(先把講到一半的句子說完，再另起一句)
The principle of ONE CHUNK AT A TIME is established under the premise that L2 learners juggle among various components in speaking, and the numerous constraints limit their ability to deal with these components effectively and simultaneously, leading to serial processing, as opposed to parallel processing.
However, serial processing does not mean that thoughts appear sequentially, although sometimes it might be the case. It mainly means that the limited mental resources do not allow learners to deal successfully with numerous layers of mental processing all at once. Therefore, this principle is to tell learners not to rush, but to gracefully deal with one chunk of thoughts at a time.
Principle 3. Be clear. Featuring coherence at discourse level, this principle involves two strategies to enhance message clarity: 3-1. (Re)structure messages from main idea to supporting details or from general to specific, and 3-2. Add cohesive words
53
to explicate the logical relationships between ideas. In other words, the clarity of messages is achieved through structure and cohesive links.
The purpose of Strategy 3-1. (Re)structuring is to enhance message clarity. In CI, macro-restructuring happens when interpreters rearrange chunks of information in their notes (Kohn & Kalina, 1996). Interpreting literature does not specify exact operations for restructuring, probably due to the fact that most studies on interpreting strategies based their analysis on SI instead of CI. In SI, macro-restructuring is probably not common, since interpreters receive information sequentially. Therefore, the restructuring identified is usually at morphosyntactic level, as in the case of morphosyntactic transformations or re-ordering of strings described in the previous section. The two operations of (re)structuring in the present study (from main idea to supporting details and from general to specific) are based on what I have observed in authentic academic spoken English corpuses and consecutive interpreting corpuses.
Strategy 3-2. Add cohesive words is one of the strategies under expansion or explicitation in interpreting literature. Named “additions to maintain coherence”
(Donato, 2003, p. 107), it is one of the four sub-strategies under the category of expansion, and the purpose is to enhance accuracy and clarity of messages (Donato, 2003). Twelve types of explicitation have been identified in interpreting literature and can be grouped into two categories: surface addition and specification; “adding connectives” (Gumul, 2006, p. 174) is in the category of the former (Gumul, 2006).
Adding words for the sake of adding words might be confusing to students. What needs to be taught is the rationale behind expansion or addition, i.e., to clarify, enhance, and explicate the original messages. Therefore, “to explicate the logical relationships between ideas” is included in the operational definition of 3-2. Add cohesive words.
In a study that used the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory to analyze the coherence of experts’ and novices’ CI performances, it was found that in both directions
54
with the language pair of Chinese (A) and English (B), experts exhibited more global coherence, as reflected in their structure and explicitness of connection between ideas, whereas novices showed attention to local cohesion (Peng, 2009). Strategies 1 and 3-2 in the present study should raise L3-2 learners’ awareness to the ways English native speakers organize and deliver their thoughts, and how Chinese messages can be transformed to meet English conventions, so that their L2 output is more listener-friendly, more efficient, and more effective in achieving communicative goals.
Principle 4. Be concise. This principle is similar to compression in interpreting literature. It is achieved through 4-1. Omit redundant, secondary, superfluous, or repetitive parts of speech and 4-2. Select important messages. Compression seems to be the opposite of chunking described in the previous section. Compression is fusing ideas expressed in several sentences into one concise sentence or clause, while chunking is breaking ideas into several self-contained chunks. In theory, ONE CHUNK AT A TIME is more in line with the nature of on-line planning of speaking and the partially serial mental processing of L2 speaking than compression, yet the practice of BE CONCISE might be helpful to L2 learners as well.
Omission is one of the main strategies identified in the interpreting output of both novices and experts. It is used to address all kinds of “perception, comprehension, or production problems” (Chang, 2005, p. 73). Depending on the research angle and unit of analysis, it can refer to the deletion of lexical items (Al-khanji et al., 2000; Napier, 2004), of messages (Chang, 2005; Li, 2013), of information (Bartlomiejczyk, 2006;
Napier, 2004; Wang, 2012), of concepts (Napier, 2004), or of a segment of content (Gile, 2009) from the original speech. Omission used to be treated as an error or a form of deviations from the source text (Pöchhacker, 2004). However, omission is not necessary an error or the results of failures in comprehension or production, but a strategy to “maintain a natural and coherent speech” (Chang, 2005, p. 73), or even to
55
“enhance the effectiveness of the interpretation” (Napier, 2004, p. 125). As a strategy, omission can be the result of assessment and decision made by the interpreter, because the information might be relatively less important (Bartlomiejczyk, 2006; Gile, 2009;
Wang 2012), repetitive and redundant (Al-Khanji et al., 2000; Al-Salman & Al-Khanji 2002; Bartlomiejczyk, 2006), not transferable due to cultural differences (Bartlomiejczyk, 2006; Napier, 2004), or because of stylistic considerations (Bartlomiejczyk, 2006; Chen, 2007).
Omission and selection of important messages are two sides of one coin, because
“selection of important messages naturally entails omission of others” (Chang, 2005, p.
73). Therefore, when it comes to strategy instruction, what should be taught is not
“omission” per se, but efficiently weighing the relative value of pieces of information, selecting more important messages to convey, which entails the deletion of less important information (such as repetitive and redundant elements).
During the process of assessing and selecting primary information, students should also learn to take their L2 proficiency level into account, especially during into-B interpreting. After all, as Monacelli (2009) argues, self-preservation is the principle behind a lot of decision-making during SI, and interpreters’ self-regulatory behavior is geared toward the goal of maximized professional survival. This is confirmed by Chang’s (2005) study that time pressure and personal weaknesses may both factor in the selection of more important ideas, and that “this tendency to forgo what one considers as too difficult and to keep what one considers as easier, or ‘safer’ is reflected in the participants’ strategy use in general” (p. 73, emphasis in original).
The strategies of omission and selection of important messages can be regarded as the two sides of one strategy—compression. Kohn and Kalina (1996) refer to
“compression/condensation” (p. 132) as an “important overall rescue strategy” (p. 132), achieved through rendering only elements of a “higher macro level” (p. 132), deleting
56
“repetitive or redundant information” (p. 132), or choosing telegraphic style that reduces monitoring efforts. Li (2013) also defines compression (a.k.a.
condensation/summarizing/filtering) as preserving the original meaning “in a more general and concise way, usually with all repetitive, unimportant, or redundant information deleted or omitted” (p. 110). Donato (2003) uses an umbrella term synthesis, which “entails the compression of the SL text” (p. 107) through generalization, simplification, and deletion. Deletion here is defined as “reprocessing the SL text through the deletion of superfluous or redundant information by means of a selection of information” (Donato, 2003, p. 107).
It seems that compression entails omission of redundant and repetitive elements while preserving more important or macro level elements that convey the main idea.
Then, it seems logical to say that omission, selection of important messages, and compression all involve the same mechanism, or operate on the same principle, but the difference lies in the unit of analysis adopted by researchers. A researcher may focus on lexical items, information, or segments that are omitted, or on the message being conveyed and assessed as more important, or on larger chunks of utterance and find that both omission and selection of more important information are at play, leading to the strategy of compression.
The distinction between omission and the different degrees of compression can also been seen in the two studies that Al-Khanji is involved. In Al-Khanji et al. (2000), compression, referred to as filtering, is used when “interpreters tried to compress the length of an utterance in order to find an economic way of expression” (p. 554) without compromising the semantic content of the idea. Al-Salman and Al-Khanji (2002) use the term summarizing to refer to a similar strategy, with which interpreters achieve “an economic means of expression” (p. 617) by trimming down long sentences to a minimum without compromising the content of the message. Again, the difference
57
between filtering and summarizing thus defined might lie in the unit of analysis: The former refers to “an utterance,” while the latter refers to “long sentences,” and these two units may refer to different concepts, but may also overlap because an utterance can be a sentence or several sentences. In terms of omission, Al-Khanji et al. (2000) narrow it down to lexical items only, naming it skipping. So it seems that in the two studies that Al-Khanji is involved, the authors make the distinction based on unit of analysis: If omission is operated on a single word, the smallest unit, it is called skipping;
if omission is executed on an utterance, it is called filtering; if omission is operated in long sentences, the largest unit, then it is called summarizing.
One might argue that BE CONCISE (compression) might be hard for L2 learners to apply to their own L2 speaking process, since it is not exactly the case that learners have clear and complete Chinese sentences or ideas formed in mind, and that they can decide in split seconds about what is important and should be said, or what is redundant and should be omitted. Furthermore, the redundant utterances sometimes are produced to buy time or to avoid long pauses. In other words, these “fillers” might have values.
Therefore, the purpose of teaching BE CONCISE is to enhance learners’
skillfulness, flexibility, and efficiency in dealing with messages. Through practicing the two strategies under this principle, learners may understand that in interpreting, less is sometimes more. They may further transfer this knowledge to L2 speaking: Talking on and on is not exactly listener-friendly; BE CONCISE and to the point sometimes facilitate the understanding even better.
Figure 3.1 encapsulates the principles and strategies streamlined in the present study, and how the strategies are conditioned by constraints and norms. Constraints can be divided into cognitive and temporal. Cognitive constraints may be caused by the fact that two languages are not exactly the same (A≠B), so conceptual, syntactic, semantic, and cultural differences may lead to problems in interpreting, and that interpreters’
58
active command of their B language is less than that of their A language (B < A), leading to higher cognitive demand in into-B interpreting. Strategies dealing with these constraints are mainly solving problems stemming from A≠B and B < A, and they are streamlined under PRINCIPLE 1. BE FLEXIBLE.
These problems are exacerbated by temporal constraint. In SI, time pressure is caused by the concurrence of listening, analyzing, speaking, and monitoring. Time pressure may compromise the availability of the known language items and concepts, so interpreters might have to resort to less-than-perfect strategies, such as using more general or similar terms, to achieve communicative goals. The concurrence of listening and speaking means that messages come linearly, so in terms of oral output, interpreters may shorten ear-voice span with the help of the strategies under PRINCIPLE 2. ONE CHUNK AT A TIME. These chunking strategies prevent problems that stem from structural differences of the two languages and from the linearity of messages, which means interpreters can start interpreting without waiting for the end of a sentence or without making drastic changes of information order.
Strategies are also conditioned by norms. Two of the interpreting norms are featured here because of their resemblance to the principles of L2 speaking: economy and clarity. The norm of minimizing effort, or using the least possible effort to produce clear messages, is another reason for chunking strategies, which allow interpreters to deal with messages as they come along, relieving burden on working memory. The norm of minimizing effort also conditions the strategies under PRINCIPLE 4. BE CONCISE. Due to cognitive and temporal constraints, omitting secondary information and selecting important messages allow interpreters to use the least effort in “producing”
the interpreting output to achieve communicative goals. BE CONCISE is in the category of message enhancement because a condensed rendition is efficient, effective, and listener-friendly.
59
The second interpreting norm featured here is maximizing communication effectiveness by explicating the intended meaning of the speaker and the logical relationship between ideas with discourse level structuring of ideas and cohesive devices, the two strategies under BE CLEAR.
The first two principles and related strategies mainly deal with lexical, phrasal, clausal, sentential, and semantic problems, while the latter two mainly deal with problems at sentential and discourse levels. So the strategies progress from solving and preventing problems in smaller units to enhancing message clarity and effectiveness at a larger scale.
In this section, I have assessed the pedagogical values of interpreting strategies identified in previous empirical interpreting studies and recommended by interpreting training textbooks. To make strategies intuitively understandable and applicable for L2 learners, strategies are categorized based on principles applicable to both into-B interpreting and L2 speaking. Furthermore, strategies are subsumed, streamlined, and renamed to make them easier for learners to memorize and implement.
It should be noted that neither the principles nor the strategies are mutually exclusive, especially in the cases of BE CLEAR and BE CONCISE. For example, the process of (re)structuring (Strategy 3-1) for the sake of clarity sometimes involves omission of secondary information (Strategy 4-1), selection of important messages (Strategy 4-2), and addition of cohesive words (Strategy 3-2). Since this study focuses on pedagogical applications of interpreting strategies, the overlapping properties of strategies taught is less of a concern here. Each strategy highlights a different yet important operation of interpreting, and singling out these aspects is what explicit instruction is about.
60
Figure 3.1 The conceptualization of how interpreting constraints and norms condition interpreting strategies.
61
1-1.Use a more general term 1-2. Use a similar term 1-3. Explain
1-4. Paraphrase
1-4-1. Paraphrase from the opposite angle 1-4-2. Use plain but clear English
2-1. Chunk the source text 2-2. Preserve linearity
2-3. Produce short, simple, direct, and self-contained sentences in the target language A2-1a: Break down complicated thoughts into smaller chunks
A2-1b: Deal with one chunk of thoughts at a time A2-2: Follow the flow of my thoughts
A2-3a: Use several short & simple sentences to express my ideas A2-3b: Finish my current sentence before I start another one
3-1. (Re)structure messages from main idea to supporting details or from general to specific 3-2. Add cohesive words to explicate the logical relationships between ideas
4-1. Omit redundant, secondary, superfluous, or repetitive parts of speech 4-2. Select important messages
(Also see Table 3.1 for the operational definitions of some of these strategies.)
62
Authentic examples for strategy demonstrations and exercises. The demonstrating examples and practice items used during strategy instruction for the EG were mostly selected from empirical interpreting studies and my self-compiled interpreting corpuses. Therefore, the strategies taught are authentic in the sense that they have been used by professional interpreters and/or advanced interpreting students.
My self-compiled interpreting corpuses consisted of three resources, all of which were available on Youtube.
1. The video recordings of Michael Sandel's talk in Taiwan in 20127. I had the parts where audience speaking in Chinese with English simultaneous interpretation transcribed. The content of this talk was consistent with some of the in-class materials.
(See the next section “Production of Materials for Back-interpreting Practice.”) It was an academic lecture given by the same professor, and the audience in that talk participated in discussion on topics that required sophisticated thinking as well.
Therefore, the EG participants were familiar with the context of examples drawn from this corpus. In addition, one discussion topic from this talk served as the debate topic in Week 14.
2. The video recordings of Jet Li’s speech given in Singapore about his charity foundation8 and his Q&A sessions with APEC youth representatives from around the world9. These video clips feature CI, mostly in the direction of Chinese to English. In Week 9, the EG participants watched Jet Li’s speech about his foundation and practiced short CI on the basis of that speech for 10 minutes. I played what Jet Li said segment
7 The link to the original talk is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxJQr_xSrAw.
The link to its simultaneous interpreting is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SZCa4LEYfE.
8 The link to Jet Li’s philanthropy breakfast at Singapore with English CI is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL2z6MrBlUE.
9 Four video clips of Jet Li’s conversation with APEC youth representatives with English CI were used: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSBH9gSMQP8,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgNY9SDUM1g, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LTIyODEeIw, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGQ5wX-vhO0.
63
by segment, and they took turns interpreting the content into English in pairs. This practice gave them an authentic sense of what short CI was about. They could also compared their interpreting output with the interpreter’s right away. Before this practice, examples selected from this talk were already used. After this practice, the EG participants were even more familiar with the context. So examples from this speech or from Jet Li’s Q&A sessions afterwards seemed to be more engaging.
3. The video recordings of Chinese Premiers’ press conferences with English CI10 was my third self-compiled corpus. Examples selected from this corpus mainly served to demonstrate the use of the two strategies under PRINCIPLE 3. BE CLEAR. The first reason was that we could hardly see macro-restructuring in SI, so to demonstrate the use of Strategy 3-1. (Re)structuring, longer stretches of CI interpreting output had to be used. As for Strategy 3-2. Adding cohesive words, examples from SI were also rare, so the more formal and well-structured English CI of Chinese Premiers’ press conferences was the main source of examples and exercises. Although the content of Chinese Premiers’ press conferences was less engaging, I chose the parts where Taiwanese reporters asked cross-Strait related issues for demonstrations and practice, hoping that the learners found these segments more relevant to their life.
In addition to the three corpuses, some examples were back-translation from TV shows, news reports, movies, documentaries, and lectures. These examples were authentic in the sense that they were from spoken sources, instead of written, literary sources. Isolated examples drawn out of contexts were mainly used to demonstrate the strategies under PRINCIPLE 1. BE FLEXIBLE. Although examples out of context might fail to make a lasting impression, the focus of these examples was lexical or
10 The video recordings of Chinese Premiers’ press conferences with English CI in years 2012 and 2015 were used: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlPLtzxyWAI and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r776Rfvog44.
64
phrasal items, so the absence of contexts was the lesser of two evils. For PRINCIPLE 2. ONE CHUNK AT A TIME, examples were mainly extracted from video clips watched previously or segments of interpreting practice done in previous weeks, so the contexts were evident in these cases, and the examples might be more memorable because of repeated exposures.
With regard to PRINCIPLE 3. BE CLEAR and PRINCIPLE 4. BE CONCISE, I
With regard to PRINCIPLE 3. BE CLEAR and PRINCIPLE 4. BE CONCISE, I