Interpretational language How does it sound?New Research in Translationand Interpreting StudiesOct 7-8, 2005

Yannick Garcia, URV-UPFyannick.garcia@upf.edu

Translated Language As A Third CodeFrawley (1984)[The translated text] emerges as a code in its own right, setting its own standards and structural presuppositions and entailments, though they are necessarily derivative of [ST] and [TL]

Baker (1993)[Translated texts are the] result of the confrontation of the source and target codes

TerminologyDisturbing devianceThird languageTranslationese

Non-disturbing devianceThird codeTranslated languageTranslational languageTwo types of deviance: one which runs counter to the linguistic usage in the language, and one which follows the usage but in such a way that it strikes the readers as fresh (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002)

Theoretical BackgroundTranslated texts must be constructed upon unique linguistic components: Universals of translation

This behavior must be governed by standards that lead translators in a given time and space to comply with or deviate from ST/TL rules: Translation norms

Theoretical StudiesNorms (INT)Shlesinger 1989Harris 1990Schjoldager 1995Gile 1998Shlesinger 1999Garzone 2002Inghilleri 2004 Universals (Chestermans T-universals)Laviosa-Braithwaite 1996simplificationBaker 1993conventionalizationMauranen 2000lexical patterningTirkkonen-Condit 2000lexical unique items

Experimental StudiesTranslation As A Third Code vers 1998Tirkkonen-Condit 2002

Interpreting As A Third CodeGarwood 2002TranslationeseShamaa 1978Blum-Kulka and Levenston 1983Vanderauwera 1985House 2004 Cardinaletti and Garzone 2005

Quality Perception (Traunmller 1998)Table 1. Types of information and variation in speech.

Quality Debate in ISLinguistic phonetic quality in interpretingNative fluency (Prez Luzardo, Pradas Macas)Use of different dialects/accents (Cheung)Rethorical skills (Pradas Macas)Prosodic patterns (Collados)Genuine usage: lexis, syntax... (Gile)Grammar and discourse building (Garwood)Speech style (Donovan)Creativity (Bastin, Kenny)

1) Unique Items Hypothesis (TR)Tirkkonen-Condit 20022 groups (teachers and students of TS)2 sets of texts (original and translated Finnish)Translations v. non-translationsAssumption-triggering features: unique itemsDegree of genuinity determined categorizationPrejudices about translational languagePre-formed categorization hinders perceptionRefinement of UI as quality measuring units

2) The Case of Cognates (TR + INT)Shlesinger and Malkiel (in press)Pre-existing stimulus-response pairingDefault solution Fear of false cognatesCreation of non-existent cognatesExperimental study (false v. true cognates)Different modalities (SI v. TR)

3) Quality Perception in INTGile 1985Perception of interpreted speech by nonexpert speakers (informateurs)Training environmentHigh variability in resultsNeed for shared criteria in assessing quality (appropriateness, mot juste, carts de langue, etc.)

Methodological considerations1) Perception of rendition v. non-rendition?Need to isolate linguistic phonetic input from organic, expressive and perspectival variables2) Transmodality study?Difficulty in data-gathering for comparable original v. interpreted speech3) User perception?Screening of expert speakerAssessment methodology

Compared Perception

Methodology (1)CorporaInterpreted Catalan (recorded interpreting assignments in the Catalan private market: diverse topics, audience, expectations, perception?)Original Catalan (recorded conference speeches, Contemporary Catalan Corpus)SubjectsProfessional interpreters (A-Catalan, B-English)Expert speakers: oral revisers (officially certified: traceable, shared terminology, known territory)

Methodology (2)Measuring unitsUnique items (monologic)Cognate structures (comparative)Speakers comments (questionnaire, interview, shared protocol)Linguistic variables isolationVoice-over harmonization (future research)Same person, voice, dialect, accent

Unique Items Examples (1)ProsodicDinareu aqu?(Que) dinareu aqu? SyntacticalDel company no pots dir res de dolent.Del company, no en pots dir res de dolent.PhrasalEns fa falta una fotocopiadora.Ens cal una fotocopiadora.

Unique Items Examples (2)MorphologicalAix no s comestible.Aix no s mengvol.LexicalCada un de nosaltres val.Cadascun de nosaltres val.Discourse-Forming ParticlesVns, no?Vns, oi?

Unique Items Examples (3)CollocationalNo vaig trobar-li la grcia.No li vaig trobar la grcia.Redundant informationAra estic treballant en una agncia.Ara treballo en una agncia.Insufficient informationTinc caramels de menta, maduixa i taronja.Tinc caramels de menta, de maduixa i de taronja.

Research questions (1)Is linguistic quality perception marked by the degree of genuinity of language? Can this be gauged through unique items and cognate/non-cognate solutions?Is the amount of such genuinity-measuring units consistent by modality (original, interpreted; formal, informal; extemporaneous, read-out) or by speaker? If consistent by modality, is that due to interpreting norms or to cognitive constraints (Shlesinger)?

Research questions (2)If due to norms, is the choice explained through the diaculture (Vermeer)? Through the hypertext (Pchhacker)?Can genuinity/unique items rate be illustrative of the degree of domestication or foreignization of a rendition?Is this particular to some languages or universal to all?

Preliminary resultsSmall pilot (3 interpreters)Produced both original and interpreted CatalanApparently more cognate solutions in interpreted (Shlesinger)Need for larger corpusApparently same degree of unique items in bothNeed for further refinement of UI listsOther measuring units may play a roleThe degree of language-awareness may determine the success of the unit in the analysis

Contact dataYannick Garcia PorresUniversitat Rovira i Virgili, TarragonaUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

yannick.garcia@upf.edu