Interpreting – bilingual communication in a multilingual setting

This thesis looks at interpreting as a process, and, more specifically, at prediction within this process. Interpreting Studies is a vast field, covering interpreting in different modes in different settings. Interpreting is variously defined by the context in which it takes place, for example: conference interpreting, courtroom interpreting, public service

interpreting (Malmkjær & Windle, 2011), community interpreting (Pöchhacker, 2001) and humanitarian interpreting (Delgado Luchner & Kherbiche, 2019); or else by the modality used within the interpreted context, for example: simultaneous interpreting with text (Setton & Motta, 2007), consecutive interpreting (Pöchhacker, 2011), simultaneous

interpreting (Christoffels & De Groot, 2004) and chuchotage (Baxter, 2016). Common to all of these forms of interpreting is the basic process of interpreting: comprehension of a spoken message in one language¹, and translating and subsequently producing (orally) the same message in another language. This thesis focuses mainly on simultaneous interpreting, but also considers consecutive interpreting.

Interpreters are by definition bilinguals, and usually multilinguals. The interpreters in our studies (both students and professionals) were either being trained, or worked, in international organisations and institutions in Europe. Most simultaneous interpreters working for international organisations and institutions in Europe comprehend in their L2, and produce in their L1 (Pöchhacker, 2004). The language of comprehension is known as the

1 Simultaneous interpreting with text additionally includes comprehension of a written message, as may simultaneous and consecutive interpreting when the original speaker uses a written support (e.g., a

“source language”, and the language of production is the “target language” (Christoffels &

De Groot, 2005).

Figure 1. Interpreting – a very basic model

In conference interpreting, a unique language classification system is used. As mentioned, in general in Europe, interpreters work into their L1. The L1 is always described as the interpreter’s “A” language, and is the language in which the interpreter is most proficient. The L2 may be described as either a “B” or a “C” language. The B-language is a language in which the interpreter is less proficient than the A-language, but into which she sometimes interprets. A practical distinction between the A and B language exists in some workplaces but not in others, for example according to AIIC (2019a), the interpreter may work into the B-language from one or several other languages just as for the A-language, whereas in the European institutions, the interpreter only works into the B-language from the A-language (Executive Committee on Executive Committee on Interpretation, 2020). The C-language is a source language from which the interpreter works; in other words, it is a language which the interpreter comprehends, but into which the interpreter does not interpret. This classification system makes an implicit distinction between language comprehension and language production abilities in L2: interpreters are said to perfectly

“understand” their C-language, while being perfectly “fluent” in their B-language (AIIC, 2019a).

Source language comprehension Target language production

In this dissertation, we do not distinguish between whether a language is classed as a B or a C language: instead we use the terms L1 and L2, with L1 meaning the first acquired and most dominant language, and L2 meaning a subsequently acquired, less dominant language. We consider that comprehension during simultaneous interpreting is generally L2 comprehension, and production is generally L1 production in a bilingual setting (although of course some interpreters are early bilinguals who acquired their L1 and L2 at approximately the same time). Our focus is on bilingual comprehension, production and prediction

processes during interpreting. Specifically, we consider predictive processing during comprehension in simultaneous interpreting and consecutive interpreting.

1.1.1 Simultaneous and consecutive interpreting

Both simultaneous and consecutive interpreting involve comprehension of an utterance or a series of utterances in the source language, and the translation and

subsequent production of the same utterance(s) in the target language. Source and target language are thus activated in parallel, and in direct relation to one another (the target language output should transmit the same meaning as the source language input). The difference between the two modes of interpreting is the timing of the target language production. In consecutive interpreting, interpreters wait until the speaker of the source language has finished talking (either momentarily or definitively), and then begin their interpretation in the target language. In simultaneous interpreting, the interpreter begins production in the target language while, at the same time, comprehending in the source language.

While the use of consecutive interpreting dates back thousands of years

(Pöchhacker, 2011), the use of simultaneous interpreting using technical equipment dates

back to the League of Nations and, in particular, the International Labour Organization (ILO), in the 1920s. However, it was the use of simultaneous interpreting at the Nuremberg trials in the 1940s that brought it to the world’s attention, and subsequently led to its use for most interpreted meetings at the UN (Pöchhacker, 2012) and later at the EU.

Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting share similarities. Both involve multi-tasking and frequent and regular language switching under time pressure and following an externally determined direction of translation (Dong & Li, 2019). Consecutive interpreting is often used in admission exams to interpreting programmes to gauge whether students have the potential to be interpreters (European Masters in Conference Interpreting, n.d.).

However, it is primarily simultaneous interpreting, and its attendant concurrent comprehension and production, that has interested psycholinguists since the 1960s (Pöchhacker & Shlesinger, 2002). Of course, sequentially, the production of component parts of the message in the target language tends to lag somewhat behind the

comprehension of component parts of the message in the source language. However, source language comprehension and target language production overlap around 70% of the time that professional simultaneous interpreters work (Chernov, 1994).

Frauenfelder and Schriefers (1997) consider that the simultaneous interpreting task is rendered highly complex by both this concurrent timing of comprehension and

production, and linked to this, the time-constrained translation of the utterance from one language to another. Much of the empirical work carried out in Interpreting Studies to date has related to this in some way, and has included: modelling the task of simultaneous interpreting; investigating strategies employed by interpreters to carry out this complex

task; and exploring the extent to which simultaneous interpreting requires and/or trains specific skills (see Sections 1.7 and 1.8).

Given our basic definition of interpreting as bilingual comprehension of an utterance in the source language, its time-constrained translation, and the production of the same utterance in the target language, we will first review the current theories and empirical evidence of how bilingual comprehension and production take place, and the role of

prediction in bilingual comprehension. We will then consider theories, models and empirical work on comprehension, production and prediction in Interpreting Studies in the light of the current state of knowledge in the field of psycholinguistics.