1887
Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article investigates explicitation as an indicator of individual interpreters’ style in the outputs of professional interpreters working for the European Parliament. The material used for the study is a sub-corpus of target texts by 12 interpreters extracted from a larger bi-directional parallel corpus of plenary contributions with the aid of voice recognition software. Interpretations from English into Polish and vice versa have been annotated manually for various explicitating shifts, ranging from cohesion-related additions and specifications to more extensive pragmatically oriented amplifications. Our initial hypothesis holds that interpreters working for the Polish Language Unit, who regularly cooperate and as a result acquire similar linguistic habits, are expected to display limited variety in their explicitating styles. The results do not confirm this assumption. The interpreters in our sample differ substantially in their explicitating styles, especially regarding frequency and consistency. This finding precludes any convergence due to their status as members of the same community of practice.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00081.gum
2022-06-02
2024-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, M.
    (2000) Towards a methodology for investigating style of a literary translator. Target12 (2), 241–266. 10.1075/target.12.2.04bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.12.2.04bak [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartłomiejczyk, M.
    (2016) Face threats in interpreting. A pragmatic study of plenary discourse in the European Parliament. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2017) The interpreter’s visibility in the European Parliament. Interpreting19 (2), 159–185. 10.1075/intp.19.2.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.2.01bar [Google Scholar]
  4. (2020) How much noise can you make through an interpreter? A case study on racist discourse in the European Parliament. Interpreting22 (2), 238–261. 10.1075/intp.00042.bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00042.bar [Google Scholar]
  5. (2021) Interpreting nonmainstream ideology (Euroscepticism) in the European Parliament. Perspectivesonline first17 June 2021. 10.1080/0907676X.2021.1939740
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1939740 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartłomiejczyk, M., Gumul, E. & Koržinek, D.
    (2022) EP-Poland: Building a bilingual parallel corpus for interpreting research. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies22 (1), 110–126. 10.17576/gema‑2022‑2201‑06
    https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2201-06 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartłomiejczyk, M. & Rojczyk, A.
    (under review). How native-like do conference interpreters sound in L2? A phonetic analysis of retour interpretations into English in the European Parliament.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baxter, R. N.
    (2019) Style versus strategy in simultaneous interpreting: Different approaches and their effects. Quaderns. Revista de Traducció26, 287–305.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dayter, D.
    (2021) Variation in non-fluencies in a corpus of simultaneous interpreting vs. non-interpreted English. Perspectives29 (4), 489–506. 10.1080/0907676X.2020.1718170
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1718170 [Google Scholar]
  10. Defrancq, B.
    (2018) The European Parliament as a discourse community: Its role in comparable analyses of data drawn from parallel interpreting corpora. The Interpreters’ Newsletter23, 115–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Defrancq, B., Plevoets, K. & Magnifico, C.
    (2015) Connective markers in interpreting and translation: where do they come from. InJ. Romero Trillo (Ed.), Corpus pragmatics in translation and contrastive studies, 3. Dordrecht: Springer, 195–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Duflou, V.
    (2007) Norm research in conference interpreting: Some methodological aspects. InP. A. Schmitt & H. E. Jüngst (Eds.), Translationsqualität. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 91–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2016) Be(com)ing a conference interpreter: An ethnography of EU interpreters as a professional community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.124
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.124 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eder, M., Rybicki, J. & Kestemont, M.
    (2016) Stylometry with R: A package for computational text analysis. The R Journal8 (1), 107–121. 10.32614/RJ‑2016‑007
    https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2016-007 [Google Scholar]
  15. Englund Dimitrova, B.
    (2005) Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.64
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.64 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fu, R. & Chen, J.
    (2019) Negotiating interpersonal relations in Chinese–English diplomatic interpreting. Explicitation of modality as a case in point. Interpreting21 (1), 12–35. 10.1075/intp.00018.fu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00018.fu [Google Scholar]
  17. Gile, D.
    (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2021) Editorial. The CIRIN Bulletin62, 1–4. https://www.cirinandgile.com/bulletins/Bulletin-62-Jul-2021.pdf (accessed6 August 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gumul, E.
    (2017) Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting: A study into explicitating behaviour of trainee interpreters. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2021a) Explicitation and cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Product- and process-oriented analysis of trainee interpreters’ outputs. Interpreting23 (1), 45–75. 10.1075/intp.00051.gum
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00051.gum [Google Scholar]
  21. (2021b) Interpreters who explicitate talk more: On the relationship between explicitating styles and retrospective styles in simultaneous interpreting. Perspectivesonline first28 December 2021. 10.1080/0907676X.2021.1991401
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1991401 [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M. & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Henriksen, L.
    (2007) The song in the booth. Formulaic interpreting and oral textualisation. Interpreting9 (1), 1–20. 10.1075/intp.9.1.02hen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.02hen [Google Scholar]
  24. Herbert, J.
    (1952/1968) The interpreter’s handbook: How to become a conference interpreter. Geneva: Libraire de l’Université.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Huang, L.
    (2015) Style in translation: A corpus-based perspective. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑45566‑1_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45566-1_2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kajzer-Wietrzny, M.
    (2012) Interpreting universals and interpreting style. PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.
  27. (2013) Idiosyncratic features of interpreting style. New Voices in Translation Studies9, 38–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2022) An intermodal approach to cohesion in constrained and unconstrained language. Target34 (1), 130–162. 10.1075/target.19186.kaj
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19186.kaj [Google Scholar]
  29. Kruger, H. & van Rooy, B.
    (2016) Constrained language: A multidimensional analysis of translated English and a non-native indigenised variety of English. English World-Wide37 (1), 26–57. 10.1075/eww.37.1.02kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.1.02kru [Google Scholar]
  30. Morselli, N.
    (2018) Interpreting universals: A study of explicitness in the intermodal EPTIC corpus. inTRAlinea Special Issue: New findings in corpus-based interpreting studies. www.intralinea.org/archive/article/2320 (accessed9 July 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Munday, J.
    (2008) Style and ideology in translation: Latin American writing in English. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Murtisari, E. T.
    (2013) A relevance-based framework for explicitation and implicitation in translation. An alternative typology. Trans-kom6 (2), 315–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Perego, E.
    (2003) Evidence of explicitation in subtitling: Towards a categorisation. Across Languages and Cultures4 (1), 63–88. 10.1556/Acr.4.2003.1.4
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.4.2003.1.4 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rybicki, J.
    (2012) The great mystery of (almost) invisible translator: Stylometry in translation. InM. Oakes & M. Ji (Eds.), Quantitative methods in corpus-based translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 231–248. 10.1075/scl.51.09ryb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.51.09ryb [Google Scholar]
  35. Saldanha, G.
    (2011) Translator style: Methodological considerations. The Translator17 (1), 25–50. 10.1080/13556509.2011.10799478
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10799478 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schneider, U. & Eitelmann, M.
    (Eds.) (2020) Linguistic inquiries into Donald Trump’s language: From ‘fake news’ to ‘tremendous success’. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781350115545
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350115545 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sebeok, T. A.
    (Ed.) (1960) Style in language. New York: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Shlesinger, M.
    (1989) Simultaneous interpretation as a factor effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Snyder, D., Garcia-Romero, D., Sell, G., Povey, D. & Khudanpur, S.
    (2018) X-Vectors: Robust DNN embeddings for speaker recognition. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 5329–5333. 10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8461375
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8461375 [Google Scholar]
  40. Straniero Sergio, F.
    (2012) Using corpus evidence to discover style in interpreters’ performances. InF. Straniero Sergio & C. Falbo (Eds.), Breaking ground in corpus-based interpreting studies. Bern: Peter Lang, 211–230. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0377‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0377-9 [Google Scholar]
  41. Tang, F.
    (2018) Explicitation in consecutive interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.135
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.135 [Google Scholar]
  42. van Besien, F. & Meuleman, C.
    (2008) Style differences among simultaneous interpreters. The Translator14 (1), 135–155. 10.1080/13556509.2008.10799252
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799252 [Google Scholar]
  43. Venuti, L.
    (1995) The translator’s invisibility. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203360064
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203360064 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wierzbicka, A.
    (2003) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220964
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220964 [Google Scholar]
  45. Wenger, E.
    (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  46. Yagi, S. M.
    (2000) Studying style in simultaneous interpretation. Meta45 (3), 520–547. 10.7202/004626ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/004626ar [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00081.gum
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00081.gum
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error