Conclusion

The interpreter’s glossary is “one of the indispensable processes in interpreting”

(Jiang, 2013, p, 91). As meetings nowadays often deal with highly specialized subjects, specialized terminology has become an operationally important part of preparation (Gile, 2002). The glossary serves as a tangible vehicle that supports the interpreter’s terminological preparation. However, given its importance, the glossary has hardly received the attention it deserves. Jiang’s study (2013) was one of the pioneering efforts in underlining some key trends among professionals and showing that glossary building was indeed a widespread practice in the professional

community.

While studies have been done to examine the important role of the glossary in the professional world, it remains largely unknown and uninvestigated in interpreter training. To fill the gap in research, the present study surveyed 110 graduate students of interpreting in Taiwan and interviewed 20 of them to gain an initial understanding of students’ general practice in relation to the glossary. Both quantitative and

qualitative data were presented and discussed to shed light on students general understanding, format, content, use, and perceived efficacy of the glossary. The results also showed how the glossary was different for student interpreters vs.

professional interpreters. Last but not least, the findings of this study have pedagogical implications for interpreter training. In particular, the study has suggested, albeit tentatively, several potential influences of glossary building on students’ expertise development.

Here the researcher would like to revisit the three research questions of the present study and summarize the main findings:

176

1. What is the general practice of student interpreters in relation to the glossary (general understanding, format, content, use, and efficacy)?

Glossary building has been shown to be a widespread practice among the subjects of the study, with only 3.6% who had never built a glossary. Whether they have built one or not, the vast majority (98.2%) of the subjects have at least heard of the idea of the interpreter’s glossary. Most of the subjects (91.8%) heard of the idea from their instructors, suggesting the role of instructors as a link between the

professional world and the interpreting class. Only 1.8% of the subjects’ said none of their instructors had ever mentioned the role of the interpreter’s glossary.

However, glossary making was not a common requirement in the interpreting classroom. The majority of the subjects (46.4%) indicated that only some of their instructors had ever required them to build a glossary. That is, instructors only suggested that students build one before class or mentioned the benefits of the

glossary. Therefore, glossary making largely remained a voluntary activity on the part of the subjects.

While most of the subjects were not required to build a glossary for interpreting classes, 43.6% of them would build a glossary for classes with technical or unfamiliar content. In other words, subject familiarity would determine whether the student interpreter would build a glossary.

When making a glossary, the subjects expected that it could bring them benefits.

In particular, the three pillars of interpreting competence—language, knowledge, and skills—were expected to be enhanced via glossary compilation. The majority (93.4%) of the subjects expected to use the glossary for language enhancement purposes, while 70.8% saw glossary building as a way to build up domain knowledge. Interpreting skills were also expected to be enhanced with glossary building, with “speed up production into target language” and “trigger output into target language” respectively

177

ranked second (87.7%) and third (75.5%) as the subjects’ expected benefits of glossary making.

In addition to glossary for a specific interpreting class, more than half of the subjects would build glossaries for a specific domain/category (52.8%) and/or not for a specific domain (57.5%). Some of those who built such kinds of glossaries indicated that those glossaries may not be of use in the future, but the glossary-making process mattered more than the final product. Those who made this additional effort beyond the interpreting classroom deemed such glossaries an asset that could benefit them in the long run.

Glossary arrangement and format differed greatly among the subjects.

Horizontally, most subjects preferred putting source-language items on the left and target-language items on the right (40.6%) or English items on the left and Chinese items on the right (38.7%). Vertically, more than half of the sample (55.7%) would follow the order of conference materials for the ease of search.

As for glossary medium, Microsoft Word (50%) and Microsoft Excel (50%) enjoyed equal popularity, although nearly half (45.5%) of the subjects would also write down some items on a notebook due to limited preparation time. Regardless of the medium, “tables and lists with corresponding items in languages” was ranked (86.8%) as the most common format of glossary making. Overall speaking, the diverse ways and formats to arrange glossary items correspond with many of the subjects’ comment that a glossary has to be personalized to be useful.

Technical terms not known before were ranked first (90.7%) among all categories of glossary content. In addition to bilingual terms, many subjects would also include whatever information beneficial to class preparation. For example, some would put “known and familiar” items as a reminder. Others would put items that

178

they would not consult in class (e.g. sentences, collocations, and parallel texts) as a way to record the fruits of their preparation that might be helpful again in the future.

Instructors were regarded as the most useful source of glossary making by the subjects. Class materials provided by instructors were deemed to be the most useful (60.4%), followed by glossaries provided by instructors (49.1%) and their

introduction to the materials to be interpreted (41.5%). Overall, while some sources of the glossary stood out to be the most useful, the subjects would still consult a variety of sources as long as creditability was ensured.

The subjects would engage in a variety of activities before class to familiarize themselves with glossary items, such as reading the glossary items in mind (74.8%) and reading them out loud (65.4%). When in class, the majority of the subjects would choose to print out and consult the glossary for both CI (57%) and SI (49.5%).

However, the subjects used the glossary differently for the two modes. The

differences could be attributed to the different settings of the two interpreting modes and the subjects’ perceived concept of time. Some thought that they had more time to consult the glossary when doing CI, while others disagreed.

Glossary making did not stop after it was made before class. Nearly 70% of the subjects would edit the glossary in class, especially when instructors were introducing the materials to be interpreted (69.2%) or when hearing new terms and expressions used by classmates in their renditions (69.2%). More than half of the subjects (53.3%) would save their glossaries for future use, and 75.7% already had used existing

glossaries at least once, suggesting that the student interpreter’s glossary may not have a limited lifespan.

Teamwork did not feature prominently in the subjects’ glossary building practice, with the majority (54.2%) rarely building one with classmates. Most of the subjects tended not to share their glossaries either, unless when being requested by

179

classmates (71%). This is probably because students often do interpreting drills in class alone. What’s more, freeloading other’s terminological efforts may not be helpful as a glossary has to be personalized to be useful.

Most of the subjects thought that the glossary had realized several benefits, especially with regards to language enhancement, knowledge buildup, and skills improvement—mirroring the three core competencies of interpreting.

Finally, the subjects treated interpreting classes as interpreting assignments to prepare for. The majority of the subjects (60.7%) would carry their glossary practice with them to real-life interpreting situations. The interpreting classroom has truly become a bridge to the real world, with only 3.7% of the sample intent to discontinue their glossary-making practice after they graduate.

2. How is the glossary different for student interpreters vs. professional interpreters?

Frequency. The glossary for student interpreters vs. professional interpreters differed in several aspects. Most (42.6%) of the professionals in Jiang’s study would build a glossary for every assignment, whereas most (43.6%) of the sample of this study would build one only for classes with unfamiliar or technical content. This could be because experts have to face a variety of topics for each assignment, with meetings nowadays becoming highly technical. Meanwhile, students only work on topics that their instructors carefully select for them.

Medium. Most (50%) of the sample of this study preferred to used either

Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel, while loose paper stood out as the most popular medium in Jiang’s study. This is because accurate and timely retrieval of glossary items at work stands out as the most important function for experts. For student interpreters, it is the process of building the glossary that matters.

180

Content. In Jiang’s study, most of the subjects tended to put only bilingual items in their glossary. Yet, the subjects of the present study included more than bilingual items in their glossaries, sometimes being aware that they might not actually consult some of the items in class. Those subjects deemed their glossaries as a database, and again, the glossary-making process takes primacy over the final product for them.

Reuse. Most (65.4%) of the subjects of the present study only sometimes reused their glossaries, but most of the sample in Jiang’s study would either always (51.7%) or sometimes (44.7%) reuse their glossaries. This is probably because experts are more likely to encounter similar topics at work, while students have to work on new topics carefully chosen by their instructors.

Teamwork and expert consultation. The role of teamwork and expert

consultation featured more prominently in Jiang’s study. What’s more, the expert interpreter’s glossary is often more job-specific and serves a more immediate purpose.

On the other hand, the student interpreter’s glossary has both short-term and long-term components to it. When students are at school, the long-long-term component of glossary making stands out because they accumulate the language and knowledge needed for the profession. At the same time, students also have to make their glossaries useful for each interpreting class. Over time, the short-term components will stand out as students move closer to experts.

3. What are the pedagogical implications of the student interpreter’s glossary?

Several pedagogical implications can be drawn from this study. First, instructors could serve as a facilitator of students’ glossary making. While not requiring students to build a glossary for every interpreting class, instructors can give students an opportunity to experiment with each step in the glossary-making procedure—from identifying sources to how to arrange items on the list and use the glossary.

181

To play a more active role in highlighting the importance of the glossary,

instructors can also share some of the possible ways to build a glossary by drawing on their professional experience or even going one step further to check if students’

glossaries are properly made to serve their learning purpose. As in the teaching of note-taking skills for consecutive interpreting, this can be done by instructors first shedding light on several overarching principles of glossary making, letting students experiment on various glossary-making options based on those principles, and having them self-reflect on the efficacies of their glossary.

Indeed, the present study has indicated some of the underlying glossary-building trends that could inform interpreting pedagogy. While the student interpreter’s

glossary has been shown to be a highly individualized product, several principles and commonalities have emerged across a wide spectrum of glossary-making preferences.

For example, in selecting glossary content, students need to consider the usefulness of items and the credibility of their sources. In terms of the arrangement of items,

students ought to consider what kinds of material they receive beforehand and how they plan to use their glossary in class. As for glossary medium, electronic and handwritten forms offer different benefits depending on the purpose of the glossary.

These are some of the principles that instructors can introduce to students before students go on to build their glossaries.

Glossary-making can take place in the classroom under the structured guidance of the instructors. This is because glossary making, like many other interpreting skills, need practice, too. If in such glossary-making practice students are given well-defined tasks, constructive feedback, and ample opportunities for repetition, they can

gradually refine their glossary practice, which has been recognized to benefit their expertise development.

182

Instructors can use a conference preparation course for students to simulate conference preparation scenarios, with an emphasis on glossary making. Students will learn how to prepare for a specific class in ways they would prepare for a real

assignment in the future. Students will receive materials from a conference the instructor has worked in because if training material is relevant to the real world, students’ glossary compilation could serve as a solid starting point for their career going forward (Jiang, 2013).

Such conference preparation courses are where instructors can facilitate students’

glossary making process. For example, as shown in Q5-4, instructors could help students build their glossaries in a variety of ways, primarily by recommending sources for the glossary and explaining difficult terms in the glossary.

In addition to glossaries built for a specific interpreting class, instructors can also encourage students to build (non-)domain-specific glossaries. Instructors can let students know the importance of accumulating subject-linked terminology and other general expressions along their career. For domain-specific glossaries, instructors can advise students on the professional fields on which to focus based on current market demand. Generally, non-class-specific glossaries will serve as a learning database that can benefit students over the long haul. In particular, the potential of the glossary to enhance the three cornerstones of interpreting competence—language, knowledge, and skills—cannot be overemphasized. These benefits may over time aid students to career success and bring them to a level of performance on par with their expert counterparts.

All in all, the findings of the present study has shed light on the student interpreters’ glossary, explored how the glossary may fit into interpreting teaching and students’ expertise development, and given the glossary the due attention it deserves. While the present study does not purport to identify major findings in

183

glossary research, the results represent the most complete documentation to date in ascertaining the role of the glossary in interpreter training from trainees’ point of view. The study has taken a step in the direction of defining what the glossary could mean to student interpreters. What’s more, the multifaceted roles of the glossary revealed by the findings of the study should encourage more researchers to look into the student interpreter’s glossary as a common yet neglected practice in the

interpreting classroom. It is hoped that the study has generated food for thought for both interpreting trainers and trainees, while paving the way for research into the complex workings behind glossary building, use, and management.