1.1 Background of the Study
Conference preparation as a skill is often mentioned in passing, taken for granted, and seldom closely examined (Luccarelli, 2006). In recent years, however, considerable concern has risen over conference preparation in interpreting research.
This strain of research seeks to probe into various components that make up the preparatory effort of an interpreter before a given assignment to ensure the quality of interpreting performance. As meetings nowadays increasingly deal with highly specialized subjects (Gile, 2002), an interpreter often has to go through several stages of preparation to make sure that he or she has the knowledge base and terminological apparatus required for a given assignment. This could be best achieved by the
interpreter reviewing various aspects of a conference to decide how and what to prepare and finding ways to contextualize with the conference (Luccarelli, 2006).
In addition to surfacing to light in recent years, the study of conference preparation has moved from anecdotal attitudes, to more descriptive stances.
Rodríguez and Schnell (2009) mentioned three stages of preparation in terms of timing: before, during, and after the assignment, while Gile (2009) divided preparation into advanced preparation, last minute preparation, and ongoing preparation during the meeting.
The conference preparation process, as Gile (2009) suggested, involves the ad hoc acquisition of both extralinguistic and linguistic knowledge. Similarly, Luccarelli (2006) summarized previous findings and concluded that in addition to terminological work, conference preparation should also include “study of basic concepts, of the institutions involved, of the purpose of the meeting, of any specific way specialists speak” (p. 8), among others.
2
Although opinions differ as to which—extralinguistic or linguistic knowledge—
should take priority, several researchers have stressed the importance of
terminological preparation. Luccarelli (2006) suggested that for technical conferences, technical terminology must be acquired and presents the most obvious challenge. Gile (2009) also indicated that terminological solutions ought to take priority given that interpreter often have to deal with lexical and terminological difficulties online. The emphasis on terminological preparation could be explained by the research results where correct use of terminology has been shown to be regarded highly by conference goers (Moser, 1995, cited in Luccarelli, 2006) and that lexical specificity could be seen as a benchmark for evaluating interpreting competence (Farghal and Shakir, 1994). Therefore, it makes sense that terminological preparation would make up a large part of conference preparation.
To document the results of their terminological research, many interpreters would build a glossary for interpreting assignments. As Jiang (2013) argued, building a glossary is one of the most important sub-processes in conference preparation, and probably few interpreters have never compiled one. Nearly 70% of the AIIC
(International Association of Conference Interpreters) interpreters surveyed by Jiang would build a glossary for most or all meetings. Surprisingly, given the essential role of the interpreter’s glossary, only few attempts have been made at examining the glossary vis-à-vis the interpreting profession. The glossary has been neglected (or mentioned only sparingly in theoretical discussions) in interpreting studies.
In the Practical Guide for Professional Conference Interpreters compiled by the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC, 2004), a section is
devoted to “glossary preparation,” where interpreters are advised to compile a
glossary based on conference documents and their own research. The section includes items, sources, functions, and medium/format of the glossary. The main point of
3
creating a glossary, according to the guide, is to help interpreters contextualize and increase the availability of glossary items when they are needed. Moser-Mercer (1992) also conducted a survey to ascertain the terminology and documentation needs of conference interpreters. To date, however, there have been few attempts to examine the interpreter’s glossary practice in greater detail.
One of the few studies on the interpreter’s glossary is Jiang’s empirical survey study (2013) on how professional (mostly AIIC) interpreters compiled and utilized the glossary in their practice. The study marked an exploratory effort to investigate the interpreter’s glossary, with an emphasis on seasoned professional interpreters. The survey in the study was large-scale enough (n=476) to paint an overall picture of the nature of glossary, while underscoring the need for a more in-depth inquiry into other unexplored aspects. For example, the study suggested that the survey results could have practical implications for interpreter training and therefore open new doors for future research.
In Jiang’s study, five issues related to the interpreter’s glossary were explored:
sources of glossary items, the medium of the glossary, its use, its revision, and teamwork. The survey identified some of the trends in the glossary practice of professional interpreters and brought the long-ignored subject to light. It has also highlighted potential areas of future research. For example, how interpreters arrange glossary items and actually consult the glossary at work remains little studied. In particular, from a pedagogical point of view, how the concept of glossary building is inculcated in interpreting trainees has not been addressed so far, either. If the tradition of apprenticeship (Pöchhacker, 2004) still prevails in interpreter training, it remains unclear whether the teaching of glossary would occur in the “transfer of know-how and professional knowledge from master to student, mainly by exercises modeled on real-life tasks” (pp. 177-178). From the actual workings of the glossary to its
4
pedagogical dimensions, several potential aspects of research on the interpreter’s glossary apparently remain submerged.
1.2 Purpose of Research and Research Questions
To fill the above gaps in research on this subject, this study is intended as a follow-up study on Jiang’s research into glossary for interpreting purposes, but with a different focus. Based on the researcher’s own interpreter training background and observation of peers, interpreting trainees may also build glossary for interpreting classes and use glossaries in ways different from professionals and for different purposes. Although Jiang’s study revealed a high percentage of glossary usage in the professional interpreting community, little is known about how interpreting trainees use their glossaries en route to professionalism. As interpreter training serves to prepare students for real-life working situations, a survey on the student interpreter’s glossary may shine a light on the nature of the glossary and how it aids students in their expertise development. Therefore, the present study aims to look into the student interpreter’s glossary and see what happens at the training stage. It sets out to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the general practice of student interpreters in relation to the glossary (general understanding, format, content, use, and efficacy)?
2. How is the glossary different for student interpreters vs. professional interpreters?
3. What are the pedagogical implications of the student interpreter’s glossary?
In interpreting studies, the student interpreter’s glossary has so far remained an uncharted territory that merits more investigation. By answering the above research questions, this study should yield additional insight into the interpreter’s glossary and
5
particularly into how it works for aspiring interpreters, and ultimately have pedagogical implications for interpreter training.
6