Page 61 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 61
conference/workshop interpreting is a professional communication service, it is the interpreter’s responsibility to communicate
the speaker’s intended messages as faithfully in register (formality), comprehensibly in meaning (intelligibility), and communicatively in
delivery (coherency). As the speaker’s echo, she must strive to convey both the contents, tone, and nuance of what is said, so as to
allow her audience to understand the target language just as clearly and convincingly as those who are listening to the source one.
During the 2-hour workshop, the author followed the principle of intelligibility by unveiling the mysteries of esoteric terminology and
introducing culturally-loaded concepts with localized expressions. In addition, she was aware of the role as a facilitator in delivering re-
organized and substance-based messages to enable conversations to run more effectively. The author also endeavored to present her
rendition in a way that could reflect the speaker’s sense of occasion, carefully choosing words that would observe the conventions and
forms of “political correctness”.
2.3 After the Workshop
The overall performance of this assignment, along with that of the other nine sessions the author covered for the whole training
programme, earned positive and respectful feedback and recognition from all the 32 participants, according to the evaluation checklists
collected and archived by the School of Governance at SYSU, the co-organizer for this programme. But there were still some places
where the author could improve by the principle of formality, which will be discussed in the case analysis part.
To monitor interpreting quality of a current assignment for improved performance in the future, is the interpreter’s prime responsibility.
The SWOT matrix, an established evaluation tool extensively applied in business management, was used in this case for self-
assessment, covering a review of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the assignment. Strengths and weaknesses
refer to the specific cases/instances of the performance that show either competence or inadequacy, such as eloquence or choppy
delivery; while opportunities and threats are those external (non-performance) factors that are either positive or negative in facilitating
or hindering quality interpreting performance. For example, early supply of workshop-related documents by the organizer was an
opportunity, whereas the unavailability of a microphone may constitute a potential threat.
For a close review of the strengths and weaknesses, the author wrote an error analysis based on the transcription of the assignment. It
evaluated the performance by segments and checked whether the following 10 types of errors were present or not: conceptual errors,
omission, addition, substitution; grammatical errors, lexical errors; repetition, pace&pitch, pronunciation; and role exchange.
Chapter Three Case Analysis
In this chapter, the author argues for a benchmark that evaluates interpreting quality of intergovernmental communication by three
principles: formality, intelligibility and coherency. Accuracy, fluency and expressiveness, undoubtedly remain the traditional criteria,
but they do not sufficiently accommodate the evaluation needs for increasingly decentralized and specialized intergovernmental
communication. In review, the author identifies bottlenecks in which interpreters might be stuck to fall short of the principles, and
discusses possible solutions using specific cases that are either problematic or referable.
3.1 Formality: being register-conscious
In intergovernmental dialogues, speakers dictate their speech style including the choice of words and the way words are produced
depending on what they will discuss about (the subject), whom they are talking to (the audience), and in what kind of ambience they
expect the audience are effected by the subject (the occasion). The interpreter therefore, should match her register to that of the
speaker with regards to the subject, the audience and the occasion as well. According to Martin Joos, a German linguist, register is
defined as formality scale that covers 5 speech styles in spoken English (1961): (1) the frozen style, featured by “printed unchanging
language” as in biblical quotations; (2) the formal style, indicated by one-way participation, almost no interruption, technical vocabulary
and exact definitions as often shown in presentations; (3) the consultative style, suggested by two-way participation where background
information is usually provided and interruptions are allowed, examples of which include teacher/student, doctor/patient, expert/
apprentice, etc.;(4) the casual style as usually seen in social setting with common friends or acquaintances; and (5) the intimate style,
with intonation more important than wording or grammar, which is seen among family members or close friends. If the speaker is using
simple, plain words, the interpreter is not supposed to distort the original by using obscure terms or particularly arcane expressions.
Conversely, she should not easily lapse into a familiar or jocular tone on formal occasions. Taking into consideration the vision of the
civil servant training programme and the nature of this workshop, the interpreter could set for herself the general register and move
between the formal style and the consultative style along the formality scale.
Here is one case where the formal style and the consultative style run across each other and therefore the interpreter is expected to be
sensitive to the register change that not only re-presents the subject as is presented but also reflects the sense of occasion expected
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 61
the speaker’s intended messages as faithfully in register (formality), comprehensibly in meaning (intelligibility), and communicatively in
delivery (coherency). As the speaker’s echo, she must strive to convey both the contents, tone, and nuance of what is said, so as to
allow her audience to understand the target language just as clearly and convincingly as those who are listening to the source one.
During the 2-hour workshop, the author followed the principle of intelligibility by unveiling the mysteries of esoteric terminology and
introducing culturally-loaded concepts with localized expressions. In addition, she was aware of the role as a facilitator in delivering re-
organized and substance-based messages to enable conversations to run more effectively. The author also endeavored to present her
rendition in a way that could reflect the speaker’s sense of occasion, carefully choosing words that would observe the conventions and
forms of “political correctness”.
2.3 After the Workshop
The overall performance of this assignment, along with that of the other nine sessions the author covered for the whole training
programme, earned positive and respectful feedback and recognition from all the 32 participants, according to the evaluation checklists
collected and archived by the School of Governance at SYSU, the co-organizer for this programme. But there were still some places
where the author could improve by the principle of formality, which will be discussed in the case analysis part.
To monitor interpreting quality of a current assignment for improved performance in the future, is the interpreter’s prime responsibility.
The SWOT matrix, an established evaluation tool extensively applied in business management, was used in this case for self-
assessment, covering a review of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the assignment. Strengths and weaknesses
refer to the specific cases/instances of the performance that show either competence or inadequacy, such as eloquence or choppy
delivery; while opportunities and threats are those external (non-performance) factors that are either positive or negative in facilitating
or hindering quality interpreting performance. For example, early supply of workshop-related documents by the organizer was an
opportunity, whereas the unavailability of a microphone may constitute a potential threat.
For a close review of the strengths and weaknesses, the author wrote an error analysis based on the transcription of the assignment. It
evaluated the performance by segments and checked whether the following 10 types of errors were present or not: conceptual errors,
omission, addition, substitution; grammatical errors, lexical errors; repetition, pace&pitch, pronunciation; and role exchange.
Chapter Three Case Analysis
In this chapter, the author argues for a benchmark that evaluates interpreting quality of intergovernmental communication by three
principles: formality, intelligibility and coherency. Accuracy, fluency and expressiveness, undoubtedly remain the traditional criteria,
but they do not sufficiently accommodate the evaluation needs for increasingly decentralized and specialized intergovernmental
communication. In review, the author identifies bottlenecks in which interpreters might be stuck to fall short of the principles, and
discusses possible solutions using specific cases that are either problematic or referable.
3.1 Formality: being register-conscious
In intergovernmental dialogues, speakers dictate their speech style including the choice of words and the way words are produced
depending on what they will discuss about (the subject), whom they are talking to (the audience), and in what kind of ambience they
expect the audience are effected by the subject (the occasion). The interpreter therefore, should match her register to that of the
speaker with regards to the subject, the audience and the occasion as well. According to Martin Joos, a German linguist, register is
defined as formality scale that covers 5 speech styles in spoken English (1961): (1) the frozen style, featured by “printed unchanging
language” as in biblical quotations; (2) the formal style, indicated by one-way participation, almost no interruption, technical vocabulary
and exact definitions as often shown in presentations; (3) the consultative style, suggested by two-way participation where background
information is usually provided and interruptions are allowed, examples of which include teacher/student, doctor/patient, expert/
apprentice, etc.;(4) the casual style as usually seen in social setting with common friends or acquaintances; and (5) the intimate style,
with intonation more important than wording or grammar, which is seen among family members or close friends. If the speaker is using
simple, plain words, the interpreter is not supposed to distort the original by using obscure terms or particularly arcane expressions.
Conversely, she should not easily lapse into a familiar or jocular tone on formal occasions. Taking into consideration the vision of the
civil servant training programme and the nature of this workshop, the interpreter could set for herself the general register and move
between the formal style and the consultative style along the formality scale.
Here is one case where the formal style and the consultative style run across each other and therefore the interpreter is expected to be
sensitive to the register change that not only re-presents the subject as is presented but also reflects the sense of occasion expected
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 61
