Novice and expert performance

It is necessary at this point to examine the differences between novice and expert interpreters because knowing the differences in how expertise develops is crucial to make interpreter training more successful and efficient (Liu, 2009) and underscores the evolution and acquisition of interpreting competence (Riccardi, 2005, discussing simultaneous interpreting).

A search of the interpreting literature revealed only a small number of published studies that compare professionals with less-accomplished interpreters (e.g., Christoffels et al., 2006; Ericsson, 2000; Ericsson and Lehman, 1996; Liu 2009; Moser-Merser, 1997; Moser-Mercer et al., 2000). Most of those studies focus on the internal process of interpreting. For example, Liu (2009) compared novices and experts in their comprehension, translation, and production process from a cognitive point of view.

Other studies compared how novices and experts differ in several sub-components of interpreting, such as working memory (Liu, 2009; Liu et al., 2004); concurrent articulation and articulatory suppression (Liu, 2009); attention (Liu, 2009); and language processing skills (Moser-Merser et al., 2000).

More pertinent to the present study is the difference in the knowledge structures, knowledge base, and its organization (Moser-Merser, 1997; Moser-Mercer et al., 2000) between novices and experts. For instance, professional interpreters have more comprehensive knowledge than novices thanks to more exposure to many domains

35

(Moser-Merser, 1997). Although novices and experts show less extensive difference in factual knowledge, experts organize concepts in different domains better and can therefore access the knowledge faster, with more associative and domain connections (Moser-Merser, 1997; Moser-Merser et al., 2000). Knowledge organization correlates with reaction time and “influences the interpreting process already at the level of word recognition” (pp. 257-258). Therefore, the accumulation of knowledge does distinguish experts from their novice counterparts.

Expert interpreters also employ different schematic knowledge and have better contextualization ability. For instance, Moser-Merser et al. (2000) argued that with regard to semantic knowledge, experts’ semantic interpretation is almost always being tied to the context, whereas novices’ semantic interpretations are often entirely out of context. Of course, as discussed before, veteran interpreters know that specialized terms are also embedded in a specialized language (Luccarelli, 2006) and may make better, context-appropriate semantic choices. Beyond that, one other reason may explain such difference: “An experienced interpreter would go about contextualizing with greater intention and purpose than the student or novice interpreter” (Luccarelli, 2006, p. 7).

Experts employ more global plans, while novices tend to adopt microcontextual plans (Moser-Merser et al., 2000). This contextual awareness may result from the expert interpreter’s wide experience of working in various domains and the domain-specific knowledge he/she has accumulated over his/her career. The expertise developed from such experience enables the expert interpreter to anticipate what a conference is about when first seeing the program, and this will make his/her preparation more targeted and organized than a novice’s (Luccarelli, 2006).

36

2.4.3. Glossary in relation to the three cornerstones of interpreting competence As interpreting involves complex processes, one of the challenges facing interpreter training is to first unravel the mystery of the interpreting process and then break interpreting competence into teachable chunks. Thanks to research, it is now possible to fathom out what concrete skills constitute interpreting competence. That is to say, conference interpreting competence is no longer regarded as implicit, but a declarative knowledge that can be consciously verbalized (Riccardi, 2005).

Among all the building blocks of interpreting competence, the ones that have been reiterated in interpreting research are language proficiency and linguistic knowledge (Fan, 2012; Farghal and Shakir, 1994; Lambert, 1991; Gerver, Longely, Long, &

Lambert, 1989; Moser-Mercer, 2000), knowledge (Fan, 2012; Lambert, 1991; Gerver, Longely, Long, & Lambert, 1989; Moser-Mercer, 2000), and skills (Liu, 2009) (including comprehension, transfer (translation), and production).

In its attempt to define translation competence, PACTE (2003, cited in PACTE, 2008, pp.106-107) proposed five subcompetences and psychological components of translation competence. Among the five subcompetences, three of them could also be matched with the three core competencies mentioned above: bilingual subcompetence (language), extralinguistic subcompetence (knowledge), and strategic subcompetence (skills). PACTE’s translation competence model also had psycho-physiological components, which included cognitive components (memory, perception, attention, and emotion) and attitudinal aspects (confidence, intellectual curiosity, motivation, among others).

This section will address the role of the glossary in relation to each of the three main constituents of interpreting competence.

37

2.4.3.1 Language: domain-specific terms and expressions

Language proficiency is considered the prerequisite for and a subcomponent of interpreting competence (Jurko, 2009), if not the conditio sine qua non (Riccardi, 2005). All the supplementary skills of interpreting are built on the pre-existing mastery of the two languages (Ericsson, 2000). Indeed, in selecting potential candidates for interpreting programs, a good command of working languages is regarded as one of the important characteristics (Gerver, Longely, Long, & Lambert, 1989; Lambert, 1991). Fan’s survey results (2012) also revealed that language

proficiency was ranked the most important aptitude of all by professional interpreters.

Language proficiency is an encompassing concept that includes pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary knowledge, and pragmatics (Christoffels et al., 2003). As previously discussed, lexical specificity is considered an importance yardstick for judging interpreting performance. However excellent an interpreting performance is, the inability to interpret on the word level may undermine perceived professionalism.

Therefore, of all dimensions of language proficiency, lexical knowledge, which is more or less included under vocabulary knowledge, is considered critical for trainees.

Studies have demonstrated a link between lexical knowledge and interpreting competence (Bale, 2013; Farghal and Shakir, 1994, Skaaden, 1999). Skaaden (1999) found that students with a good terminology base had better interpreting performance, linking the conclusion to Gile’s effort models (2009, chap. 7). Students’ command of terminology saves them their limited cognitive resources, which in turn enables students to deal with other aspects of interpreting. To access the right word when interpreting is key, as vocabulary problems may take up time and processing

resources and finally lead to a breakdown of the interpreting process (Christoffels et al., 2006). Therefore, Farghal and Shakir (1994) suggested that lexical

38

correspondence be highlighted as an important interlingual principle in interpreter training.

It has been shown that expert interpreters have better vocabulary knowledge and faster lexical retrieval than students (Christoffels et al., 2006). What’s more, expert interpreters seem to do a better job than novice interpreters at lexical processing and therefore at accessing lexical information (Liu, 2009). This suggests that with training, practice, and experience, students will gradually improve their lexical competence.

This is where the role of the glossary exemplifies its importance. In Jiang’s study (2013), a staggering majority of interpreters ranked “learning vocabulary” as the most important use of their glossaries. The glossary can help with the acquisition of domain-specific terms and the application of them in interpreting. In the case of interpreting trainees, a glossary may provide language enhancement benefits. First, if trainees familiarize themselves with glossary items, they can enrich their palette of vocabulary for professional purposes. Second, if trainees make a conscious effort to interact with glossary items (e.g. committing them to memory), the terms may be transformed from what Brisau et. al. (1994, p. 88) called “superspecialized, once-in-a-lifetime” terms into

“cement-like basket vocabulary.”

The way these readily available terms, as Gile called them (2009, chap. 9), are rendered in the target language reveals the degree to which they already have been acquired and internalized (Riccardi, 1998, cited in Riccardi, 2005). For example, interpreters often resort to ready-made stock phrases when interpreting stereotypical parts of a conference (e.g. welcoming and greetings), and devote their attention to unfamiliar information (Riccardi, 2005). Thirdly, if interpreting trainees accumulate glossaries of various subjects during their time at training institutions, the stockpile of glossaries becomes the tool for trainees to enhance their language proficiency and equip themselves with the linguistic knowledge needed for the profession.

39

For the above reasons, a glossary may serve as a language learning companion for trainees that helps sharpen their language skills, particular with regards to lexical knowledge. The glossaries prepared for interpreting classes of varying subjects become a mini-corpus of some sort. Bale (2013) concluded that corpus-based re-sources help students acquire subject-specific terminology and apply terms in an interpreting situation. Bale (2013) admitted that a focus on terminology acquisition in interpreter training may attract criticism from advocates of the meaning-based

pedagogy. Still, lexical competence, which may be enhanced with the help of the glossary, has self-evident advantages.

2.4.3.2 Knowledge buildup

While linguistic caliber is important, it alone is insufficient and has to be integrated with specialist knowledge (Gotti, 1997, p. 75, cited in Pignataro, 2012). Seleskovitch (1978, cited in Luccarelli, 2006) pointed out that “[t]he interpreter cannot restrict himself to learning words and their equivalents without seeking to find what they express” (p. 93). As previously touched upon, glossary preparation inherently involves knowledge acquisition. When extracting new terms, interpreters learn about relevant concepts and facts (Gile, 2002), and the glossary becomes a tangible vehicle for the construction of the conceptual knowledge that supports interpreting (Jiang, 2013, p. 75).

Indeed, as Pignataro (2012) suggested, the terminological work done by interpreters creates a conceptual system, which is considered an essential tool to convey specialized knowledge.

Even after the glossary is compiled, interpreters go on to study the list and continue to build the knowledge basis for the interpreting task (Moser-Mercer, 1992, pp. 508-509). The knowledge acquisition process may even extend well beyond a certain conference (Gile, 2009; Jiang, 2013). According to Gile (2009), assignment preparation

40

has both short-term and long-term benefits. Interpreters may build up more knowledge in the fields they work more often. After interpreting in similar field for a long time, interpreters may “acquire a solid knowledge of the relevant specialized terms and the associated phraseology” (pp. 148-149).

This is why terminological preparation in the form of a glossary has practical significance in interpreter training. Previous accumulated knowledge, reckoned Gile (2002), may equip students with knowledge they can use in the profession later. Jiang (2013) suggested that students be encouraged to acquire domain knowledge of the topics they work on during training. The knowledge of different subject matters is subsumed under the declarative knowledge of interpreting, which can be better learned through deliberate terminology acquisition (Riccardi, 2005). Ultimately, students are able to activate the relevant knowledge accumulated over the years through glossary preparation. When they become experts one day, they will have established “links among related concepts in different domains, and consequently faster access to that knowledge” (Moser-Merser, 1997, p. 257). The knowledge organization will correlate with reaction time, and influence the interpreting process already at word-level recognition (Moser-Merser, 1997). The inextricable link between subject knowledge and lexical knowledge is being widely recognized.

2.4.3.3 Skills: flexible, automated language transfer

The interpreting process as a whole could also be facilitated as a result of glossary preparation, which entails both language and knowledge acquisition. As Pignataro (2012) postulated, the simultaneous interpreting process will be smoother if one carries out sufficient terminological preparation. The reason, as Christoffels et al.

(2003) explained, may be that “when little attentional processing is required for certain aspects of language processing, more processing capacity will be available for

41

other task components and the results of those processing steps are more quickly available for further processing” (p. 201). The transfer between linguistic equivalents on the glossary could become almost automatic thanks to pre-assignment preparation.

However, it remains unknown what happens if the interpreter does not commit glossary items to memory but simply puts the terms on the glossary as part of assignment preparation. That is to say, how the interpreter consults the glossary at work is little studied. Hopefully, the act of putting terms on the glossary may have left an imprint in the memory of the interpreter, and the prepared terms may take up less processing capacity than totally unknown terms.

If glossary preparation does bring benefits with regards to language

enhancement, knowledge acquisition, and production, the way the three pointers of interpreting competence reinforce each other is aptly summarized by Riccardi (2005, discussing simultaneous interpreting):

World, specialized and factual knowledge together with language and

communicative competence allow the interpreter to understand the message and produce the IT. Known words are always linked with concepts, with declarative knowledge, therefore, the better the knowledge organization, the more rapid meaning recovery and production will be. The greater rapidity and effectiveness with which certain structures or text segments are interpreted may be supposed directly to correlate with conceptual and linguistic knowledge organization optimized for SI. (p. 761)

The literature shows that the glossary does have the potential to serve as a multifunctional tool for trainees and aid them on their way to professionalism. It is hoped that the findings of this study could illustrate whether the compilation of a glossary may help with the enhancement of the three cornerstones of interpreting competence, and whether its benefits may stay with trainees wherever they go on the

42

career path. The glossary could play a critical role in trainees’ expertise development, just as the way the glossary helps veteran interpreters improve along their career trajectory. Then it remains to be seen how the widespread practice done by almost every professional interpreter (revealed in Jiang’s study) may already have an influence on trainees and the way glossary building actually realizes the benefits discussed in this section.