Results for Interpreter’s Active Roles

credibility if they fail to use field or industry-specific language to be edifying to the audience in addition to conveying the

Table 5. Professional versus Church Interpreters on Active Roles

*statistically significant p-values

Section 2 of the questionnaire addresses the interpreter’s active roles during the process of interpreting. Items in this section specifically target the conscious decisions made by interpreters while they are interpreting, and prompts Christian respondents to rate the level of importance for both professional and church interpreters.

As seen in Table 5 above, mean ratings for items gauging the loss or gain of credibility when using field or industry-specific language when interpreting (Q1 and Q2) showed the

following: professional interpreters received a mean rating of 4.02 while church interpreters received a mean rating of 3.91. By comparing the two means at face value, it seems that Christian respondents see this particular obligation of the interpreter as consistent across both professional and church spheres. The apparent negligible difference between the two mean ratings is confirmed by the high p-value 0.417. Thus, based on these results, the church interpreter’s role appears to be indistinct from the professional interpreter in terms of using field or industry specific language when interpreting. Figure 10 below also shows near identical distributions of ratings for professional and church interpreters.

Figure 10. Number of Responses for Q1 and Q2 in Section 2

Tseng (2009) defines the necessity for church interpreters to use “Christian jargons” even in the face of non-Christians, as failure to do so may result in doubt in the church interpreter’s reliability as well as cause interpersonal tension or disruption of the communicative event (Mao, 1994 as cited in Tseng, 2009). Apparently, the Christian respondents in this study felt that both professional and church interpreters are held to the same standard, suggesting that this expectation is not exclusive to church interpreters. Then again, the respondents may have perceived

“professional interpreter” in the context of a concrete specialized setting. A survey conducted by Pöchhacker and Zwischenberg (2010) showed that the criterion “correct terminology” were

“spontaneously mentioned as top priorities or of high importance when associated with concrete interpreting situations,” such as seminars and workshops. Nevertheless, usage of correct terminology is an overall important criterion for fulfilling the role of interpreter.

For items regarding the need for interpreters to replicate facial expressions, body movements, and speaking style (Q3 and Q4) professional interpreters received a mean rating of 3.07 while church interpreters received a mean rating of 3.30, both of which suggest that Christian respondents felt indifferent about this particular performance-type obligation for the interpreter.

However, even though the calculated p-value is less than 0.05, signifying that the slightly higher rating for church interpreters is statistically significant, the means and the distributions in Figure 11 reflects general indifference towards this performative aspect of the interpreter’s role. Interview responses in regard to this role (see sub-section 4.2.1.2) were also a mixed bag.

Figure 11. Number of Responses for Q3 and Q4 in Section 2

P

The results go against Vigoroux’s (2010) argument that “the pastor-interpreter co-performance of the sermon should be approached as a performing genre rather than as a mere interpreting activity intended to bridge a communicative gap between the pastor and the congregants" (Vigouroux, 2010). The results in this study’s questionnaire failed to reflect this.

Tison (2016), as reported in her findings, indicated that the Christians she surveyed put “a strong emphasis on the expressive style of the sermon as a performance, including the preacher’s excitement, passion, enthusiasm, intonation, body language and gestures; the non-verbal expression of a sermon is expected from the interpreter as well” (ibid., p. 130). However, it does not appear to be the case for Christian respondents surveyed in this study. The researcher believes that the disparity between the findings in this study with previous research could be chalked up to culture and denominational affiliation.

Regarding items related to whether interpreter can omit, add or substitute information if they feel it will better convey the speaker’s intended meaning (Q5 and Q6), professional interpreters received a mean rating of 3.02 while church interpreters received a mean rating of 2.83.

The calculated p-value is greater than 0.05, which supports acceptance of the null hypothesis—the difference between ratings for professional and church interpreters regarding this interpreter obligation is not statistically significant. Thus, based on these means, Christian respondents generally feel neutral about the church interpreter’s authority to omit, add or substitute information.

However, when looking at the distributions of ratings in Figure 12 below, attitudes towards professional and church interpreters in regards to this active role no longer appear neutral but controversial. The sum of the number of “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” ratings are roughly equal to the sum of “Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree” ratings. Interviews failed to reveal why this is a controversy. Perhaps this is an issue of principle versus practice. Interview participants may not

have felt comfortable openly condoning omitting, adding or substituting information for any reason. However, what actually occurs during interpreting may be different from these answers.

Unfortunately, this study’s lack of observational data of church interpreting in practice, which may have shed light on this controversial interpreter role.

Figure 12. Number of Responses for Q5 and Q6 in Section 2

The findings here go against what Owen (2004) posited in his book that church interpreters

“have a mandate to embroider around (but not deviate from) the strict interpretation of the source message and amongst other strategies, seek to requisition an illustration, an example, a parable, a question, in an attempt to verify understanding”. However, perhaps Owen was speaking more from the perspective of sign language interpreting, which may carry a different dynamic than spoken interpreting. Owen specifically states in his book that British Sign language interpreters

“must pick out the sense or the intrinsic meaning and should have freedom to and confidence to embroider around the message in order for the meaning to become clear, and properly give the sense (ibid., 2004).

Tison (2016) also found in her study that in interpreters in the church context “view themselves as authorized to make decisions about the material (un)acceptable for the communication, or to make changes to the message when they deem it necessary” as opposed to secular interpreters who do not align themselves with the speaker and take on a more noninterventionist and even neutral standing (Tison, 2016). While the Christian respondents in this study verified the latter claim for secular interpreters, their ratings for church interpreters do not reflect Tison’s findings nor do they validate Owen’s arguments that church interpreters are perceived to have such authority.

As for items gauging the importance of maintaining neutrality in the face of prejudicial, controversial or even heretical statements (Q7 and Q8) from the speaker, professional interpreters received a mean rating of 3.89 while church interpreters received a mean rating of 3.11. The calculated p-value is significantly less than 0.01, which substantially supports rejection of the null hypothesis. Thus, it can be inferred from the mean ratings and p-value that Christian respondents uphold professional interpreters to higher scrutiny when it comes to maintaining neutrality.

However, the nearly bimodal distribution of ratings for church interpreters in Figure 13 suggests that the general attitude among the respondents is that of uncertainty and not necessarily of lower agreement.

Figure 13. Number of Responses for Q7 and Q8 in Section 2

For items gauging the level of importance for aiming to be edifying to the audience in addition to conveying the linguistic meaning of the speaker’s words (Q9 and Q10), professional interpreters received a mean rating of 3.37 while church interpreters received a mean rating of 4.11.

The calculated p-value is significantly less than 0.01, which substantially supports rejection of the null hypothesis and signifies that the difference between the ratings for professional and church interpreters is statistically significant in regards to this interpreter role. Both distributions of ratings for professional and church interpreters in regards to this role in Figure 14 below are generally unimodal, but the distribution of ratings for church interpreters in regards to this active role is significantly more positive-skewed, which corroborates the findings from the t-test.

P

Figure 14. Number of Responses for Q9 and Q10 in Section 2

This echoes Andrew Owen’s point that although linguistically competent interpreting is important the church interpreter’s cardinal aim is to edify the church by letting the hearts of the audience feel the meaning (Owen, 2014). Tison’s open-ended questionnaire also yielded similar results. In her interviews with various church interpreters, Tison (2016) reported multiple responses that emphasized church interpreting as not only passing on information but imparting the divine into the heart’s the church members, from God to man, spirit-to-spirit (ibid., p. 141-142). The results in this study further verify Owen’s argument and Tison’s findings, and clearly show a higher expectation for church interpreters than professional interpreters to be edifying in their interpretation.