Part Two: Format of the Glossary

This part addresses how the glossary actually looks like in terms of the arrangement and order of items, glossary medium, and format.

Table 4.9 Arrangement of language items

Question Choices Counts Percentage

Q2-1: How do you arrange the language items most of the time?

Choose the most applicable.

(n=106)

Chinese items left, English items right

13 12.3%

Following the number of Chinese strokes

0 0%

English items left, Chinese items right

41 38.7% (2)

SL items left, TL items right 43 40.6% (1)

TL items left, SL items right 3 2.8%

Others

(English items on top; no certain rules; mixed; both TL left/SL right and English left/Chinese right; not in the specific orders, all of them were my ways)

6 5.7%

88

As shown in Table. 4.9, most subjects chose to put 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%). Below is a glossary made by S18, who laid out English items on the left and Chinese items on the right:

Figure 4.5 Sample glossary arranged with English items on the left and Chinese items on the right

Interviewees who reported putting source language items on the left and target language items on the right cited reading directionality as the reason:

89

S6: If the class is English to Chinese interpreting, I tend to put English items on the left and Chinese equivalent items on the right. I read from left to right.

S17: You hear the source language first, so you need to locate the source language items at first glance. [I read] from left to right.

For interviewees who tended to put English items on the left and Chinese items on the right, this arrangement has something to do with their learning habits, or the ease of editing in the future:

S7: No particular reason for this. I have no thought about changing it. It is so arranged in English textbooks: English vocabulary with Chinese

translation on the right. It is just a habit.

S8: I stick to the same format; it will be easier to merge glossaries in the future.

S11: It is just a habit. We start typing from the left. Usually the words you do not know are in English. You put English items on the left, and then you put things you are familiar with on the right (Chinese). I do not change the format for classes because it is just a personal habit.

As the majority of the subjects speak Mandarin as their native tongue, only 12.3% of them followed the preferred arrangement order encouraged by Griffin and Harley (1996) (L1 on the left and L2 on the right). Even if they arrange items this

90

way, they may not be sure of the potential benefits of such layout but just do it out of habit:

S3: Chinese terms shorter, taking up less space and leaving more for English.

It seems that the subjects are dispersed across various options to arrange glossary items. Empirical evidence is needed to ascertain the benefits of each option.

Table 4.10 Order of items

Question Choices Counts Percentage

Q2-2: How do you regardless of the order of appearance.

21 19.8%

91

Unlike what the literature suggested (the alphabetical order), most of the subjects (55.7%) would follow the order of conference materials (provided by instructors) when arranging glossary items. This arrangement helped users to locate glossary items when they were interpreting:

S7: It would be easier to search for items if the speaker follows the slides.

S13: It is more convenient to use. You know where to look for items.

S15: Instructors encouraged us to do so. I can look at certain parts of the glossary when interpreting a certain page of the slides.

As discussed in the previous chapter, a glossary is traditionally arranged in alphabetical order. However, the notion was not well-received by the subjects of this study. For some, they would sort out items alphabetically only when there is no better way of arranging them:

S5: Only if there is too much material, or if there is no particular order of the material. Using the alphabetical order also makes it easier to file the items away after class.

Randomly; no particular order.

20 18.9%

Others.

(categories of usage)

1 0.9%

92

Around one-fifth (19.8%) of subjects would group items into conceptual categories, but again, it seems that they would only do so in the absence of

preparation material (S6, S8, and S12). The benefit is that the user could find it easier to establish associations between terms (S16). An example of glossary items arranged this way is as follows (S6):

Figure 4.6 Sample glossary with items categorized into conceptual categories

The sample glossary included terms of military topics, which were divided by S6 into various categories (column D): expressions, location, combating, military titles,

93

and arms. Column E included items in Chinese, and column F included their English equivalents.

In Q2-2, another 18.9% would lay out the items randomly. The order of terms is determined by the time of encounter during preparation (S18 and S19).

It seemed that following the order of conference materials (if there is any) would be the most intuitive way to arrange glossary items.

Table 4.11 Glossary medium

Question Choices Counts Percentage Jiang’s

Q2-3: What medium

94

As shown in Table 4.11, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel enjoyed equal popularity among subjects, whereas surprisingly, loose paper received a slightly higher percentage (57.6%) than other media among professionals. Interviewees who were used to using Microsoft Word mentioned no particular reason for such choice, except it being a habit. One interviewee mentioned that space was an issue for him/her:

S8: I used to use Excel where you can use different tabs. But if I want to print out the glossary for viewing, the space for two columns is bigger in Word. For real occasions, I would use Word. If it is just a draft, I would use Excel.

Supporters of and converts to Microsoft Excel cited the ease of editing and format arrangement:

S1: Excel makes it easier to edit. You can arrange the items in alphabetical order more easily than in Word. In terms of formatting, you have to adjust the form manually in Word, but in Excel there is no limit to the number of blocks. It is easier to add or delete items. If you want to print it out, you do not have to print everything. You can choose to print only Column A and B but not C. It is less convenient to do so in Word.

S13: There is no need to draw the charts. It is easy to adjust.

Some interviewees mentioned that their instructors required them to use Microsoft Excel:

95

S7: I first used Word but later switched to Excel owing to the instructors’

suggestion.

S12: The instructor required us to use Excel. I do not know why. I first started using Word, but the glossary was rejected by the instructor, who said I should have used Excel. It would be easier to add items.

S14: We made a shared glossary on Excel, so the format would be consistent. It was a class assignment where we had to make a glossary of terms extracted from the news then.

Under closer scrutiny, though, both the computerized and written form of

glossary have been adopted respectively by almost the same percentage of the student subjects (50% vs. 45.5%). This could be attributed to the limited time for preparation:

S9: Most of the terms are written down manually, not typed. I do not go about arranging them because for some terms you would not encounter them in your life again. I also do not have time to create a list, say, the night before the class. Writing them down is faster. I think it makes more sense to spend the time that you would otherwise spend on creating a list on familiarizing yourself with what you have written down on paper. You may have a nicely arranged glossary, but will you ever go back and review it?

That is the point. The terms are useful only when you review them again in the future.

96

S10: Sometimes I would just write terms down manually extracted from online materials. That is because I have no time.

An example of a hand-written glossary provided by S19 is shown in Figure 4.7:

Figure 4.7 A sample handwritten glossary

97

It is worth mentioning that S6 used one type of software originally designed for translators to make the glossary for interpreting purposes:

S6: I use Trados Multiterm. When I translate documents with recurrent terms, the software would automatically input the translation. There is a shortcut key to click on if I want to save a certain term and its equivalent in the target language. When I encounter the term next time, the system would ask me if I would like to use an existing translation. You can output the file in Excel and use it for interpreting purposes.

Most of the subjects chose certain medium for their glossary not through guidance but based on personal preference. However, across all types of medium, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel stood out as the most popular.

Table 4.12 Glossary format

Question Choices Counts Percentage Jiang’s

Q2-4: What format

98

As can be expected, tables/lists with corresponding items in both working languages remained the major format for glossary making for both student and expert interpreters. The idea of glossary for interpreting purposes has evolved to be different from its original meaning (merely a list of terms). For interpreters, a glossary

primarily means a table/list with items in their working languages.

The benefits of writing terms down as a form of glossary have been discussed previously. In addition to the time factor, the ease of use would also be a reason:

S14: For fear that I might not be able to find a term quickly enough, I might even write some terms down on the PPT.

S18: If I got a draft speech, I would take notes on it.

Overall, the results of Part Two highlighted the rich diversity of glossary format.

There appeared to be no single way to arrange the glossary; the format would differ from person to person for various reasons.