Interpretation

Techniques and Exercises

By James Nolan

Multilingual Matters

Copyright © 2012 James Nolan
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84769-809-4

Contents

Acknowledgments,
Preface to the Second Edition,
Introduction: Frequently Asked Questions,
1 Speaking,
2 Preparationticipating the Speaker,
3 Complex Syntax/Compression,
4 Word Order/Clusters,
5 General Adverbial Clauses,
6 Untranslatability,
7 Figures of Speech,
8 Argumentation,
9 Diction/Register,
10 Formal Style,
11 A Policy Address,
12 Quotations/Allusions/Transposition,
13 Political Discourse,
14 Economic Discourse,
15 Humor,
16 Latinisms,
17 Numbers,
18 Note-taking,
Annex I: Additional Reformulation Strategies,
Annex II: Memory Drill,
Annex III: Patterns in Speech,
Annex IV: Political Discourse – Additional Exercise,
Bibliography,
Index,

CHAPTER 1

Speaking

Public speaking is an important part of training to become an interpreter for several reasons. First, many people studious enough to have acquired a thorough grasp of two or more working languages tend to be of a somewhat shy and retiring disposition and, when faced with an audience, may freeze up and developmental blocks. Second, interpretation assignments – especially the better ones – often require interpreters to perform before large audiences of important people, which can be rather intimidating even for those of us who are not especially shy. But stage fright can be overcome by the same method that student actors use: rehearsal. Last but not least, an interpreter, like an actor, a talk-show host or a news announcer, must learn how to use his or her voice.

In order to understand the kind of language used by public speakers and at international conferences, interpreters should appreciate how it differs from everyday speech. We use language in our daily lives primarily to communicate information and express feelings. But the main function of language as used by public speakers such as diplomats, officials and corporate executives, who are usually acting as spokesmen for groups, is advocacy. A campaign speech by a candidate for office is designed to win the listeners' votes. A speaker praising a public figure is seeking to persuade listeners of that person's merits. An official making a public explanation or apology for an error or embarrassment is trying to persuade the public to forgive and forget. A diplomat making a lengthy policy statement is trying to persuade other diplomats to support her positions by striving to portray her country and its policies in a favorable light. Even a speaker using expository language to relate facts or report information is often doing so in order to support a particular viewpoint, thesis or proposal.

Public speakers have usually acquired some proficiency in the art of persuasion, and interpreters must be able to mirror that skill. So, interpreters should strive to be good public speakers. An important step in becoming an effective public speaker is to learn not only to use one's skill at expository and descriptive speech but also to draw on one's own powers of persuasion. Enhancing this skill will also help the interpreter to acquire greater confidence and thus overcome stage fright.

Exercises

(1) Write an imaginary letter to a public official urging that a law be passed to remedy what you consider to be a serious social problem. What arguments would you use? Read the letter aloud as a speech, record it, listen to it at a later time and consider what you could have said to make it more convincing.

(2) Think of someone you know who would disagree with you about an important question. What arguments could you use to change that person's mind? Suit your arguments to what you know about that person's psychology.

(3) (a) Choose a significant event from a newspaper and write a 200-word speech commenting on it. Read out the speech into your tape recorder, then listen to it. Was it convincing? Could the speech be improved by changing your delivery, intonation, organization or diction (choice of words)? If your speech were a broadcast editorial, would listeners pay attention?

(b) Listen to the speech again. This time, cast yourself in the role of the opponent or 'devil's advocate', and write a brief rebuttal speech arguing against what you have just heard.

(4) Write a short speech in praise of a public figure whom you admire. Read it out into your tape recorder and listen to it. Would it be convincing to a listener who did not know that public figure?

(5) The following statements of opinion on various issues are calculated to be controversial and to spark debate. Choose one of the positions presented and defend that point of view to an imaginary audience of skeptical listeners, first in your mother tongue and then in your other working languages. Then repeat the exercise, taking the opposite point of view.

(a) Se debería prohibir la transmisión por televisión de deportes violentos. El boxeo y la lucha libre, por ejemplo, embrutecen al ser humano. Y las corridas de toros exaltan la crueldad para satisfacer los instintos más frívolos del público. (Read the article 'Bullfighting Makes a Comeback' in Chapter 15, pp. 254–257.)

(b) Las carreras de coches son un despilfarro de dinero y de hidrocarburos en una época en que la escasez de petróleo inclusive ha ocasionado guerras. Son un riesgo para la vida de los pilotos. Tienen poco que ver con el espíritu deportivo, y son más bien una muestra del grado de locura de nuestra civilización.

(c) No es justo gravar más la gasolina que el tabaco. La gasolina es un bien necesario para la sociedad actual, mientras que el tabaco es una droga que contribuye a causar el cáncer. Este debe estar gravado con más impuestos que aquélla. ((a), (b) and (c) are adapted from the practice test for the Diploma de Español como Lengua Extranjera, 1995.)

(d) Un certain 'populisme' est de rigueur actuellement des deux côtés de l' Atlantique. Mais, alors que les populistes Américains réduisent carrément les impôts des riches et les prestations sociales des pauvres, les Français se sentent obligés de tenir un discours contraire. Ils dénoncent 'l'exclusion', tout en ménageant les intérêts des classes aisées. Les hommes politiques devraient avoir le courage de déclarer sans ambages leurs véritables intentions, afin que les électeurs sachent à quoi s'en tenir. (Adapted from Singer, 1995)

(e) Le désarmement complet est un idéal qui ne sera pas atteint de notre vivant, car les forces qui engendrent les conflits armés ont plutôt tendance à augmenter qu'à décroître, et aucun pays ne peut donc se permettre le luxe de mettre sa sécurité en péril. En fait, ce sont les pays de moindre taille, non pas les grandes puissances, qui ont le plus besoin d'armements de haute technologie. La prolifération de telles armes est donc inévitable.

(f) L'emploi d'une seule langue dans les relations internationales n'est ni possible ni souhaitable, et le multilinguisme s'impose donc par la force des choses. Imposer aux diplomates la corvée supplémentaire de s'exprimer dans une langue étrangère serait un retour à la Tour de Babel et donnerait lieu à des malentendus et des frictions à n'en plus finir. L'interprétation s'avère donc moins coûteuse qu'elle ne paraît de prime abord, car elle contribue de beaucoup à nous épargner cette espèce d'anarchie linguistique où chacun chercherait à imposer sa propre langue comme langue 'universelle'.

(6) Use the topics in (5) above for a session of classroom debates, choosing a 'pro' and 'con' speaker for each topic by random drawing. Conduct at least one debate in each language. Ask students from the audience to summarize the 'pro' and 'con' statements of each debate in a different language.

(7) Choose any one of the propositions offered below and prepare a three-minute speech, to be given in class, arguing either for or against the proposition you have selected. You may use outlines or notes, but your speech should not be written out and read verbatim to the class. Use both logic and emotion to make your points. Maintain eye contact with your audience. After your speech, another student will be called on at random to briefly recapitulate what you have said; another will be called on at random to briefly critique your delivery; then the rest of the class will be invited to ask you questions about any points in your speech that did not seem clear; finally, anyone in class who wishes to offer a brief rebuttal of your speech will be invited to do so.

(a) The Global Biodiversity Assessment, based on the work of 1500 scientific experts from all over the world, indicates that almost three times as many species became extinct from 1810 to the present (112 species) as between 1600 and 1810 (38 species). But protecting endangered species can hamper economic growth, and a 1995 Harris opinion poll of 1007 adults indicated that only 42% believed that government had struck the right balance between protecting the environment and protecting jobs.

Once a species is gone, it is gone for good. So, preserving biological diversity is more important than promoting industrial progress and creating jobs, and endangered species should be protected by law against the spread of industry and pollution even if jobs are lost in the process.

(b) Economic prosperity cannot be sustained unless everyone in the population has access to health care. If private insurance coverage does not provide such access, health care should be made a public service funded by public revenues.

(c) Free trade fosters prosperity and understanding by promoting the flow of goods, people and ideas across borders. Therefore, exerting political pressure on countries by a trade embargo is counterproductive. Economic sanctions should be used only to punish serious violations of international law.

(d) Computers are useful tools, but the widespread use of automated word processing programs in schools will eventually make people illiterate, as students will no longer feel any need to learn rules of spelling or grammar.

(e) Exploring the far reaches of outer space is a waste of precious resources which could be put to better use alleviating poverty or promoting economic development here on Earth.

(f) The city of Portland, Oregon is considering an 'anti-panhandling' municipal ordinance which would make it illegal for people to sit on sidewalks, but not to sit at a sidewalk café. This proposal unfairly discriminates against the poor.

(g) In order to keep the French language alive, Quebec was right to declare it the official language of the province and to require its use in public spaces and on storefront signs, even if that restricts the rights of those who speak English or other languages.

(h) Companies should not be allowed indefinitely to keep off the market any useful invention they have patented, such as a breakthrough drug. If they do not promptly manufacture the invention and make it available for use by the public, the patent should be revoked and awarded to a different company.

(i) When armed conflicts cause severe suffering among civilians, the international community should intervene to help even without the consent of the belligerent forces or the governments involved in the conflict.

(j) The practice of 'warehousing' (keeping dwellings off the market until real-estate prices and rents go up) is anti-competitive. It should be prohibited when housing is in short supply and many are homeless. Landlords who engage in this practice should be fined or required to rent vacant properties at a fair market price.

(8) Translate the topics in (7) above into Spanish, French or your other working languages, and repeat the exercise.

(9) In the international fora where interpreters work, the fundamental tension is that between international cooperation and national sovereignty. It is important to understand this overarching (often implicit) debate, because it sheds light on speakers' intent and often renders intelligible positions and statements that may otherwise not be clear. The following are brief presentations of the arguments for and against 'neutrality' or 'isolationism'. Prepare a brief speech (two or three minutes) to be given in class, based on one of these two positions. Use any additional arguments or facts you wish. When all class members have spoken, decide by a show of hands which side was more convincingly argued.

The 'Unilateralist' Argument

A great nation should stand on its own record and assert its own identity in international affairs. More is to be gained by leadership, hard-earned prestige, statesmanship and independent judgment than by alliances. Multilateral diplomacy is a treacherous minefield into which wise leaders should not venture lightly. National security demands that we keep our options open and avoid 'entangling alliances'. Many nations, such as Switzerland, have prospered for centuries by maintaining scrupulous neutrality and staying aloof from the world's quarrels. Why should that prudent attitude be labeled 'isolationism' when it is practiced, for example, by the United States?

The 'Multilateralist' Argument

One of our time's great poets, the Syrian-born Adonis, has found a simple way of describing the United States and its present foreign policy: 'What strikes me about the States is the richness of American society on the one hand and, on the other, the smallness of its foreign policy.' The struggle in the UN Security Council, when America opposed the International Criminal Court, evoked George Orwell's novel 'Animal Farm', in which some of the farm's inhabitants claim that 'we are all equal but some are more equal than others'. The compromise reached in the Security Council was based on the fact that an overwhelming majority of the UN member states saw the ICC (International Criminal Court) as a new and vital centerpiece of international law, worth fighting for. How does a superpower wield its power in an interdependent world? Democratic power needs legitimacy. 'For us or against us' is not the best way to attract allies and friends. 'If you elect the wrong leader' – Salvador Allende in Chile or Yasser Arafat in Palestine – 'it will have consequences' is another disturbing line. That kind of gunboat diplomacy leads to banana-republic democracy. History teaches that cooperation and integration are more successful in achieving positive results than confrontation and unilateralism. Post-war Germany chose to become Gulliverized within European networks and structures. It has even given up the mighty Deutschmark for the sake of the euro and Europe. Post-Communist Russia renounced the ambition of trying to become a superpower. Instead it has chosen integration and cooperation, even with former archenemies within NATO. The United States possesses powers and riches never seen before in the world. But to tackle the global challenges of the 21st century and its new security threats, you need a global strategy and a global network. And only the United Nations can provide the necessary legitimacy and sustainability for worldwide common action. Fortress Europe, Fortress USA? That is not only an outdated model, it is also hopelessly counterproductive. The United States is neither a Goliath nor a benign Gulliver, but the essential partner that we want to see, and that we need, in our common quest for global peace, development and democracy. So the United States should think again and let the International Criminal Court prove its worth. It was designed to constrain, prevent, deter and punish the actions of would-be criminals, not of peacekeepers. (Schori, 2002: 6 (excerpt))

(10) (a) Read the following argument advocating greater 'isolationism' or 'unilateralism' by France vis-à-vis Algeria. Evaluate the strength of the argument in light of the conclusions you have reached on this issue in the previous exercise. Does the author use any additional or new arguments that you find persuasive?

Algeria: At Arm's Length 'Algeria is France.' That was the byword forever repeated by French political leaders – including François Mitterrand, and excepting General de Gaulle – until 1957. Today, in 1995, 38 years later, Algeria is no longer France. And yet, despite independence, despite the massive, and now complete, departure of the French from Algeria, public opinion is still galvanized by Algeria's turmoil: hostage-taking incidents, murders of foreigners on Algerian soil, terrorist attacks in France, acrimonious exchanges and canceled meetings between leaders – all conveying the feeling that Algeria will never find its way out of the tunnel.

That deep concern is due to an attitude that has unreasonably outlived its usefulness among certain political and media circles, an attitude which amounts to conferring a unique quality on relations between France and Algeria, making them somehow different from those which normally exist between independent states: a 'special relationship', and a posture of 'non-interference'. It is the result of keeping permanently alive a climate of political post-colonialism.

There is no other way out of this bind than to look the facts squarely in the eye: Algeria is not France. Algeria and France are two independent countries, different in their history and culture, two countries which have no common borders and no imperialistic designs on each other.

When I went to Algiers in 1957, as the first French President to visit an independent Algeria, I was trying to consolidate that normalization, that release from post-colonial feelings of regret and remorse in the wake of the war of independence. The words were followed by events, and our relations did become normal, that is to say good when we were in agreement, as when we launched the North–South dialogue together, and bad when we disagreed, as when the problem of the former Spanish Sahara arose. That is how international affairs are ordinarily conducted, with each acting according to his obligations and and interests, without trying to make other people's decisions for them....

(Continues...)Excerpted from Interpretation by James Nolan. Copyright © 2012 James Nolan. Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.