the treatment of conjunctions as cohesive devices in simultaneous interpreting for the european...
TRANSCRIPT
MSc in Translating and Interpreting 2011
Τhe treatment of conjunctions as cohesive devices
in simultaneous interpreting for the European Parliament
By Thomais Sakali
H00024033
Supervisor: Dr. Marion Winters
Presented for the award of MSc.
Heriot-Watt University
Abstract
This dissertation sets out to examine cohesion in simultaneous interpreting. Cohesion as
analysed by Halliday & Hasan (1976) is a set of semantic relations that make texts “hang
together” by linking an individual sentence with what has gone before. Conjunction is a
cohesive device signalling how a proposition connects to previous discourse.
Simultaneous interpreting is the practice whereby spoken texts are simultaneously and
orally translated. Previous research involving novice interpreters by Shlesinger (1995)
uncovered a trend of omissions in certain types of conjunction. As asserted, certain
conjunctions were perceived by interpreters as “semantically redundant” and were
frequently omitted. In this dissertation the treatment of conjunctions is examined in
international conference interpreting (European Parliament). A corpus of 30 English
speeches and their Greek interpretations is compiled and inter-sentential conjunctions are
counted and analysed. A marked trend of omission is observed to affect additive,
temporal and continuative conjunctions, while causal and adversative conjunctions are
less affected. In addition, individual conjunctive items (and, indeed, for example, but,
actually, finally, now, well) present higher percentages of omission than others. A variety
of reasons for the omissions alongside the perceived redundancy of some conjucntions
are discussed. These include differences between languages such as the lack of one-to-
one solutions for English conjunctions in Greek, professional strategies and cognitive
limitations linked to the interpreting process.
Acknowledgements
My sincerest thanks go to the dissertation supervisor Dr. Marion Winters whose
encouragement is one of the reasons for which this dissertation was completed.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2. Cohesion ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
2.2 The theory of cohesion by Halliday & Hasan (1976) ............................................... 3
2.3 Conjunction ............................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 The additive type ................................................................................................ 7
2.3.2 The adversative type ........................................................................................... 8
2.3.3 The causal type ................................................................................................. 10
2.3.4 The temporal type ............................................................................................. 11
2.3.5 The continuative type ....................................................................................... 12
2.4 The usefulness of cohesion ..................................................................................... 13
3. Interpreting ................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 14
3.2 Definition ................................................................................................................ 14
3.3 Previous research on cohesion in interpreting......................................................... 15
3.3.1 Shlesinger (1995) .............................................................................................. 15
3.3.2 Other studies on cohesion in interpreting ......................................................... 16
3.4 The process of interpreting: the efforts model ........................................................ 19
3.5 Interpreting practice ................................................................................................ 20
3.6 Interpreting for the European Parliament ................................................................ 21
4. Methodologies ........................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 23
4.2 Data collection......................................................................................................... 23
4.3 The corpus ............................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Conjunctions............................................................................................................ 26
5. Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 28
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 28
5.2 Additive Conjunctions............................................................................................. 28
5.2.1 And .................................................................................................................... 29
5.2.2 Indeed ............................................................................................................... 31
5.2.3 For example ...................................................................................................... 32
5.3 Adversative conjunctions ........................................................................................ 33
5.3.1 But ..................................................................................................................... 34
5.3.2 Actually ............................................................................................................. 34
5.4 Causal conjunctions................................................................................................. 36
5.5 Temporal conjunctions ............................................................................................ 37
5.5.1 First…Second etc. and finally ........................................................................... 38
5.6 Continuative conjunctions ....................................................................................... 39
5.6.1 Now ................................................................................................................... 40
5.6.2 Well ................................................................................................................... 41
5.7 Additions ................................................................................................................. 42
5.7.1 Explicitation of causal links ............................................................................. 43
1. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 45
6.1 Results ..................................................................................................................... 45
6.2 Limitations and avenues for further research .......................................................... 47
References ......................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix 1: Corpus outline .............................................................................................. 55
Appendix 2: Links to audiovisual material ....................................................................... 56
List of tables
Table 1: Modes of delivery in the corpus
Table 2: Speeds of delivery in the corpus
Table 3: Additive conjunctions
Table 4: Adversative conjunctions
Table 5: Causal conjunctions
Table 6: Temporal conjunctions
Table 7: Continuative conjunctions
Table 8: Additions of conjunctive items
Table 9: Omissions of each conjunctive relation
1
1. Introduction
The aim of this dissertation is to investigate cohesion in simultaneous interpreting. The
term cohesion encompasses a set of semantic relations found on the surface of texts,
analysed in a seminal study by Halliday & Hasan (1976). Simultaneous interpreting
refers to the professional practice whereby spoken discourse is simultaneously and orally
translated in international conferences, known as international conference interpreting
(Pöchhacker 1994). Since an effective use of cohesive devices is known to enhance the
listenability or readability of texts, it is not surprising that this subject has received
attention in translation and interpreting studies.
Previous research on cohesion in simultaneous interpreting by Shlesinger (1995) used
Halliday & Hasan’s (ibid.) model of cohesion to investigate the behaviour of trainees
from English into Hebrew. This research uncovered shifts and omissions in all cohesive
devices in interpreting. One of the findings was that interpreters privilege specific types
of conjunction over others. The group of conjunctions examined was not comprehensive
due to the experimental design of the study which included only one original text and
many interpreters’ outputs. However, a tendency was observed to reproduce those
conjunctions which seemed to contribute to the informative content of texts, and to omit
those perceived as semantically redundant. A secondary explanation was that certain
conjunctive relations were more easily derived from their surrounding sentences.
Shlesinger (ibid.) pointed to further research in professional settings.
This dissertation sets out to investigate professional behaviour towards cohesion and
adopts the above finding as a research question. Firstly, an attempt is made to find out
whether in a given corpus of a given genre, certain conjunctions are indeed affected by
omissions more than others and which are the more affected. Secondly, it is useful to
investigate the reasons for which omissions occur always with reference to the
2
explanations provided by Shlesinger (ibid.), and mainly interpreters’ tendency to omit
conjunctions according to the informational value they attribute to them.
The above research question will be addressed through a set of specific objectives. Using
Halliday & Hasan’s (ibid.) framework, the language pair English into Greek in the
professional setting of the European Parliament will be studied. Objectives include first
the compilation of a parallel corpus of speeches and interpretations using the published
audiovisual and transcribed material from the European Parliament’s Plenary Sessions.
While Shlesinger (1995) looked at one text and many interpreters’ outputs, this
dissertation looks at many texts for each of which only one interpreter’s output is
available. So, the second objective will be to find all conjunctions that link a full sentence
to another or to a bigger chunk of discourse in the original speeches, and observe the
solutions interpreters have given for each. Additions of conjunctions by the interpreters
will also be observed, with the hope of providing a more comprehensive insight into the
issues raised by the research question.
The structure of this study includes five main chapters. The first corresponds to this
introduction. The second and third chapter will review the literature. In the second
chapter, a complete description of the theory of cohesion within the field of functional
linguistics will be provided, focusing mainly on conjunction as a cohesive device. All the
different categories of conjunctive relation will be analysed. In the third chapter,
interpreting is defined, then studies on cohesion are reviewed with a special focus on
Shlesinger (1995). A separate section will describe the interpreting process with reference
to the efforts model of interpreting (Gile 1995). Next, an overview of strategies and
techniques used in interpreting will be provided. The European Parliament as a
workplace will also be examined in a separate section. The fourth chapter introduces the
corpus and the methodologies while in the fifth chapter the results of the analysis are
reported and discussed. Conclusions and limitations will be discussed in the last sixth
chapter.
3
2. Cohesion
"Since what an interpreter works with is a text, it is text-based linguistics that is needed."
(Taylor Torsello et al. 1997:168)
2.1 Introduction
The present chapter deals with the theory of cohesion of Halliday & Hasan (1976) as part
of functional linguistics, focusing on conjunction as a form of cohesion. After a brief
explanation of the field of functional linguistics, then of the theory of cohesion,
conjunction as a cohesive device with its categories will be fully explained. Finally, a
discussion on cohesion and coherence as well as the usefulness of cohesion in translation
and interpreting is included.
2.2 The theory of cohesion by Halliday & Hasan (1976)
Traditional linguistics describes language in abstract terms up, ruling out issues related to
meaning (de Beaugrande 1997). It regards the sentence as the higher unit of language that
can be studied. Βy contrast, functional linguistics, text linguistics and discourse studies in
general, describe language as meaning and communication in context, and define texts as
“units of language in use” (Halliday and Hasan 1976:1). According to the functional
approach, in language three kinds of meaning are found simultaneously: experiential,
interpersonal and textual meaning. Experiential meaning expresses experiences and extra-
linguistic events. Interpersonal meaning expresses relations between the participants of
the communication process. Textual meaning relates to the form of the text and Halliday
calls it "enabling" meaning (Eggins 2004:298) because it brings the two other kinds of
meaning together. Textual meaning is what makes language operational in context: it is
what turns language into text. Random lexicogrammatical forms would not suffice to
achieve communication. Instead, the text is formed from systematic arrangements.
4
Cohesion is an important part of the textual strand and plays the role of catalyst in
discourse, ensuring continuity.1
Cohesion is an important aspect of texture, the property of "being a text". Essentially it is
a set of relations observed amongst the lexicogrammatical elements, on the surface of
texts, that take the form of presuppositions: an element’s meaning depends on another
that was mentioned previously. The relation between them is called a cohesive tie. These
relations make texts "hang together" (Halliday & Hasan 1976) as opposed to a mere
juxtaposition of unrelated sentences and connect each sentence to what has gone before.
So a stretch of language displaying cohesion will be recognised by language users as a
unified whole, a text.
This system of relations is independent of grammatical structure. While within the
sentence-unit grammatical structure ensures continuity, a text is a very different unit, not
structural but semantic: it hangs together by virtue of the semantic relations of cohesion.
Cohesive relations are connections between sentences or longer stretches of language.
This does not mean that cohesion does not exist within the sentential structure. But since
grammatical structure itself ensures continuity, the effect of a cohesive relation within the
sentence is not as significant. For that reason, text analysis for cohesion by Halliday &
Hasan (1976) focuses on cohesive ties spreading across sentences.
Cohesive ties fall into four broad categories also called cohesive devices. These are
Reference, Substitution/Ellipsis, Conjunction and Lexical Cohesion. And although this
account of cohesive relations is modeled on the English language, it can be applied to
other languages. Cohesive devices can also be categorized by their means of expression.
Some are expressed through grammatical means and other through lexical means. A brief
description of each of the categories is provided below:
a. Reference. Reference is a form of grammatical cohesion. Referential cohesive
relations are expressed by elements that co-refer with other elements, from previous or
following sentences. Personal, demonstrative and possessive pronouns, comparative
1 Textual meaning is also expressed through thematic and information structure and discourse structure, but
an explanation of these exceeds the scope of this dissertation.
5
adjectives etc. all express "identity of reference" and thus can be cohesive. E.g. You know
that mouse you saw? Well that hole there must be its. (Halliday & Hasan ibid.:46)
b. Substitution and Ellipsis. Substitution and ellipsis are expressed through grammatical
means. Substitution is concerned with a group of items (one, such etc.) that suggest that
an element is missing. The listener or reader will supply the element from previous
discourse segments, e.g. My axe is too blunt. I must get a sharper one. (Halliday & Hasan
ibid.:89). Ellipsis is substitution "by zero", e.g. This is a fine hall you have there. I've
never lectured in a finer. (Halliday & Hasan ibid.:89).
c. Conjunction. The term conjunction as it is used here, does not refer to the purely
grammatical category of conjunction, but points to a set of relations, expressed both by
grammatical and lexical elements (and, but, in addition etc.). Contrary to the rest of the
cohesive categories, conjunction does not directly refer the listener to specific elements to
be supplied, but its meaning presupposes the existence of previous discourse, e.g. The
captain had steered a course close in to the shore. As a result, they avoided the worst of
the storm.
d. Lexical Cohesion. When lexical items in some kind of semantic relation are found in
different sentences, a cohesive tie is established between those sentences. Lexical
cohesion has two main components, reiteration and collocation. Reiteration refers either
to straightforward repetition or to the use of synonyms, hyponyms etc. (e.g. There is a
boy climbing that tree. The lad's going to fall if he doesn't take care). Collocation is the
occurrence of two frequently co-occurring words in different sentences (e.g. pipe and
smoke occurring in different sentences).
A general observation should be made here. Cohesive relations are presuppositions and
cohesive items are anaphoric of some previous element or part of discourse.
Nevertheless, they can also be cataphoric, by referring forwards. Cataphoric relations are
also cohesive: they bind two parts of discourse together in a text.
6
2.3 Conjunction
As mentioned above, the conjunctive cohesive relation is expressed both through
grammatical and lexical means. Although conjunctions do not refer to specific items in
previous discourse, they express meanings that presuppose at least some previous
discourse (Halliday & Hasan ibid.:226). So, conjunction is a device "systematically
connecting what follows with what has gone before" (Halliday & Hasan ibid.:227).
Conjunctive relations usually occur between two adjacent sentences, but they can also
occur between a sentence and a longer stretch of previous discourse. Not all connectors
are cohesive. Cohesive effect exists when conjunctions relate parts of discourse that are
not connected through grammatical structure. Many conjunctions have in-sentence
structural equivalents, which differ in function. Below, in example (a) two propositions
are connected through various structural relations. In example (b) the same two
propositions are connected through the temporal conjunction afterwards:
(a) After they had fought a battle, it snowed.
(b) They fought a battle. Afterwards, it snowed.
(Halliday & Hasan ibid.:228)
Conjunctive relations can be either external or internal. External relations relate facts of
the real world while internal ones relate linguistic events, or arguments. As Hatim &
Mason (1990:207) put it, internal relations “hold between propositions in the text world”.
In the following examples, the temporal conjunction next is external in (a) but internal in
(b):
(a) Next he inserted the key into the lock.
(b) Next he was incapable of inserting the key into the lock.
Halliday and Hasan (ibid.:239)
Internal conjunctive relations have an element of interpersonal meaning. The speaker
makes his presence known by implying that what is being said is his own interpretation
of facts (Halliday & Hasan ibid.:240). Conjunction is a means of cohesion, which creates
7
text, both when speaking of events, and when speaking of the proper communication
process.
Four main relations are introduced under conjunction: additive, adversative, causal and
temporal, while a fifth category includes items called continuatives that do not belong
to any specific relation. In the following sections each conjunctive category is addressed
separately.
2.3.1 The additive type
The simple additive conjunctive relation includes and, or and nor. These three elements
are different in the context of the sentence but when used as conjunctions they have a
similar meaning and are used to add one part of discourse to another.
As noted above, not all instances of connectors are cohesive. The additive and is found
very often within the sentence, fulfilling a coordination function, but it can be also used
cohesively when it prefaces a sentence. Although placing an and after a full stop is often
considered a mistake, it is a normal use of the English language (Halliday & Hasan ibid:
234). The coordinating and, found within the sentence, has a different function. It often
links up a group of similar things (men, women and children) while the cohesive and can
link two completely different sentences making them parts of the same text (Halliday &
Hasan ibid: 235). The cohesive and is also differentiated by an element of emphasis that
it contains (Halliday & Hasan ibid: 238). When used externally, it connects extra
linguistic events to which the speaker refers. When used internally it can take the form of
a "seam in the discourse" meaning "there is something more to be said" (Halliday &
Hasan ibid: 245). Nevertheless, the distinction between external and internal use is not
always clear-cut.
Or can refer to different alternatives in the extra linguistic world, but can also propose
internally in the discourse "another possible explanation in the place of the one just
given" (Halliday and Hasan ibid: 246). Nor typifies the negative additive and can take
more explicit correlative forms, such as And....either.
8
Moving to more complex additive relations, certain additives are especially emphatic,
such as furthermore, also, not only that but etc. These can have a rhetorical effect,
whereby the speaker adds further support to a claim. For example:
My client says he does not know this witness. Further, he denies ever having seen her or
spoken to her.
Halliday and Hasan ibid.:246
Within the category of additive relations, Halliday & Hasan (ibid: 247-248) also include
comparative relations of similarity and contradistinction (where contradistinction borders
with the adversative type).
Finally, this category includes expository (that is) and exemplificatory (for example)
elements and a small category of items that are used to add a new sentence in the form of
an afterthought (by the way). An overview of items that can express the additive relation
follows:
Simple: and, or, nor
Complex-Emphatic: furthermore, also, not only that but
Comparative: in the same way, similarly, by contrast, on the other hand
Expository: that is, I mean, in other words
Exemplificatory: for example, for instance, thus
Afterthought: by the way
2.3.2 The adversative type
The simple adversative relation is expressed by the conjunction yet and its basic meaning
is "contrary to expectation" (Halliday & Hasan ibid.:250). There are other items
expressing more complex relations such as but, however, though etc. But has an additive
component, it contains an and as it were (that is why it is possible to say and yet but
never and but). However is emphatic while though is cohesive only when it occurs in a
separate sentence. The mainly additive conjunction and can also be adversative. For
example:
9
How queer everything is today! And yesterday things went on just as usual!
Halliday and Hasan (ibid.:252).
Within the adversative category, Halliday & Hasan (ibid.:252) distinguish between the
meanings 'despite' and 'as against'. They call the latter "contrastive". While yet means
'despite', but and however mean 'as against'.
All items discussed above, can have external uses, meaning “contrary to expectations
generated by external events”, or internal uses, meaning “contrary to expectations
stemming from the communication process”. For example, the statement But you make
no remark?, contrasts the absence of a response by the interlocutor with expectations
created by the current state of the communication (the information given etc.).
A purely internal adversative relation takes the form of an avowal and is expressed by
items such as: in fact, as a matter of fact or actually. It means "as against what has been
said until now". A similar relation is the corrective type including expressions such as by
contrast meaning that the previous statement is immediately contradicted. So, in fact
expresses a contradiction of expectations and by contrast dismisses a statement.
Finally, there is the dismissive adversative relation. This includes items such as at any
rate and often introduces a topic boundary. It means "leaving that aside, let's move on to
something else". An overview of the adversative conjunctive relations follows:
Proper (despite):
simple: yet, though, but
emphatic: however, nevertheless
Contrastive (as against):
simple: but, and
emphatic: however, on the other hand
avowal: in fact, actually
Corrective: instead, on the contrary, I mean
Dismissive: in either case, at any rate
10
2.3.3 The causal type
The causal type includes relations of result, reason and purpose. It is represented
generally by the item so (simple causal relation). Other items such as consequently,
because of that, as a result are more specific in expressing result, reason etc. The items of
the causal type very often occur combined with and.
Causal relations can also be used externally or internally, although the distinction is
fuzzier than in other relations, since by putting forward causes and results, the speaker
already expresses subjective judgements. Halliday & Hasan (ibid.257) consider that the
items thus, hence and therefore and expressions such as it follows that, we may conclude
that etc. have a strong internal behaviour.
Although the natural sequence of this relation is cause first and then result, the opposite is
also possible using the item for. However, this is a less frequent form of cohesion
pertaining above all to the written discourse.
Within the causal type of conjunctive relation conditional relations are also included.
Although in strict logic terms these two relations are different ("a therefore b" is not
exactly the same as "if a, then b") they are used interchangeably as means of cohesion.
The simple conditional relation is expressed by then, but there are other more emphatic
items such as in that case etc. Otherwise can be considered as the negative form of the
conditional type, meaning "under other circumstances" (Halliday & Hasan ibid.:259).
Some paraphrases, can also be taken here as conjunctions of this type, such as, precisely,
the phrase under other circumstances.
Halliday & Hasan also consider the internal equivalent of the conditional type, calling it
the respective type (in that respect etc.) and giving it the meaning "if we have now
reached this point in the discourse then..." (Halliday & Hasan ibid.:260). Otherwise is
again the negative version, meaning 'in other respects'. Otherwise can also mean "apart
from this" or "leaving that aside" and in that sense it borders with the temporal internal
relation ('we have already covered this point and we will move to the next'). An overview
of the causal conjunctive relations is provided below:
11
General
simple: so, thus, therefore
emphatic: consequently, because of this
Specific (reason, result, purpose): for this reason, as a result, for this purpose
Reversed: for, because
Conditional:
simple: then
emphatic: in that case, under those circumstances, otherwise
Respective: in this respect, otherwise
2.3.4 The temporal type
The simple temporal relation indicates sequence in time, and is represented primarily by
the item then. Similar expressions are next, afterwards etc. There are also more specific
relations of sequence meaning immediately (e.g. at once), after an interval (e.g. soon) etc.
Other than sequence, temporal conjunctions can express simultaneity or previous time
again in a simple (simultaneously, before) or more specific way (meanwhile, at this point
and five minutes earlier, just before).
Sequential items (then, next) signal sequence of events and can be found in a correlative
form (first…second…third). The correlative forms have a cataphoric effect, they refer
forwards. For instance, when one sees first, one expects some form of correlation later in
the text such as next or second. Conclusive items (finally, at last) are used to conclude a
series of external events or processes.
All temporal relations discussed until now are external. But there are of course internal
temporal relations. External and internal uses of temporal conjunctives are easily
distinguishable. In their external use they express sequence of extra-linguistic events and
in their internal use they express sequence of events in the communication process.
Thus, the sequential elements discussed above have internal uses, signalling the sequence
of stages in the process of discourse or enumerating the points in an argument, both in
their simple (next) and their correlative cataphoric form (firstly…secondly…). The
12
internal conclusive relation signals the end of the process of discourse and includes both
items such as finally and lastly, but also in conclusion, to sum up etc.
Another internal aspect of the temporal relation reinstates the current stage of the
communication with items such up to this point and here. When used externally these
items are not cohesive but deictic (e.g. here used to point to a particular point in space).
Finally, items that express resumption of the main point after a digression such as
anyway, to resume, to come back to the point, are also included in the temporal relation.
An overview of temporal conjunctions follows:
Simple (sequence, simultaneity etc.): then, next, at the same time, previously
Complex (sequence, simultaneity etc.): on a previous occasion, five minutes later etc.
Sequential:
Simple: then, next
Correlative: first of all, first…second…next, firstly…secondly…thirdly
Conclusive: at last, finally, to sum up, in conclusion
Here and now: here, hitherto
Resumptive: anyway, to resume, to come back to the point
2.3.5 The continuative type
The items of this category do not signal any kind of logical relation. They are used only
internally, to refer to the continuation of the discourse. From the six items examined by
Halliday & Hasan (ibid.), three were not found in the corpus with a cohesive function
(anyway2, surely and after all). The other three are explained below:
Now: When cohesive and not deictic3 now introduces "a new stage in the
communication" or "a new point in the argument" (Halliday and Hasan ibid.:268).
Of course: This item can express the belief that the listener should already know
something expressed by a previous sentence. It can also mean the speaker’s acceptance of
2 Note that anyway is also a resumptive temporal conjunction. In this respect, the continuative type borders
with the internal temporal one. 3 When deictic now means “at this point in time” and is not cohesive.
13
a fact. Most importantly, it can be used rhetorically to imply that everyone in the
audience should also accept the fact in question.
Well: This item is typically used at the beginning of an answer to a question. It can
express that the speaker is processing the answer. Often it is used precisely to generate
cohesion with the immediately preceding question, indicating that what follows is the
answer. In monologue, well "introduces an explanatory comment" (Halliday and Hasan
ibid.:269).
2.4 The usefulness of cohesion
Cohesion and coherence are often seen as connected but it is a generally accepted fact
that cohesion in itself cannot guarantee coherence (Shiffrin 1987:9, Dooley & Levinsohn
2001:33, Brown & Yule 1983:196). The latter is often dependent on less visible
interrelations between ideas and also the context and Halliday & Hasan (1976)
acknowledge this fact. However cohesion in many ways supports coherence and more
importantly fulfills a function of guidance towards readers and listeners. Cohesive
devices are "clues" that guide the listener by signalling underlying connections between
parts of discourse (Schiffrin 1987:9), thus enhancing listenability (Shlesinger 1995).
Conjunctions in particular are regarded as procedural clues or processing instructions
(Setton 1999:201) that tell the listener how to process a text, and are a source of
efficiency and more economic processing (de Beaugrande & Dressler 1981:54). It has
been often recognized that conjunctions are devoid of propositional meaning (Green
1990, Setton 1999, Chernov 2004) and that they are not an obligation in language (de
Beaugrande & Dressler 1981:54). This is another way to say that conjunctions do not
directly encode experiential and interpersonal meaning. Nevertheless, if used effectively
these processing instructions can make a valuable contribution making a speech or
written text more accessible to its audience.
Because of its usefulness, cohesion has drawn the attention of many scholars in
translation and interpreting studies (Newmark 1987, Hatim & Mason 1990 and 1997,
Baker 1992, Shlesinger 1995).
14
3. Interpreting
3.1 Introduction
In the previous section the theory of cohesion was described. A special focus was put on
conjunction as a cohesive device. In this section, the object of study is first defined. Then
relevant literature on cohesion in interpreting is reviewed. Finally, the interpreting
process and practice as well as the European Parliament as a workplace are examined.
3.2 Definition
Pöchhacker’s (2004) provides the following definition of interpreting:
"Interpreting is a form of Translation in which a first and final rendition in another
language is produced on the basis of a one-time presentation of an utterance in a source
language."
(Pöchhacker 2004:11)
Further specifications of the object of study may also be made following Pöchhacker's
(ibid.:17-19) typology. This dissertation is concerned with international conference
interpreting as opposed to dialogue interpreting practiced in the community (mainly in
courts and healthcare settings). The working mode under examination is simultaneous
mode, as opposed to consecutive. While the latter involves note-taking and consecutive
rendition of speech, the former involves simultaneous rendition from sound-proof booths
and using electro-acoustic transmission equipment (headsets, control consoles and
microphones) (Setton 1999:1).
Interpreting is a multi-faceted object of study and has been approached from the point of
view of many different disciplines (linguistics, neural, cognitive and social sciences)
leading to the diverse scientific field of Interpreting Studies. An important research
15
tradition within the field engages in discourse analysis of interpreted texts and includes
studies on cohesion.
3.3 Previous research on cohesion in interpreting
On the whole, studies purely on cohesion (excluding coherence or other components) in
simultaneous interpreting are not many. Even fewer are the studies focusing particularly
on conjunction as a cohesive device. In this section, Shlesinger (1995) will be explained
in detail, because it served as a starting point for this dissertation, and a source of the
hypothesis under examination. Afterwards, other relevant studies will be addressed more
briefly.
3.3.1 Shlesinger (1995)
As noted in the introduction Shlesinger (ibid.) devised an experiment to investigate shifts
in cohesion. Three constraints of the interpreting process are defined beforehand: Time,
Linearity and Unshared knowledge. Firstly, the time constraint reflects the fact that the
interpreters’ speech is built on the original, in an on-line process, and interpreters cannot
control the pace (cf. Hatim and Mason 1997:53). The linearity constraint means that the
interpreter lacks the bigger picture of the text including necessary information for its
processing. Thirdly, the unshared knowledge constraint means that the interpreter lacks
certain knowledge that speakers may assume from their audience.
For the experiment thirteen students interpreted from English into Hebrew. Several
cohesive ties from each category (reference, substitution, ellipsis etc.) were chosen at
random from the source text and were compared to the target texts. Shifts were found to
occur in all categories of cohesion. Amongst other findings, it was reported that more
cohesive devices are omitted towards the beginning of the speech possibly because at that
point the interpreter is less attuned to the context. In addition, sentence-final cohesive ties
were often omitted. Shlesinger (ibid.) also found that certain cohesive devices were
expressed in a more explicit way. For example substitution was turned into repetition.
Blum-Kulka (1986) had already proposed the explicitation of cohesive ties as a universal
16
feature of translated texts. Based on her findings and previous research Shlesinger (ibid.)
extends this hypothesis to interpreting.
Shlesinger discusses the tendency displayed by interpreters to focus on more informative
elements, omitting seemingly redundant ones, including certain types of conjunction.
Based on a limited group of conjunctive items (anyway, okay4, indeed, at that time, also,
because, so) she reports that additive and causal conjunctions are often retained while
resumptive5, emphatic and temporal conjunctions are often omitted as redundant.
Shlesinger (ibid.) points out that some conjunctions can appear less important than others
to interpreters. In addition she discerns that certain conjunctive relations are more
“easily retrievable from the immediate context” than others. So the causal and additive
relations are maybe more easily inferable from their immediately surrounding discourse,
and thus more accessible to interpreters.
3.3.2 Other studies on cohesion in interpreting
Generally, research on cohesion in interpreting studies is of a fragmentary nature. It
presents a variety of language-pairs and methodologies. Cohesive devices have been
studied together or separately for their cohesive effect, their pragmatic function or as an
index of universal characteristics of interpreted texts.
Certain studies have focused specifically on cohesive devices other than conjunction, so
their relevance for the present dissertation is limited. Pöchhacker (1994) reports a
replication of Shlesinger’s (1995) experiment by Mizuno (1999) from English into
Japanese, focusing on reference and ellipsis. Also, Beaton's (2007) doctoral thesis on
simultaneous interpreting for the European Parliament studies lexical repetition for
4 Okay in Shlesinger’s (1995) corpus was used as a resumptive conjunction, signaling resumption of the
main topic. 5 Resumptive conjunctions are a subcategory of the temporal relation. They signal resumption after a
digression (Halliday & Hasan 1976:265). See also Chapter 2.
17
ideology while Monacelli (2006) studies personal reference to find a de-personalising
distancing effect in interpreting.6
Müller (1997) conducted an experimental study with trainees and one professional
interpreter (English into Czech and Slovak). Confirming Shlesinger (1995), he reported
shifts in cohesion. No difference between the trainees and the professional interpreter
were found, suggesting that professionals and trainees may treat cohesive devices in
similar ways. One adversative (but), one additive (also) and two causal (therefore,
because) conjunctions were used in the study and these were retained in most cases.
Gallina (1992) studied cohesive devices only in source texts (EP speeches) stressing the
importance of the functional concept of cohesion for simultaneous interpreters. After
investigating the kinds of cohesion found in English and Italian EP speeches, she reports
a limited use of conjunctions. Especially causal and temporal items were scarce in
English. Gallina (ibid.) stresses the importance of this cohesive device for the
development of arguments by MEPs.
Hale (1999) deals with certain continuative conjunctions (well, now) in a study on the
omission of discourse markers by consecutive court interpreters from English into
Spanish. She reports almost complete omission of both well and now. In court questions
these items had various functions such as to control the flow of information and of the
narrative (now) or to express disagreement (well). Certainly, the context and object of
study (consecutive interpreting) in Hale (1999) are very different from those of the
present dissertation. However, the omission of these items by court interpreters - although
working in consecutive mode, without the heavy constraints associated with simultaneous
interpreting - is a relevant finding. Hale (1999) comments that these seemingly redundant
items can “disappear in the mental filtering process”. She also proposes the absence of
“equivalents” in Spanish as another reason for their omission.
Cohesive devices are also part of the discussion on the universal characteristics of
interpreting. They were used to study the “equalizing universal” according to which
6 There is also a study by Karim Sha’bani (2008) on English-Persian simultaneous interpreting. This study
was not reached due to problems connected to inter-library cooperation.
18
simultaneous interpreting has a leveling effect on both orality and literacy, in an MA
thesis by Shlesinger (Pym 2007). The use of cohesive devices was indicative of orality
and literacy. In dense prepared speeches cohesive clues are more frequent because these
speeches are more complete and self-contained. On the contrary impromptu speeches rely
more on the context and are less bound together by explicit cohesive relations. However,
no information is given by Pym (2007) regarding which types of cohesive ties were
examined in the study.
Interpreting was found to turn literal texts more oral. The opposite effect, namely that
interpreting turns oral texts more literate, was only partly supported by the findings. Pym
(2007) supports the view that this second part of the hypothesis should be dismissed,
claiming that interpreting as an oral task always gravitates towards a more oral style.
However, the hypothesized equalizing universal as a whole, or the leveling effect of
interpreting on orality and literacy, should be born in mind. Certain cohesive
conjunctions are associated to prepared or oral language. If interpreting has a leveling
effect on these features of speeches, this could possibly entail the omission of certain
cohesive conjunctions linked to the one or the other extreme of the continuum.
Cohesive links are discussed by Blum-Kulka (1989) as part of the explicitation
hypothesis for translated texts. Blum-Kulka observes that translators tend to make
cohesive links more explicit in targets in comparison to the source. Although this is
sometimes attributable to "stylistic preferences" of the languages involved, a general
tendency to explicitate is observed and explicitation of cohesive ties is postulated as a
translation universal. Later it was proposed as an interpreting universal by Shlesinger
(1995) mainly for the cohesive category of substitution.
Because of the above mentioned “stylistic preferences” of each language regarding the
way it uses cohesive devices, it can be difficult to discern whether explicitation is due to
the process of interpreting or to language-specific factors. On the language-pair under
examination (English-Greek), Torsello et al. (1997) reports a study by Sidiropoulou
(1995) that found a trend of explicitation of causal links in English-Greek translation of
news articles. Translators retained all causal links (including cohesive conjunctions) in
19
the target and explicitated implicit ones. The proposed explanation was that Greek
audiences are more skeptical towards the author’s claims, so translators chose to logically
connect them with what had gone before. According to Torsello et al. (1997), this finding
may be of interest to Greek interpreters.
3.4 The process of interpreting: the efforts model
Gile’s (1995:159-178) efforts model describes interpreting as the sum of three competing
cognitive processes, referred to as "efforts". The listening and comprehension of
discourse (comprehension effort) overlaps with speech production (production effort) and
with short-term memory processing (memory effort). These processes cannot become
automated, since they are complex and involve inferencing. The lack of automation
means that they take up a part of the interpreter’s limited processing capacity. A fourth
effort is employed to coordinate the work of the remaining three (coordination effort).
Simultaneous interpreting is essentially represented by the following equation:
Total Processing Capacity = Listening + Production + Memory + Coordination
The total processing capacity of a practitioner must cover all four efforts in a
simultaneous way. In case their sum exceeds available processing capacity, saturation
may occur. Processing overload is often linked to the difficulties of the original speech
and sometimes to inefficient management of different efforts by the interpreter.
Difficulties of the original speech cited by Gile (ibid.:153) mainly include high speed of
delivery and read mode of delivery (as against impromptu) (cf Vuorikoski 2004). Read
speeches tend to display dense formulation and high information density including lists of
elements, numbers, names and technical terms. The obvious delicacy of the interpreting
task can lead to reductions in interpreting quality even when it comes to experienced
professionals (Gile 1995:159).
20
3.5 Interpreting practice
The severe constraints captured by the efforts model of simultaneous interpreting require
the mastering of a series of techniques. These coping strategies and tactics are acquired
through training and professional practice.
First of all, interpreters learn to control their ear-voice span. This term refers to the
"distance" (Van Dam 1989) or time lag between the interpreter and the speaker that must
remain optimal so as to avoid overloading short-term memory or jeopardise following
segments of speech. In order to do this, interpreters must know how to anticipate both the
message and the syntax of speeches. Interpreters also learn to abstract only essential
information from a segment of speech and convey it in a simple way (Van Dam 1989).
Interpreters may reformulate, simplify, generalise or omit information (Jones 1998, Gile
1995, Van Dam 1989).
Gile (1995:201) notes that certain laws define the selection of techniques used in
simultaneous interpreting. In order to prevent failure caused by cognitive contraints,
interpreters try to convey all information (information recovery law) only to the extent
that this does not jeopardise following segments (law of minimizing interference).
Interpreters will apply all the necessary techniques in order to obey to these laws.
Depending on the duress of the situation or the fluctuations of their available processing
capacity, interpreters will make a wider or more limited use of the omission technique,
trying to reformulate or abstract information first.
These strategies of omission and compression reflect the primacy of meaning over form
that has been proposed as a norm in conference interpreting (Shlesinger 2000). The term
norm is used here to describe rules that in specific socio-professional contexts govern the
process and production of interpreting (Duflou 2007). In particular when it comes to
conjunctions, professional simultaneous EU interpreter and trainer Jones (1998:106) has
explicitly expressed that interpreters should omit “useless filler words” including actually
and well except when used with their “primary sense” (e.g. well as an adjective). He also
notes that these should only be used to “fill-in the silence” created by “desperately slow
speakers”, and even then with caution. All this means that certain continuative
21
conjunctions (well) are likely to be omitted in the present corpus. Their omission can be
seen as part of the norms prevailing in international conference interpreting, possibly
because of the duress under which those interpreters work (strict speaking times, dense
prepared speeches, long working hours). This said, Shlesinger (2000) stresses the fact
that it is not always clear which compressions or omissions are due to pure cognitive
limitations (processing overload) or to conscious or internalised use of technique (norm).
3.6 Interpreting for the European Parliament
The European Union supports linguistic equality and adopts every member state’s
language as an official language. It currently has 23 official languages, including Greek.
All members of the European Parliament (MEPs) reserve the right to speak in Parliament
in any official language and speeches must be simultaneously interpreted into all other
official languages7 . In order to make debates open to the public, an audiovisual record of
the conferences is published online along with audio archives from all interpreting
booths8. Verbatim reports of the debates are also published online and are gradually
updated with all the necessary translations.
The present corpus of speeches is entirely drawn from the Plenary sessions of the
parliament. “Plenary” is one type of meeting taking place in the Parliament. This session
receives full interpreting coverage (as opposed to smaller group sessions where
interpreting in all languages may not always be provided). In Plenary Sessions many
different kinds of discussion take place such as “debate”, “question time”, “order of
business” etc. The “debate” kind is an important one and addresses all the major subjects
of policy, finance, justice and so on. In general, in discussions speakers alternate and
present their views on a subject and each discussion can be seen as a form of hypertext
(Garzone 2000), including all the speaker’s interventions.
Interpreters work into their mother tongue, with a few exceptions. While an effort is
made to guarantee direct interpreting from one language to another, all combinations
7 Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rule 146 on languages.
8 Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rule 182 on the audiovisual record of proceedings.
22
(506 in total) cannot be accommodated at all times, and relay interpreting may be used.
This constitutes interpreting via a third language, called a pivot language. Speaking times
are strictly observed (up to five minutes but often one minute per speaker), a fact that
often leads to an increase in speaking pace or information density, imposing duress on
interpreters (cf. Vuorikoski 2004:79). Indeed high speed and prepared written speeches
were found to be the greatest difficulties faced by EP interpreters (Vuorikoski 2004).
Also according to Vuorikoski (2004:86) interpreters may work for seven hours per day
with a minimum break of one and a half hours. These working hours can be considered
long, given the intellectual effort required by the interpreting task.
The European Union is the largest employer of interpreters in the world. Only the EP
currently employs 430 staff interpreters and cooperates with another 2500 EU-accredited
freelance interpreters. The European Parliament's Directorate-General for Interpretation
and Conferences is the service responsible for allocating human resources to conferences.
All EU interpreters have received formal training and/or have extensive professional
experience on contract. In addition, to be hired, interpreters have to go through a rigorous
examination and prove their skills. The Directorate General for Interpretation is the
service responsible for managing human resources and all issues relating to interpreting
in the EU.
23
4. Methodologies
4.1 Introduction
A parallel corpus of speeches and interpretations was compiled using data available on
the website of the European Parliament. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses of
conjunctions were combined in order to give the most appropriate answer to the research
question. All important aspects of the data selected and the method of analysis are
explained in this third chapter.
4.2 Data collection
On the website of the Parliament, in the EP Live section, an interface enables users to
watch plenary sessions amongst other sittings, and listen either to the original speech or
to its interpretation in the language of their preference. One can search for speeches by
plenary session, date, speaker or keyword. In addition, in another section of the website
users can find verbatim reports of the debates, that is transcripts of all the speeches in the
source language, while translations in the other official languages are added gradually.
Using the two sections combined, transcriptions of English original speeches and their
Greek interpretations were drawn to make up the corpus of speeches studied in this
dissertation.
Because the inclusion of many different speakers and styles was desired, first a survey
was done through the "search by speaker" tool in order to identify trends of speaking
styles amongst British MEPs. During the survey many English speeches were transcribed
directly from the audiovisual version. Towards the end of this process, having a
reasonably clear idea of the different speakers and styles, transcripts of English speeches
were also drawn directly from the verbatim reports to facilitate the time-consuming
process of transcription that is associated with the compilation of interpreting corpora.
Nevertheless, these reports were always used in conjunction with the audiovisual
24
material, to ensure the two matched. As Shlesinger (2008) has warned transcripts
produced for other purposes than research, are often corrected and several words are
omitted. All omitted items were reintroduced for the purposes of this dissertation. Greek
interpretations of the speeches were all transcribed directly from the audiovisual material.
An important point to be made is that the interface does not allow to distinguish between
direct and relay interpreting, a practice often used in international conferences. Relay is
simultaneous interpreting that is not done directly from the source speech but from
another interpretation. It serves the situation where a specific language combination
cannot be accommodated by any one member of the interpreter staff present in the
conference. In that case several interpreters are combined to achieve the end result. Data
resulting from relay could invalidate the results of this study as it aims to investigate
cohesion in a specific language pair. Entering into contact with the Directorate General
for Interpretation helped establish that interpretations for this language-pair can be
guaranteed to be direct to a conveniently high degree. In fact, a very high percentage
(96%) of Greek interpreters in the Parliament has English amongst their working
languages. Thus, British speakers are most probably interpreted into Greek directly.
Punctuation in transcripts was approximated on the basis of intonation following
Shlesinger (1995). However, intonational emphases, pauses, hesitations and repairs were
not made overt in transcripts as they exceed the scope of the present study.
4.3 The corpus
The corpus for this study is made up of 30 original speeches given by British MEPs in the
Plenary sessions of the European Parliament from 2009 to 2011, and their respective
interpretations into Greek. The vast majority of the corpus is taken from the “debate”
kind of discussion. A unique exception is one speech taken from the discussion called
“order of business” on the procedures and formalities of the Parliament9. A certain degree
of homogeneity is guaranteed by the fact that EP conferences display consistently the
same procedures, topics and text types (Bendazzoli & Sandrelli 2005).
9 Speech No 22 (Appendix 1 and 2).
25
The speeches selection aimed to cover a variety of speakers. Since a speaker's style can
affect the selection of conjunctions used (Dooley & Levinsohn 2001:12) it was deemed
appropriate to cover many different styles so as to capture different conjunctions in this
genre. However, each speaker has different habits in terms of mode of delivery
(impromptu, read) as well as speed. Mode of delivery and speed are the two factors that
mostly affect interpreting quality (Vuorikoski 2004). For this reason the corpus was
annotated for speed and type of delivery and these features were taken into account in the
analysis. Generally, an effort was made for the corpus to be representative of the overall
material (British MEP speeches) in terms of all the different variables (style, delivery,
speed). In other words, the intention was to construct a smaller picture of the material
available. However, it must be said that the method of selection has the shortcoming of
being intuitive to some extent. Only native British MEPs were included in the study,
since foreign accents could theoretically affect the use of cohesive devices, but also
constitute an additional difficulty for the interpreter. Varying British accents were
included.
The total length of the corpus in words is 7,605 and the average text length is 253 words,
with the length of the shortest speech being 122 words and the length of the longest being
465 words. The percentages of the different speeds and deliveries in the corpus (source
speeches) are shown in table 1 and 2 below.
Mode of delivery In corpus
Read 31%
Impromptu 10%
Mixed 59%
Table 1: Modes of delivery in the corpus
Speed in words per minute In corpus
High (>170 wpm) 35%
Slow (<130 wpm) 7%
Medium (130-170 wpm) 58%
Table 2: Speeds of delivery in the corpus
26
The categories of delivery and speed for the annotation were taken from the search
interface of the EPIC corpora10
.
4.4 Conjunctions
In line with the research question, this dissertation tries to identify whether certain
cohesive conjunctions are omitted more than others, and which kinds of conjunctive
relations (additive, adversative etc.) receive the least attention, assessing the reasons of
omission. Also, this dissertation looks at added conjunctions.
The first step taken was to find all inter-sentential cohesive conjunctions in the source
texts. As mentioned above, sentence limits were defined on the basis of intonation. So,
only those conjunctions that ensured cohesion among sentences or longer stretches of text
were counted. Conjunctions within the sentence (presupposing another part of the same
sentence) were not taken into account. This decision was made on the basis of the
theoretical framework. Halliday & Hasan (1976) note that cohesive devices within the
sentence do not have a strong cohesive effect, since continuity is also ensured by
grammatical structure. Nevertheless, the presence of grammatical structure is a matter of
degree, and selecting only conjunctions relating two different sentences is a rather
artificial distinction11
. The main shortcoming is that it rules out certain conjunctions
within the sentence which potentially had a cohesive effect for the text. However, this
difficult decision was made to avoid too many subjective judgments as to the limits of the
sentences or the cohesiveness of the conjunctions. The sample of conjunctions gathered
was sufficient, also taking into account the scope of this study. The first stage of the
analysis was qualitative because it required an assessment of the cohesive effect of the
conjunctions, of the parts of discourse they presupposed, of their function and meaning in
the text.
10
EPIC is a research project developed by the University of Bologna. EP speeches and interpretations in
three languages (Italian, Spanish, and English) are transcribed and used in the compilation of various
comparable and parallel corpora. 11
Halliday & Hasan (1976:233) acknowledge this fact. For spoken texts they propose the solution of
starting a new sentence whenever there is no structural connection with previous segments of discourse.
27
In a second step, a joint examination of sources and targets allowed to quantify
retainments and omissions of the conjunctions in question. Also in certain cases
conjunctions were converted into another kind of relation (e.g. additive into causal) or the
whole sentence containing them was omitted. It is useful to note that when two
conjunctions occurred next to each other, they were counted separately. A second
examination of the targets, allowed finding out whether interpreters had added
conjunctions and to which relation these belonged. Again only the conjunctions that were
added between two separate sentences of the original were counted.
After identifying the items that were omitted in more than 30 % of their instances further
observation was carried out in order to identify possible causes. Speed and mode of
delivery of the original texts to which the omitted conjunctions belonged were taken into
account. Other difficulties of the original, cognitive limitations (indicated by other
omissions or distortions) and linguistic differences were also taken into account. Lastly,
the perception of conjunctions by interpreters as significant or insignificant according to
their contribution to the informational content of texts was assessed and discussed.
28
5. Analysis
5.1 Introduction
In this fifth chapter each category of conjunction in Halliday & Hasan's (1976) theory is
discussed in turn. For each category, instances are categorised according to the
interpreting solution given: retainment, omission, conversion in another category of
conjunctive relation and omission of the whole sentence containing the conjunction. A
general discussion of the figures is followed by examples of the most frequently omitted
conjunctive items. Possible reasons for the omissions are discussed. Additions of
conjunctive items are discussed at the end.
5.2 Additive Conjunctions
Additive conjunctions are used to add one part of discourse to another, ensuring
continuity. The items and and also make up the majority of additives found in the corpus.
Indeed is an item not referred to by Halliday & Hasan (ibid.) but that has a cohesive
effect and Shlesinger (1995) classifies it as "emphatic". Nevertheless, in Halliday &
Hasan’s (ibid.) framework, “emphatic” is a subcategory of all three additives, causals and
adversatives and it is not clear where Shesinger places it. Here it was decided to classify
this item amongst the additives, because of its perceived function to emphatically add a
new point in the argument. Very few other items (for example, furthermore, similarly)
were found in the corpus12
. Table 3 below, summarizes the treatment of the additive
conjunctions:
12
The items for example and for instance are grouped together as one item.
29
Item Retained Omitted Converted Sent. omitted
And(39) 20 15 2 2
Also(18) 12 5 0 1
Indeed(6) 2 3 1 0
For example(4) 1 3 0 0
Furthermore(1) 0 1 0 0
Similarly(1) 0 1 0 0
Total(70) 35 29 3 3
Table 3: Additive conjunctions
From a total of seventy inter-sentential additive links, thirty-five (50%) were retained,
twenty-nine (41%) were omitted and six (9%) were converted into a different kind of
conjunctive relation or were used to introduce sentences that were omitted all together.
Overall results suggest that the additive relation can undergo important changes.
As can be seen and is the most frequent additive conjunction in the corpus. It was omitted
in 38% of the cases, and in two cases it was converted into another category of
conjunctive relation (causal and adversative respectively). Shlesinger's suggestion that
the additive relation is often retained is based on her examination of the conjunction also.
Ιndeed, also was omitted in 10% less cases than and. A possible explanation is that
according to Halliday & Hasan (1976), also is emphatic. The need to signal the emphasis
is maybe why also was retained more often, proportionally, than and. Turning to indeed,
Shlesinger (1995) found that this item is often omitted as insignificant. Few as they may
be, instances found in the present corpus seem to lend further support to this assertion
since half of them were omitted. A similar treatment seemed to be the case for the item
for example, when this was used as an inter-sentential link. Furthermore and similarly,
were too rare to draw comparisons between retainments and omissions.
5.2.1 And
And was in most cases used internally, signalling that another proposition was being
added. Its omission can be seen as a drop in the level of cohesion leading to texts that
hang together less closely. For example:
30
(a)
And there I cannot accept the Commissioner's point of view that we should keep the two
matters separate...
Αυτά τα δύο πράγματα δεν μπορούμε να τα διαχωρίσουμε...
[These two things we cannot separate them...]
(b)
And indeed it's a shame...
Κρίμα, κρίμα...
[It's a shame, a shame...]
(c)
And I do so because you yourself President at the outset of this meeting described...
Εσείς στην αρχή αυτής της συνεδρίας είπατε...
[You at the beginning of this session said...]
It is possible that interpreters omit and by conscious decision since it is a relation that can
be easily deduced by listeners. When a speaker utters a new sentence, listeners easily
assume that this sentence is added to the previous discourse. For this reason, the and
relation is often implicit (Hatim & Mason 1990:208). However, and cannot be considered
entirely superfluous. Stylistic preferences of the Greek language, in comparison to the
English language, towards the use of and at the beginning of the sentence, as a cohesive
device, could add clarity to the explanation. It has been recognized that the appropriate
level of explicitness in conjunctions varies across languages (Hatim & Mason 1990:207),
but such a comparison between Greek and English is not as yet investigated in depth.
The omission of and can be dictated to various degrees by the constraints of the
interpreting process. Overall, no correlation was observed between speed of input or
mode of delivery and the omission of and. Rather, and was omitted equally under all
circumstances. However, the inherent constraints of the task, and especially the time and
linearity constraints proposed by Shlesinger (1995), can make interpreters abstract and
convey only essential information in speeches. Also, according to Gile (1995),
31
interpreters will try render as much of the message as possible, while trying not to miss
forthcoming segments of speech. This can lead to omissions not only of and but also of
other elements. In example (a), a segment expressing contrast with the Commissioner’s
opinion, along with another conjunction (there13
), are omitted. This might suggest that
the interpreter was trying to save time, or that another kind of saturation of his processing
capacity took place, limiting his listening or comprehension of the source speech. Also
(c) deserves mention, where along with and another cohesive tie is omitted: the
substitution I do so14
referring to the previous sentence, leading to further reductions in
cohesion.
5.2.2 Indeed
This item has an internal use: it emphatically adds a new point. Both example (b) in the
previous sub-section and (d) in this sub-section show its omission. In both cases a link
between sentences is lost:
(d)
We are all aware that the importance of bees to pollination is absolutely crucial to
agriculture and food production. Indeed without them there is no food production.
Όλοι γνωρίζουμε τη συμμετοχή των μελισσών στην επικονίαση, ζωτικό θέμα για την
παραγωγή τροφίμων. Χωρίς την επικονίαση δεν υπάρχει παραγωγή τροφίμων.
[We all know the bees’ participation in pollination, a vital subject for food production.
Without pollination there is no food production.]
It seems that there is not in Greek an expression strictly "equivalent" to indeed and this is
maybe a reason for its omission. The term equivalent is used here to refer to "a readily
accessible one-to-one" solution (Shlesinger 2000:8) with similar use in the target
language. Although this item is normally translated as όντως or πραγματι (it is true
that…) it is not clear if these solutions are used with the same frequency and if they
would be appropriate to translate indeed in the instances examined. Baker (1992:192)
13
There was classified as a temporal conjunction meaning “at this point in the discourse”, in the same way
as the item here (Halliday & Hasan 1976:264, see also chapter 2). 14
The item so substitutes for a clause from a previous sentence.
32
notes that the frequency and use of conjunctions varies considerably from language to
language.
When retained by interpreters, indeed was transferred as μάλιστα, which is an equivalent
of another emphatic additive conjunction with slightly different meaning: not only that
but. On the whole, linguistic differences must be taken into account for this item. Note
that in example (b), the repetition of the word "shame" is possibly used to add some of
the lost emphasis. This repetition did not cost the interpreter the time or effort that the
translation of indeed in an appropriate way would have cost them.
However, it is true that indeed was not decisive for the transmission of the main
information, a fact that maybe contributed to its omission, as suggested by Shlesinger
(1995). Interpreters have possibly perceived this item as redundant and concentrated on
more informative elements.
5.2.3 For example
Example (e) shows the omission of for example, used to show that the sentence is an
exemplification of the previous one:
(e)
The European research council for example has done much to support individual
scientists.
Το ευρωπαϊκό συμβούλιο έχει κάνει πάρα πολλά πράγματα για την υποστήριξη
επιστημόνων.
[The European council has done many things to support scientists.]
Although few occurrences of this item were found, some observations may be made. All
omissions of for example took place when this was not found in an initial position in the
sentence. In addition, it was retained when found at the very beginning of the sentence.
So the position at the beginning or later in the sentence might be important for this
particular item, especially when Shlesinger (1995) observes frequent omissions of
sentence-final cohesive ties in interpreting.
33
5.3 Adversative conjunctions
Adversative conjunctions express contradiction to expectations created by previous
segments of discourse, thus creating a link between the sentence they are found in and
those previous segments. Many different items were found in the corpus, but the three
most frequent items were but, however and actually. Note that the last item of the table is
and, but here in its adversative sense (Chapter 2).
Item Retained Omitted Converted Missing sent.
But(16) 9 5 1 1
However(7) 6 1 0 0
Actually(6) 2 3 1 0
Nevertheless(3) 2 1 0 0
Yet(2) 2 0 0 0
Instead(2) 1 1 0 0
This said(2) 1 0 1 0
All the same(1) 1 0 0 0
And(1) 1 0 0 0
Total(40) 25 11 3 1
Table 4: Adversative conjunctions
Overall results show a less important trend of omissions in adversative conjunctions,
since eleven out of forty instances were omitted (27%). Four items were converted in a
different category while one introduced a sentence which was omitted all together. This
category of conjunctive relation is not examined by Shlesinger (1995). However, it can
be suggested that this relation is perceived as important by interpreters, maybe because its
omission could entail drastic changes to the logical structure of the argument.
While however was omitted only in 13% of cases, but was omitted in 31% of cases. The
more consistent retainment of however might be due to its emphatic character. Actually
was omitted in half of its instances and converted into a causal conjunction once. The rest
of the items occurred rarely in the corpus. The omission of but and actually are dealt with
in the two following subsections.
34
5.3.1 But
The analysis focuses on items omitted in more than 30% of their instances. But was close
to the limit (31%). The causes of omission were investigated and it was found that but
was omitted under all speeds and types of delivery. As Halliday & Hasan (1976) note, but
has an additive component: it contains an and. This is why and and but are never
combined together. It is possible that its more subtle adversative sense is perceived as
less important than that of other adversatives, especially some emphatics (however,
nevertheless). This said, but is a very common adversative item and its omission runs
contrary to the overall treatment of this category in the corpus. In the following example
the contradiction linking the two sentences is made implicit in the target:
(a)
We import 60% of our sea food needs…But in Europe we had the perfect environment for
fish farming…
Εισάγουμε παραπάνω από το 60% των αναγκών μας…Στην Ευρώπη έχουμε ένα εξαιρετικό
περιβάλλον για ιχθυοκαλλιέργεια…
[We import over 60% of our needs…In Europe we have an exceptional environment for fish
farming…]
5.3.2 Actually
Actually was omitted three out of six times and was converted into a causal link once.
Halliday & Hasan (1976) classify this item as adversative of the avowal type, along with
items such as in fact, as a matter of fact etc. It refers internally to the discourse rather
than to external events. In the corpus examined, it was used to introduce sentences in the
form of revelations, contrary to expectations set by previous sentences, previous speakers
or even a general belief that is pervasive in the debates on a particular subject. In this
respect, actually had a distinctive cohesive effect that wasn’t always easy to recognise
and classify as such, especially because the presupposed discourse was not always to be
found in the speech examined, but in the hypertext of the overall debate. In the following
example, a speaker on toy safety is making the claim that, contrary to expectations
35
generated by the discussion, the issue of marking the toys is not the most effective way to
make toys safe. He states:
(b)
It's not actually going to be about marking.
Το θέμα δεν είναι μόνο η σήμανση...
[It's not only about marking...]
The speaker proposes other solutions (such as the exchange of information with Chinese,
and other manufacturers). His whole speech is built on this contradiction. So, actually
acquires the meaning “as it is made clear from my speech and contrary to what you might
be led to believe from other speeches”. Indeed, the meaning of actually in EP speeches
was often very dense: it reiterated and summed up the main argument.
In other cases actually had a more local cohesive effect. In (c), a speaker comments upon
the falling value of the produce of British farmers, contrary to expectations generated by
the fact that “prices are rising” (previous sentence). The contradiction is expressed
already in the first sentence structurally by whilst. In the second sentence actually
reiterates it and sums it up:
(c)
Whilst food prices are undoubtedly rising, the situation of the farm gain is very different.
British farmers producing beef, sheep meat, pig meat and eggs have actually seen a drop
in the value of their produce…
Οι τιμές όντως αυξάνονται. Ωστόσο οι κατάσταση από περιοχή σε περιοχή είναι
διαφορετική. Στη Βρετανία, οι παραγωγοί αιγείου, πρόβειου, χοίριου κρέατος έχουν δει
να πέφτουν οι τιμές τους…
[Prices are indeed rising. However, the situation differs from region to region. In
Britain, goat, sheep, pig meat producers have seen a drop in their prices…]
36
Actually did not seem to be affected by speed or type of delivery. This item is an element
very specific to the English language. As such, it is difficult not to be filtered out in the
interpreting process, especially given the heavy constraints.
In (b) the adversative effect of actually was not expressed in Greek, but the item was
substituted by only. A possible solution could be the temporal τελικά. This item literally
means finally but approximates the meaning of in fact and could possibly express the
adversative component of actually in this context.
In (c), the contradiction is reproduced the first time with “however” (corresponding to the
English whilst) but it is not reinstated in the following sentence. In this second example,
an alteration of the basic meaning of the utterances is also observed. The speaker says
“while prices are rising, farm gain is falling”, and the interpreter says “while prices are
rising elsewhere, in Britain they are falling”. This alteration suggests that competing
cognitive efforts were not in balance at the time and it is not surprising that the interpreter
did not dispose time or processing capacity to render actually. At the same time, this
extract is found at the very beginning of the speech. Shlesinger (1995) reports that more
cohesive devices are omitted towards the beginning of texts, because the interpreter has
not yet adjusted to the context. Indeed, the linearity constraint limited the interpreter’s
perception of the main argument. The reproduction of the argument’s elements, including
the conjunction, was hindered.
Finally and generally speaking, actually is an item that could be considered redundant by
interpreters, because it contributes poorly to informative content. It reinstates a
contradiction that is pervasive in a speech, and one way or another will be made clear.
Jones (1998:106) includes it in his collection of useless “filler words” that should be
omitted in interpreting.
5.4 Causal conjunctions
The causal conjunctive relations can express cause, effect and purpose. Gallina (1992)
reported limited use of this relation in English EP speeches, something that was
confirmed by the present corpus. So and therefore were the most frequent causal items.
37
The rest of the items found (because, that's why) displayed fairly low occurrences. Table
5 shows retained, omitted or otherwise shifted causals.
Item Retained Omitted Converted Missing sent.
So (11) 7 3 0 1
Therefore (4) 3 1 0 0
Because (3) 1 1 1 0
That's why (2) 1 1 0 0
Then (1) 1 0 0 0
Otherwise (1) 1 0 0 0
Total (22) 14 6 1 1
Table 5: Causal conjunctions
Overall, 27 % of the causal conjunctive items were omitted. So was omitted in 27% of
cases. Therefore was retained in all cases except one (25% omitted). No major omissions
were observed in this category. Also a pattern was observed with regard to additions of
causal conjunctions, dealt with in the last section of the analysis.
As Shlesinger (1995) points out, this relation is maybe perceived as an important
contribution to the informative content of texts, or it is more easily discerned from the
surrounding sentences. The present analysis seems to support this claim.
5.5 Temporal conjunctions
Temporal conjunctions connect sentences with the relation of time sequence or with other
kinds of time related links. In line with Gallina (1992), very few temporal links were
found in the corpus including some sequential (first, second etc.) and conclusive items
(finally, lastly) as well as then, ultimately and there15
. Note that in Table 6, the items
firstly, secondly etc. and first of all, are counted together as one item and the items finally
and lastly are also grouped together as one item. Ultimately is put separately because it
was used with an external sense (referring to the end of a process of events rather than in
the end of the discourse).
15
There was classified as a temporal conjunction meaning “at this point in the discourse”, in the same way
as the item here (Halliday and Hasan 1976:264). See also chapter 2.
38
Item Retained Omitted Converted Missing sent.
First…second…(6) 1 3 2 0
Then (3) 2 1 1 0
Finally, lastly(2) 0 2 0 0
Ultimately (1) 1 0 0 0
There (1) 0 1 0 0
Total (12) 4 7 3 0
Table 6: Temporal conjunctions
Overall 58% of the items were omitted and 25% were converted into other categories
(additive and causal). Shlesinger (1995) observes that temporal relations are not
interpreted closely. Interpreters tend to perceive them as redundant focusing on more
informative segments. Few as they may be, instances in this category lend further support
to this assertion. Most frequently omitted were the sequential and conclusive items.
5.5.1 First…Second etc. and finally
These two temporals were used internally: they referred to the communication process
rather than to external events. Sequential items (example a) signaled stages in speeches
(first of all) or enumerated points in arguments. Taken together they were omitted in 50%
of the cases and were converted into additives in another 33% of the cases. Conclusive
items (example b) such as finally and lastly were used to signal the end of the process of
discourse. Although total occurrences of conclusive items were very low, their omission
at all cases might indicate that they are regarded as insignificant by interpreters.
(a)
First of all let me congratulate Mr. Milana…
Συγχαίρω τον κύριο Μιλάνα...
[I congratulate Mr. Milana…]
39
(b)
Lastly President, the crisis in April-May last year made it absolutely clear...
Η κρίση τον Απρίλιο και το Μάιο, του περασμένου έτους έδειξε...
[The crisis in April and May last year showed....]
No important shifts co-occurred with the omission of these items. Also their omission is
not directly justified by high speed or read mode of delivery. Consequently, it is possible
that their omission was optional. Indeed, these items do not contribute in a decisive way
to the information transmitted. Their value lies in guiding the reader through the text. It
seems that the focus on informational elements (Shlesinger 1995) and on saving
processing capacity was given priority against the reproduction of some temporal
conjunctions. Both in examples (a) and (b), interpreters have abstracted the main
information leaving out the temporal item.
5.6 Continuative conjunctions
Continuative items do not belong to any of the above categories. However they have a
cohesive effect. They are internal in that they express relations between utterances rather
than between the extra-linguistic events referred to by the utterances in question. In the
corpus examined, now, well and of course were the main continuatives found. Table 7
shows retained and omitted items for this category.
Item Retained Omitted Converted Sent. Omitted
Now (10) 1 7 0 1
Of course (6) 4 2 0 0
Well (5) 0 5 0 0
Total (21) 5 14 0 1
Table 7: Continuative conjunctions
Overall, 66 % of the instances of this category were omitted. This is higher than in any
other category. While of course was retained in most cases, now and well were very often
omitted.
40
Relations expressed by this category are possibly considered semantically redundant by
interpreters. Hale (1999) also reports the omission of now and well in consecutive, court
interpreting, into Spanish. In the professional setting of the European Parliament, this
finding is maybe more expected. Here, speaking times are strictly observed and the
working mode is simultaneous rather than consecutive. In simultaneous interpreting,
time-saving and information recovery are laws (Gile 1995:201-204) and experienced
voices from within the professional EU interpreting environment such Jones (1998:106)
have expressed the necessity to omit superfluous “filler words” such as well. The
omission of these seemingly superfluous items could be seen as part of a professional's
training and as part of the norm of compression, prevailing in conference interpreting in
general and in the community of interpreters working for the European Union in
particular.
Another reason for the omission of the items now and well is that these don’t have readily
retrievable equivalents in other languages and this fact is acknowledged by Hale (1999)
for the Spanish language. Greek is not different in this respect. Although there are
possible solutions such as τώρα (for now) and λοιπόν (for well) their frequency and use
are somewhat different. This also explains why of course was retained. It differs in that it
has a more direct one-to-one solution in Greek (the item φυσικά).
Finally, since now and well are mainly associated with oral language, their omission can
be seen as a further support to the equalizing universal proposed by Shlesinger (Pym
2007). That is, that interpreters omit extreme signs of orality and literacy gravitating
towards the centre of the oral-literate continuum. Of course is again different in that it can
occur in written language more often than the other two items.
5.6.1 Now
Now was the most frequent continuative item. It was omitted in 70% of the cases and was
retained in one case. This item is used to "open a new point in the argument" (Halliday
& Hasan 1976:268) or to mark a new stage in the communication. In the following
41
example, the speaker’s argument is a criticism to the cost of the EU regulation for
Britain. Now opens a new point:
(a)
Now in 2006 commission of Verheugen put the cost of the EU regulation at an average of
3,5 % of GDP…
Το 2006 ο Επίτροπος, ο κύριος Verheugen, έθεσε το κόστος της ρυθμίσεως σε
ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο κατά μέσο όρο στα 3,5 % του ΑΕΠ…
[In 2006 commissioner mister Verheugen put the cost of regulation at European level at
an average at 3,5 % of GDP...]
This passage has high information density due to the frequent figures. According to Gile
(1995) information density is an important factor leading to saturation. So the omission of
now is all the more justified here, given that the interpreter was maybe saving processing
capacity for the numbers. But from the 7 omissions of now in the corpus, only 3 are
surrounded by numbers. In addition, the speed and the mode of delivery do not seem to
justify its omission.
The one instance of now that was retained belonged to the text with the lowest speed in
the whole corpus (117 words per minute). There, it was possibly reproduced to “fill in the
silence” (Jones 1998:106).
5.6.2 Well
Well was omitted at all times. This item is used in conversation prefacing responses to
questions, or in monologue to introduce an explanatory comment. Hale (1999) reports the
use of well to express disagreement. In the present corpus, in three out of five times, it
was used after a rhetorical question, prefacing a response that was also an explanation
(example b). In the two remaining cases, it was used to introduce a response to issues
raised in the debate (example c). Note that in example (c) the speaker expresses
disagreement with previous speakers on the environmentalist agenda.
42
(b)
Why is this? Well as we've heard from other speakers...
Γιατί; Όπως είπαν και άλλοι ομιλητές...
[Why? As other speakers also said...]
(c)
I just heard a socialist colleague over there talking about Greenland and you know, the
ice melting in Greenland. Well you know the question I'd like to ask on this subject is
why is Greenland called Greenland? Is it perhaps because Greenland was once green
when the world was hotter?
Πρόσφατα άκουσα ένα σοσιαλιστή συνάδελφο ο οποίος μιλούσε για τους πάγους που
λιώνουν στη Γροιλανδία. Το ερώτημα είναι...
[I just heard a socialist colleague who talked about the ice melting in Greenland. The
question is...]
In no case omissions in the surrounding sentences suggested that the interpreter was
under processing overload. Nor did the passages where well was found display very high
speeds or difficult modes of delivery. The reasons for its omission should be sought in
linguistic differences and in the apparent redundancy of this item in terms of
informational content. It is true that there is not a readily retrievable equivalent of this
word in Greek. Well, like actually, is very specific to the English language. This
difficulty combined with the fact that well was of low importance for the message, led to
its omission.
5.7 Additions
Additions of conjunctive items were also observed in order to discern possible patterns
that contrast or follow the patterns of omissions. Table 8 provides an overview of the
Greek added items with numbers of occurrences in brackets and possible equivalents in
English.
43
Item Possible equivalent
Άρα, λοιπόν, έτσι(5) So(5)
Γιατί, γι’αυτό(3) Because, for this reason(3)
Και(2) And(2)
Μάλιστα(1) Not only that but(1)16
Φυσικά(2) Of course(2)
Αλλά, όμως(2) But(2)
Από την άλλη μεριά(1) On the other hand(1)
Ενώ(1) When(1)
Total(17) Total(17)
Table 8: Additions of conjunctive items
Overall, seventeen cohesive conjunctions were added. This is certainly lower than the
sixty-two overall omissions. The bigger trends include additions of causal and
adversative conjunctions, the categories that also displayed the lowest percentage of
omissions. Φυσικά (of course), the most retained among the continuatives, was also
added twice. The addition of and twice can be seen as a form of compensation for its
omission. Although much lower than its omissions in number, additions show that this
item is used with relative freedom by interpreters (Setton 1999:208). The biggest trend by
far in additions concerns causal links and is treated in the following section.
5.7.1 Explicitation of causal links
47% (eight items) of all additions introduced causal relations. The additions of causals in
many cases took the form of an explicitation of implicit links. For example:
(a)
…the burden on the British industry could be fatal. This directive must be resisted.
…το βάρος στο βρετανικό κλάδο μεταφορών θα είναι ολέθριο. Γι'αυτό θα πρέπει να
αντιταχθούμε στην έγκριση της οδηγίας.
[…the burden for the British transportation business will be fatal. For this reason we
need to oppose the approval of this directive.]
16
This is an emphatic additive conjunction (Halliday & Hasan 1976:246). See also Chapter 2.
44
Given the low frequency of omission of causal links, their explicitation may be related to
the importance interpreters attribute to the causal relation. However this phenomenon
could be linked to language-pair specific factors. Research in English-Greek translation
of news articles has uncovered a particular tendency of Greek translators to explicitate or
add causal links (Sidiropoulou 1995). Torsello et al. (1997) consider this finding relevant
to English-Greek interpreting. It maybe that Greek interpreters intuitively apply this
principle in their work. In order to discern the degree to which these phenomena are
language-pair specific or results of the interpreting process, further investigation with
other languages and maybe on larger corpora, would be necessary.
45
1. Conclusions
6.1 Results
The analysis of the corpus of EP plenary sessions speeches allowed a detailed study of
the different inter-sentential conjunctions found. An examination of each category
showed a higher trend of omission in some conjunctive relations than others. Table 9
shows the percentage of omission of each relation.
Relation Omitted
Additive 41%
Adversative 27%
Causal 27%
Temporal 58%
Continuative 66%
Table 9: Omissions of each conjunctive relation
Omissions in the adversative and causal categories were markedly lower than in the
remaining three categories. On the other hand temporal and continuative relations were
particularly affected. Additions were in line with the above tendencies since more causal
and adversative conjunctions were added. The validity of these trends would need
confirmation from research on larger corpora (this corpus only contained 30 speeches). In
addition, it must be recalled that this study did not take into account intra-sentential
conjunctions. Consequently claims can be made only with care. However, these results
can be taken as a general indication of how each relation is likely to be affected from
omissions in professional simultaneous interpreting, awaiting confirmation by more
exhaustive research.
Shlesinger (1995) had suggested that the additive relation is most frequently retained. But
her examination of additive elements was confined to the item also. In the present corpus
another very frequent additive, and, was omitted by interpreters on a regular basis. Other
items (indeed, for example) were also affected by omissions. The reasons can vary and
46
linguistic differences cannot be overlooked. However, all three items were not decisive
for the propositional meaning of the utterances involved. The laws of information
recovery and of minimizing interference between segments of speech could have led
interpreters to omit these items as superfluous.
The adversative and causal categories were the least affected. It is possible that these two
conjunctive relations are perceived as significant, because their omission could entail
drastic changes in the logic of an argument. But was omitted moderately possibly because
its adversative sense is more subtle compared to other items (however, nevertheless). An
exception in this category is the item actually. It was affected by omission for two main
reasons: linguistic differences and redundancy of meaning. Turning to causals, not only
these items were retained but a trend of explicitation of causal links was found in the
form of added cohesion. This fact could be either the result of the importance interpreters
attribute to these links, or a language-pair specific feature, also found in English-Greek
translation of news articles (Sidiropoulou 1995).
On the other hand, certain temporal and continuative items were most frequently omitted.
These include sequential and conclusive elements (first, second etc. and finally) and
certain discourse markers (now, well). These two categories displayed the highest
percentages of omission. Given that omissions were not in most cases justified by the
difficulties of the original speech (speed, mode of delivery, information density), and also
because of their low value in terms factual meaning, these items were probably regarded
as redundant (cf. Hale 1999).
Continuatives in particular were the most affected category (omitted 66%). There is
evidence that the omission of these items is a taught technique in conference interpreting,
as part of the prevailing norm of compression (Shlesinger 2000). Linguistic differences
that lead to the absence of one-to-one solutions should also be born in mind. Finally, the
omission of now and well can be seen as a further support for the hypothesis that
interpreting tends to eliminate extreme oral (as well as extreme literate) features of texts
(Shlesinger 1989 explained in Pym 2007).
47
Omissions of conjunctive items possibly entail a drop in the level of cohesion. The
relations of simple addition (and) and exemplification (for example) can become looser.
In addition, items serving as signs, enumerating the points in an argument (first, second
etc.), signalling the end of the discourse (finally), opening new stages in communication
(now) or new responses in the debate (well) were frequently omitted. The adversative and
summing up effect of actually was also omitted. But, introducing a reversal of previous
segments of discourse was moderately omitted. It is interesting to note that with the
exception of but, all omitted conjunctions were used internally. They signaled relations
between utterances rather than between events. This fact might suggest that interpreters
perceive this “internal commentary” as redundant, and under cognitive constraints devote
their attention to more factual elements.
Turning to the reasons, omitted items were possibly perceived as insignificant for the
transmission of the main message. The constraints linked to the interpreting process,
mainly the linearity and time constraint, led to a focus on more informative elements. In
addition, linguistic differences cannot be viewed as a minor cause since they seemed to
affect many items discussed (indeed, actually, now, well). On the whole, omissions
reflected the focus on informative elements under cognitive and linguistic limitations,
often as part of a professional strategy.
Finally, Shlesinger’s (1995) suggestion that certain conjunctive types are omitted as
redundant in simultaneous interpreting was lent further support in this professional
context. Some other findings by Shlesinger were also reinforced; firstly, that cohesive ties
at the beginning of texts can be omitted because at that time interpreters are less attuned
to the speakers’ intentions. Secondly, that in certain cases (for example) the position of a
conjunction towards the end of the sentence can affect its reproduction.
6.2 Limitations and avenues for further research
It has been reiterated throughout the study that intra-sentential conjunctions were not
taken into account. These could have had a cohesive effect. For this reason, it would
serve as a confirmation of the above results if the same research were conducted taking
48
into account these intra-sentential links. As noted in the methodology, sentence limits
were set on the basis of intonation to avoid choosing arbitrary sentence limits. However,
an alternative way of addressing the data would be to entirely disregard intonation and
divide texts in as many sentences as possible. Halliday & Hasan (1976:233) make
reference to this solution which is also proposed by Baker (1992:192).
Turning to input variables, no concrete correlation was observed between speed or mode
of delivery and omissions of conjunctions. However, the diversity of the present corpus
did not allow establishing this in a certain way. For this reason, further research on the
effects of these variables on conjunctions would be a possibility.
49
References
Books and Journals
Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.
Beaton, Morven (2007) ‘Interpreted Ideologies in Institutional Discourse: The Case of the
European Parliament’, Doctoral Dissertation, Heriot Watt University
Bendazzoli, Claudio & Sandrelli, Annalisa (2005) ‘An Approach to Corpus-Based
Interpreting Studies: Developing EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus)’. EU-
High-Level Scientific Conference Series. MuTra 2005 - Challenges of Multidimensional
Translation : Conference Proceedings
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1986) ‘Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation’. In: L.
Venuti, ed. (2000) The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
ch.22
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press
Chernov, Ghelly V. (2004) Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
de Beaugrande, R. de and Dressler, W. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics, London:
Longman.
de Beaugrande, Robert (1997) ‘The Story of Discourse Analysis’. In: Teun A. Van Dijk,
ed. (1997) Discourse As Structure and Process. A Multidisciplinary Introduction.
Discourse Studies Vol. 1
Dooley, Robert A. and Levinsohn, Stephen H. (2001) Analyzing Discourse. A Manual of
Basic Concepts. Dallas: SIL International
50
Duflou, Veerle (2007) ‘Norm research in conference interpreting: How can the study of
documentary sources contribute to a better understanding of norms?’ EU-High-Level
Scientific Conference Series. MuTra 2007 – LSP Translation Scenarios: Conference
Proceedings
Eggins, Suzanne (2004) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London and
New York: Continuum International Publishing Group
Gallina, Sandra (1992) ‘Cohesion and the systemic-functional approach to text:
applications to political speeches and significance for simultaneous interpretation’. The
Interpreters’ Newsletter 1, pp. 62-71. Available at:
http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/2188/1/08.pdf
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
Garzone, Giuliana (2000), Textual Analysis and Interpreting Research, The interpreters’
Newsletter, 10, pp. 69-88
Gile, Daniel (1995), Basic Consepts and Models for Interpreter and Translators
Training, Revised Edition, Benjamins Translation Library
Hale, Sandra (1999) ‘Interpreters' treatment of discourse markers in courtroom
questions’, Forensic Linguistics 6(1), University of Birmingham Press
Halliday, M.A.K. And Ruqaiya Hasan (1976), Cohesion in English, London and New
York: Longman
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) Introduction to Functional Grammar. Second edition. London:
Edward Arnold
Hatim, Basil and Mason, Ian (1990) Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman
Hatim, Basil and Mason, Ian (1997) The Translator as Communicator. London:
Routledge
51
Jones, Roderick (1998) Conference Interpreting Explained, Manchester: St Jerome
Publishing
Müller, Ivo (1997) ‘Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting’. Folia Translatologica 5, 29-
49
Pöchhacker, Franz (2004) Introducing Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge
Pöchhacker, Franz (2009) ‘Issues in Interpreting Studies’, in J.Munday ed. 2009.
Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. New York: Routledge.
Pym, Antony (2007) ‘On Shlesinger's proposed equalizing universal for interpreting’. In.
F. Pöchhacker, A. L. Jakobsen and I.M. Mees eds. (2007) Interpreting Studies and
Beyond: A Tribute to Miriam Shlesinger. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press, 175-
190. Available at:
http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/translation/2007_shlesinger.pdf
[Accessed 02.08.2011]
Schiffrin, Deborah and Tannen, Deborah and Ehernberger Hamilton, Heidi (2001)
‘Introduction. What is Discourse Analysis?’. In: D.Schiffrin, D.Tannen, H.E.Hamilton
ed. 2001. The handbook of discourse analysis, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Pres
Setton, Robin (1999) Simultaneous Interpretation. A cognitive-pragmatic analysis.
Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Sidiropoulou, Maria (1995) ‘Causal shifts in new reporting: English vs Greek press’.
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 3 (1), 83-98 [Only Abstract]
Shlesinger, Miriam (1995) ‘Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting’, The
Translator 1(2):193-214
Shlesinger, Miriam (2000) ‘Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How can we know what
really happens?’ In S. Tirkkonen-Condit and R. Jääskeläinen ed. (2000) Tapping and
52
Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing, 3-15
Shlesinger, Miriam (2008) ‘Towards a definition of Interpretese. An intermodal, corpus-
based study’. In: G. Hansen, A. Chesterman, H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast ed. (2008) Efforts
and models in interpreting and translation research: a tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 237-253
Taylor Torsello Carol et al. (1997) ‘Linguistics, Discourse Analysis and Interpretation’
In: Y. Gambier, D. Gile, Ch. Taylor ed. (1997) Conference Interpreting.
Current Trends in Research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing,
166-185
Van Dam, Ine M. (1989) “Strategies of Simultaneous Interpretation”, In: Laura Gran &
John Dodds ed. (1989) The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference
Interpretation. Udine: Capanottto Edit, 167-176
Vuorikoski, Anna-Riitta (2004) ‘A Voice of its Citizens or a Modern Tower of Babel?
The Quality of Interpreting as a Function of Political Rhetoric in the European
Parliament’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere. Available at:
http://acta.uta.fi/english/teos.php?id=9744
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
53
Websites
EP Live – Video
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-internet/frd/vod/research-by-
date?language=en
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
Europa - Verbatim reports
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//TEXT+CRE+20110606+ITEM-017+DOC+XML+V0//EN
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
European Parliament - Rules of Procedure
Available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-
EP+20110704+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
Europa – Institutions and bodies - European Parliament
http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-parliament/index_en.htm
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
European Parliament – Never lost in translation
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=en&type=IM-
PRESS&reference=20071017FCS11816
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
European Parliament – Multilingualism – Interpreting
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=155&pageRank=4
&language=EN
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
54
EU Careers
http://www.eu-careers-online.eu/linguists/gbr-home-redirect/gbr-how-to-apply/
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
EPIC corpus search interface (username and password required)
http://sslmitdevonline.sslmit.unibo.it/corpora/query.php?mode=simple&path=E.P.I.C./Ta
rget%20Texts&name=int-es-en
[Accessed 15.06.2011]
55
Appendix 1: Corpus outline
Speech MEP Words Mode of delivery Speed (words per minute)
1 Ford 257 Read Medium 158 wpm
2 Harbour 229 Mixed Medium 159 wpm
3 Harbour 399 Impromptu Slow 126 wpm
4 Stevenson 395 Mixed Medium 159 wpm
5 Dodds 209 Mixed Medium 152 wpm
6 Batten 201 Mixed Medium 140 wpm
7 Tannock 216 Read High 174 wpm
8 Darthmouth 204 Mixed Medium 132 wpm
9 Batten 465 Mixed Medium 148 wpm
10 Kirkhope 355 Read High 172 wpm
11 Cashman 275 Mixed Medium 156 wpm
12 Tannock 216 Read High 170 wpm
13 Moraes 401 Mixed Medium 160 wpm
14 Nuttal 200 Impromptu Medium 166 wpm
15 Bradbourn 153 Read High 175 wpm
16 Agnew 190 Read Medium 157 wpm
17 Brons 179 Read Medium 164 wpm
18 Nicholson 201 Read Medium 153 wpm
19 Dodds 184 Mixed Medium 147 wpm
20 Ludford 195 Mixed Medium 156 wpm
21 Tannock 195 Read High 175 wpm
22 Bradbourn 141 Impromptu High 185 wmp
23 Vaughan 202 Mixed Medium 158 wpm
24 Foster 442 Mixed Medium 149 wpm
25 Davies 190 Mixed High 184 wpm
26 Callanan 453 Mixed High 204 wpm
27 Martin 326 Mixed High 180 wpm
28 Tannock 205 Read High 175 wpm
29 Bradbourn 205 Read High 175 wpm
30 Dartmouth 122 Mixed Slow 117 wpm
56
Appendix 2: Links to audiovisual material
1.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=96949&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2
2.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4538&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=17
3.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4538&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=9
4.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=2338&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5
5.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=1318&dis
cussionId=0&page=1&category=1&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5
6.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=28497&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=3
7.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=96958&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0
57
8.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=96958&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=3
9.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=28497&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=1
10.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4542&dis
cussionId=0&page=2&category=2&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2
11.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4532&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=10
12.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bykey&keyWords=justice&discussionId
=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5
13.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4519&dis
cussionId=0&page=1&category=1&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=9
14.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=96805&di
scussionId=0&page=1&category=1&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5
15.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4540&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0
58
16.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=96897&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5
17.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=96749&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=8
18.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=1318&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=12
19.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=94283&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2
20.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4529&dis
cussionId=0&page=2&category=2&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=3
21.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4521&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0
22.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4540&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5
23.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=96918&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5
59
24.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4553&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2
25.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4554&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0
26.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4536&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0
27.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=1403&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0
28.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4521&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2
29.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4540&dis
cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=7
30.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-
internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=96958&di
scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=6