An Empirical Study on Deverbalization in Relation to Interpreting Quality

Tian Xinyi Jiang Yansheng

School of Foreign Languages, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China

Email: tianxy054@nenu.edu.cn

[Abstract] This paper conducted a correlation analysis on whether deverbalization is conducive to interpreting quality in English-Chinese interpreting by studying six MTI students’interpreting transcripts of an interview with an American economic scholar. The research findings indicate that deverbalization, to a large extent, is positively associated with interpreting quality.

[Keywords] Interpretive Theory; Deverbalization; the Triangle Model

An Overview of Deverbalization in Interpretive Theory

The Interpretative Theory was firstly put forward by Danica Seleskovitch and Marianne Lederer in 1960s. The theory stresses that translation and interpreting are not a simple process of decoding source language and target language but conveying information and ideas of speaker to the audience. Seleskovitch (1968) believes that a process of deverbalization exists between interpretation and expression in interpreting, in which interpreters memorize the meaning of source text in a non-language form and express it with the closest equivalence immediately.

Numeral researches are conducted by scholars at home and abroad. Lederer (2011) believes that people’s memory, on the contrary, is non-linguistic. The unique role played by words linked in reference to grammar rules is to convey meanings in speeches. Interpretive theory believes that interpreting is a human cognitive activity with interpersonal meaning. It is divided into three parts- interpretation of source text, deverbalization and reorganization of the given meaning in target language. These three parts form information processing in triangular model (Zhang, 2011, p. 74).

Interpretive theory also believes that the purpose of communicative activities in any form is to convey messages and meanings. Therefore, interpreting is not simply linear trans-coding of language structure and language units; instead, it is a process to acquire inner meaning of source text and express it in target language. Interpreters need to interpret and explain the source text with their cognitive knowledge throughout the process. Lederer (2011) notes that interpretation of implicit and explicit meaning of source text should be conducted through interpreting process. If the content the speaker intends to convey is implicit, the interpreter should find out the inner idea that the speaker wishes to express with extra-linguistic knowledge.

Following deverbalization, for better conveying information to listeners, interpreters should re-organize given information from source text following the habits and usage of target language. The translation should be made clear to the audience and convey the actual meaning and ideas of source text. If less attention of listeners is expected to be paid on comprehending, interpreters have to get rid of the restrictions and structure of source language and interpret in the way which could be accepted by listeners.

Two research questions will be studied in this essay: Is deverbalization conducive to interpreting and what aspects of deverbalization affect interpreting quality? In other words, the study intends to find out the significance of deverbalization in interpreting and how deverbalization influences interpreting.

Research Method

As deverbalization mainly takes place in the mind of the interpreters, it is more sensible to take a direct approach by studying the transcript of the source text with the focus laid on such linguistic phenomenon as mistranslation, omissions and rigid translation. Setton and Motta (2007) defines deverbalization as a chain of four activities:

1.Contextualization. Interpreters should make efforts to express the meaning of source text in target language and produce proper translation and make adjustment in accordance with context. It is of great significance to get rid of the restrictions of the source text in aspects of words, phrases or sentence components.

2.Linking. Interpreters should adopt linking words according to relevant circumstances owing to the differences in Chinese and English, in order to secure a logical organization.

3.Elaboration. It applies in the circumstances of absence of equivalence of cultural concepts, figures of speech or expressions of source language. Interpreters need to convey the information hidden in the language signs through explanation and examples.

4.Reformulation. Reformulation happens in recombination of sentence elements or sequences of sentences, due to the different characteristics of Chinese and English.

The paper sums up the instances of loss of information, omission and misinterpretation of divided information points and information hierarchies of the source text and calculate accuracy rate and quantities of deverbalization to find out the relevance between deverbalization and interpreting quality. Information points are constituted with notional words by sentence meaning as a unit, which summarize and extract sense groups of sentences in a short and specific way. Information hierarchy refers to reason level and result level of typical causal structure divided by level of sentence meaning.

The following chart displays how to divide information with unit assessment system by Cai Xiaohong with part of the source text:

Table 1 Example Assessment of Interpreting Quality

This selected paragraph contains 13 information points and 2 information hierarchies, including assumed condition and assumed result. 4 chunks of information from the source text with 2 information layers were omitted in translation, while the occurrence of repetition and dis-fluency was 2 and 3 times respectively. So the rated score is displayed as follows:

Accuracy: 11/13*100=85

Integrity: 13/13*100=100

Logic coherence: 2/2*100=100

Fluency: 1/3*100=33

Data Analysis

The hypothesis set forth in this paper is that better deverbalization leads to higher level of interpreting. Therefore, the correlation between the two aspects is calculated with collected data. Correlation Coefficient index will be adopted to examine the relevance of the two research objects. If r is a positive number, the variables are positively associated; if r is a negative number, the variables are negatively associated. The specific standard is as follows: 1> |r|≥0.8 represents high correlation; 0.8> |r|≥0.5 represents significant correlation; 0.5> |r|≥0.3 represents low correlation; and |r| less than 0.3 represents extremely weak correlation.

The transcripts of six students are analyzed on the basis of the assessment framework mentioned above and findings are listed as follows:

Table 2 Rated Scores of Four Aspects of Deverbalization and Interpreting Quality

Table 3 Distribution of Deverbalization in Four Aspects

Table 4 Correlation Index of Instances of Deverbalization and Interpreting Quality

From the data, it is clear that interpreting with greater number of deverbalizing leads to a higher score, since the quantitative values of correlation coefficient of each element is above 0.7. It reveals that the extent of deverbalization enjoys positive correlation with interpreting quality in reference to the figures in aspects of accuracy, logical coherence and fluency.

The findings show that deverbalization is positively associated with accuracy of interpreting in 0.705, which proves that higher level of deverbalization leads to better interpreting. According to the Triangle Model, interpreter can only express in the target language after he interprets the idea of source text first, which pertains to the process of “deverbalization”. MTI students often find it difficult to express the idea even when they seemingly grasp the information of the passage. The problem may lie in the fact that they just memorize a number of single words without understanding their meaning and inter-logic in depth. Interpretation applying the theory of the Triangle Model pursues translation free from language structure of the source text with reorganized chunks of information given by the speaker. In other words, the quality of interpreting directly connects to deverbalization.

The result of 0.891 from the conducted experiment in logical coherence indicates close correlation with deverbalization generated from the source text. From the perspective of interpretive theory, good interpreting is conducted with thorough and in-depth understanding of source text, in light of words, sentences and underlying logic among given information. Therefore, there should be a close connection between deverbalization and logical coherence of source text.

Regarding the fluency of interpreting, the experiment result displays a high extent of positive association with deverbalization of source text as suggested by the figure of 0.843. As Lederer puts it, the interpreter’s job is not to find equivalent words and sentences from target language; instead, one should aim for equivalence in meaning. Expressions of speakers in interpreting pass in no time, requiring interpreters to memorize content rather than exact words. Both listeners and interpreters would have active memory of given thoughts and mentioned factual specifics in non-verbal form, whereas the language and expressions the speaker adopted cannot be recalled. (Lederer, 2001).

Table 5 Correlation Index of Deverbalization and Rated Interpreting Scores

From the correlation coefficient, it is clear that the number of the instances of deverbalization is positively associated with overall interpreting quality, given the fact that the index R is 0.882, which means that higher level of deverbalization connects with better interpreting.

Based on the calculated data, it can be safely concluded that the interpretive theory is instructive to interpreting process given the positive correlation between deverbalization and interpreting quality. This conclusion coincides with the research results proposed by Sun Haiqin (2012) whose original text also relates to professional spheres including a number of terms and jargons, requiring rich knowledge reserve. The calculated results will be used to analyze the relevance between deverbalization and translation’s fluency, logical coherence and accuracy, and seek to discover its possible reasons with this interpreting experience.

The 0.947 point in correlation coefficient in free expression suggests a highly positive relation between deverbalization and interpreting. Students might also be confused about the meaning of source text because of lack of extra-linguistic knowledge. The interpretive theory proposed by Lederer holds that extra-linguistic knowledge shares intimate bond with the extent of deverbalization of source text, including encyclopedic knowledge, professional knowledge related to the topic and knowledge gained from past interpreting experience. This interpreting text involves economic terms and jargons, obscure to the interpreters.

The figure of 0.885 reveals that explanation is decisive in interpreting. Deverbalization includes splitting and reorganizing sentences, supplement and conversion of linking words or phrases, and choosing proper expressions to fit target language conventions. These activities all serve for the interpreting to some extent. Once the interpreter deverbalizes the text thoroughly, one could deliver his translation with confidence fluently.

Coherence and independent assortment display a moderate connection with interpreting quality given their figures 0.109 and 0.382 respectively. The reason is likely to lie in the different structure characteristics of the two languages as mentioned before. And also, English tends to express internal language logic with adverbs, relatives of clauses or sentence meaning itself, instead of conjunctions alone. Interpreters need to concentrate on this information and reorganize it logically as the source text intends to.

Significance of the Empirical Study

The empirical study on interpreting performance with application of deverbalization, which was carried out by examining performance of 6 MTI students as second grade postgraduate in an interpreting practice of an interview with an economic scholar from America embraces two main purposes, developing quantification of interpreting performance of the participants as well as proving the correlation between adoption of deverbalization and interpreting quality. The assessment of the activity of interpreting remains difficult in consideration of the fact that it’s conducted in terms of audio and oral form which cannot be easily retained. However, once the activity is quantified in the respect of several assessment factors listed above, it will be better decided whether an interpreter has done a great job or not.

More importantly, whether interpreting adopting the strategy of deverbalization developed from the Triangle Model would better convey the meaning of the source text in interpreting could be clearly demonstrated through the statistics gathered from the experiment. Assessing elements, which are free expression, explanation, coherence and independent assortment, present visual correlation between extent of deverbalization and interpreting performance. It is suggested that close correlation exists in light of the index given respectively. The finding provides solid proof for both novice and experienced interpreters that deverbalization is conducive to good interpreting and should be adopted more often in years ahead.

Conclusion

This experiment concentrates on the specific application of deverbalization of the Triangle Model in examination of its role in English-Chinese interpreting. The statistics shows that the degree of deverbalization of source text shares highly positive association with rated score of interpreting quality. The results suggest that that the accuracy and fluency of interpreting bears close positive association with deverbalization, meaning that interpreters should actively re-organize words and sentences, with due attention paid to the hidden logical coherence of the source text and choose proper equivalents in target language to improve interpreting quality.