Targets for Online Monitoring

As previously noted in this chapter, there has been little systematic enquiry into the factors potentially affecting dialogue interpreting task performance (i.e., of the aspects of performance that interpreters may monitor). This section draws on the available literature, experience, and intuition to discuss the aspects of the interaction and of their performance that dialogue interpreters may monitor.

Gile (2009) proposes a list of potential problem triggers for simultaneous conference interpreters primarily related to language and cognitive load, including:

• density of the source text

• the interpreter’s (in)ability to anticipate upcoming information

• language-specific features such as syntactical differences between the two languages

• information that may be easily lost due to lapses of attention such as numbers or proper names

• culture-specific issues

• external factors such as sound problems or speed.

Ivanova’s (1999, 2000) study of simultaneous conference interpreters, discussed in the immediately preceding section, also identifies a number of problems reported on by interpreters, which she divides into three broad categories: problems related to comprehension, problems related to translation, and problems related to simultaneity of tasks. Her findings correspond, to a large degree, with Gile’s suggestions; for example, the subcategories of problems identified by Ivanova include things such as difficulty with perception, syntax, retrieval of target language forms, and the speaker’s speed.

Arumí Ribas (2012) discusses problems retrospectively reported on (via written

questionnaire) by beginning and advanced students of long-form (i.e., non-dialogue) consecutive interpreting. Students in this study reported problems in all the phases of the interpreting task, as summarized in Table 4, quoted from Arumí Ribas (2012:821):

Listening and

• lack of understanding of the source speech

• lack of restitution speed

• lack of connectors

• unclear notes

• memory problems

Expressing and Reformulating

• lack of understanding of the source speech

Table 4. Problems reported by students of consecutive interpreting, from Arumí Ribas (2012).

Ivanova’s and Gile’s lists of potential problems are specific to simultaneous conference interpreting, and thus are not likely to fully represent the range of potential targets of monitoring in dialogue interpreting. While the list presented by Arumí Ribas is related to consecutive interpreting, the participants in the study were performing long consecutive (i.e., of a speech) with notes, which is distinct from dialogue interpreting in a number of ways, especially in terms of the length of source language utterances, the lack of frequent turn-taking among

interlocutors,²⁸ and the probable setting and goals of the interpreted event. Arumí Ribas’s list is also derived from the reports of students at two levels of training, and thus may not reflect the same targets of monitoring that would be found in experts’ reports.

27Note that the order of the items in the lists does not imply anything about the relative frequency with which each problem was reported: I reproduce the list order provided by the author.

28 Long consecutive of speeches/longer utterances may be employed in situations that involve turn-taking (e.g., in a negotiation session or the Q&A portion of a presentation), but such situations are generally qualitatively distinct from the dialogue interpreting settings that are the focus of interest of this dissertation (see Section 1.1; also see Fontes, 2008, on the features of service provider/client interviews).

For their part, Englund Dimitrova & Tiselius (2016) argue for the existence of two phases of monitoring in (consecutive) dialogue interpreting: one that occurs when the interpreter is

listening, and another that occurs when the interpreter is speaking. They propose the following foci of monitoring during the two phases (Englund Dimitrova & Tiselius, 2016:204, emphasis in original):

“When a primary party speaks, the interpreter

1. monitors his or her comprehension of the primary party’s utterance

2. monitors the relation of the primary party’s utterance to the interpreter’s previous interpreted utterance (i.e., does it seem to have been understood by the primary party as intended?), and

3. monitors his or her memory and processing capacity, in order to interrupt and take the turn, if necessary.

When the interpreter speaks, he or she

1. monitors his or her own utterance, as an utterance in the given language

2. monitors, when relevant, the relation of his or her own utterance to the primary party’s previous utterance, and

3. monitors the verbal and non-verbal reactions of the primary parties.”

The last of these foci of monitoring is a significant one in that it points to the need for interpreters to monitor not only their own processing (e.g., comprehension, production, source language/target language match), but also the other parties’ understanding of and reactions to each other’s utterances. While the authors’ discussion of monitoring does not mention affect and behavior, per se, it seems reasonable to infer that monitoring of discourse features such as the parties’ verbal/nonverbal reactions to utterances involves monitoring of those parties’ behavior and/or affect. The need to monitor the audience’s reception of the target language utterance is mentioned by Napier (2004:128), who notes that sign language interpreters participating in research involving interpreting benefit from having an audience or “receiver” (i.e., a deaf person, in the case of her experiment) to whom they can direct their interpretation and from whom they can receive “feedback” (i.e., backchanneling, paralinguistic reactions) during performance.

While her comment is specifically related to signed language interpreting, it seems reasonable to assume it would also apply to spoken language interpreting given the importance of

paralinguistic information to communication regardless of the modality (i.e., signed or spoken).

Research on remote interpreting (Moser-Mercer, 2003, 2005; Mouzourakis, 2003; Braun, 2007, 2013) also suggests that performance may be affected by the ability to see (or not, as the case may be) the speaker’s and/or listeners’ paralinguistic actions/reactions and turn-taking/ceding moves, as well as other cues present in the environment. Findings such as these, considered

together with experience and anecdotal evidence from professionals in the field, strongly suggest that interpreters’ online self-regulation encompasses affect, behavior, and context in addition to the core cognitive processes of interpreting (i.e., comprehension, language transfer, production).

Drawing on the existing scholarly literature and on naturally-occurring Chinese-Catalan interactions that took place in an educational setting (cf. Vargas-Urpi & Arumí Ribas, 2014), Arumí Ribas & Vargas-Urpi (2017) suggest a number of classes of problems that may face dialogue interpreters, including:

• lexical

• pragmatic

• cultural

• related to management of conversation

• related to the impromptu nature of speech in such interactions

• pronunciation or expression

• ethical dilemmas

While there is little available research into online monitoring in dialogue interpreting, Dean

& Pollard’s (2011, 2012, 2013) well known Demand-Control Schema (D-CS) identifies four categories of demands that may arise during an interpreting assignment: environmental, interpersonal, paralinguistic, and intrapersonal. These categories encompass issues such as the work environment, management of situational and interactional features of discourse,

interpersonal interactions, cultural/extralinguistic facets of communication, and management of individual feelings and reactions (i.e., affect) as summarized in Table 5. In the D-CS, demands are defined as “any factor in the assignment that rises to a level of significance where it impacts interpreting work” (Dean & Pollard, 2011:162), i.e., anything that might influence the

interpreter’s performance. Inasmuch as these factors may affect performance—and, therefore, threaten to distance the current state from the goal state—they may be potential foci of online monitoring.

Potential Demands on Performance, from Dean & Pollard (2011 2012, 2013) Environmental

• goal/purpose of setting

• setting-specific terminology

• characteristics of the personnel/clients in the setting

• physical environment (temperature, lighting,

Paralinguistic features of speaker

• style

• volume

• pace

• accent

• clarity

smells, noise, space) Interpersonal

• dynamics between all parties (including interpreter)

• performance (am I doing well?)

• liability

• the people and the dynamics in the room

• the environment

• physiological distractions

• psychological response

Table 5. Demands that may affect the dialogue interpreting task (Dean & Pollard, 2011, 2012, 2013).

In sum, while the literature does not provide a great deal of information about online monitoring in dialogue interpreting, the work discussed in the preceding paragraphs, taken together with experience and intuition, suggests that a wide range of factors may place demands on an interpreter’s attention and processing—that is, may be monitored—during performance.

Some of these factors are related to comprehension, language transfer, and production, while others are related to external factors, such as others' behaviors, environmental factors, or the interpreter's reaction to the situation or content (Dean & Pollard, 2011, 2012, 2013; Hale, 2004, 2007; Corsellis, 2005; Tipton & Furmanek, 2016; Englund Dimitrova & Tiselius, 2016). These potential targets for monitoring are summarized in Figure 9.

Potential Sources of Demands on Performance in Dialogue Interpreting

• Internal factors—emotional reactions, judgments, personal issues, internal distractions

• The interpreter’s physical presence—where to be, where to look, people's reaction/attention to the interpreter, fatigue, illness

• External factors—speed, accent, pauses, overlapping speakers, other peoples’ behavior, noise

• Communication—are the parties communicating effectively?; if not, whether and when and how to intervene

• Interpreting—listening, analysis, retention, language transfer, production

Figure 9. Potential sources of demands on performance in dialogue interpreting.