The role of the glossary in assignment preparation

As the glossary is considered the result of the interpreter’s terminological work (Pignataro, 2012; Will, 2007), the question which one must consider next is the glossary’s role in relation to an interpreting assignment.

A professional interpreter cannot go to work like a tabula rasa. In fact, as Moser-Mercer (1992) put it, the interpreter’s work begins the moment he/she agrees to interpret for a conference. There are various kinds of preparations modes and

methods. In terms of preparation modes, W. Kutz (2003, discussed in Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009) distinguished between theme-based preparation, linguistic preparation,

20

translation preparation, and interpretation preparation. Donovan (2001, cited in Luccarelli, 2006) also mentioned three levels of preparation: terminological, subject matter, and the situation. With respect to the timing of preparation, the literature has defined three stages of preparation: before, during, and after the assignment (see Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009), while Gile (2009) divided preparation into advanced preparation, last minute preparation, and ongoing preparation during the meeting. In addition to assignment-specific preparation, interpreters also need long-term

preparation (L1 and L2 language in general, as opposed to short-term preparation for specialized language), and general background knowledge (as opposed to subject-specific knowledge) (Luccarelli, 2013; Rutten, 2003).

While conference preparation per se is not the subject of the present study, terminological preparation is ever-present throughout the preparation process regardless of modes or timing, making the glossary “one of the most important sub-processes in these preparations” (Jiang, 2013, p. 74). In terms of timing, some reckoned that terminological work can only take place prior to the conference (Gile, 2009; Taylor, 1993; Will, 2007) because interpretation at work cannot be interrupted (Will, 2007) and it is impossible to conduct terminology research at work (Klaus Schmitz, discussed in Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009). Others proposed that terminological research is an on-going process that extends to during and after the conference (Luccarelli, 2006; Moser-Mercer 1992; Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009). Typically, according to Jiang (2013) and Moser-Mercer (1992), interpreters build a glossary as he/she receives conference-related documents and go on to study the glossary items. The glossary can then be updated on the premises as the interpreter exchanges ideas with colleagues and delegates. After the conference, conscientious interpreters go further to polish the list and save it as a file.

21

One of the most important roles of the glossary in preparation is that it helps the interpreter contextualize (AIIC, 2004; Gile, 1995, p. 150; Jiang, 2013; Setton, 1999, p.

89). Setton (1999) aptly described the contextualization process:

More than in the case of ordinary conversation, contextualization begins before input: the interpreter starts assembling pieces of the model before entering the booth (perhaps weeks before), adding features at an

accelerating rate, as she gets the agenda, the minutes of the previous

meetings, and the list of participants, then sees the meeting room; finally, if her colleague (“booth-mate”) starts working first, she is fully

contextualized by the time she begins. (p. 89)

By putting him/herself into the context and preparing for the assignment, the interpreter can better deal with the unexpected (Luccarelli, 2013). When compiling a glossary, the interpreter anticipates what specialized terms and related fields may be involved in an assignment (Luccarelli, 2006) and may in so doing build confidence for the assignment (Jiang, 2013). After the glossary items are studied, they become more available on the tip of the tongue (AIIC, 2004) and quasi-active vocabulary for the interpreter (Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009). All the potential benefits of the glossary make specialized terminology an “operationally important part of preparation” (Gile, 2002, p. 7).

Of course, building a glossary does not merely mean putting items on a list and memorizing them; it inherently involves some conceptual learning and vice-versa (Gile, 2002). As discussed before, terminological preparation is indeed part and parcel of assignment preparation, but beyond that, it is also a learning process (AIIC, 2004;

Luccarelli, 2013). When searching for items to be included in the glossary, the interpreter often studies the concepts behind the terms (as a means of subject preparation), which forms the “knowledge basis” for interpreting (Moser-Mercer,

22

1992). Luccarelli (2013) summarized previous studies and suggested that preparation should also entail the study of basic concepts, institutions involved, the purpose of the meeting, and any specific way specialists speak.

This provides a tentative answer to the debate over the relative importance of linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge (Gile, 2009, pp. 146-147). Some (mostly theoreticians and teachers) hold the view that linguistic preparation should take primacy over extralinguistic preparation, while others (mostly non-teaching

practitioners) reckon that a study of relevant knowledge of specific fields should be carried out prior to linguistic preparation. As terminological preparation is also a form of knowledge acquisition (Gile, 2009), various preparation modes may not be that clearly-cut. Indeed, there are “borderline cases” (Gile, 2002) in which terminology creation and content-oriented preparation overlap. What’s more, according to Gile’s personal observation (2009), “even proponents of the first approach (focusing on general background information which is gradually narrowed down to the specific conference) act on terminology first” (p. 146). One may therefore assume that through terminology preparation the interpreter may also acquire extralinguistic knowledge.

In brief, building a glossary as a means of terminology preparation entails more than putting terms and their linguistic equivalents on a list. It is part of the preparation process that enables the interpreter to contextualize him/herself into the conference in different aspects (e.g. subject matter and specialized language). Once the interpreter is fully contextualized, he/she enjoys great power of prediction at work based on what he/she already knows, which makes preparation important (Luccarelli, 2006).

Ultimately, preparation as a whole can equip the interpreter with the capabilities to ensure that his/her “usual interpreting powers—to predict, to anticipate, to monitor your output, to note and understand positions, etc.—are not upset” (Donovan, 2001,

23

cited in Luccarelli, 2006). Once adequately prepared, the interpreter can walk into the venue with the glossary and start working.

In addition to playing a critical role in pre-conference preparation, a glossary can also provide “online help” as part of “online preparation” (Gile, 2002, p. 12). The interpreter does not go to the booth and start using the glossary right away. Rather, during this “in-conference knowledge acquisition” phase (Gile, 2009, p. 146), he/she continues to update the glossary on the venue with the knowledge and phraseology captured from many sources, such as additional conference material, interpretation of a colleague who has some experience in the field and knows the correct terminology and phraseology, the speaker’s presentation, a briefing with delegates, or on-site consultation with experts (Gile, 2009; Jiang, 2013). In so doing, the interpreter continues the contextualization process, ensures that items on the glossary are most relevant to the assignment, and improves conditions for interpreting (Gile, 2009, p.

146).

How the interpreter finds le mot juste with the help of the glossary is worthy of discussion at this point. Of course, as previously discussed, interpreting involves a lot more than the transfer of words between languages, and glossary compilation entails more than putting terms together on a list. Still, Gile (2009, pp. 146-147) pointed out that solutions to terminology should enjoy priority, given the severe cognitive constraints of interpreting and the fact that many difficulties interpreters have to tackle online are lexical and terminological. In this respect, how the glossary contributes to the reduction in cognitive demands becomes important. As lexical retrieval consumes processing capacity (Cheung, 2001), accurate and timely retrieval of items in the glossary is critical (Jiang, 2013, p. 90). To stay “quick-minded and quick-tongued in order to optimize both paradigmatic and syntagmatic repertoires”

(Farghal and Shakir, 1994, p. 30), the interpreter consults the items at work without

24

having to commit terms to long-term memory before work. The interpreter’s effort to minimize the consumption of processing capacity is further evidenced by the fact that interpreters also study known terms and concepts (Gile, 2002) and in so doing make them more cognitively available. According to Gile (2002), this is because the

processing of these known terms and concepts will reduce consumption of processing capacity, risks and frequency of saturation, and subsequent errors and omissions.

The glossary’s function to facilitate and trigger output has been stressed in literature. Jiang (2013, p. 75) mentioned that glossary items can facilitate

“information retrieval in the highly time-sensitive operation of interpreting,”

“[trigger] conceptual and linguistic resources in long-term memory,” and “[assist]

effective processing in working memory.” A glossary is also viewed as the

interpreter’s effort to “preempt problem triggers, such as “high density of the speech,”

“high speed of delivery,” “unknown names,” and items with “short duration and low redundancy” such as “numbers and short names” (Gile, 1995, p. 174, cited in Jiang, 2013).That is to say, by reducing the need to process terms at work, the interpreter can allocate more cognitive resources to deal with other unexpected situations.

Glossaries prepared in advance are not finished products and may need corrections and revisions afterwards (Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009). After the

assignment, the interpreter may continue to polish the glossary by reviewing, revising, and archiving it for future reference at similar conferences (discussed in Jiang, 2013, p. 75; Moser-Merser, 1992, pp. 508-509). Given that interpreters are likely to

encounter assignments with similar subject matter, it makes sense that a used glossary may come in handy again in the future. The interpreter revises the glossary based on the knowledge gathered at work to ensure the information in the glossary is correct.

Despite the myriad benefits the glossary can bring to interpreters at work, the literature does not discuss other “online” issues pertaining to glossary use. For

25

example, how the interpreter interacts with glossary items before an assignment remains unknown. Jiang (2013) pointed out that the interpreters do not store the items in memory but “rehearse them mentally to keep them active and easily retrievable, and put in the extra effort of verbalizing a term which might be unfamiliar” (p. 89), but did not specify what “rehearsal” and “extra effort” are needed. If, as Rutten (2003)

suggested, “automation of word pairs may be necessary” (p. 169), does the interpreter really not store in memory at least some, if not all, items in a glossary?

Second, how the interpreter consults the glossary at work is little studied. How does the interpreter locate an item he/she is looking for in the glossary? Does the interpreter “gesture for assistance from colleagues” (Jiang, 2013, p. 78)? Does the interpreter always know where a difficult item is in the glossary and consult it every time the term appears? Gile (2009) suggested that the lay-out of the documents in the booth (including the glossary) should be arranged in such a way as to “minimize the time needed to access them” (p. 293) In addition to the glossary, having a sheet of paper with important technical terms and names⁶ is also a way to make them available at any time, to stand out for quick check (Gile, 2009, p. 203).

Third, how the use of glossary differs between consecutive and simultaneous interpreting remains unclear. Jiang (2013, p. 78) maintained that the uses are indeed different due to the different conditions of the two modes. The consecutive interpreter, while focusing on note-taking, may not be able to search for the items when

interpreting and so has to commit glossary items to memory. Yet, to what degree the practice of consecutive and simultaneous interpreters in relation to the glossary differs still remains uninvestigated.

6 The additional sheet of paper may as well be another form of the glossary. This will be put to confirmation in the questionnaire.

26