When you work in consecutive, does your interpretation simply rhyme off a series of points? Or does it have a shape and form that bring the original speech to life in a new language? If you said “yes” to the first question, but not to the second, then read on.
One of my practice sessions this week was with our Mandarin team. I listened first as one of our students gave a speech in Mandarin, a language I don’t understand. Then, I listened — this time as a pure customer — as another student interpreted into English consecutively.
I understood everything that was said in English. Each sentence, taken as a discrete unit, made sense. It was a kind of “grocery list”, and I could make out each item clearly.
But when the interpretation ended, I realized that I had no idea what the point of the speech was. I did not understand the intent of the original speaker. How had she fit the “grocery items” together? How did they combine to create an effect in her listeners? Was she trying to persuade us of something, or to spur us into action? I didn’t know, and I said so to the interpreter.
As we jointly analyzed the interpreting performance, we asked the original speaker to outline for us the structure of the Mandarin speech. The talk was about the death penalty, and it contained four distinct parts.
- The introduction gave an example of the death penalty by mentioning the execution of eight foreign citizens in Indonesia on drug smuggling offences.
- A short discussion outlined the reasons why many countries are abandoning the death penalty.
- A longer explanation looked at why China’s history, culture and legal system make it unlikely to follow suit.
- The conclusion listed some potential reforms to the application to the death penalty in China, and the reasons why they would be consistent with cultural and legal traditions there.
When we looked at the interpreter’s notes, we discovered the divisions between these sections wasn’t reflected well. What’s more, in her interpretation, she hadn’t provided much of a transition as she moved from one part of the speech to another. For example, as I listened to the interpreter move from section two to section three, I had not understood that China’s position on capital punishment was different from that of the international community.
Of course, there are some cultural factors at work here. In China, there tends to be a preference for what anthropologist Edward Hall called “high context communication“. The Chinese share a long history and cultural references. They can therefore express ideas more implicitly and leave the “intelligent listener” to decode them effectively. In Canada, and in other parts of the English-speaking world, we tend to have a preference for “low context communication”. We like things to be said explicitly and transparently, so that everything is out in the open.
In addition, the research of scholars like Ken Hyland. When we produce scholarly articles, for example, we don’t only write about the content. We also take pains to explain the organization of that content to the reader. For example, it’s not uncommon for English authors to write things like, “In the next chapter, we look at capital punishment and international law.” I would also argue that meta discourse is also prevalent in formal, oral communication in English.
So what does this mean for interpreters? Well, for starters, it means that we have to be listening for structure in a speech. We have to be on the lookout for major divisions in the argument of the speaker, and we have to get these down in our consecutive notes.
I encourage my students to mark divisions between ideas with a single line, and divisions between sections of a speech with a double line. When they are giving their interpretation from the notes, the double line is a reminder that they need to make a careful transition — one that is clear and emphatic for the audience — from one part of the speech to another.
For example, looking at the page of notes to the left, the interpreter might say something like the following:
The second reason why the international community is moving away from the death penalty is this. In the world today, there is greater respect for human rights. (Notes: “Human Rights in the world today more important.”) Third, what do we do in cases where people are wrongfully convicted? (Notes: “If justice wrong, then what?”)
At this point, it’s important to note that China’s stance on the death penalty is somewhat different. (Notes: “China different.”) This is for a number of reasons. (Notes: “Many why”) The first of these is China’s legal system. (Notes: “Legal system.”)
The point here is that the interpreter is careful to clearly signal the rhetorical shift from one part of the argument to the next. As the words in bold suggest, this is done with emphasis in the voice, and perhaps also with a shift in physical stance or a hand gesture. Also, in an implicit language like Mandarin, the bit about China being different may be only subtly implied. So it’s the interpreter’s job to be on the lookout for this kind of signpost.
Long story short, your job as an interpreter is to work at both the micro and macro levels. You need to attend to the individual ideas in a speech, and you need to express them accurately and correctly in the target language. But you also need to think about the big picture. How is the speech structured? How do the different parts of the speech fit together? And as a whole, how do they let the speaker achieve his or her goals in speaking in the first place?
When we can operate on both these levels at the same time, we will be communicating the speaker’s message accurately and effectively.