Interpretational language How does it sound?

1. Interpretational language How does it sound? New Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies Oct 7-8, 2005 Yannick Garcia, URV-UPF yannick.garcia@upf.edu

2. Translated Language As A Third Code • Frawley (1984) • [The translated text] “emerges as a code in its own right, setting its own standards and structural presuppositions and entailments, though they are necessarily derivative of [ST] and [TL]” • Baker (1993) • [Translated texts are the] “result of the confrontation of the source and target codes”

3. Disturbing deviance Third language Translationese Non-disturbing deviance Third code Translated language Translational language Terminology Two types of deviance: one which runs counter to the linguistic usage in the language, and one which follows the usage but in such a way that it strikes the readers as fresh (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002)

4. Theoretical Background • Translated texts must be constructed upon unique linguistic components: Universals of translation • This behavior must be governed by standards that lead translators in a given time and space to comply with or deviate from ST/TL rules: Translation norms

5. Norms (INT) Shlesinger 1989 Harris 1990 Schjoldager 1995 Gile 1998 Shlesinger 1999 Garzone 2002 Inghilleri 2004 Universals (Chesterman’s T-universals) Laviosa-Braithwaite 1996 simplification Baker 1993 conventionalization Mauranen 2000 lexical patterning Tirkkonen-Condit 2000 lexical unique items Theoretical Studies

6. Interpreting As A Third Code Garwood 2002 Translation As A Third Code Øverås 1998 Tirkkonen-Condit 2002 Experimental Studies • Translationese • Shama’a 1978 • Blum-Kulka and Levenston 1983 • Vanderauwera 1985 • House 2004 • Cardinaletti and Garzone 2005

7. Quality Perception (Traunmüller 1998) Table 1. Types of information and variation in speech.

8. Quality Debate in IS • Linguistic phonetic quality in interpreting • Native fluency (Pérez Luzardo, Pradas Macías) • Use of different dialects/accents (Cheung) • Rethorical skills (Pradas Macías) • Prosodic patterns (Collados) • Genuine usage: lexis, syntax... (Gile) • Grammar and discourse building (Garwood) • Speech style (Donovan) • Creativity (Bastin, Kenny)

9. 1) Unique Items Hypothesis (TR) • Tirkkonen-Condit 2002 • 2 groups (teachers and students of TS) • 2 sets of texts (original and translated Finnish) • Translations v. non-translations • Assumption-triggering features: “unique items” • Degree of genuinity determined categorization • Prejudices about translational language • Pre-formed categorization hinders perception • Refinement of UI as quality measuring units

10. 2) The Case of Cognates (TR + INT) • Shlesinger and Malkiel (in press) • Pre-existing stimulus-response pairing • Default solution • Fear of false cognates • Creation of non-existent cognates • Experimental study (false v. true cognates) • Different modalities (SI v. TR)

11. 3) Quality Perception in INT • Gile 1985 • Perception of interpreted speech by nonexpert speakers (“informateurs”) • Training environment • High variability in results • Need for shared criteria in assessing quality (“appropriateness”, “mot juste”, “écarts de langue”, etc.)

12. Methodological considerations • 1) Perception of rendition v. non-rendition? • Need to isolate linguistic phonetic input from organic, expressive and perspectival variables • 2) Transmodality study? • Difficulty in data-gathering for comparable original v. interpreted speech • 3) User perception? • Screening of expert speaker • Assessment methodology

13. Compared Perception

14. Methodology (1) • Corpora • Interpreted Catalan (recorded interpreting assignments in the Catalan private market: diverse topics, audience, expectations, perception?) • Original Catalan (recorded conference speeches, Contemporary Catalan Corpus) • Subjects • Professional interpreters (A-Catalan, B-English) • Expert speakers: oral revisers (officially certified: traceable, shared terminology, known territory)

15. Methodology (2) • Measuring units • Unique items (monologic) • Cognate structures (comparative) • Speakers’ comments (questionnaire, interview, shared protocol) • Linguistic variables isolation • Voice-over harmonization (future research) • Same person, voice, dialect, accent

16. Unique Items – Examples (1) • Prosodic • Dinareu aquí? • (Que) dinareu aquí? • Syntactical • Del company no pots dir res de dolent. • Del company, no en pots dir res de dolent. • Phrasal • Ens fa falta una fotocopiadora. • Ens cal una fotocopiadora.

17. Unique Items – Examples (2) • Morphological • Això no és comestible. • Això no és mengívol. • Lexical • Cada un de nosaltres val. • Cadascun de nosaltres val. • Discourse-Forming Particles • Véns, no? • Véns, oi?

18. Unique Items – Examples (3) • Collocational • No vaig trobar-li la gràcia. • No li vaig trobar la gràcia. • Redundant information • Ara estic treballant en una agència. • Ara treballo en una agència. • Insufficient information • Tinc caramels de menta, maduixa i taronja. • Tinc caramels de menta, de maduixa i de taronja.

19. Research questions (1) • Is linguistic quality perception marked by the degree of genuinity of language? Can this be gauged through unique items and cognate/non-cognate solutions? • Is the amount of such genuinity-measuring units consistent by modality (original, interpreted; formal, informal; extemporaneous, read-out) or by speaker? • If consistent by modality, is that due to interpreting norms or to cognitive constraints (Shlesinger)?

20. Research questions (2) • If due to norms, is the choice explained through the diaculture (Vermeer)? Through the hypertext (Pöchhacker)? • Can genuinity/unique items rate be illustrative of the degree of domestication or foreignization of a rendition? • Is this particular to some languages or universal to all?

21. Preliminary results • Small pilot (3 interpreters) • Produced both original and interpreted Catalan • Apparently more cognate solutions in interpreted (Shlesinger) • Need for larger corpus • Apparently same degree of unique items in both • Need for further refinement of UI lists • Other measuring units may play a role • The degree of language-awareness may determine the success of the unit in the analysis

22. Contact data Yannick Garcia Porres Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona yannick.garcia@upf.edu