On the Language Direction in Chinese/English imultaneous Interpreting

Abstract：This study was designed to analyze specifically the impact of language direction on professional Chinese/English interpreters’ performance and strategy use through their experience of simultaneous interpreting in different language directions.

Simultaneous interpreting (SI) is a kind of translation that constituted by orally translating the message heard in one language into another language immediately and continuously， and at the meanwhile the message will not stop being produced. The unique characteristics of simultaneous interpretation and the various factors that will have great impact on the procession and performance of Chinese/English SI were taken into discussion. It should be noted that unlike in daily communication situations， comprehension and production are often overlapping in simultaneous interpreting. Concurrent comprehension of the source language and production of the target language is perhaps the most unique characteristic of the SI task.

Drawn from the effort model proposed by Gile， simultaneous interpreting is accomplished by the sharing of four major efforts: listening and analyzing， production， memory， and coordination. In other words， while a comprehension problem will have a negative effect on production， a production problem also has consequences for comprehension.

In this study I illustrate arguments for interpreting of L1 to L2 and L2 to L1 language respectively， described the studies about interpreters'' strategy use and the relationship between language direction and SI strategy use. Interpreters'' performance of simultaneous interpreting in different directions was determined by a few factors， including the context， personal factors， and interpreting norms.

Studies showed that professional interpreters who must interpret regularly and simultaneously in both directions may develop strategic approaches to meet the different demands of A-to-B and B-to-A interpreting. Strategy use can be defined in this study as any goal-oriented， potentially conscious employment of tactics designed to overcome the processing problems interpreters encountered during simultaneous interpreting. This definition involves interpreters'' responses to any problems occurring during the stages of comprehension， translation， or production. As demonstrated in this study， strategies were applied throughout the interpreting as a general approach to the interpreting task， namely anticipating， restructuring， generalizing， visualizing and among others.

The difference in interpreters'' performances seems not only to be a result of the disparity between their A and B language proficiency， but also a result of their awareness of their language abilities， the tactics available to them and other norms they apply to their performance， as well as the speech structures of their working languages.

This study not only sheds lights on the differences of performance and strategy use among interpreters working with different language directions， but can also contribute to the design of more effective interpreting teaching programs.

Key word：directionality simultaneous interpreting strategy use

I Introduction

Simultaneous interpreting (SI) is a kind of translation that constituted by orally translating the message heard in one language into another language immediately and continuously， and at the meanwhile the message will not stop being produced. SI is a complicated cognitive activity which requires listening to what the speaker says and transferring it immediately into another language， listening to the speaker''s next message， storing the message in mind before retrieving it for interpretation， and supervising his or her own production， all at the same time. Being extraordinarily proficient in at least two languages is the prerequisite for performing simultaneous interpreting.

Interpreters are often supposed to have perfect command of their working languages. Whereas psycholinguistic studies have shown that， even for advanced learners of a second language， the comprehension and production processes in the second language (L2) often differ from the first language (L1)， to some extent we can get a hypothesis that simultaneous interpreting from L1 to L2 and from L2 to L1 may have different processes and result in different products.

This study also focused on the impact of language direction on interpreters'' strategy use， an important factor affecting interpreting performance. Professional interpreters are known for skillful use of a variety of strategies. Many strategies， such as anticipation or segmentation， are indispensable parts in interpreter training programs. Because those tactics can be used to reduce the cognitive demands imposed by the SI task or to help cope with emergencies in the process of interpreting. Adapting a definition provided by Kalina， strategy use can be defined in this study as any goal-oriented， potentially conscious employment of tactics designed to overcome the processing problems interpreters encountered during simultaneous interpreting. This definition involves interpreters'' responses to any problems occurring during the stages of comprehension， translation， or production， such as anticipating， restructuring， or generalizing.

II Specific Analysis

In this chapter I first describe the factors influencing interpreters'' SI performance and the possible effects of language direction on SI performance in general. Then I introduced the Effort Model proposed by Gile， and demonstrate how it is related to SI. Finally， I describe studies about interpreters'' strategy use and the relationship between language direction and SI strategy use.

A. Synchronous Listening and Speaking

Simultaneous interpreter has to continue to listen to the incoming message while trying to render the preceding message into another language. This concurrent comprehension of the source language and production of the target language is perhaps the most unique characteristic of the SI task. Studies show that the interpreter''s speech overlaps with the speaker''s speech time significantly. This demand for synchronous listening and speaking has also made performing SI different from other communicative activities such as speaking or listening alone in at least two ways: First， unlike normal listening activities， the comprehension process of the source message is increasing. Second， the interpreter needs to give selective attention to both speaking and listening tasks in order to do the job well.

However， despite the high demand on working memory imposed by the task of simultaneous interpreting， research has shown that interpreters do not necessarily have a larger working memory than non-interpreters but instead have learned to use their working memory more efficiently. It is also not true that interpreters divide their attention during simultaneous interpreting. Rather， they selectively attend to important information.

B.Ear-voice-span (EVS)

Another noticeable characteristic of SI is the lag， also known as ear-voice-span， between the time the speaker''s messages are heard and the time the interpreter actually produces the translation of the messages. EVS provides good evidence for the interpreter'' incremental comprehension of messages as the interpreter often has to start uttering a translation of a message before the source message is completed. Studies calculating the average length of EVS have reported the range to be from 2 to 10 seconds.

The length of EVS has a great impact on the interpreter''s performance. A short EVS can result in less smooth production while a long EVS can result in loss of information. Consequently， interpreters continuously adjust their EVS during the SI process to achieve the best effects.

C.Models for the SI Process

There are a number of information processing models that have been proposed to account for the SI process (for a review see Moser-Mercer 1997). One of most cited models is the Effort Model proposed by Gile (1995， 1997). The Effort Model describes the process of SI as a combination of four concurrent efforts-SI = Listening and Analyzing (L) + Production (P) + Memory (M) + Coordination (C). When the total processing requirements for these efforts (or any individual process requirement) exceed the interpreter''s available cognitive resources， errors or omission of speech segment during or following the \"cognitive breakdown\" is likely to occur， even if that segment per se is not problematic.

In Gile''s Effort Model， simultaneous interpreting is accomplished by the sharing of four major efforts: listening and analyzing， production， memory， and coordination. In other words， while a comprehension problem will have a negative effect on production， a production problem also has consequences for comprehension. Therefore， when looking at interpreters'' performance of different language directions， we should not only consider whether comprehension or production is more important in the interpreting process， or whether their L2 receptive skills or productive skills are more resilient under stress， but also the interaction of these different variables during interpreting.

D.Factors Affecting SI Performance

A wide variety of factors have been identified to affect SI performance. Many of these factors are concerned with the characteristics of the source texts. An interpreter''s performance is very sensitive to the delivery rate of speech input. As the rate of speech input increases， the portion of speech accurately interpreted decreases. The optimal rate for interpreting non-recited texts has been suggested at about 100-120 wpm (words-per-minute)， with 150-200 wpm as an upper limit. For recited texts that lack the features of hesitation and redundancy typically characterizing normal oral speech， the maximum rate is suggested at 100 wpm.

The \"composition\" of the source speech， which may involve features such as language complexity and information density， has also been found to affect SI performance. Speeches with more difficult syntactic structures and words of lower frequency have been found to bring more trouble for interpreters. In addition， noise or a speaker with an unfamiliar accent can also be detrimental to SI performance.

Factors involving the characteristics of individual interpreters have received less attention in interpreting research. Most discussions have focused only on the background knowledge of the interpreters as an important factor affecting their performance on different topics， as speeches with less familiar topics are usually harder to interpret. Although language proficiency of the interpreters by all means affects their performance， it is an assumed and often neglected factor. Given the prominence of linguistic proficiency in the SI process and the fact that there is almost always a lag between one''s proficiency in L1 and L2， it is safe to expect that language direction is one of those variables that influence interpreters'' performance and different uses of strategies. In the following section， I review some research related to the language direction issue in the SI task.

E.Language Direction in SI

The issue of directionality， or whether an interpreter should work into his or her dominant or non-dominant language， has remained one of the most controversial issues in interpreting studies. The debate on directionality in SI is often traced back to the different ideological positions taken by some prominent interpreting researchers and practitioners in the \"Paris School\" and those in the \"Soviet School\"， whereas the former insisted only interpreting into the A language could provide interpreting of the highest quality and the later emphasized the advantage interpreters enjoyed as a result of superior understanding of their native languages. Perhaps because the western tradition has long favored SI into one''s a language， most research on SI over the past decades has focused only on B-to-A interpreting， resulting in little empirical evidence to settle the debate on directionality.

Likewise， most information processing models proposed over the past three decades to account for the SI process also do not take interpreting direction into consideration. One of the few exceptions is Gile''s Effort Model， which briefly discussed the effects of language direction on the four concurrent processes in SI-Listening and Analyzing， Production， Memory， and Coordination-on the ground that some languages may pose fewer or more processing-related problems in comprehension or production.

F.Strategy Use and Simultaneous Interpreting

1.Strategy Use in Simultaneous Interpreting

As mentioned in the first chapter， there have been many discussions of effective strategies in the SI literature. These strategies are usually designed to address the time constraints and cognitive overload problems interpreters encounter during the comprehension of the source texts， production of the target texts， or other memory and monitoring processes， and hence are often divided into comprehension strategies， planning or production strategies， as well as global strategies that influence the overall interpreting performance such as monitoring of the comprehension and production processes (Riccardi， 2002; Gile， 1995; Kohn and Kalina， 1996). Most studies on SI strategies have only listed the strategies interpreters use to overcome different constraints imposed by the interpreting task. Among the most frequently mentioned strategies are anticipating， maintaining comfortable ear-voice-span， reformulating， chunking， simplifying， generalizing， summarizing， paraphrasing， and omission. Kalina (1992) defined a strategy as \"goal-oriented， so that the goal determines the amount and thoroughness of processing. It may be consciously used but may also have become automatic in so far as the processor will not have to make any cognitive decision.\" (p. 253) By constructing a discourse-based mental modeling of simultaneous interpreting， she described SI strategies as processing strategies developed in response to the constraints imposed by the interpreting task， such as lack of semantic autonomy on the part of the interpreter. Interpreters'' strategy use， therefore， reflect their cognitive processing efforts to achieve their mediation goals. Using retrospection as a tool to capture the interdependence and interaction of various SI strategies， Kohn and Kalina (1996) confronted interpreters with their own interpreting output immediately after the interpreting task and were not only able to gain rich information about the interpreters'' strategy use， but to overcome an inherent problem in many studies on SI strategies that focused only on the interpreters'' linguistic output， that is， the difficulty of determining， for example， whether an omission of a source text message is a consequence of a comprehension problem， a production problem， or a strategic choice.

2.Types of Strategies

Many types of strategies emerged from interpreter''s real experiences. Some strategies were applied throughout the interpreting as a general approach to the interpreting task. Others were used to address specific problems that emerged from their comprehension or production processes. I present the categories of strategies in the following. However， it should be noted that the categories are not meant to be exclusive as the strategies often overlapped each other.

a.Anticipation

Anticipation is recognized as an important strategy for simultaneous interpreters to overcome the problems of having to produce something before the speaker finishes his or her sentences. By reducing the burden of listening to the source speech， anticipation also enables interpreters to allocate more attention to production. Many instances of anticipation were reported by the participants in this study， including anticipation based on the syntactic or semantic cues of the source speech and anticipation based on the participants'' prior knowledge about the speaker or the topic of the text.

b.Visualization

Visualization like anticipation， visualization was also talked about as a general strategy these participants often used in their interpreting. Many mentioned they saw a \"picture\" or an \"image\" for a particular passage in the source speech and interpreted the speech according to their mental images without remembering the exact wording of that passage. One participant added that she especially tended to use this strategy when dealing with difficult passages.

c.Selection

Selection of important messages. Selecting segments they perceived as more important for interpreting was a common strategy used by the participants Selecting the more important ideas was a strategy especially important when the interpreters were under time pressure. During the selection of important messages， the interpreters may also take their personal strengths and weaknesses into consideration. This tendency to forgo what one considers as too difficult and to keep what one considers as easier， or \"safer\" is reflected in the participants'' strategy use in general.

d.Omission

Selection of important messages naturally entails omission of others. However， omission itself seems to have been an even more important strategy for the interpreters. The interpreters used omission to address a wide range of perception， comprehension， or production problems. Sometimes， the interpreters intentionally omit a segment of the speech that they had no problem understanding or producing， in an effort to maintain a natural and coherent speech in their mind.

It should be noted that the problems of finding the appropriate words could be caused either by the existence of an actual lexical gap or just by the difficulty of retrieving appropriate lexicon from memory immediately under time pressure， and hence can occur in both directions.

e.Transformation and Paraphrasing

Translation problems caused by intercultural differences between the source and target texts often required the participants to resort to transformation of the source texts or to use paraphrasing. The need for transformation was also common in Chinese to English interpreting.

f.Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring， the second main theme that emerged from the data， was an ongoing activity throughout the participants'' interpreting process， including their comprehension， production， and memory. As it was an on-going process that seemed to be aimed at enhancing the overall quality of the interpreting products instead of addressing specific problems， it can be regarded as an integral part of the process of SI (Gerver， 1971)， or a global strategy the participants used to cope with the demands of the SI task. In the following， I describe some of the salient categories in the participants'' self-monitoring activities. It can be seen from their comments that not only were they being \"strategic\" in their self-monitoring activities， but their monitoring often had further strategic implications for their interpreting as well.

g.Emotional Response

Emotional responses to one''s own performance were commonly observed in this study for some participants. It often occurred when the participants were not satisfied with their own performance or worried about the consequences of their interpreting.

G. Summary

The issue of directionality in simultaneous interpreting has long been controversial yet interpreting in both A-B and B-A directions has increasingly become a common practice in many parts of the world. This chapter has first described the phenomenon of SI and various factors affecting simultaneous interpreters'' performance and introduced translation direction as a possible factor affecting the interpreting processes and products. A consequent review of the arguments for and empirical studies on the role of translation direction in simultaneous interpreting revealed an interesting yet incomplete picture of the issue and the tangling relationship between translation direction and language combination. Finally， I discussed the literature relevant to interpreting strategies and pointed to the possible effect of norms on interpreters'' behaviors in different language directions.

III Implication for Training of Simultaneous Interpreting

This study showed that interpreting in different directions often involved different processes and hence resulted in different products， suggesting that， besides the core skills that should be promoted in interpreting in either direction， the training of A-to-B interpreting should differ from that for B-to-A interpreting in at least several ways. (中國翻譯，1998)

First， as Donovan (2003) rightly argued that in consideration of the less flexibility in the interpreters’ B language， the teaching of A-to-B interpreting must emphasize even more on communication than teaching of B-to-A interpreting. In the case of Chinese-to-English interpreting， more analytical and inference-making skills may be required for interpreters with English as the B language to engage in meaning-based interpreting. It may also be helpful for students to be aware of the different preparation techniques and strategy use for interpreting in different directions (Donovan， 2003; Snelling， 1992; Wu， 1998).

The fact that even experienced interpreters can still be struggling with grammatical and lexical problems in their interpreting into the B language also underlines the importance of having language enhancement courses for student interpreters. In addition to the many exercises that can be used to enhance the interpreting students'' general language proficiency (Setton，1993)， language-combination-specific training can also be taken into concern to raise students'' awareness of the different discourse structures of their working languages and the problems and solutions that may be unique to interpreting from one language to another， regardless of one''s A or B languages. This part may be taught most effectively by interpreting teachers because its specific purpose is to help interpreters use this knowledge for interpreting in different directions. Thus， although many interpreting teachers may be reluctant to teach language classes， these classes cannot be left to language teachers. Finally， as attested by the parallel nature of professional interpreters'' performance in both directions， language proficiency is only one part of the complex interpreting processes that have impact on the quality of interpreting.

IV Conclusion

The present study aimed to explore professional Chinese/English interpreters'' experience of simultaneous interpreting in different language directions， concentrating specifically on the impact of language directions on their performance and strategy use. This study indicates that professional interpreters who must do simultaneous interpreting in both directions regularly may develop strategic approaches to handle the different demands encountered in A-to-B and B-to-A interpreting. The difference in their performances seems not only to be attributable to the inequality between their A and B language proficiency， but also a result of their conceptive awareness of the limits of their language abilities， the strategies available to them， their audience''s expectations and other norms they apply to their performances， as well as the speech structures of their working languages.

Professional interpreters may also behave differently from student interpreters when it comes to simultaneous interpreting in different directions. This study not only sheds light on the differences in performance and strategy use between interpreters working with different language directions， but also can contribute to design of more effective training program. Moreover， by furthering our understanding of the role that L1 and L2 proficiency plays in this unique form of communication， this study may also contribute to the research on bilingualism and second language acquisition in general.

Acknowledgements

Many people have contributed to this dissertation. First， I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor， Mrs. Zhao yun-shan. Throughout this dissertation， she has not only been the greatest mentor but also the most supportive friend. Without her expert guidance， warm encouragement， and enthusiastic support， this dissertation would not have been possible. From her， I have seen a teacher who truly cares about her students'' growth and progress， a mentor who provides not only intellectual but mental support. The dissertation would not have been accomplished without the help of many friends. I am grateful to Zhou Ying， Andy and many other people who have taken time out of their busy schedules to help me along the way. Finally， my greatest appreciation is reserved for my parents， who have provided me with the opportunity to receive a good education， with the encouragement to move on when I faced difficulties. It is their love support and companionship that have made this four-year journey to my degree possible. I dedicate this dissertation to them.

References：

\\[1\\]Donovan，C.Survey of conference interpreters on SI into B\\[J\\].2002．

\\[2\\]Gile，D.Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting-A contribution\\[M\\].1999.23.153-171．

\\[3\\]Gile，D.Norms in research on conference interpreting.Translation and norms\\[M\\].1999.Hoosain，R..Psychological reality of the word in Chinese\\[M\\].1992．

\\[4\\]Kroll，J. F.，Steward，E..Category interference in translation and picture naming：Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory\\[J\\].1994．

\\[5\\]Kalina，M.Discourse processing and interpreting strategies:An approach to the teaching of interpreting\\[M\\].1992．

\\[6\\]Kohn，K.，Kalina，S.The strategic dimension of interpreting\\[M\\].1996.

\\[7\\]Moser-Mercer，B..Simultaneous interpreting：Cognitive potential and limitations. Interpreting\\[M\\].