The Treatment of Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices in Simultaneous Interpreting for the European...

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.


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


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

http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/2188/1/08.pdf

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

http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/translation/2007_shlesinger.pdf

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]

http://acta.uta.fi/english/teos.php?id=9744

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]

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-internet/frd/vod/research-by-date?language=en

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-internet/frd/vod/research-by-date?language=en

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20110606+ITEM-017+DOC+XML+V0//EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20110606+ITEM-017+DOC+XML+V0//EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20110704+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20110704+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-parliament/index_en.htm

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=en&type=IM-PRESS&reference=20071017FCS11816

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=en&type=IM-PRESS&reference=20071017FCS11816

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=155&pageRank=4&language=EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=155&pageRank=4&language=EN

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]

http://www.eu-careers-online.eu/linguists/gbr-home-redirect/gbr-how-to-apply/

http://sslmitdevonline.sslmit.unibo.it/corpora/query.php?mode=simple&path=E.P.I.C./Target%20Texts&name=int-es-en

http://sslmitdevonline.sslmit.unibo.it/corpora/query.php?mode=simple&path=E.P.I.C./Target%20Texts&name=int-es-en

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


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


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


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.


internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=4538&dis

cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=17

3.




4.




5.




6.




7.




http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=96949&discussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2


















57

8.




9.




10.




11.




12.


internet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bykey&keyWords=justice&discussionId

=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5

13.




14.




15.













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









58

16.




17.




18.




19.




20.




21.




22.




23.

























59

24.




25.




26.




27.




28.




29.




30.



















The Treatment of Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices in Simultaneous Interpreting for the European...

Documents

Transcript of The Treatment of Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices in Simultaneous Interpreting for the European...