The Interpretive Theory

Introduction

Although Although the act of interpreting interpret ing is traced trac ed back to ancient times, it had no theory of its own and did not begin to take shape as we know it today until the late 1970s. By distancing itself itself from previous previous studies, the Interpretive T heory of Translation Translation (aka, the Theory of Sense), founded by Danica Seleskovitch, Seleskovitch, an interpreter and researcher at the Ecole Supérieure d’Interprètes et de Traducteurs (henceforth ESIT) at the Universi University ty of Paris III ― the so -called Paris School, explains the translation and interpretive process

differently from that of the traditional lingui linguistic stic approache appro aches, s, involving involving a combination of developmental and experimental psychology, neurophysiology, and linguistics. The Theory of Sense (see INTERPRET INT ERPRETIV IVE E APP APPROA ROACH) CH) played played a  pioneering  pioneering role and had a signifi significant cant contribution contribution in the field field of translation translation studies traiting todays' interpreting practice and teaching. It has certainly not  been the first to tackle this issue issue (Pochhacker, (P ochhacker, 1992, but the main thrust came out of ESIT personnel, for most researches conducted before its appearance were purely speculative, i.e, theoritical.

Literature review

1. Definition of terms 1.1 Introduction Over the past pas t several years, years , practiti prac titioners oners have been mixi mixing ng many terms and using them interchangeably interchangeably to refer refer to distinct conc c oncepts epts lik likee sense sens e and meani meaning, ng, interpretation interpretation and understanding, unders tanding, and because bec ause the use of superordin supero rdinate ate can c an lead to confusi co nfusion on and misc misconc onception, eption, we we have seen s een that it is of a necessity to clearly distinguish them apart. Page | 1

1.1.2 Sense Vs Meanin Me aning g

The indivi individuation duation of the sense sens e of any any discours disc oursee from the translation translation s tudies  point of view view:: Aleksandr Davidovich Shvejcer analyzed this problem and recogni reco gnized zed the difference difference between b etween the two. Meaning Meaning as such is derived derived from the concrete co ncrete structure of o f the langu language, age, and is is to be searched for solel s olelyy in the framework framework of o f the co code de language language signals signals it is part p art of. Since words word s are the product prod uct of the commu c ommuni nity ty and its its culture, culture, it do does es not make make sense s ense to look for what a word can express in another language, another culture. Every word has has one relativ relatively ely exact meani meaning ng represented repres ented exclusivel exclusivelyy in the code co de of language it belongs to. Taking Taking this this point p oint to heart, heart, it would be presumptuous to try to translate literally literally and expect expec t the meanin meaningg to stay intact; intact; how coul co uldd itit be be  possibl  pos siblee to find find a word word wi with the exact exact sam s amee mea meani ning ng in another another ling lingui uistic stic and cultural cadre cad re if not no t referring referring to approxi appro ximati mation? on? However, However, Sense does do es not depend on the di d ifferences between between the languages; languages; it can c an be expressed expres sed through diffe d ifferent rent lingui linguist stic ic means in in different languages (L'vovskaja1985, p. 81-82) for this, it is called The Theory of Sense (La Théorie du Sens). Sense in discourse consists of two  parts, an an expli explicit cit part co consti nstitut tutiing the wri written or o r the spoken sp oken,, an andd an im implicit plicit  part (whe (where re it gets gets tricky) tricky) consti co nstitut tutiing wh what at is unsai unsaidd but nev nevert erthe helless meant meant by b y the interl interloc ocutor utor and understood understo od by the the other party, the latter latter not to be confused co nfused with with the author's intenti ntentions ons.. Briefly, language knowledge is not enough to fully grasp the sense (Mona Baker, 2009), 2009), there are other parameters interferi interfering ng in this this proc p rocess ess,, which we shall discuss later on in this paper.

Page | 2

1.1.3

Interpretation Vs understanding

Omar Kouc Kouchh (2012) (2012) says s ays in this this respect resp ect that interpretation during translation translation proces pro cesss aims aims to collect collect the meani meaning ng of the text but b ut must not exceed the interpretation interpretation of the meani meaning ng that comes c omes with with the origin original al text not the supposed meaning intended by the author. 1.2 Theoretical background 1.2.1 Introduction

Drawing on psycholinguistic and cognitive approaches, Seleskovich and Lederer Lederer study stud y interpreting and translation translation using empirical empirical research researc h emphasizing chiefly on the cognitive process involved in this practice. The  basic tene tenett of thei theirr theory theory is that tran transla slati tion on an andd inte interpreti rpreting ng are based on meaning meaning (sense), (sens e), as op oppo posed sed to lexi lexical cal (verbal) meaning meaning (ibid). (ibid). Although Although bo both th translation translation and interpreting interpreting manifest manifest differently, differently, they  both obey to the the sam s amee rul rule, transla translate te the message message not the the lang langua uage. ge.  Needl  Needless ess to say that that when a transl translator ator get to understand understand the discourse, the occurrenc oc currencee of traps lik likee po pollysemy and ambigui ambiguity ty are easily easily prevented, prevented , for literal literal translation translation is bound bo und to distort the original original meaning, meaning, as per this this schoo sc hooll, the aim aim of interpretation interpretation is to achieve achieve the “communi “c ommunicative cative sense”. s ense”.

"Croire qu'interpréter consiste à passer directement d'une langue à l'autre  postule des savoir savoirs, s, dire qu'interpréter qu'interpréter consiste à passer par le sens postule en outre de l'intelligence." (Seleskovitch,

1983)

Page | 3

 Notice  Notice that conv co nversati ersational onal lang languag uagee belongs belongs to the the domain domain of o f socia so ciall interaction, it has to be established in a shared conceptual terrain (shared knowledge), representing the human capacity in reproducing a meaningful use of language. language. Transl Trans lation, hence, henc e, is is far from being being a simple simple task tas k of switching from one language language to t o another (ibid), the translator/interpreter is suppo sup posed sed to make make the equati eq uation on of sense/eff sens e/effect ect by b y reco reconstructin nstructingg it with with respect respec t to the the TL so s o that that the prod p roduct uct can be read without without reveal revealiing its true collors, co ors , being being a translati translation. on. The cultural differences or others have to be attentivel attentivelyy calculated,  because wh whate atever ver the control of lan angua guages ges interprete nterpreters/tra rs/transl nslators ators may may have, language problems would remain unresolved. This activity implies a great deal of difficulty, even with a mastery of the S language, the TL molding wil will be subje sub ject ct to distortions, distort ions, and hence, fail failure ure in capturing the core co re sense of what what has been prod p roduced uced in in the other languag language. e. All All these obst ob stacles acles and co comm mmentari entaries es lead lead to some s ome intrigui ntriguing ng questions: ques tions: 

Is itit a literal literal match or o r equation of o f sense sens e between the translate trans latedd text and the original riginal text?



Is itit a transmission transmiss ion of o f meaning meaning or a reconstruc reco nstruction tion of a new vision? vision? The Interpretive Interpretive Theory departs dep arts from the the notion of o f transcoding in

interpreting interpreting then sets s ets the basis b asis of a new new model mod el disass disas s oc ociati iating ng by that the translator/i translator/interprete nterpreter's r's performance from the use of Catford's Catford' s formal formal correspo co rrespondence. ndence. In this this approach, appro ach, interpreting nterpreting is regul regulated by the pri p rincipl nciplee of “equival “equivalence ence of sense”, s ense”, the process proc ess,, accordi acc ording ng to Seleskovitch, Seleskovitch, is based b ased

on language-free language-free (de-verbalization ) conversion conversion procedure proc edures. s.

Page | 4

Equival Equivalence ence of sense is is not an easy conc c oncept ept to define. define. Some So me attempts attempts have led to Hatim and Mason´s (1990:7) dynamic equivalence construct implyi implying ng that the original original message mess age is conveyed c onveyed in in a way that TL receptor' recep tor'ss response respo nse is like like that of the SL receptors, recepto rs, which which leads us agai again to the seven s even standard st andardss of textuality textuality and intenti intentionality; onality; the author' author'ss intenti intention on equals the interpreter's nterpreter's percepti percep tion on of o f the the intended intended sense in in the given given discourse, disc ourse, whi which ch Pochhacker Po chhacker define defines as the “equi “eq uival valence ence of effect” effect”. Choi Jungwha (2004, p01), in his article Translatio Tran slation n and an d its Current  Applications  Applications mentioned the four pillars this theory is built on, which are:

1.

Comm Co mmand and of the native native language language

2.

Command Command of the source so urce langu anguage, age,

3.

Command Command of relevan relevantt world world and background bac kground knowledge knowledge

4.

Comm Co mmand and of interpreting methodology methodo logy

The broader bro ader the cogniti c ognitive ve co complem mplements, ents, he says, says , the the less less ambigui ambiguity ty and  polysemy  polysemy there there is is in lan angua guage, ge, an andd the mo mo re thoroughl thoroughly speech s peech is understoo unders toodd . Add Additi itionall onally, y, he states that translation translation needs information information additional to language meaning .This is how the Interpretive Theory of Translati Translation introduces ntroduc es the proces pro cesss of translati translation on into the vast vast area of cognitive research.

1.2.3 D. Seles S eleskovit kovitch ch and M. Lederer's Model of Translation

One of the mai mainn breakthroughs breakthro ughs of Interpreting Studi Stud ies is Seleskovi Selesko vitch´s tch´s Sense Sens e Theory, Theo ry, represented repres ented graphically graphically in the following following ternary comp c ompos ositi ition on model mod el of translation translation (Pöchhac (Pö chhacker, ker, 2004: 97):

Page | 5

The hypothesis hypo thesis of interpreting interpreting triangul triangular ar model mod el imp implies lies the foll fo lloowing: wing: interpreting interpreting is a ternary ternary proces pro cess, s, first first comes c omes the the activi activity ty of listening listening in L1; L1; the meani meaning ng and sense sens e of the discourse disc ourse (the ob objject of interpreti interpreting) ng) then, is is percei perc eived, ved, afterwa afterwards rds co come mess the the final final stage (the most mos t impo important rtant one o ne in in interpreting) interpreting) the reformulation reformulation of the acquired meaning in L2. Transcoding, however, onl o nlyy appli app lies es to the simultaneous simultaneous interpreting interpreting of terms, numbers numbers,, and names. For Fo r Selesc Selescovitch, ovitch, interpreti interpreting ng is unquesti unq uestionably onably about sensation, sensation, on on the one hand, hand, a sense sens e of "internal "internal"" language language system, on the other ot her hand hand feel the "external "external", ", thence, thence, the translati translation on proces pro cesss is not strai s traightf ghtforward, orward, but the  pass through through vari various ous pha p hases. ses. From here here we conclude that that it is an active active  process  proc ess clustere clusteredd around around the the "un " understan derstanding ding"" and then then "re-e " re-expression" xpression" of ideas. 1.2.4 Delisle's Delisle 's Model of Interpr Interpreting eting

Language and thought are separate entities. According to Delisle, interpreters nterpreters decod dec odee the discourse disco urse at the parti p articipati cipation on of their their co cogni gniti tive ve knowl kno wled edge, ge, flay the meaning they acquire acq uire from fro m its original riginal linguistic linguistic form, fo rm, and store it their brain in a non-verbal form. He divides this process into three stages: 1. Understanding (

)

a) The interpr interpretation etation of discour disco urse se in SL

On the whole, the write writerr do does es not explicitly explicitly express expres s what what s/he s /he wants wants to transmit, since situation situation or co context ntext play a major major role ro le in in the interpretation interpretation of Page | 6

the impli implicit. cit. Transl Trans lators/interpreters ators/interpreters differ from the ordi ord inary reader, for they have this skill of capturing the meaning embodied between the lines  by refe referen rence ce to the contextua contextuall value value of each each word, word, which which makes makes them them able to collect the full meaning without any shortage. b) Contextualization Contextualization to collect collec t the the possible pos sible mea meanin ning g of o f th thee ST

To translate translate means means to cross cro ss the bridge betw b etween een di d ifferent fferent cultures cultures and language language systems sys tems and here co come me the role ro le of the cogni co gnitiv tivee co complem mplements: ents: the non-lingui non-linguist stic ic elemen elements ts that contri co ntribute bute in the proces pro cesss of understanding, unders tanding, they include include all that is concep co nceptual tual,, cultural and aesthetic-emotional, aesthe tic-emotional, add added ed to the text forming its general contextual dimensions (verbal context, situational and cognitive context). Let us say then that translation requires a sharp understandi understand ing of o f the original original beyo beyond nd lexical exical co constrains, nstrains, but it goes goes far beyond the lilinguistic nguistic framework framework to evoki evo king ng his/ his/her her knowl kno wledge edge and skills skills on analyzi analyzing ng the discours disc oursee in its general context. c ontext. 2- De-verbalisation D e-verbalisation (

)

In this this s tage, sense sens e is freed from all all lingui linguistic stic structures st ructures of o f the SL, the interpreter/ interpreter/translator translator is then in in the quest ques t for new lilinguis nguis tic structures st ructures matching the TL’s. ’s . This This is a very important step, in view of the fact that it enables its user to avoid overlap between the two languages during the reexpression expres sion stage, s tage, hence, resul res ultin tingg with with a smooth smoo th and fair transl trans lation that t hat does do es not smell smell like one. So, So , during during re-expressi re-express ion, the translat translator or must must pay p ay attention attention to the problem pro blem of overlap overlap,, and reformulate reformulate by avoiding avoiding as much much as poss po ssiible the interfere interference nce that exists exists between between the di d ifferent fferent system sys temss of languages.

Page | 7

3- Reformu R eformulation lation (

)

One may ask what is re-expressed re-express ed exact exactlly. Is itit a reformulation reformulation of the cultural co compo mponent? nent? Or is itit a reformulation reformulation of the lingui linguistic stic one? Or O r is is it, rather, a reformulati refo rmulatioon the communi co mmuniccative meaning? meaning? Well, Well, the answer ans wer is simple, the interpreter may enclose enclos e more more than what what was original originally ly s aid aid in the text and explain if necessary, but without adding anything new to the core meaning, s/he can change the cultural image to approximate the content co ntent to the receivi receiving pub publilic, c, but b ut wi without changing the function of o f this very image. What is important, hence, is to reformulate what the writer of the origi original nal text has success succ essful fullly convey co nveyed ed to his his SL S L readers readers.. When the translator does d oes not succeed suc ceed in graspin grasp ingg that meaning, meaning, the  product  prod uct fall falls ine nevi vitabl tablyy into vulgar vulgariity and pettine pettiness ss.. To T o prevent prevent this this from happeni happ ening, ng, the foll fo llowing owing types of translations translations are to be avoided avoided (Omar (O mar kouch, 2014): The literal translation: Transcodage: The over-translation: Sur-traduction: The under-translation: Sous-traduction :

Page | 8

General app a ppli lica cabi bility lity of the theo theorry of sense

The Interpretive Interpretive Approach Appro ach (see Theory of Sense) is used in many fiel fields ds vue its its interdiscipli interdisciplinary nary nature. nature. This This appro ap proach ach has been ado adopted pted in appllied lingu app nguiistics, translati translation on studi stud ies, sociology, so ciology, psychologi ps ychological cal studi stud ies and and many others, others , for itit is used mainl mainlyy in the analysis analysis of human behavior behavior and interaction; how the environment is interpreted, by reference to the different different values, values, beliefs beliefs and thoughts of the subje s ubjects cts,, and most mos t importantl importantly, y,  by refe referen rence ce to contex c ontextt (Wal (Walsham 1993). A great amount of ink has been poured in the attempt to investigate the app applilicab cabilility ity of this this theory in translation translation practic p ractice, e, and itit is impo important rtant to understand that the appl app licabi cab ility of the Theory of Sense Sens e does do es not only only cover c over translation translation practice prac tice but goes farther farther to evaluati evaluating ng faithful faithfulness ness and equival equivalence, ence, in other o ther word words, s, an app approach roach to quali quality assess ass essme ment nt of translati translations ons.. Choi, in this this respect, respec t, introduc introduces es the point of view viewss and criteri criteriaa of the theory of sense on the dilem dilemma ma,, and has success succ essful fullly proved pro ved its its appllicabili app icability in the Master Masterss thesis he submi sub mitted tted on 2010 (see The Interpreti Interpretive ve Theory of Translation Translation and Its Current Applications). Applications).

Page | 9

Conclusion

This theory has emerged emerged as a reaction reaction to some so me notions notions of the late late 70s regarding interpreting interpreting and translation translation being merel merelyy a representati repres entation on of of lingui linguistic stic meaning. meaning. The propo pro ponent nent of this theory is is that interpreters interpreters and translators translators have to take into into account acc ount such facto factors rs as cogni co gniti tive ve and situati situational onal co contex ntextt of what what has been b een produc prod uced ed and thei theirr own world world knowledge knowledge (Levaul (Levault,t, 1996 1996). ). The focus foc us thence thence shoul sho uldd deri d erive ve from fro m word wordss to the intended meaning ( sense  sense). Overall, translation is a complex process requiring an evocation of knowledge knowledge and many many cogniti c ognitive ve and s oc ocial ial parameters. The general emphasis at the outset outs et is that translation translation shoul sho uldd not be litera literal,l, but should seek to trans transfer the essence ess ence of meani meaning ng after imbibing imbibing the ideas and intentions of the original.

Page | 10

Bibliographical References

CALVINO CALVINO I. (1979). I f on on a Wi nter' nter' s Ni ght a Tr avel avel l er . London: Random

House. Christine Bartels, (2014). The Intonati I ntonati on of E ngl i sh State Statem m en ts and 2nd ed. Engl England: and: Ro Routl utledge. edge. Que Qu esti ons: ns: A Composi Composi ti onal I nterpr nterpr etatio tati on . 2nd Hannelore Lee-Jahnke, (2005). Processus et cheminements en traduction et interprétation. Journa Journall des traducteur s, s, 50 (2), 682-695 Logos Group (2014). M eai n g and . [ONLINE] Available Available at: an d se sen se  http://co http://courses. urses.llogo ogos. s.iit/EN/2_25.htm t/EN/2_25.htmll. [Last Accessed Acces sed 27/11/2 27/11/2014 014]. ]. L'VOVSKAJA Z. D. (1985). (1985 ). T eoreti oreti ches chesk i e probl pr oble em y per per evoda , Moskvà,  Nauka  Nauka.. SCVEJCER A. D. (1988): T eori ja per per evoda: statu statu s, pr obl em y, aspe aspekk ty  . Moskvà: Nauka. Mona Baker, (2003). E ncyc ncycl opedi pedi a of Tr ansl ansl ation Studies  Studies  . 2nd 2nd ed. England: Routledge. Pöchhacker, Pö chhacker, F. (1992). (1992). “ The Role of Theory in Si S imul multaneous taneous Interpreti Interpreting,” ng,” Teaching Translatio Tran slation n and Interpreting. Interpreting. Training, Trainin g, Talent and  Experience  Experience (C.Dollerup  (C.Dollerup

and A. Loddegaard, Lod degaard, eds). eds ). Amsterdam Amsterdam and

Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211-220. Roy, C. B. (2000). (2000). I n ter . Oxford: Oxford ter pre pr eti n g as a Di scou cou r se Proc Pr oce ess  University Press. Seleskovitch, D. (1962). “L’i “L’ interprétati nterprétation on de confér co nférence” ence” Bab  Babel  el , 8-1, 13-18

Page | 11

Selesko Seleskovi vitch, tch, D. (1976). (1976). “Interpretation, A Psychological Approach to Translating,” Translation: Applications Applications and Research Research (R. W. Brisli Brislin, n,

ed.).

 New  New York: Gardner Gardner Press, 92-11 92-116. 6. Selesko Seleskovi vitch, tch, D. and M. M. Lederer (1984). (1984). I n ter ter pr é ter ter pour pou r tradu tr adu i r e  . Paris : Didier Érudition. Steve Hendley, (2000). F r om Com Com m unicative un icative A cti on to the F ace of the Other: Other: L evi n as and H aberm abermas as on L angu age, ge, Obligation Obligation , and

. 2nd ed. USA: Lexi Lexington Books. Books . Community  VYGOT VY GOTSKIJ SKIJ L. L. S. (1956). (1956). I zbran br ann n ye psi psi hologi hol ogicches hesk i e i ssl edovanija  dovani ja . Moskvà. Hassib Ilyes Hodid (2008).

. [ONLINE] Avail Availab able at:

/http://www.alnoor.se/article.asp?id=24246 http://www.alnoor.se/article.asp?id=24246.. [Last Accessed 15/11/2014]. Interpretings (2011). I n ter ter pre pr eti ve T heory  heory  . [ONLINE] Available at: http://interpretings.net/tag/interpretive-theory/. [Last Accessed 27/11/2014]. Interpretings (2011). I n ter ter pre pr eti ve T heory  heory  . [ONLINE] Available at: /http://omferas.com/vb/t34316/ http://omferas.com/vb/t34316/.. [Last Accessed Access ed 1/11/201 1/11/2014]. 4]. M. Ahmed tejo (2010).

. [ONLINE] [ONLINE]

Available at: /http://omferas.com/vb/t34316/ http://omferas.com/vb/t34316/.. [Last Accessed 2/11/2014]. Scri Sc ribd bd (2011). (2011).

. [ONLINE] Available Available at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25445718/.. [Last Accessed 7/11/2014]. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25445718/ Wikipedia (2011). Dan i ca Sek Sek l esk ovitch  ovitch . [ONLINE] Availab Available le at: http://fr.wi http: //fr.wiki kipedia.org/ pedia.org/wiki/D wiki/Dan aniica_ ca_Sele Selesko skovitch vitch..  [Last Accessed 27/11/2014].

Page | 12

List of Abbreviations

AKA: AKA: Also known k nown as

ESIT: Ecole Sup S upérieure érieure d’Interpr d’Interprètes ètes et de Traducteurs SL: Source language ST: Sour So urce ce text TL: Target language TT: Target Ta rget text text

Page | 13

Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………… 1 Literature review ……………………………………… ……………… …………………………..……… …..……….. 1

1.1

Definition of terms 1.1.1 Introduction ……………………..………………………… 1 ….…… ……………………… …………………… ………… 2 1.1.2 Sense Vs meaning ….………………… …….……. ….…………… 3 1.1.3 Interpretation Vs understanding …….…….….……………

1.2

Theoretical Theoretical background bac kground 1.2.1 Introduction ……………………………..………………… 3 1.2.2 Relationship to other approaches…………….……….…… 4 1.2.3 D.Seleskovitch and M. Lederer Model of Interpreting ……. 5 1.2.4 J. Delisle Delisle Model Mod el of Interpreting Interpreting …………………………… 6

General application application of o f the Theory of Se Sense nse …………………… ……………………… 9 Conclusion Conc lusion …………………………………… …………………………………………… ……………………. ……………... 10

Bibliographical references List List of abbrevi abb reviati ations ons

Page | 14

Page | 15