筆譯速度與策略分析:口譯員vs.筆譯員
全文
(2) ABSTRACT Speed of written translation is rarely a focus in translation studies, but it plays a vital role in a professional translator’s career. The few related studies claim that interpreters might actually translate faster than translators. In light of this, the present study aims to investigate (1) if such a claim is true; (2) if it is, what leads to the speed differences between these two groups; and (3) if it is possible to deliberately accelerate the translation process. Participants who took part in the experiment are 32 students/graduates of a MA program in translation and interpreting, all native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. Data collected for analysis are their Chinese translations of two English texts, their translation time measured in seconds, transcripts of their retrospective interviews, and background questionnaires. The experiment results show that the interpreters indeed appear to translate faster than the translators, which support the findings of some previous research (Dragsted & Hansen, 2009). Also, the attempt to speed up the translation process seems to have achieved partial success in the translator group although the acceleration is still not statistically significant, possibly because the participants did not have enough time to familiarize themselves with the new translation method. The qualitative analyses of the participants’ drafts and revisions, along with their retrospective interviews, suggest that such potential speed change might have resulted from different preferences of translation strategies. These findings are important for it reveals an easy way to potentially speed up translators’ production rate—by simply giving priority to certain translation strategies that they already know. The present study has also made contributions to the collaboration of translation studies and interpreting studies by adding data of empirical research to compare differences as well as similarities between the translation and interpreting modalities.. Keywords: translation speed, translation strategy, translation training, T&I difference.
(3) 摘要 翻譯速度雖然甚少成為筆譯研究的重點,但對專業譯者的職涯發展來說意義重大。 目前僅有的少數相關研究指出,口譯員的筆譯速度可能高於筆譯員。有鑑於此,本研究 旨在探討: (1)此現象是否為真; (2)如果為真,是什麼因素造成兩者的筆譯速度差異; (3)是否可能透過人為操控提高筆譯速度。 本實驗受試者為 32 位口筆譯碩士班學生/畢業生,皆為中文母語人士。搜集資料 為受試者之兩篇英譯中文本、筆譯時間紀錄(以秒為單位)、訪談逐字稿,以及背景問 卷調查。 實驗結果顯示,口譯員的筆譯產出速度明顯高於筆譯員,與先前相關研究結果相符 (Dragsted & Hansen, 2009) 。本實驗的操控也似乎成功提高了筆譯速度,但此加速現象 僅出現於筆譯組;此速度變化雖未達量性顯著差異,但可能原因為實驗時間過短,受試 者來不及熟悉新的筆譯方法。受試者的草稿/定稿的質性分析則顯示,這樣的速度差異 與變化可能來自偏重不同的筆譯策略。 本研究結果提供了可能提高筆譯產出速度的簡易方法,亦即引導筆譯者使用特定的 筆譯策略。本文以實證研究分析了口譯與筆譯模式的相同與相異點,為未來口筆譯差異 的相關研究提供了寶貴資料。. 關鍵詞:筆譯速度、翻譯策略、筆譯訓練、口筆譯差異.
(4) DEDICATION To my beloved Mom and Dad.
(5) . 2 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper would not have been completed without help from so many people, in particular the 33 participants, each of whom spent 2 or even three hours to complete the questionnaire, experiment, and the interview. My deepest appreciation to my advisor Dr. Liao, who has always believed in me and been very encouraging even when I thought I would never make it. I’d like to thank Dr. Chen, Michelle, Elma, and Damien, who taught essential interpreting skills, and Dr. Lai and Dr. Lee, whose classes inspired me much about translation theories. Special thanks to Jen-Hsuan for volunteering to help on the day of my thesis defense. There are so many who have helped me on the way I cannot possible exhaust the list. But you are all the best. And you know it.. .
(6) . i . TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... v CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 Research Background and Motivation .............................................................................. 1 An Aha Moment: Faster Work, Finer Product .......................................................... 1 Translation, Interpreting, and Their Speed Differences ........................................... 1 Research Purposes and Questions .................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 3 Focusing on Speed instead of Quality .............................................................................. 3 Process-Oriented Research: Strategic Differences ........................................................... 3 Analyzing the Translation Process ................................................................................... 4 Main Research Methods ........................................................................................... 4 Modeling the Translation Process ............................................................................ 5 Production Strategies in Translation ........................................................................ 9 Translation Decisions: Norms and Values ............................................................... 21 Analyzing the Interpretation Process .............................................................................. 22 Main Research Methods ......................................................................................... 22 Modeling the Interpreting Process: Gile’s Effort Model ......................................... 22 Production Strategies in Interpreting ..................................................................... 23 Interpreting Decisions: Five Laws ........................................................................... 26 Comparing Translation and Interpreting ......................................................................... 28 Comparing Research Methodologies ...................................................................... 28 Comparing T&I Models ........................................................................................... 29 Strategic Differences: Speedy-‐Production Strategies Preferred in Interpreting .... 31 Comparing Norms/Values in Translation and Interpreting .................................... 35 Time as a Research Variable ................................................................................... 36 Comparing T&I Performances on Same Texts ........................................................ 37 Studies that Show Interpreters Might Translate Faster than Translators ........................ 38 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD ........................................................................................... 40 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 40 Adjustments in the Present Study .......................................................................... 41 Participants, Materials, and Instruments ............................................................... 44 Data Collection Procedure ...................................................................................... 48 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 53 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 54 . .
(7) . ii . Relevance Check on Experiment Results ....................................................................... 54 Screening for Translation Qualities ......................................................................... 54 Re-‐examining Translation Difficulties of Text A and Text B .................................... 63 Eliminating Speeds Distorted by Abnormal Interference ....................................... 69 Quantitative Analyses: Speed Differences between Translators and Interpreters ........... 69 Text 1: Normal Working Conditions ....................................................................... 69 Text 2: Correction Keys Disabled during the Drafting Phase .................................. 71 Comparing Text 1 and Text 2: Effects of Correction Keys ....................................... 73 Correlations between Drafting Speed and Overall Translation Speed ................... 81 Effects of Correction Keys: Backspace, Del, Ins, Mouse, and Four Arrows ............. 88 Qualitative Analyses: Strategic Differences between Translators and Interpreters ........ 94 Text 1: Different Preferences in Strategies ............................................................. 94 Why Different Strategic Preferences: Time Constraint ........................................ 109 Text 2: Assimilation in Strategies .......................................................................... 110 Why Translators Adopted More Speedy-‐Production Strategies on Text 2 ........... 119 What the Interviews Tell Us ......................................................................................... 121 Summary of the Answers to the Four Main Interview Questions ........................ 121 CHAPTER 5—CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 124 Review of Research Findings ....................................................................................... 124 Implications and Applications of Research Findings ................................................... 125 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................... 126 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 128 APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM .............................................................................................. 130 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................. 131 APPENDIX C: TRANSLATION QUALITY RATING CRITERIA (藍順德等, 2007) ......................... 139 APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE: Participant Backgrounds .................................................... 144 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 148 . .
(8) iii . LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Chesterman’s 30 Textual Strategies (1997, p. 94-112) ............................... 9 Table 2. Chesterman’s Four Norms/Values in Translation ..................................... 21 Table 3. Gile’s Reformulating Tactics .................................................................... 23 Table 4. Gile’s Five Laws in Selection of Tactics .................................................. 26 Table 5. Speedy Production Strategies (Comparing Gile’s Interpreting Tactics and Chesterman’s Translation Strategies) ............................................................. 32 Table 6. Comparing Gile’s Interpreting Tactics and Chesterman’s Translation Strategies (Modified Version) ........................................................................ 33 Table 7. Vocabulary Difficulty Check against Oxford 3000 Keywords ................. 46 Table 8. Readability of Source Texts ...................................................................... 47 Table 9. Main Interview Questions ......................................................................... 52 Table 10. Grading Sheet of Text A’s Translation ................................................... 56 Table 11. Grading Sheet of Text B’s Translation ................................................... 57 Table 12. Translation Quality Ratings of the 29 Participants ................................. 59 Table 13. Independent-Sample t-Test of Text 1’s Translation Quality Ratings ...... 61 Table 14. Independent-Sample t-Test of Text 2’s Translation Quality Ratings ...... 62 Table 15. Text Difficulty Ratings by the 29 Participants ........................................ 64 Table 16. Paired Samples t-Test of Text Difficulty Ratings ................................... 65 Table 17. Independent-Sample t-Test of Text A’s Difficulty Ratings by Translators and Interpreters ............................................................................................... 67 Table 18. Independent-Sample t-Test of Text Difficulty Ratings by Translators and Interpreters ...................................................................................................... 68 Table 19. Mean Time That Translators and Interpreters Spent on Translating Text 1 ........................................................................................................................ 70 Table 20. Time Spent on Translating Text 2 by Translators and Interpreters ......... 72 Table 21. Time Spent on Translating the Two Texts by the 28 Participants .......... 75 Table 22. Time Spent on Translating the Two Texts by the 10 Translators ........... 77 Table 23. Time Spent on Translating the Two Texts by the 18 Interpreters ........... 79 Table 24. Time Spent on Translation the Two Texts by the Translators and the Interpreters ...................................................................................................... 80 Table 25. Time Spent on Drafting and the Entire Translation by the 28 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 81 Table 26. Pearson Correlations between Time Spent on Different Phases of Draft 1’s Translation by the 28 Participants ............................................................. 83 Table 27. Pearson Correlation between Time Spent on Different Phases of Draft 2’s Translation by the 28 Participants ................................................................... 84 Table 28. Pearson Correlations between Time Spent on Different Phases of Draft .
(9) iv . 1’s Translation by the 10 Translators .............................................................. 85 Table 29. Pearson Correlations between Time Spent on Different Phases of Draft 2’s Translation by the 10 Translators .............................................................. 86 Table 30. Pearson Correlations between Time Spent on Different Phases of Draft 1’s Translation by the 18 Interpreters ............................................................. 86 Table 31. Pearson Correlations between Time Spent on Different Phases of Draft 2’s Translation by the 18 Interpreters ............................................................. 87 Table 32. Time spent on Each Phase by the Translators and the Interpreters ......... 88 Table 33. Correction Keystrokes in Text 1’s and Text 2’s Drafting Phases ........... 90 Table 34. Correlation between correction keystroke and drafting speed ................ 92 Table 35. Comparing Translations of Participants 031 and 015 ............................. 95 Table 36. Comparing Translations of Participants 002 and 026 ............................. 98 Table 37. Comparing Translations of Participants 020 and 004 ........................... 101 Table 38. Comparing Translations of Participants 009 and 025 ........................... 102 Table 39. Comparing Translations of Participants 015 and 019 ........................... 104 Table 40. Comparing Translations of Participants 006 and 022 ........................... 106 Table 41. Comparing Translations of Participants 011 and 015 ........................... 108 Table 42. Comparing Translations of Participants 006 and 004 ........................... 111 Table 43. Comparing Translations of Participants 002 and 026 ........................... 112 Table 44. Comparing Translations of Participants 020 and 004 ........................... 113 Table 45. Comparing Translations of Participants 015 and 019 ........................... 115 Table 46. Comparing Translations of Participants 032 and 026 ........................... 116 Table 47. Comparing Translations of Participants 006 and 022 ........................... 117 Table 48. Comparing Translations of Participants 011 and 015 ........................... 118 Table 49. Number of Participants by Track .......................................................... 144 Table 50. Number of Participants by Gender ....................................................... 144 Table 51. Participants’ Academic Background ..................................................... 145 Table 52. Years of Professional T&I Experiences ................................................ 146 Table 53. Percentage of Professional T&I Experience of the Translators and Interpreters .................................................................................................... 147 . .
(10) . v . LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Daniel Gile’s Sequential Model of Translation ......................................... 7 Figure 2. Pre-Experiment Set-up ............................................................................ 49 Figure 3. Experiment .............................................................................................. 50 Figure 4. Snapshot of Translog ............................................................................... 50 Figure 5. Post-Experiment Interview ...................................................................... 52 Figure 6. Snapshot of Translog Logging File ......................................................... 89 . .
(11) . 1 . CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION Research Background and Motivation An Aha Moment: Faster Work, Finer Product As an interpreter by training who did more translation at work, the researcher often thought to himself, if only I could translate as fast as I interpret. This idea first struck him when he was working against a tight deadline of a book, the first half of which was merely drafted and the second half untouched at all; he only had a few weeks left to accomplish the seemingly impossible mission. Out of a desperate attempt, he decided to experiment with what he called “simultaneous translating” to speed up the production: he started to draft the rest of the untranslated text in a way similar to simultaneous interpreting—he seldom corrected himself; if necessary, he retyped what he meant to type and refrained from any act that might interrupt his smooth delivery, such as touching Backspace or the mouse. To his surprise, when he began his revising work, he noticed the second half of his draft, which has been done in “simultaneous translating,” was of good quality and took less time to revise. Hence, he posed a question to himself: if faster translation is just as good, why would any translator want to translate slowly? Then he thought to himself: is it really his interpreting skills that sped up the translation process? If so, can the other interpreters, or even translators, apply such skills to their written translation tasks?. Translation, Interpreting, and Their Speed Differences The realm of Translation Studies is often divided into two fields—written translation and oral interpreting (T&I). One of the major differences between these two modalities is that interpreting often produces much faster output. In other words, interpreters, who are often under extreme time pressure at work, tend to process information much faster than .
(12) . 2 . translators. It is intriguing why such speedy production is a common phenomenon seen mostly in interpreting. If such efficiency can be replicated in written translation activities, translators will be able to do more work within the same time, which is of practical significance to translation training in school and service at work. The rare occurrence of such speedy production in translation might also reveal a different path to approach fundamental differences between the written and oral modalities in T&I activities. During such a process of exploration, we might be able to re-examine and thus shed new light on the essential elements that make up T&I activities. While researchers of translation often focus the quality of translation products, speed is in fact of crucial importance to both translators and their clients—more often than not, the former are paid based on the words translated and the latter need the products as soon as possible. Speedy production creates a win-win situation for both service providers and users, and hence brings about potential economic benefits.. Research Purposes and Questions Focusing on the speed of translation, this study aims to investigate the possibility of accelerating the translation process by reducing interruption of the translation flow. Specifically, the researcher hopes to find a concrete, easy-to-adopt approach to speed up translation activities. In view of the aforementioned rationale, this study addresses three main questions: (1) Do interpreters do written translation faster than translators? (2) If so, why do they translate faster? (3) Is it possible to deliberately speed up the translation process?. .
(13) . 3 . CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter first reviews existing literature on the translation process as well as the interpreting process, focusing on strategies that translators and interpreters adopt during the T&I processes. Then, such T&I literature are compared to find similarities and differences before the author introduces the studies that have compared translators’ and interpreters’ performances on the same texts.. Focusing on Speed instead of Quality Traditional translation studies do not put as much emphasis on speed of production. Given its importance in professional practice, translation speed has not received as much attention as it deserves. In fact, translation agencies and their clients value the balance between quality and even point out that speedy production is potentially more important than seeking the highest quality (Aarikka-Stenroos, 2010). As Lederer (2010) reminds us, “most TS[Translation Studies] so far have dealt with literary translation, where style is of primary importance,” such a focus might explain why speed of translation has not received as much attention (p. 176). However, as the translation industry changes in response to the demand of the market, speed will be expected to be valued more. For instance, Hung (2005) points out that “the speed of translation became important” as the demand in the market increases (p. 57).. Process-Oriented Research: Strategic Differences The present study focuses on the speed variation of the written translation, which results from translation behavior during the process, and the researcher has decided to examine existing research that looks into the translation and interpreting processes, in particular the strategies that determine such T&I behaviors. Such process-oriented research in Translation Studies offers a lot of empirical .
(14) . 4 . observations and explanations with regard to what comprises T&I activities. It should be noted that process-oriented research methodologies do not neglect translation/interpreting products; rather, these methodologies check T&I products for crucial clues that shed light on what happens during the processes of their making. Analyses of strategies in such process-oriented studies are also of practical importance to T&I training as they reveal why certain choices are better than others in the T&I processes. With such understandings, “teachers [can] devote most of their effective teaching time to Translation strategies, tactics, and skills which can be generalized, and lose little time dealing with Translation solutions to specific words and structures in the source Text form which extrapolations can be more problematic” (Gile, 2009, p. 15) To further narrow down the scope of research, the present study focuses on the production (also called “reformulation”) component of the T&I processes, and minimized the influence of the comprehension component by controlling the readability of the source texts to be only high-intermediate level, which should not pose any comprehension problem to competent translators and interpreters. It should be noted that the terms of strategy (as in “translation strategy”) and tactic (as in “reformulation tactic”) are used interchangeably as their distinctions are not important in the present study.. Analyzing the Translation Process Main Research Methods According to Dimitrova (2010), the main methods in researching the translation process are as follows: 1.. Introspective verbal reporting: translators describe what they are thinking as the translation process proceeds. The most frequently used form is think-aloud protocols (TAPs). .
(15) . 2.. 5 . Retrospective verbal reporting: translators recall and describe what they have thought after the translation process has ended. The most frequently used form is an interview conducted after the translation experiment. The wait between the translation and the interview, though, ranges from a few minutes to a few days if not longer.. 3.. Surveying: translators fill out questionnaires that enquire about their backgrounds, experiences, feedback, etc.. 4.. Keystroke-logging: computer programs have been used to record experiment subjects’ use of the keyboard and the mouse. Among the keystroke logging software programs that record keystrokes and mouse events during the translation process on the computer, Translog is “the most frequently used in Translation Studies.” This program is developed by Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Lasse Schou and have been applied in quite a few studies such as those of Jakobsen, Hansen, Göpferich, and Mees (as cited in Dimitrova, p. 408).. 5.. Eye-tracking: eye-tracking has been used to study where the translators look at and the focus of their sight move from one place to another.. 6.. Triangulation: triangulation is not a research method itself but a mix of several research methods. Triangulation, usually in empirical studies, enables researchers to analyze the same behavior from different angles and thus more precisely examine what happens in the process. Some researchers (Dragsted & Hansen, 2009; Dragsted et al., 2011) have combined keystroke-logging and eye-tracking in their studies comparing translators’ and interpreters’ performances.. Modeling the Translation Process Phases of translation: orientation, drafting, and revision. The translation process is .
(16) . 6 . generally divided into three phases—initial orientation, drafting, and revising—though different scholars such as Jaakelainen, Norberg, and Jokobsen used different terms. It should be noted that the phases of the translation process are not so clearcut from each other and “there is considerable individual variation in how the task is approached” (Dimitrova, 2005, p. 21-22). In the present study, the translation process is divided into just a drafting phase, which includes the initial orientation, and a revising phase. This is because in the cases of some translators, the orientation is so short it is pointless to analyze orientation as an independent phase of the translation process. In the same book, Dimitrova (2005) points out, “The relative allocation of time for the phases is a consequence of how the main cognitive process components of the task are distributed and applied throughout the task.” Some translators, for example, might decide to do most of the research in the first place, while others start immediately (p.22). However, current studies on such time allocation provide contradictory findings and no conclusion has been reached.. Sequential Model of translation. The present study has chosen Gile’s Sequential Model among many others proposed by numerous scholars (Gile, 2009). He explains that this model is particularly useful because it “describes and explains a path in the (written) translation process which takes the translator from the source-language text to a target-language text” (p. 101). In particular, this model can effectively help translation students locating their translation problems. Another major reason to choose Gile’s translation model is to compare it with Gile’s interpreting model, which will be discussed later, so as to see how a renowned Translation Studies scholar analyze the two modalities differently. The Sequential Model proposes a simplified workflow of the translation process. It divides the process into a comprehension phase and a reformulation phase, along with seven .
(17) . 7 . components: Meaning Hypothesis, Plausibility Test, TL Reformulation, first Acceptability Test, and second Acceptability Test in addition to Knowledge Base and Knowledge Acquisition.” (See Figure 1.) In short, a translator forms a meaning hypothesis and tests its plausibility before reformulating the translation unit in the target language and then testing the translation’s acceptability. During the process, the translator may use the knowledge s/he already has (i.e. Knowledge Base) or seek external resources (i.e. Knowledge Acquisition).. Figure 1. Daniel Gile’s Sequential Model of Translation. .
(18) . . 8 .
(19) . 9 . Production Strategies in Translation As Chesterman (2000) has pointed out, “Strategies are of many kinds, and can be classified in many ways” (p. 82). Gambier (2009) reviews the main translation strategies and tactics from 1960s to 2000s, listing more than 100 such techniques proposed by the following scholars: Vinay & Darbelnet, Nida, Catford, Malone, Van Leuven-Zwart, Newmark, Chesterman, and Molina & Hurtado (p. 66-69). While these different taxonomies seem overwhelming, they are rather the same attempt with different focuses (on the comprehension or reformulation component of translation) or similar concepts in different categorization. Sometimes, these are almost the same strategies in different wording. For instance, Malone’s “reduction,” Van Leuven-Zwart’s “deletion,” and Chesterman’s “omission” are more or less identical to each other. The present study has chosen Chesterman’s taxonomy for its analyses for Chesterman’s system is based on a comprehensive review the works of previous scholars including Catford, Vinay, Darbelnet and Leuven-Zwart. Chesterman (2000) distinguished between three types of strategies: “(a) search strategies, (b) creativity strategies, and (c) textual strategies (p. 82). The present study focuses on textual strategies, which are essentially production strategies that concern the making of the output in the translation process. The potential adoption of the first two types of strategies are largely eliminated in the present study because the participants have no access to external resources such as the Internet or dictionaries. By textual strategies, Chesterman (2000) means “explicit textual manipulation of units of translation, the kind of thing some authors refer to as shifts or procedures” (p. 82). The table below list his 30 textual strategies, which are further divided into ten syntactic, ten semantic, and ten pragmatic strategies. (See Table 1.). Table 1. Chesterman’s 30 Textual Strategies (1997, p. 94-112) .
(20) 10 . Strategy. Definition. Example(s). Syntactic strategies (p. 94-101) G1:. Literal. translation. “Maximally close to the SL. ST: Wir wünschen Ihnen einen guten Flug mit Autrian. form,. Airlines. (German). but. nevertheless. grammatical.”. TT: We wish you a pleasant flight with Austrian Airlines. (English). G2:. Loan,. calque. “…the borrowing of individual. Austrian Airlines (English) => Austrian Airlines. items and the borrowing of. (German). syntagma [i.e. the way words. Übermensch (German) => Superman (English). are arranged].”. the man in the street (English) => l’homme dans la rue (French) Communauté Économique Éuropéenne => European Economic Community. G3:. Any change of word-class, e.g.. ST: Es sind dies informativ gestaltete Hinweise auf…. Transposition. from noun to verb, adjective to. [adverb]. adverb, etc.. TT: Both deal in a highly informative way with… [adjective]. ST: Durch Einbeziehung von Mietwagenfirmen… [noun] TT: Car rental companies have been incorporated… [verb] G4: Unit shift. A unit shift occurs when a ST. ST: Wir akzeptieren golgende Kreditkarten und ersuchen. unit is translated as a different. Sie, jene, mit der Sie Ihre Rechnung begleichen wollen,. unit (morpheme, word, phrase,. anzukreuzen.. clause, sentence, paragraph) in. TT: We accept the following credit cards. Please mark. .
(21) 11 . the TT.. the one which you would like to have charged. [One sentences to two; German clause becomes English sentence.]. G5:. Phrase. A number of changes at the. ST: Die Produkte auf den JET SHOP Seiten sind…. structure. level of the phrase, including. TT: The merchandise depicted on the JET SHOP pages. change. number,. is…. definiteness. and. modification in the noun phrase,. [Plural to singular, count to non-count.]. and person, tense and mood in the verb phrase.. ST: Dies Ausgabe von SKY LINES enthält… TT: IN the present issue of SKY LINES you will find… [German. third-person. verb. phrase. to. English. second-person, involving a change of subject. Also English adds the premodifier present whereas German has a demonstrative.. ST: Details über “Qualiflyer” finden Sie auf Seite 97… TT: For details of the “Qualiflyer” program, turn to page 97… [German indicative to English imperative mood.] G6:. Clause. Changes. include. constituent. ST: Zu den Neuheiten im Produkt kommen weitere. structure. order (Subject, Verb, Object,. Verbesserungen unserer Dienstleistungen. (German). change. Complement, Adverbial), active. TT: The enlargement of our destinations list is. vs. passive voice, finite vs.. supplemented by further improvements in our range of. non-finite structure, transitive. passenger services.. vs. intransitive.. [German active intransitive to English passive voice.]. .
(22) 12 . ST:. “Qualiflyer”. ist. auf. den. kombinierten. Streckennetzen von Austrian Airlines and Swissair gültig. TT: “Qualiflyer” is valid on the route networks of both Austrian Airlines and Swissair. [The German clause structure S+V+A+C goes to English S+V+C+A.] G7: Sentence. Changes between main-clause. ST:. Schon. der. Name. signalisiert. ein. sorgfältig. structure. and sub-cause status, changes of. durchdachtes Qualitätsprogramm…. change. sub-clause types, etc.. TT: As its name suggests, this is a painstakingly devised quality program… [German main clause to English sub-clause plus main clause.]. G8: Cohesion. A. change. that. affects. ST: Diese Ausgabe…. change. intra-textual reference, ellipsis,. TT: In the present issue…. substitution, pronominalization. [The German reference to “proximity” is made through a. and repetition, or the use of. demonstrative; this changes to definite article +. connectors of various kinds.. adjective.]. ST: Es sind dies informative gestaltete Hinweise auf neue Ziele von Austrian Airlines im Winterflugplan 1992/93. TT: Both deal in a highly informative way with Autrian Airlines destinations which will be making their début in. .
(23) 13 . the airline’s 1992/93 winter timetable. [The German does not repeat Austrian Airlines in the premodification of Winterflugplan, presumably because the previous mention of the Airlines is so close and the definite article in im is considered sufficient to clarify the reference. In the English version, there is more of a gap between the mention of the Austrian Airlines and that of the winter timeable, and the translator evidently thought that merely writing the winter timetable would be insufficiently clear. The English solution repeats airline, but ellipts Austrian.] G9:. Level. shift. The mode of expression of a. ST: Wir…ersuchen Sie, …anzukreuzen.. particular item is shifted from. TT: Please mark…. one level to another. Levels. [German expresses the sense of “polite request” here via. refer to phonology, morphology,. lexis (a particular verb) plus syntax (main verb plus. syntax and lexis.. infinitive); English uses only the lexical item please.]. ST: …nur eine kleine Auswahl unserer JET SHOP Produktpalette TT: … only a small selection of the JET SHOP articles available [Compound nouns are one kind of lexical item; the English here chooses an ellipted relative clause instead.] G10: Scheme. Changes. that. translators. change. incorporate in the translation of. ST: Kulturfans TT: Culture vultures. .
(24) 14 . rhetorical. schemes. such. parallelism, alliteration,. metrical. as. [The TT could have selected e.g. “culture lovers”, but. repetition,. has preferred to add the rhetorical element of. rhythm,. phonological similarity in this established collocation.]. etc. Semantic strategies (p. 101-107) S1:. The selection of not the “obvious”. ST: Diese Ausgabe von SKY LINES…. Synonymy. equivalent but a synonym or. TT: …the present issue of SKY LINES. near-synonym for it, e.g. to avoid. ST: …auf Seite 97 dieser SKY LINES ausgabe.. repetition.. TT: …page 97 of this magazine. [The English uses two near-synonyms for the single German term, within the same text.]. S2:. The translator selects an antonym. ST: Alle Preise inklusive MWSt., jedoch exklusive. Antonymy. and combines this with a negation. Nachnahmegebühr und Porto.. element.. TT: All prices include V.A.T. (value added tax) but do not include the C.O.D. (cash on delivery) fee and mail charges.. S3:. Shifts. Hyponymy. relation.. within. the. hyponymy. ST: zahlreicher anderer Gesellschaften TT: numerous other airlines [The translator chooses a hyponym of the superordinate companies.]. ST: das mitteleuropäische Luftdrehkreuz Wien TT: Vienna…a Central European interchange [A Luftdrehkreuz is a kind, a hyponym, of Drehkreuz: the translator has moved up to the corresponding. .
(25) 15 . superordinate.]. ST: Linienverkehr TT: scheduled services [Here, the translator has selected to shift from the “route” hyponym to the “service” hyponym.] S4:. Converses are pairs of (usually). ST: Bitte beachten Sie, daβ zu den angegebenen Preisen. Converses. verbal structures which express. noch Porto und Nachnahmegebühren verrechnet werden.. the same state of affairs from. TT: Kindly note that the prices quoted are exclusive of. opposing viewpoints, such as buy. postal charges and collection fee.. and sell.. [The German states that B is added to A, the translation that A is exclusive of B.]. S5:. A. different. selection. of. ST: aus aller Welt. Abstraction. abstraction level may either move. TT: in all corners of the globe. change. from abstract to more concrete or. [The TT is more concrete, both in the addition of corners. from concrete to more abstract.. and the choice of globe rather than world.]. ST: Charter-Tochter TT: charter subsidiary [Here the TT selects a more abstract term.] S6:. This. is. a. Distribution. distribution. change. semantic components over more. TT: We can, of course, also forward the documentation. items (expansion) or fewer items. to you by mail.. (compression).. change of. the. in. the. “same”. ST: Selbstverständlich können wir Ihnen die Unterlagen auch zusenden.. Expansion. .
(26) 16 . “dilutes” the text somewhat.. ST: …jene, mit der Sie Ihre Rechung begleichen wollen TT: …the one which you would like to have charged. S7:. Adding, reducing, or alternating. ST: informativ. Emphasis. the emphasis or thematic focus.. TT: in a highly informative way. change. [Emphasis added.]. 18:. “The paraphrase strategy results. ST: Wenn Sie sich entschlies_en, die Vorteile zu. Paraphrase. in a TT version that can be. nutzen…. described as loose, free, in some. TT: If you decide to become a member of the scheme…. contexts. even. Semantic lexeme. undertranslated.. components level. tend. at. the. to. be. disregarded, in favour of the pragmatic sense of some higher unit such as a whole clause.” “This is typical strategy for the translation of idiom, for instance, for. which. no. corresponding. idiomatic expression can be found in the TL.” S9: change. Trope. “This strategy, or rather set of. ST: ALs Kaiserin Elisabeth…Kaiser Franz Josephs ein. strategies,. und alles (war)…. applies. to. the. translation of rhetorical tropes. TT: In the days [when]…the Empress Elizabeth…was. (i.e. figurative expressions).”. still the apple of Emperor Franz Joseph’s eye… [Both. versions. (from. a. guide. to. metaphorical expressions, but these. . Vienna). use. are lexically.
(27) 17 . unrelated.] S10:. Other. “These. would. include. other. ST: besonders erwähnenswert. semantic. modulations of various kinds,. TT: the most notable. changes. such as change of (physical) sense. [Change from oral to visual sense.]. or of deictic direction.” Pragmatic strategies (p. 107-112) Pr1: Cultural. “This strategy is also referred to as. ST: Familienname. filtering. naturalization,. TT: Surname. domestication. or. adaptation; it describes the way in. [On an order form; compare the exoticized “Family. which. name”.]. SL. items,. particularly. culture-specific items, are translated as. TL. cultural. or. functional. ST: Flughafen Wien. equivalents, so that they conform to. TT: Vienna International Airport. TL norms. The opposite procedure,. [By adding International the translator has adapted to. whereby such items are not adapted. the name by which this airport is indeed officially. in this way but e.g. borrowed or. known in English.]. transferred exoticization,. directly,. is. thus. foreignization. or. estrangement (see Jones 1989).” Pr2:. “This change is either towards more. ST: Bei Versand in das Ausland…. Explicitness. explicitness (explicitation) or more. TT: …when merchandise is dispatched aborad. change. implicitness (implicitation).”. [The translator makes explicit what is sent.]. Pr3:. “…either the addition of new. ST: Spielesammlung (Dame, Mu_hle etc.). Information. (non-inferrable) information which. TT: Games compendium (checkers etc.). change. is deemed to be relevant to the TT. [The translator has omitted the second game,. .
(28) 18 . readership but which is not present. presumably because it is not commonly played in the. in the ST, or the omission of ST. English-speaking world.. information deemed to be irrelevant (this. latter. might. involve. summarizing, for instance). Pr4:. “This strategy operates at the level. ST: Sehr geehrte Fluggäste!. Interpersonal. of the overall style: it alters the. TT: Dear passengers,. change. formality level, the degree of. [The German norm here stresses the high status of the. emotiveness and involvement, the. addressee, while the English one rather expresses. level of technical lexis and the like:. solidarity.]. anything that involves a change in the relationship between text/author and reader.” Pr5:. “Illocutionary changes (changes of. ST: Beweggrund war seine Sorge u_ber der Unfrieden. Illocutionary. speech act) are usually linked with. zwischen Polen, Russen, Deutschen und Juden in. change. other strategies too. For instance,. seinem Gerburtsort Byalistok.. changing the mood of the verb from. TT: His motive? The unrest between Poles, Russians,. indicative to imperative (cf. G5. Germans and Jews in his native town of Bialystok.. above). [The translation introduces a rhetorical question, to. also. involves. an. illocutionary change from statement. produce a more dialogic text.]. to request…Other such changes might involve, for instance, the use of. rhetorical. questions. and. exclamations in texts…a translator may choose to shift from direct to. .
(29) 19 . indirect speech.” Pr6:. “Whereas. the. cohesion. change. “An example: the original German of the airline text. Coherence. strategy listed under G8 has to do. starts with an introductory paragraph of a couple of. change. with formal markers of textual. sentences, and the second paragraph then focuses on. cohesion, coherence changes have. the route innovations…But the translation has no. to do with the logical arrangement. paragraph break here, after the introductory sentences.”. of information in the text, at the ideational level.” Pr7:. Partial. translation. “This covers any kind of partial. ST:. translation,. My heart leaps up when I behold. such. as. summary. translation, transcription, translation. A rainbow in the sky. (Wordsworth). of the sounds only, and the like.”. TT: Mai hart lieb zapfen eibe hold er renn bohr in sees kai. (Jandl). Pr8:. “This refers to a change in the. “A curious and extreme example of this change in. Visibility. status of the authorial presence, or. translator’s transparency is furnished by a recent. change. to. postmodern. the. overt. intrusion. or. Russian. novel. by. Jevgeni. Popov,. foregrounding of the translatorial. transalted into Finnish as Aaton aattona (literally, ‘On. presence. For instance, translator’s. the eve of the eve’) by Jukka Mallinen, himself a. footnotes,. comments. well-known literary figure in St. Petersburg circles. At. (such as explanations of puns) or. one point in the novel, the hero travels from Russia to. added glosses explicitly draw the. Helsinki, which is portrayed as a haven of peace and. reader’s attention to the presence of. opportunity and personified in the figure of one “Uncle. the translator.”. Jukka”. The point is that this Uncle Jukka is without a. bracketed. doubt Jukka Mallinen, the translator, whom Popov has. .
(30) 20 . thus incorporated as a character in the very novel which Mallinen will translate. TO many of the original Russian. readers,. this. postmodern. role-play. in. presumably absent; but to Finnish readers the transaltor is most obviously “present”, “visible”, not transparent.” Pr9:. “The sometimes radical re-editing. Tranediting. that translators have to do on badly written original texts: it includes drastic reordering, rewriting, at a more general level than the kinds of changes covered by the strategies so far mentioned.”. Pr10: Other. “Another example here is the choice of dialect, in. pragmatic. particular British vs. American English: the translator. changes. of the airline texts opts for American, perhaps because of official company policy. This counts as a pragmatic change in that the source text I not readership-specified in this way.”. .
(31) 21 . Translation Decisions: Norms and Values Chesterman (2000) reminds us that alternative strategies that can help translate a translation unit are not just alternatives. Some of them seem better than the others. Chesterman (2000) points out that the aforementioned strategies are used in order to comply with norms in order to achieve certain values. Chesterman lists four norms and their underlying values. (See Table 2.). Table 2. Chesterman’s Four Norms/Values in Translation Norm. Value. Explanation. Expectancy. Clarity. “…a translation should meet the expectations of the readers, and also of the client and other parties involved. (Expectancy norm govern the form of the final product. They also affect the process which leads to this product: the other three norms govern this process.)”. Relation. Truth. “…a translator should act in such a way that an appropriate relation of relevant similarity is established and maintained between the source text an the target text. (This is a linguistic norm, concerning intertextual relations.)”. Communication Understanding “…a translator should act in such a way as to optimise communication, as required by the situation, between all the parties involved. (This is a social norm.)” Accountability. Trust. “…a translator should act in such a way that the demands of loyalty are appropriately met with regard to. .
(32) 22 . the client, the readers, and other members of the translation profession itself: act in such a way that the profession continues to be trusted. This is an overtly ethical norm.)”. Chesterman (1997) also reminds us that underlying these norms is “a translator wishes to conform to a given norm because of various political or cultural or social pressures, because of personal ideological reason, and so on.” It should be noted that Chesterman (2000) also reminds us that norms can be broken for good reasons. “One way of justifying norms is to appeal to the values which underlie them, and to argue that certain norm-breaking behaviour can better express a particular value in a given case” (p. 86).. Analyzing the Interpretation Process Main Research Methods Pöchhacker (2010) reviews main research methodologies in interpreting studies and lists main research methods including fieldwork, survey, and experiments: 1. Fieldwork: “the transcription and analysis of discourse recorded in authentic interactions” (p. 165). 2. Survey: questionnaires distributed to interpreters, agencies, or service-users (i.e. clients). 3. Experiments: Controlled experiments, which is largely influenced by experimental psychology, investigate the “impact of various input conditions or problem triggers, the use of strategies and the role of memory, [etc]” (p. 165).. Modeling the Interpreting Process: Gile’s Effort Model According to Pöchhacker (2010), the most important interpreting models have been .
(33) 23 . proposed by Robyn Setton and Daniel Gile (p. 165). Among those models that explain interpreting behavior, Gile’s Effort Model is probably the most famous and the most frequently quoted. It explains the allocation of effort in interpreting activities, is probably the most essential model that describe the interpretation process. Specifically, Gile divides the interpretation process into comprehension (“listening”), production (“speaking”), memory effort, and coordination.. Production Strategies in Interpreting Gile (2009) listed ten “reformulation tactics” shared by the main types of interpreting, i.e. simultaneous interpreting with/without text, consecutive interpreting, and sight translation (p. 206-214). (See Table 3.). Table 3. Gile’s Reformulating Tactics Tactic. Definition. Given Example. 1. Delaying the response. “…the waiting period is used for a subconscious (or conscious) search for a missing term or sentence structure the interpreter cannot retrieve immediately from. long-term. socially/culturally. memory,. or. appropriate. for way. a of. rendering the message if rendering it as it is formulated initially is likely to cause problems.” 2. Consulting documents. “…in particular glossaries and dictionaries,. readily accessible. with associated risks because looking for. .
(34) 24 . entries takes up time and processing capacity.” 3. Replacing a segment. “When. interpreters. find. themselves. ST: la streptokinase. with a superordinate term. momentarily incapable of understanding a. or a more general speech. speech segment or reformulating it in the. segment. target language, one possible solution is to. ST:. reformulate the message in a less accurate. Wedgeworth. manner by using a superordinate in the. TT: the speaker. TT: the enzyme. Monsieur. Stephen. case of a single word, or by constructing a more general segment in the case of a. ST: deux cent trente trois millions. whole clause or sentence.”. TT: about two hundread and thirty million. ST: DEC, IBM, Hewlett Packard et Texas Instruments TT: a number of computer vendors 4.. Explaining. or. paraphrasing. “Interpreters may understand a term but. ST: tableur (spreadsheet). not. appropriate. TT: the programme which defines. equivalent in the target language, in which. rows and columns and allows. case they can explain it rather than. calculations to be made. have. available. the. translate it.” 5.. Reproducing. sound. heard. in. the. “When encountering a name or technical. the. term which s/he does not know or. source-language speech. recognize, the interpreter may try to reproduce the sound as heard. This is not. .
(35) 25 . an ‘intelligent’ tactic insofar as it does not call for complex cognitive operations, but it can be efficient.” 6. naturalization”. “Instant. “When interpreters do not know the. ST (French): télédétection (remote. appropriate term in the target language,. sensing). they may naturalize the source-language. TT (English): teledetection. term, adapting it to the morphological and/or phonological rules of the target. ST (English): driver (software. language…This tactic may prove effective. programme). when. TT (French): driver (pronounced. the. target-language. source-language lexicons. and ar. “dreevair”). morphologically similar, as it the case of English and French medical terminology, and when there is much borrowing of terms into the target language in that particular field, for instance information technology, where English is a loan language for most non-English speaking countires.” 7. Transcoding. “…translating s source-language term or. ST (English): maturity date. speech segment into the target language. TT (French): date de maturité. word for word.”. (NOTE:. it. should. be. date. d’échéance). ST (English): mandibular block TT (French): bloc mandibulaire. .
(36) 26 . (the appropriate term: tronculaire) 8.. Form-based. interpreting. “…relying essentially on source-speech words and syntax to guide them in producing the target speech.”. 9. Referring delegates to. “When encountering comprehension or. another. reformulation difficulties, interpreters can. information. source. refer. delegates. to. figures/names/equation. etc.. ‘the on. the. screen/in your handout,’ etc.” 10. Omitting the content. Deliberately ignoring information of little. of a speech segment. value and concentrates on more important information.. Gile (2009) also points out that in sight translation, “most coping tactics requirements arise from non-comprehension of the source-language text, from problems in finding appropriate target-language terms and from processing capacity requirements associated with syntactic differences between the source language and the target language and with the need to fight linguistic interference between them” (p. 215).. Interpreting Decisions: Five Laws Gile (2009) explains how interpreters choose tactics with five “laws.” While Gile focuses on simultaneous interpreting, these laws apply to other types of interpreting as well. (See Table 4.). Table 4. Gile’s Five Laws in Selection of Tactics. .
(37) 27 . Law. Explanation. Example(s). of. Corresponding Tactics Law 1: Maximizing “…attempt to reformulate all of the Reconstruction from the information. speaker’s. recovery (norm 1). language.”. Message. in. the. target context Using the boothmate’s help Consulting documents. Law 2: Minimizing “...interpreters seek to recover as much Omission interference. in information as possible on each Naturalization. information. segment. without. jeopardizing. the Approximate repetition. recovery. recovery of other segments. On this basis, they favour tactics that require little time and processing capacity.”. Law 3: Maximizing “…the interpreter attempts to serve the communication it[the impact. of. speech (norm 2). aim(s). of. the interpreting]…synchronicity. of. simultaneous interpreting seems to rate rather high…This puts high on the priority list tactics which save time, perhaps. at. the. detriment. of. intensity. of. information recovery.” Law 4: The law of “Because least effort. of. the. interpreting in terms of nervous expenditure, it could be argued that it protects. the. interpreter. from. exhaustion…[but it] may generate loss. .
(38) 28 . of information and loss of impact without good reason.” Law Self-protection. 5: The interpreter tries to hide certain mistakes, such as unwanted omission or misinterpretation, in order to protect him/herself.. Comparing Translation and Interpreting When comparing translation and interpreting with regard to their processes and working environments, Gile (2004) points out that both areas have a lot in common. “Both translation and interpreting consist of reformulating a source text (written, spoken or signed) into a target text (also written, spoken or signed). Both translators and interpreters have to deal with problems raised by inter-linguistic issues, such as lexical and grammatical discrepancies which force them to decide what information to keep, what information to discard and what information to add. Both translators and interpreters have to deal with their lack of relevant thematic and LSP-specific knowledge, which forces them to look for additional information in order to complete their translation and interpretation assignment: such additional information is largely terminological but also phraseological and thematic” (p. 12). Gile (2004) adds, “because translation and interpreting share so much, the differences between them can help shed light on each other, so that besides the autonomous investigation of their respective features, each step in the investigation of one can contribute valuable input towards investigation of the other” (p. 23).. Comparing Research Methodologies Due to the differences in their nature, translation studies and interpreting studies use very different methodologies. .
(39) 29 . It should be noted, however, strategies are a important topic in the process-oriented research in both translation and interpreting studies.. Comparing T&I Models In his book, Gile (2009) lists the following main models that he uses and recommends in interpreting and translation training programs: A Communication model of Translation (Chapter 2), the informational structure of informative sentences (Chapter 3), the Effort Models for interpreting and sight translation (Chapter 7), the Gravitational Model of Language Availability (Chapter 9), the Comprehension of technical speeches and texts (Chapter 4), and the Sequential Model of Translation (Chapter 5). Interestingly, all these models are meant for both translators and interpreters except the Efforts Models, the Gravitational Model, and the Sequential Model. Specifically, he stated that the Effort Models and the Gravitational Model of Language Availability are for interpreting students and the Sequential Mode of translation is for translation students. It is probably not because these three models only fit in either translation or interpreting, it is probably because they are of little importance in either translation or interpreting. While translation and interpretation are usually considered two very different activities, their processes have a lot in common. Despite the obvious differences between the written and oral modalities, both activities start with a translation unit or meaning unit, processed with meaning hypothesis and monitoring. In a sense, the translation and interpretation processes are very similar to each other though the focuses might be different. While the former focuses more on the final product, the latter emphasizes the process. In fact, Gile has applied his Effort Model to translation and Sequential Model to interpreting as well, but he points out some major differences.. .
(40) 30 . Sequential Model. While the Sequential Model applies to both translation and interpreting, there are three key differences: (1) translators can afford to spend hours or more on one translation unit while interpreters have to “take decisions more rapidly and be willing to take more risks;” (2) translators can read their translations as readers would and correct while interpreters cannot afford to do so; (3) “when testing the acceptability of aggregates of Translation Units, interpreters can only do so on a very small number of units because of time and memory constraints” (Gile, 2009, p. 111-112). In other words, interpreters have to go through such a decision-making process less frequently or more quickly, but it is essential the same process that translators and interpreters have to go through. It is not hard to see that the three major differences in the context of the Sequential Model actually all stem from time constraints.. Effort Model. When Gile (2009) explains how to apply his famous Effort Model to different types of interpreting, he also applies it to written translation. However, he points out that this model is more important and relevant for interpreting, especially simultaneous interpreting, which requires excellent management of effort; in contrast, he reminds us, the same model does not seem as important in written translation because “there is virtually no competition between Efforts” and “the risk of processing capacity saturation is far lower in written translation” (p. 183-184). Although some researchers have applied the Effort Model to studying written translation, such application is rare. For instance, Whyatt (2010) uses it to analyze written translation process, using TAPs to study mental effort management of inexperienced translators.. Gravitational Model. When explaining the Gravitational Model of language availability, Gile (2009) points out, “…language availability in speech comprehension and .
(41) 31 . production, and to a lesser extent in text comprehension and production, is of some importance in everyday communication. In interpreting, in view of existing competition for processing capacity between several Efforts which reduces the amount available for each, it is even more important, as insufficient availability may be a strong contributor to cognitive saturation and interpreting failures” (p. 226).. Strategic Differences: Speedy-Production Strategies Preferred in Interpreting As Gambier (2010) has pointed out, “Nobody yet has compared strategies in interpreting and in translation: Do addition, compression, omission, paraphrase, simplification, literal translation, and neutralisation mean the same thing in both practices?” (p. 415) As the Dreyfus brothers have pointed out in their paper entitled Mind over Machine, “Stage three is the competence stage. As experience grows, so the number of relevant features in the situation also grows, and the trainee has to develop a sense of priorities: one needs to make a selection from the situational features, to set them in a hierarchy of importance and learn which ones can be disregarded or overruled. This is where real decision-making enters the picture, where decisions are made between options” (as cited in Chesterman, 2000, p. 78). In fact, Heizmann (1998) has pointed out in a 1994 conference that translation and interpreting “use basically the same type of strategies” but certain strategies might be more prominent in translation or interpreting. For instance, “Reduction is used both in written translation and interpreting, but is more prominent in the latter” (p. 21-1) Gile (2009) believes there is much overlap between strategies in translation and interpreting and says, “Of the tactics presented above for the case of interpreting, many also apply, at least in some related form, to written translation. In particular, reconstruction using the context, resorting to superordinate terms or more general text segments, informing the .
(42) 32 . readers of a translation problem (generally by way of a footnote, explaining or paraphrasing, simplifying a text segment, instant naturalization, and transcoding yield simialr results in translation and interpreting” (p. 216). Below is the comparison of Gile’s interpreting tactics and corresponding translation strategies from Chesterman’s taxonomy. Since the interpreting tactics are meant to facilitate interpreters’ with faster production, they are hence referred to as speedy-production strategies in this study. (See Table 5.). Table 5. Speedy Production Strategies (Comparing Gile’s Interpreting Tactics and Chesterman’s Translation Strategies) Gile’s. reformulating. tactics. in Corresponding items in Chesterman’s. interpreting. production strategies in translation. 1. Delaying the response. N/A. 2. Consulting documents readily accessible. N/A. 3. Replacing a segment with a superordinate Abstraction change term or a more general speech segment 4. Explaining or paraphrasing. Paraphrase. 5. Reproducing the sound heard in the N/A source-language speech 6. “Instant naturalization”. Loan, calque. 7. Transcoding. Literal translation. 8. Form-based interpreting. Literal translation. 9.. Referring. delegates. to. another Visibility changes (notes, glasses, etc.). information source 10. Omitting the content of a speech Partial translation. .
(43) 33 . segment. It should be noted that while No. 1, 2, and 5 do not have corresponding production strategies in translation, it is not hard to find similar counterpart in the translation process. “Delaying the response” is similar to how a translator choose to leave a difficult-to-translate unit aside before coming back to translate it. “Consulting documents readily accessible” is no different from researching accessible information (e.g. on the Internet) in the translaiton process. By the same token, “reproducing the sound heard in the source-language speech” is similar to how one leaves a term as it is in original language in the draft and comes back to translate it in the revising phase. Hence, the comparison is modified as follows. (See Table 6.). Table 6. Comparing Gile’s Interpreting Tactics and Chesterman’s Translation Strategies (Modified Version) Gile’s. reformulating. tactics. in Corresponding items in Chesterman’s. interpreting. production strategies in translation. 1. Delaying the response. (Skipping the message and translating it later). 2. Consulting documents readily accessible. (Researching. for. information,. such. as. consulting reference books, doing online research, etc.) 3. Replacing a segment with a superordinate Abstraction change term or a more general speech segment 4. Explaining or paraphrasing. Paraphrase. 5. Reproducing the sound heard in the (Leaving it as it is and translating it later). .
(44) 34 . source-language speech 6. “Instant naturalization”. Loan, calque. 7. Transcoding. Loan, calque. 8. Form-based interpreting. Literal translation. 9.. Referring. delegates. to. another Visibility changes (notes, glasses, etc.). information source 10. Omitting the content of a speech Partial tranon, omission segment. This again confirms that translation strategies and interpreting ones might not be so different from each. The difference might be more of degree, not of kind. In fact, Gile (2009) explains that the main differences between the two as follows:. …coping tactics in interpreting are associated with recurrent problems resulting from processing capacity—and time constraints whose order of magnitude is measured in seconds or fractions of a second; in translation, they may result from the translator being unable to acquire all the require information over a longer period of time—that is, minutes in the case of extremely urgent translation and hours, days or weeks in most other cases. I believe that resorting to coping tactics, that is, performing crisis management in interpreting situations, is very much a part of the skills interpreters have to acquire in order to become operational. In translation, their use should be much less frequent.. This quote pinpoints processing capacity and time constraints as the key differences between translation and interpreting. In fact, processing capacity is especially important in. .
(45) 35 . the interpreting process due to its strict time constraint. While Dragsted and Hansen (2009) repeatedly stressed the potential adoption of the oral modality in the written translation process, i.e. use sight translation with speech-to-text technology to replace traditional written translation, the researcher of this study believes the key lies in, rather than the oral modality, the identification of typical interpreting strategies that can be transferred to written translation. Possible candidates of such strategies include the linear strategy, smooth delivery (i.e. avoid long or unnatural pause), settling on the first words that occur to oneself. These ten strategies, shared by both translation and interpreting modalities, are important in quick rendition, and hence are referred to as speedy-production strategies hereafter. Gile (2009) points out that it is common for translators to use provisional translations when they are not capable of full comprehension. This is similar to how interpreters settle on expressions that first occur to them. The difference is translators can always come back and revise their own translations when interpreters cannot afford to do so. In this regards, what translators comprehend and produce during the draft phase of the translation process is very similar to what interpreters do at work. Gile (2009) points out that what really set interpreters apart from translators are their “good processing capacity management” and perhaps “lack of training in editorial skills” as well (p.184). This seems to indicate that interpreters might indeed do written translation faster due to their good capacity management but produce lower quality work due to their lack of editorial skills.. Comparing Norms/Values in Translation and Interpreting Despite their different wordings, both translation and interpreting strive for reconstructing the original information in the target text and achieving the original purposes .
相關文件
substance) is matter that has distinct properties and a composition that does not vary from sample
volume suppressed mass: (TeV) 2 /M P ∼ 10 −4 eV → mm range can be experimentally tested for any number of extra dimensions - Light U(1) gauge bosons: no derivative couplings. =>
• Formation of massive primordial stars as origin of objects in the early universe. • Supernova explosions might be visible to the most
2-1 註冊為會員後您便有了個別的”my iF”帳戶。完成註冊後請點選左方 Register entry (直接登入 my iF 則直接進入下方畫面),即可選擇目前開放可供參賽的獎項,找到iF STUDENT
It clarifies that Upāyakauśalya, in the process of translation, has been accepted in Confucian culture, and is an important practice of wisdom in Mahāyāna Buddhism which
Inspired by Professor Cheng Gongrang’s work, Research of the Translation, Comprehension, and Interpretation of Buddhist Scriptures: On the Concepts of Skillful and Expedient
(Another example of close harmony is the four-bar unaccompanied vocal introduction to “Paperback Writer”, a somewhat later Beatles song.) Overall, Lennon’s and McCartney’s
專案執 行團隊