1. 1 Interpretational language How does it sound? New Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies Oct 7-8, 2005 Yannick Garcia, URV-UPF yannick.garcia@upf.edu

2. 2 Translated Language As A Third Code  Frawley (1984)  [The translated text] “emerges as a code in its own right, setting its own standards and structural presuppositions and entailments, though they are necessarily derivative of [ST] and [TL]”  Baker (1993)  [Translated texts are the] “result of the confrontation of the source and target codes”

3. 3 Terminology  Disturbing deviance  Third language  Translationese  Non-disturbing deviance  Third code  Translated language  Translational language Two types of deviance: one which runs counter to the linguistic usage in the language, and one which follows the usage but in such a way that it strikes the readers as fresh (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002)

4. 4  Translated texts must be constructed upon unique linguistic components: Universals of translation  This behavior must be governed by standards that lead translators in a given time and space to comply with or deviate from ST/TL rules: Translation norms Theoretical Background

5. 5 Theoretical Studies  Norms (INT)  Shlesinger 1989  Harris 1990  Schjoldager 1995  Gile 1998  Shlesinger 1999  Garzone 2002  Inghilleri 2004  Universals (Chesterman’s T-universals)  Laviosa-Braithwaite 1996 simplification  Baker 1993 conventionalization  Mauranen 2000 lexical patterning  Tirkkonen-Condit 2000 lexical unique items

6. 6 Experimental Studies  Interpreting As A Third Code  Garwood 2002  Translation As A Third Code  Øverås 1998  Tirkkonen-Condit 2002  Translationese  Shama’a 1978  Blum-Kulka and Levenston 1983  Vanderauwera 1985  House 2004  Cardinaletti and Garzone 2005

7. 7 Quality Perception (Traunmüller 1998) Type of qualityInformation conveyedPhenomena involved Linguistic phonetic quality Social conventional. The message; speaker’s dialect, sociolect, speech style, accent, etc. Different words, speech sounds, prosodic patterns, etc. Expressive quality Psychological, within speaker variation. Speaker’s emotions, attitudes; adaptation to environment, etc. Type of phonation, vocal effort, speech rate, liveliness, etc. Organic quality Physiological, anatomical, between speaker variation. Speaker’s age, sex, pathology, etc. Size of the larynx, length of the supraglottal vocal tract, etc. Perspectival quality Physical, spatial. Where the speaker is in relation to the listener (and how he is oriented). Illumination, projection angles, acoustic signal attenuation, etc. Table 1. Types of information and variation in speech.

8. 8 Quality Debate in IS  Linguistic phonetic quality in interpreting  Native fluency (Pérez Luzardo, Pradas Macías)  Use of different dialects/accents (Cheung)  Rethorical skills (Pradas Macías)  Prosodic patterns (Collados)  Genuine usage: lexis, syntax... (Gile)  Grammar and discourse building (Garwood)  Speech style (Donovan)  Creativity (Bastin, Kenny)

9. 9 1) Unique Items Hypothesis (TR)  Tirkkonen-Condit 2002  2 groups (teachers and students of TS)  2 sets of texts (original and translated Finnish)  Translations v. non-translations  Assumption-triggering features: “unique items”  Degree of genuinity determined categorization  Prejudices about translational language  Pre-formed categorization hinders perception  Refinement of UI as quality measuring units

10. 10 2) The Case of Cognates (TR + INT)  Shlesinger and Malkiel (in press)  Pre-existing stimulus-response pairing  Default solution  Fear of false cognates  Creation of non-existent cognates  Experimental study (false v. true cognates)  Different modalities (SI v. TR)

11. 11 3) Quality Perception in INT  Gile 1985  Perception of interpreted speech by nonexpert speakers (“informateurs”)  Training environment  High variability in results  Need for shared criteria in assessing quality (“appropriateness”, “mot juste”, “écarts de langue”, etc.)

12. 12 Methodological considerations  1) Perception of rendition v. non-rendition?  Need to isolate linguistic phonetic input from organic, expressive and perspectival variables  2) Transmodality study?  Difficulty in data-gathering for comparable original v. interpreted speech  3) User perception?  Screening of expert speaker  Assessment methodology

13. 13 Compared Perception Expert Native Speaker Original English (+) Interpreted Catalan Original Catalan

14. 14 Methodology (1)  Corpora  Interpreted Catalan (recorded interpreting assignments in the Catalan private market: diverse topics, audience, expectations, perception?)  Original Catalan (recorded conference speeches, Contemporary Catalan Corpus)  Subjects  Professional interpreters (A-Catalan, B-English)  Expert speakers: oral revisers (officially certified: traceable, shared terminology, known territory)

15. 15 Methodology (2)  Measuring units  Unique items (monologic)  Cognate structures (comparative)  Speakers’ comments (questionnaire, interview, shared protocol)  Linguistic variables isolation  Voice-over harmonization (future research)  Same person, voice, dialect, accent

16. 16 Unique Items – Examples (1)  Prosodic  Dinareu aquí?  (Que) dinareu aquí?  Syntactical  Del company no pots dir res de dolent.  Del company, no en pots dir res de dolent.  Phrasal  Ens fa falta una fotocopiadora.  Ens cal una fotocopiadora.

17. 17 Unique Items – Examples (2)  Morphological  Això no és comestible.  Això no és mengívol.  Lexical  Cada un de nosaltres val.  Cadascun de nosaltres val.  Discourse-Forming Particles  Véns, no?  Véns, oi?

18. 18 Unique Items – Examples (3)  Collocational  No vaig trobar-li la gràcia.  No li vaig trobar la gràcia.  Redundant information  Ara estic treballant en una agència.  Ara treballo en una agència.  Insufficient information  Tinc caramels de menta, maduixa i taronja.  Tinc caramels de menta, de maduixa i de taronja.

19. 19 Research questions (1)  Is linguistic quality perception marked by the degree of genuinity of language? Can this be gauged through unique items and cognate/non-cognate solutions?  Is the amount of such genuinity-measuring units consistent by modality (original, interpreted; formal, informal; extemporaneous, read-out) or by speaker?  If consistent by modality, is that due to interpreting norms or to cognitive constraints (Shlesinger)?

20. 20 Research questions (2)  If due to norms, is the choice explained through the diaculture (Vermeer)? Through the hypertext (Pöchhacker)?  Can genuinity/unique items rate be illustrative of the degree of domestication or foreignization of a rendition?  Is this particular to some languages or universal to all?

21. 21 Preliminary results  Small pilot (3 interpreters)  Produced both original and interpreted Catalan  Apparently more cognate solutions in interpreted (Shlesinger)  Need for larger corpus  Apparently same degree of unique items in both  Need for further refinement of UI lists  Other measuring units may play a role  The degree of language-awareness may determine the success of the unit in the analysis

22. 22 Contact data Yannick Garcia Porres Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona yannick.garcia@upf.edu