OPENING UP IN INTERPRETATION STUDIES
Daniel Gile
INALCO and CEEI (ISIT), Paris
Paper given at the Translation Studies Congress: "Translation Studies: an Interdiscipline",
organized by the Institut für Übersetzer- und Dolmetscherausbildung der Universität Wien,
Vienna, 9-12.9.1992.
Published in Snell-Hornby, Mary, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl (eds). 1994.
Translation Studies An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins. 149-158.
1. A historical overview of conference interpretation research
Interpretation research history in the West can be divided into four periods:
1.1 The fifties: The first steps
Several remarkable texts were written on interpretation in the fifties: Herbert (1952) Rozan
(1956) Ilg (1959). They were based on personal experience and did not claim any scientific
validity, but they did identify most of the fundamental issues that are still discussed at the
present time. The first academic study was Paneth 1957.
1.2 The experimental psychology period:
Paneth's thesis was followed by a small number of experimental studies by a few
psychologists and psycholinguists: Treisman, Oleron and Nanpon, Goldman-Eisler, Gerver,
Barik - see Gerver 1976. Gerver, the most active of these researchers, conducted
experiments on interpretation over 10 years. In particular, he co-organized with Sinaiko
(1978) a symposium on interpretation which brought together interpreters and scientists
from various disciplines for the purpose of initiating research cooperation. Unfortunately,
there was no follow up to this initiative.
During this period (the sixties and early seventies), a number of hypotheses were
formulated regarding the interpreting process and the influence of and reactions to various
factors such as source language, noise, speed of speech delivery, etc. but, as explained
further down, serious doubts can be formulated regarding the representativeness, and even
the validity of many of these studies. Moreover, the number of both researchers and studies
was small, with very few replications of experiments. In terms of actual achievements in
gaining better insight into interpreting processes, results are rather disappointing.
1.3 From the beginning of the seventies to the mid-eighties: The practitioners come in
Towards the end of the sixties, more interpreters were attracted towards interpreting
research. Ingrid Pinter (Kurz) from Vienna was the first conference interpreter (and
psychologist) who defended a Ph.D. dissertation on interpretation (1969). In the following
years, there were numerous other studies: more than 20 M.A. theses and Ph.D. dissertations
on interpretation were defended in the seventies and eighties (see AIIC bibliography or the
bibliographical lists in Trieste's The Interpreter's Newsletter). The main thrust in
interpretation research and theory (IRT) came from Paris, with more than 10 doctoral
dissertations completed between 1973 and 1990 - most of them at ESIT - a few books and
many papers. The most salient features of research during this period can be summarized as
follows:
1. Most of the research was done by practicing interpreters.
2. Most of the research was theoretical, not empirical.
3. Most of the research was compartmentalized: except for the ESIT group, researchers
worked in isolation, and often were not aware of each other's studies. This was due to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Linguistic problems
Political obstacles
Personal attitudes
A lack of training in scientific research methods.
Developments during this period can be summarized as follows:
- A number of ideas on the process of interpreting, developed mostly by the ESIT group in
Paris, crystallized into a dogma and gained weight in the community of practitioners cum
researchers (hereafter "practisearchers"), most of whom were also interpretation teachers.
The major principle underlying the whole structure was that interpretation is based
on the meaning, message or sense in the SL speech, not on words or linguistic structures.
The interpreter does not transcode SL words into TL words, but extracts the 'message' of the
SL speech as an ordinary listener would, and then reformulates it into the TL without
referring to the SL as such.
The "Théorie du sens", as it was named by its proponents, also considers that speech
comprehension and speech production are virtually automatic (effortless) if working
languages are mastered fully.
As a consequence, characteristics of the SL and the TL as such are irrelevant to the
interpretation process, and so are contrastive studies of languages. Along similar lines of
reasoning, interpreters do not produce speeches reflecting linguistic equivalences, but
statements based on a comprehension process followed by a separate production process in
specific communication situations. Studies that do not take into account the full natural
interpreting environment, both linguistic and extralinguistic, are not valid. It follows that in
the eyes of "Théorie du sens" proponents, the experimental approach is not valid in
interpretation research.
These ideas were used in developing interpretation training strategies. Interpretation
students are supposed to have full mastery of their working languages upon admission to
school. Training consists in interpretation exercises. The emphasis is on comprehension of
the content of the SL speech and on the quality of the TL speech as such, not on linguistic
equivalences.
As regards actual research results during this period, several models of interpreting
were developed, including information processing oriented ones (Moser 1978, Gerver
1976) and a processing-capacity oriented "Effort-Model" by Gile (see for instance Gile
1990), and a number of ideas were formulated on training, on processes, on the differences
between interpretation of ad-libbed speeches and speeches read from texts (Déjean Le Féal
1978), and on other aspects of interpreting. However, there was little interaction between
researchers and little empirical evidence, experimental or observational, to support
hypotheses against conflicting ideas and to drive research forward.
1.4 The 'Renaissance'
In November 1986, the Scuola Superiore per Interpreti e Traduttori of the Universita degli
Studi di Trieste convened a large conference on the theoretical and practical aspects of
teaching interpretation. During this conference, a number of ideas in the prevailing dogma
were publicly challenged (see Gran and Dodds 1989), and calls were made for more
cooperation with researchers from other disciplines. This conference marked the start of a
new period, which has the following characteristics:
1. Most of the research work is still done by practicing interpreters, but they are
increasingly attempting to use findings and ideas from studies on written translation and
from the cognitive sciences. Some cooperative projects are conducted with scientists from
other disciplines (see in particular Gran and Fabbro 1987, Tommola & Niemi 1986, Kurz in this volume), and there are more and more calls to cooperate with such experts.
2. There are increasing calls for more empirical studies. The number of empirical studies
has increased dramatically over the past few years (see Gran and Taylor 1990 and issues N.
2 to 4 of The Interpreter's Newsletter of the Trieste school).
3. There is increasing communication between interpretation researchers. The Trieste
school has largely contributed to this communication through its journal, The Interpreter's
Newsletter. AIIC, the International Association of Conference Interpreters, set up a
Research Committee which has been compiling and updating an interpretation
bibliography. An international network for information on interpretation research (IRTIN)
was set up at ISIT in Paris. Former East Block countries are opening up, and the Japanese
have started communicating with the West thanks to the efforts of Masaomi Kondo in
Tokyo.
4. This movement has been accompanied by a more open-minded attitude on the part of
practisearchers. This movement seems to be due to the larger number and weight of 'second
generation researchers', whose attitude is different from their elders', more than to a change
in the latter's position. In particular, while research activity in Trieste, Vienna, Brisbane and
Tokyo has increased, ESIT has been keeping a low profile over the past five years or so,
with very few research papers.
2. Opening up in interpretation studies - what for?
The words "opening up" have a positive moral connotation, but it seems appropriate to look
at the issue not so much morally as pragmatically. Most researchers would probably agree
that the medium and long term objective of present day interpretation research is to gain a
better understanding of interpretation processes. In that respect, the 'opening up strategy'
can be weighed against a more protective attitude.
2.1 Opening up within the practisearchers' community
The basic advantages of increased communication and cooperation between researchers
within any field are obvious. In the case of interpretation research, there is an added
important geographical element: because of the small number of conference interpreters and
because of psychological barriers, it is very difficult to gather large samples of interpreters
for empirical studies. Cooperative research makes it possible to increase sample sizes and to
increase the number of controlled variables by pooling together local samples.
2.2 Opening up to the scientific community at large
It can be argued that initially, there was a risk involved for practisearchers in entering the
gravitational field of much larger disciplines such as the cognitive sciences: the smaller
mass might have been 'swallowed' by the larger mass and lost its identity and purpose. In
that respect, setting up a separate discipline and developing it until it reached a critical mass
of its own may have been a wise choice.
On the other hand, closing one's mind to the methods and views that developed in
other disciplines meant either losing the benefit of their relevant results, or losing time in
re-discovering them. In the case of IRT, this protective attitude also extended to other paths
followed by researchers in the same discipline. It is risky to speculate on past history, but
two observations can be made regarding the consequences of the protective trend which
was dominant in the seventies and early eighties:
1. Because of the very nature of scientific research, which progresses on the basis of
numerous inputs and their interaction, the absence of such interaction could only result in a
relative impoverishment of results. In the case of interpretation, we believe it led to
stagnation throughout the period during which the 'isolationists' dominated the
interpretation scene. In particular, the interesting work that was done by isolated
investigators in various countries, including Gerver, L. Anderson, Mackintosh, S. Lambert
and others remained virtually unknown, while dozens of publications continued to repeat
over again the same assertions and counter-assertions on such important questions as the
appropriateness of work into the B language, the importance of learning consecutive before
simultaneous, or the language-specificity of interpretation. Moreover, interpretation theory
remained very Eurocentric in the West, with ideas that would probably have developed
differently had the dominant stream been aware of problems posed by Japanese, Chinese,
Arabic and other non-European languages as well as some East-European languages.
2. Another consequence was an almost total interruption of IRT activity by 'outsiders' such
as psychologists and psycholinguists after the early thrust of the sixties. We believe that the
practisearchers' outright rejection of such 'outsiders' and of their research methods had
much to do with it.
What is the potential value of such 'outsider's' contributions? Some practisearchers
consider it has none. Their criticism bears on two points: the outsiders' methods, in
particular their experimental approach and attempts at quantification, which they oppose on
classical grounds well known in the behavioural sciences, and their lack of understanding of
the nature of interpreting, which has led to a number of serious weaknesses in their
research, in particular on the following points (for a more complete discussion, see Stenzl
1983 and Gile 1991):
- Subjects in their experiments are often interpreting students or even 'bilinguals' with no
training or professional experience in interpreting;
- Experimental conditions and tasks are not representative of interpretation (translation of
isolated sentences or even words, work from and into languages not in the interpreter's
usual combination, 'speeches' not representative of actual conference speeches, etc.)
- Performance assessment is inadequate, especially as regards errors.
We believe most of this criticism is at least partly justified. The question is whether
such problems are inevitable, in other words, whether they are inherent to the working
methods, ideas and constraints prevailing in the cognitive sciences, and in particular in
cognitive psychology and in psycholinguistics. Our opinion is that there is no reason why
'outsiders' should not understand explanations on the philosophy of interpreting as seen by
practitioners and on the latter’s intuitive assumptions on the process. Such explanations
could be a good remedy to a number of methodological weaknesses. On the other hand, in
the cognitive sciences, the dominant research approach is experimentalistic and involves
attempts to control all variables. Clearly, it is very difficult to reconstruct in the laboratory
an environment representative of all interactions occurring in real-life interpreting
situations. In our opinion, this does not mean that experimental research is not valid, but
steps should be taken so that it is as representative as possible. In particular, comparisons
can be carried out between experimental results and observational findings, obtained under
authentic field conditions.
Moreover, on the practisearcher's side, there are weaknesses which suggest the
contribution of 'outsiders' could be very valuable:
- Interpreters have first hand knowledge of interpretation, but very few have real expertise
in disciplines such as cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and neurology. Reading a few
books and papers is not enough to turn them into full-fledged cognitive scientists. This
means that they lack the foundation to interpret correctly the phenomena they observe in
speech comprehension and speech production, and that they could benefit from progress
achieved in these disciplines by expert researchers.
- As mentioned in Section 1.2, most practisearchers, motivated, perceptive and intelligent
as they are, have not undergone specific training in scientific research. More than technical
methods, they seem to be lacking scientific discipline in applying rigorous critical thinking
in their investigations (see Jensen 1985, Gambier 1986, Toury 1991, Gile 1991). Some
guidance from 'professional researchers', who are used to the discipline of research, and
whose very lack of familiarity with the field of interpretation may lead them more easily to
the questioning of ideas that practitioners take for granted, may be very constructive.
- Another point, mentioned by Stenzl (1983:42) and Shlesinger (1989:8), is an attitude
problem. The famous "experimenter's effect" is liable to be much stronger in
practisearchers, who are trying to raise the social status of interpreting by showing that it is
an intellectual profession for an elite, than in neutral 'outsiders'.
- Last not least, practicing interpreters do not have as much time for research as
'professional researchers'. Neither do they have the research infrastructure that full-time
researchers or academics have.
3. What type of action?
As mentioned in Section 1.3, it would seem that at present, IRT is moving away from the
protective approach and towards a more "open" direction. This is a natural evolution of the
situation: A new generation of interpretation theoreticians and researchers is emerging. The
first generation pioneers had personality, ambition and drive, and because they were so few,
some of them found themselves in academic positions which were higher than what their
actual academic training and research know-how should normally allow, which may help
explain their defensive position now, which younger practisearchers do not have. There
does not seem to be a reason for the ongoing trend to change, but a number of steps may
help strengthen it.
3.1 Actions within the I/T community
Two directions could be followed: making information more widely available, and aiming
at sensitizing young researchers to the potential value of this information. The first involves
setting up information/communication structures. Networks such as IRTIN are one
example. So are I/T research associations, in particular the European Society for Translation
Studies. I/T journals are obviously very useful. The format of TRANSST and of the IRTIN
Bulletin are particularly suited to the dissemination of information on research activities and
publications. I/T congresses are also a useful vehicle, depending on the way themes and
papers are selected. In this respect, the theme "Translation studies, an interdiscipline" of the
present conference is an excellent choice. Sensitizing young researchers to the value of such
information is a pedagogical task, which should be performed by teachers and research
supervisors, in particular in the framework of courses on I/T theory and research courses in
doctoral programs. In schools where graduation theses are part of academic requirements,
students feeling no inclination towards original research could be encouraged to choose
'information subjects': their theses could be reviews of the literature on specific questions,
comparative analyses of schools of thought, of authors, etc. Teachers and research
supervisors should point out that ideas, theories and evidence from written translation and
from the cognitive sciences are relevant and show why.
3.2 Cooperative actions with cognitive and other scientists
Besides reading the work of researchers in the cognitive and other relevant disciplines,
more aggressive strategies can also help:
1. Cognitive scientists could be invited to lecture in interpretation conferences. The NATO
conference (Gerver and Sinaiko 1978), could have been very productive, had the
interpreters been more open-minded. A similar conference would probably be much more
successful now.
2. Cognitive scientists could be invited to lecture in interpretation schools. Whenever
possible, they should be encouraged to prepare lectures tailored to the needs of
interpretation. This would lead them through a selection process that would bring out the
most relevant parts of their discipline.
3. Young researchers from relevant disciplines could be encouraged to undertake
interpretation research, and offered assistance in both information and logistics.
4. Joint projects could be undertaken with such researchers. However, two caveats may be
appropriate. One problem is that practisearchers do not speak the same language as
cognitive scientists, as becomes painfully clear time and again when such scientists are
approached for cooperation and when they take part in editorial committees or in
committees assessing doctoral or other research work in interpretation studies: the questions
and issues that interpreters consider important often seem totally devoid of interest to
cognitive scientists and vice versa. It may take some effort to find convergence areas.
Secondly, Interpretation research is still in its initial stages, with very little evidence, far too
flimsy to build an interpretation theory, let alone a 'general translation theory' based on
interpretation theory. When practisearchers approach scientists they wish to cooperate with,
they should be aware of that. Unlike Seleskovitch and Lederer (1989:246), we believe
cognitive scientists are working with more precision, logic and depth than practisearchers.
The mouse can well invite the elephant for a stroll in the desert. But it should not claim it
raises a larger cloud of dust than its companion.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Linda (1979) Simultaneous Interpretation: Contextual and Translation Aspects,
unpublished M.A. thesis, Montreal, Concordia University
Déjean Le Féal, Karla (1978) Lectures et improvisations - Incidences de la forme de
l'énonciation sur la traduction simultanée, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Paris III
Dollerup, Cay and Loddegaard, Anne (eds.) (1992) Teaching Translation and Interpreting,
Training, Talent and Experience, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 343 pages
Gambier, Yves (1986) "Modèles, théories en traduction: continuité ou rupture ?" TRANS,
University of Turku, 1986:32-69
Gerver, David (1976) "Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation: a Review and a
Model", in Brislin, R. (ed.) 1976: Translation, New York: Gardner Press, 165-207
Gerver, David & Sinaiko, H. Wallace (eds.)(1978) Language Interpretation and
Communication, New York and London: Plenum Press, 427 pages
Gile, Daniel (1990) Basic Concepts and Models for Conference Interpretation Training,
Unpublished monograph, Paris, 92 pages
Gile, Daniel (1991) "Methodological Aspects of Interpretation (and Translation) Research",
Target 3/2:153-174
Gran, Laura & Dodds, John (eds.) (1989) The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching
conference interpretation, Udine: Campanotto Editore, 278 pages
Gran, Laura & Fabbro, F. (1987) "Cerebral Lateralization in Simultaneous Interpreting", in
Kummer, K. (ed.) Across the Language Gap, Proceedings of the 28th American Translators'
Association Conference, Medford, NJ: Learned Information Inc., 323-331
Gran, Laura & Taylor, Christopher (eds.) (1990) Aspects of Applied and Experimental
Research on Conference Interpretation, Udine: Campanotto Editore
Herbert, Jean (1952) Le manuel de l'interprète, Genève: Georg
Ilg, Gérard (1959) "L'enseignement de l'interprétation … l'Ecole d'Interprètes de Genève",
L'interprète N.1, Genève, Université de Genève
Jensen, P.A. (1985) "SI: a Note on Error Typologies and the Possibility of Gaining Insight
in Mental Processes", Meta 30/1:106-113
Kurz, Ingrid (in press) "Hirnelektrische Korrelate des Simultandolmetschens oder was
nachweislich in den Köpfen von Dolmetschern vorgeht", paper presented at the 1992
Translation Studies Congress on "Translation Studies - An Interdiscipline", Vienna, Sept. 912
Lambert, Sylvie (1983) Recognition and Recall in Conference Interpreters, Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stirling
Mackintosh, Jennifer (1983) Relay Interpretation: an Exploratory Study, M.A. Thesis,
University of London, 77 pages
Moser, Barbara (1978) "Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and its
Practical Application", in Gerver, David & Sinaiko, H. Wallace (eds.) 1978, 353-368
Paneth, Eva (1957) An investigation into Conference Interpretation, M.A. Thesis,
University of London, 159 pages
Pinter, Ingrid (1969) Der Einfluss der Übung und Konzentration auf Simultanes Sprechen
und Hören, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, 167 pages
Rozan, Jean-François (1956) La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive, Genève:
Georg, 71 pages
Seleskovitch, Danica & Lederer, Marianne (1989) Pédagogie raisonnée de l'interprétation,
Paris: Didier Erudition, 281 pages
Shlesinger, Miriam (1989) Simultaneous Interpretation as a Factor in Effecting Shifts in
the Position of Texts on the Oral-Literate Continuum, unpublished M.A. thesis, University
of Tel-Aviv
Stenzl, Catherine (1983) Simultaneous Interpretation - Groundwork towards a
Comprehensive Model, M.A. thesis, University of London,
58 pages
Tommola, Jorma & Niemi, P.(1986) "Mental load in simultaneous
interpreting: an on-line pilot study", in Evensen, L. (ed.) Nordic Research in Text
Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, Trondheim: Tapir, 171-184
Toury, Gideon (1991) "Experimentation in Translation Studies: Achievements, Prospects
and some Pitfalls", in Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.), Empirical Research in Translation in
Translation and Intercultural Studies, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 45-66