New Approach to Legal Translation.Hague:KluwerLawInternational.Thelen,M.2016.CollaborativeTranslationinTranslatorTraining.Konin Language Studies

Vol.4.no.3.253–269.ugrin,Z.2017.azinstrumentálisfordításoktatóikompetenciatechnológiaivonatkozásai[The

technologicalaspectsoftranslationtrainers’instrumentalcompetence].In:J.Kerülő,T.JeneiandI.gyarmati(eds)XVII. Országos Neveléstudományi Konferencia, Program és absztrakt kötet.nyíregyháza:MTaPedagógiaiTudományosBizottság,nyíregyháziegyetem.178.(Paperpresentedatthe17thnationalConferenceoneducationinnyíregyháza,11.11.2017)

Vygotsky,L.S.1978.Interactionbetweenlearninganddevelopment(M.Lopez-Morillas,Trans.).In:Cole,M.,John-Steiner,V.,Scribner,S.ande.Souberman(eds)Mind in society: The de-velopment of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,Ma:HarvarduniversityPress.79–91.


189


annexe 1 desCriPtion and tiMing oF the ProJeCt (sZte and PPKe JÁK aCadeMiC years 2015-2016)

you are working for a translation agency in a team of 4/5 translators. The agency has asked the team to translate, edit and revise proofread a 15page long legal agreement. The teams have to agree on the allocation of the following roles:1. terminologist:willbeconsultedbytheotherteammembersintheeventtheyarenotsureabouttheappropriateusageofa term.afterlisteningtothetranslators’suggestionsforalterna-tivesolutions,theterminologistwilldobackgroundresearchanddecideontherighttermtouse.Whenthetranslationworkhasbeencompleted, theywillcheckthetext forconsistentuseofterminology.2.proofreader/revisor:willrevisethecontentandproofreadthelanguageusageofthetranslatedtextwhenthetranslatorshavefinishedthetranslation.3.editor:willdothefinalediting(andifnecessary,thepre-editing)ofthetextwhentheothergroupmembershavefinishedwiththeirparts.Theywillmakesuretheformatcorrespondstotheoriginal.4.project manager:willkeepcontactwiththecustomer(theteacher),willsetandcoordinatedeadlinesandenforcetheirobservationbysendingreminderstotheothergroupmembers.5:language technologist:willprovidetechnicalsupportwithmanaginggooglecloudsoranyotherplatformand/orCaTtools,finalisethepptpresentationbasedontheslidessenttothembyothergroupmembers.

tasKs: 1. translating a part of the text (as divided up by the team) and keeping a translation journal during the translation, by recording the following data:– Whatistheproblemorthetranslationdilemma(aword,anexpression,a term,syntax,col-

location,register)?– Whyisita problem?Whatcausestheproblem?– Youroptionsandsuggestionsforsolvingtheproblem.– reasonsfordecidingonthefinalsolutionyouoptedfor.

in the journal, also give a brief account of:a)whatyouhavelearntfromtheprocessb)yourexperiencesintermsofthecooperationbetweenthemembersofyourgroup2. revising/proofreading the translation handed in by one of the other groups(alsointeamwork,dividingpartsofthetextamongteammembers)Inthelastlesson,theteamsgivea presentationsummarisingtheirexperiencesoftheprojectwork(problemsanddifficultiesofthetranslation,criticalparts,strategiesfortacklingtheproblems)andalsoevaluatetheworkoftheotherteam(highlightingtheirgoodandbadsolutions).

sChedule:end of February/beginning of March:discussionofthetext,thecontextandthetasksoftheproject,allocationoftherolesend of March/beginning of april:deadlineforsubmissionofthetranslationsandthetransla-tionjournalstotheclient(teacher),whoforwardsthetexttotheproofreadinggroup.


190


Proofreading–donealsoasteamwork(witheverygroupmemberproofreadingapproximately3-4pages).allcorrectionsmustbeaccompaniedbya briefexplanation.10/15 april:deadlinefor(electronically)sendingtheproofreadandrevisedtexttotheclientandalsototheteammemberswhohavedonethetranslation.11/17 april:PPTpresentations(about20-25minutesfora team,sometimealsoscheduledfordefendingyourversionofthetranslation).Section1: the teammembers summarise theirprofessional experiences (problemsduring thetranslation,criticalpoints,solutionsandstrategies).note!Thepresentationmaybegivencollec-tivelybyallthemembersoftheteam,orbyanappointedrepresentative.Section2:theoppositeteamevaluatesthetranslation–thetranslatingteammaydefendtheirchoicesiftheywantto.Section3:theteamgivesa summaryofthesocial and organisationalaspectsoftheprojectwork(repeatedasmanytimesasthereareteams).Section4:evaluationbyteacher(client).

The context of the translation:2 Italian companies with their registered offices in Budapest conclude a contract (drafted inenglish)witheachother.dolceVitaKft.(theClient)andHotelresortKft.–(theagent,whoseprofileisthedesignandtheconstructionofhotels).dolce Vita commissions Hotel resort with the renovation and reconstruction of a hotel inBudapest,withtheaimofconvertingitintoa luxury-categoryhotel.ThetwocompaniesneedthecontracttobetranslatedintoHungarian,asthevenueofthein-vestment is in Hungary and the authorities issuing the permits need the documentation inHungarian.

annexe 2 the questionnaire on students’ exPerienCes with the ProJeCt

– Questionsrelatedtothetranslationtaskandthesourcetext(questions1−5):• The description of the project and its phases was clear. (1-5 Likert scale – agreement)• The translation brief and the description of the context was clear. (1−5)• The content of the source text was in harmony with focus of the course. (1−5)• The allocated time was enough for the translation task. (1-5)• How difficult do you think the source text was? (1−5)

– Questionsonexperienceswithcooperationandprojectwork(questions6−7):• What were your most positive experiences during the project? (open-ended)• What were the biggest challenges of project work? (open-ended)

– Questions thatasked respondents tocompare individual translationand teamwork in thetranslationclassroom(questions8−9).• Which technique is more appropriate for developing translation competence? (forced choice: indi-

vidual translations, project work, both)• What are the advantages of project work/individual translations? (open-ended)


----

----

--

----

----

--

----

----

--

----

----

--

Translation Studies is a young discipline, but Hungarian Translation Studies is even younger, since it only dates back to the autumn semester of the 2003–2004 academic year, when the first and only PhD Pro-gramme in Translation Studies was founded at ELTE University. It is interesting to note that while the first PhD dissertations focused mainly on the written form of language mediation, today, interpreting is be-coming a very frequent subject of PhD research within the framework of the programme. This volume reflects this emerging phenomenon: the majority of its articles deals with different modes and aspects of in-terpreting, while others present research results in the field of revision, terminology and project work. The underlying characteristic of the pa-pers lies in the fact that these aspects are being investigated for the very first time in the Hungarian context.

Latest Trends in Hungarian Translation Studies is the result of a unique endeavour since it presents the research findings of seven PhD students of ELTE University’s Department of Translation and Interpreting, to-gether with those of two trainers and the CEO of the Hungarian Office for Translation and Attestation. It may be of interest to Translation/In-terpreting Studies scholars and PhD students, applied linguists, inter-preter and translator training programme administrators and trainers, as well as to professional language mediators.

ISBN 978-615-00-1370-1

LAT

EST

TR

END

S IN

HU

NG

AR

IAN

TR

AN

SLAT

ION

ST

UD

IES

EDITOR:

ILDIkó HORváTH

Latest Trends inHUNGARIAN

TRANSLATION Studies

horvath_translation_borito.indd 1 2018.03.02. 13:36:28

in hungarian translation studies …€¦ · translation studies is a young discipline, but...

Documents