Interpreting - Volume 18, Issue 1, 2016

This experimental study investigated the relationship between signed language interpreters’ working memory capacity (WMC) and their simultaneous interpreting performance. Thirty-one professional Auslan (Australian Sign Language)/English interpreters participated: 14 native signers and 17 non-native signers. They completed simultaneous interpreting tasks from English into Auslan and vice versa, an English listening span task and an Auslan working memory span task; each interpreting task was followed by a short semi-structured interview. Quantitative results for the sample as a whole showed no significant correlations between bilingual WMC and overall simultaneous interpreting performance in either direction. The same trend was established for both the native signers and the non-native signers, considered as two separate groups. The findings thus suggest that professional signed language interpreters’ WMC as measured by complex span tasks is not closely associated with the overall quality of their simultaneous interpreting performance. Data regarding educational and professional background showed mixed patterns in relation to participants’ interpreting performance in each language direction. In the interviews, participants reported various triggers of cognitive overload in the simultaneous interpreting tasks (e.g. numbers, lists of items, a long time lag, dense information, fatigue) and mentioned their coping strategies (e.g. strategic omissions, summarization, generalization, adjusting time lag).

This study examined omissions, errors, and variability in lexical selection across simultaneous interpretations of President Obama’s 2009 inaugural address, in three spoken languages (French, German, Japanese) and in American Sign Language (ASL). Microanalysis of how information conveyed by 39 source speech lexical items was transferred into the target languages assessed to what extent omissions and errors reflected differences in lexical structure (relative frequency of ready lexical correspondents and of shared cognates between the source and target languages; and, for ASL in particular, size of lexicon compared to English). The highest number of errors and omissions was found in ASL, which has the smallest documented vocabulary, fewest lexical correspondents, and no shared cognates with English. If omission/error rates in interpretation of lexical units are taken as a rough indicator of interpreting difficulty, results suggest that it is more difficult to interpret the speech into Japanese than into French or German and, by the same token, more difficult to interpret it into ASL than into the three spoken languages. These findings are consistent with the idea that language structures impact cognitive load during interpreting, and that interpreting effort increases in relation to the degree of difference between the source and target languages.

The community interpreter’s role has been described in various ways, associating it with labels (Roberts 1997), tasks (Pöchhacker 2000), dynamic positioning (Mason 2009), and the interpreter’s relative (in)visibility (Angelelli 2004). Increasingly, conceptions of role are seen not as static and absolute, but as related to the differing (and subjective) viewpoints of the various participants involved. This study uses semi-structured interviews, conducted immediately after five interpreter-mediated encounters (four medical, one legal), to examine: (1) how participants in each encounter differ in their comments on the interpreter, and (2) whether the resulting perspective on the interpreter’s role is related to each respondent’s specific conversational goal on the occasion in question. Twenty-six excerpts from the interviews are discussed: all three participants (service provider, service user, interpreter) were interviewed in three cases, while the interpreter was unavailable for interview in one case and the service recipient in another. The interpreted meetings and subsequent interviews took place in London and Manchester, the languages involved being English (service providers) and Polish (service recipients). The various respondents seemed to differ in their perceptions of the interpreter’s role, ostensibly reflecting their own conversational goals, but not necessarily in line with their status as service provider, service recipient or interpreter.

This paper examines interactions during educational activities in international camps for children, with English used as a lingua franca. Data were collected mostly at different camps in Italy (2006–7), but also in Brazil and the USA (both in 2013). The study focuses on 11 extracts from transcribed video and audio recordings of occasions when Italian children experience difficulty understanding and speaking English. On such occasions, Italian educators acting as ad-hoc interpreters often provide renditions not fully consistent with what has been said in English: reduced, summarised or expanded renditions are frequent, with some turns not rendered and others added. In this way, what is purported to be interpreting is often more concerned with achieving preassigned educational tasks. Talk in English is thus reduced to normative explanations, and ad-hoc interpreting takes the form of gatekeeping, the effect of which is to limit children’s active participation in social interactions. This educationally oriented gatekeeping can be avoided by involving children in sequences of conversational exchanges, using Italian: they are thus enabled to express their perspectives, the gist of which can be formulated in English, ensuring a stronger dialogic component in communication and closer attention to the children’s contributions.