INSTRUCTIONS for analytical essay.
(my *topic: errors as additions omissions and substitutions)
Provide a brief overview of the discipline of interpreting studies, focusing on its
significance to interpreting practitioners, scholars, and educators.
b. Contextualize the *topic you have selected within the discipline of interpreting
studies.
c. Provide a thorough analysis of the *topic, going beyond our textbook and other
assigned readings this semester. You might find it helpful to review suggested
readings from the pochhackers book and/or search for publications related to the topic. In
your analysis, consider answering questions such as:
i. What are the theoretical foundations of the *topic?
ii. How is it significant to interpreting practitioners, scholars, and educators?
iii. In what ways has interest in and/or understanding of the *topic evolved
over time?
iv. What is the current status of the *topic in professional and academic
circles?
v. If the *topic is still a contemporary issue in professional and academic
circles, where might it be going next?
Here is the interpreting analysis #2 I wrote I am allowed to “recycle”:
Interpreting Analysis #2
INT6991 – Foundations of Interpreting Studies
March 10, 2024
Dr. Mark Halley
Julie Foleno
Introduction
In this analysis, I focus on Tim Urban’s TED Talk, “Inside the Mind of a Master Procrastinator,” from English to American Sign Language (ASL) through the lens of single exposure translation, a concept emphasized by Pöchhacker (2022). A colleague chose this TED Talk to ensure my interpretation remained unbiased and spontaneous. However, incorporating the speaker’s referenced screen into my setup presented initial challenges, somewhat affecting the spontaneity of my interpretation, especially as my tendency to overthink impacted the first minute of my performance.
Simultaneous interpreting, my chosen method, involves the immediate rendition of speech from a source to a target language. As Pöchhacker (2022) outlines, this complex cognitive task requires navigating between two linguistic systems under significant time constraints, with potential pitfalls such as omissions, additions, and errors. This approach highlights the essence of delivering a spontaneous and accurate interpretation after a single exposure, underlining the cognitive and ethical demands placed on interpreters in real-time communication scenarios. My decision to use simultaneous interpreting aimed to mirror the actual demands of the profession, balancing fidelity, clarity, and fluency within cognitive load constraints—a concept explored by Seleskovitch & Lederer (1989), provides an ideal platform to assess occurrences of errors amidst managing information flow and maintaining the integrity of the original message.
Analysis
Section 7.2.2 of Pöchhacker’s (2022) work, which meticulously examines omissions, additions, and substitutions, offers an invaluable framework for dissecting these error types, setting the stage for a comprehensive analysis that bridges theoretical foundations with practical implications. This section’s detailed exploration into these types of interpretative deviations highlights the intricate balance required to maintain fidelity to the source message. By anchoring the discussion in this framework, the analysis directly confronts the cognitive, linguistic, and ethical challenges that interpreters encounter, underlining the importance of an in-depth understanding of these errors (Pöchhacker, 2022). This focus is essential for appreciating the complexity of interpretation as a dynamic process, where such deviations are not mere flaws but reflections of the interpretive decision-making process. It is essential to understand each of these error types in depth, drawing upon scholarly discourse, to ensure effective application to the subsequent analysis of the interpreting sample.
Omissions stand out as a critical error type where elements present in the source message are absent in the target message, challenging the completeness and fidelity of the interpreted message (Pöchhacker, 2004). The seminal work by Gerver (1976) on simultaneous interpreting illuminated the impact of cognitive load on omissions, highlighting how the intense demands of interpreting can lead to unintended information loss. Chernov (2004) further explored this phenomenon, attributing omissions to the cognitive processes of anticipation and inference under the constraints of real-time interpreting. In the ASL interpreting context, where interpreters navigate between spoken English and visual-gestural ASL, the risk of omissions underscores the complexity of real-time cognitive processing, emphasizing the need for interpreters to make rapid decisions about content prioritization to maintain message integrity. This complexity is magnified in ASL interpreting, where the visual-gestural modality demands an additional layer of cognitive processing, making the navigation of what to retain or omit even more challenging (Leeson, 2005). Expanding upon this, research in psycholinguistics provides additional layers of understanding regarding omissions. For example, studies by Christoffels and de Groot (2006) on bilingual memory and processing offer insights into how working memory limitations in bilingual individuals might influence the occurrence of omissions in interpreting, suggesting a direct link between cognitive resource allocation and the quality of interpreted output. Omissions often result from cognitive overload or gaps in understanding, underscoring the importance of interpreters’ ability to manage their working memory and attention to prevent inadvertently skipping parts of the source content (Gile, 2009). The strategic prioritization and decision-making processes that interpreters employ to manage dense information or rapid speech are crucial for maintaining the coherence and logical flow of the interpreted message, as omissions can significantly disrupt text coherence, affecting its overall comprehensibility (Shlesinger, 1998).
Additions, as errors, involve inserting information into the target message that was not present in the source, potentially altering the intended meaning (Taylor, 2017). While additions might sometimes be motivated by an interpreter’s attempt to clarify or provide context, as errors, they represent a deviation from the source content that can inadvertently introduce bias or misrepresent the speaker’s intentions. The insertion of unnecessary content, as cautioned by Shlesinger (1998), risks distorting the original message’s meaning, tone, or emphasis. The implications of additions for interpreter fidelity were notably discussed by Berk-Seligson (1990) in the context of legal interpreting, where even minor additions can significantly affect audience perceptions and the outcomes of legal proceedings. In ASL interpreting, the visual-gestural modality and the interpreter’s role as a conduit for cross-linguistic communication heighten the importance of adhering closely to the source message, ensuring that any additions do not detract from the original message’s accuracy. Further exploration into the psychology of interpreting, such as the work by Gile (2009) on the Effort Models of interpreting, sheds light on how the cognitive effort involved in production and listening/sight translation efforts might lead to additions. Gile’s (2009) models suggest that under cognitive strain, interpreters may resort to additions as a strategy to maintain fluency or coherence, albeit at the risk of introducing inaccuracies. In ASL interpreting, where the interpreter might add content to provide context or clarify meaning, the decision to add information must be weighed against the potential for introducing bias or altering the message’s tone (Mindess, 1999). However, these practices come with ethical considerations, highlighted by Roy (2000), regarding the importance of maintaining the speaker’s original intent and avoiding interpreter bias.
The exploration of substitutions in interpreting unveils the intricate process of translating expressions and concepts that lack direct equivalents between languages, highlighting the potential for inaccuracies due to linguistic gaps. Substitutions entail replacing elements from the source message with alternatives in the target message. This error type underscores the challenge of finding equivalences that faithfully convey the original message’s intent across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Gile’s (1995) exploration into the complexities of substitutions emphasized the delicate balance interpreters must strike between linguistic fidelity and the pragmatic demands of conveying meaning in the target language. This challenge is amplified by the need to find equivalent expressions within ASL’s distinct grammatical and cultural framework, ensuring that replacements do not distort the original message’s intent (Russell, 2002). Metzger (1999) discusses substitutions’ pragmatic and cultural dimensions, illustrating how such choices can impact the socio-cultural appropriateness and relational dynamics of interpretation. This holistic view equips interpreters with the necessary analytical tools to evaluate the effects of substitutions on both the accuracy and cultural sensitivity of the message conveyed. Errors in interpretation, ranging from minor inaccuracies to significant misinterpretations that may alter the message’s intended meaning, necessitate a constant refinement of both linguistic competence and cultural knowledge. Substitutions that inaccurately reflect the source message can mislead the audience, distort the speaker’s intent, or obscure the message’s original meaning.
In my self-analysis of ASL interpreting work, I apply insights from Marty M. Taylor’s classification system (Taylor, 2017) as an ancillary reference, not as the cornerstone of my methodology. While not the primary focus, this framework enriches my understanding of interpreting errors, particularly omissions and additions, within a broader spectrum of interpreting skills and competencies. With a balanced approach, my analysis remains centered on the comprehensive examination of errors, including omissions, additions, as well as substitutions—a category less emphasized by Taylor (2017) but integral to my self-evaluation. This use of Taylor’s (2017) classifications enhances my ability to assess the frequency, severity, and impact of these errors on the overall integrity of my interpreting practice, striving for a meticulous and holistic improvement in interpretive accuracy.
Omissions
0:22 – “…enough done the first week… heavier days later on…” – This omission reflects not specifying the quantity. Linguistically, it detracts from the original message’s strategy for time management, potentially confusing the ASL audience about the speaker’s approach to distributing tasks.
0:44 – “That would happen every single paper.” – Omitting this repetitive action was likely due to cognitive overload. It fails to emphasize the chronic nature of procrastination, reducing the impact of the speaker’s experiences with repeated delays and habitual patterns.
0:59 – “…way too big a project…” and the following pause – This inadvertent omission obscures the project’s magnitude, affecting the audience’s grasp of the task’s overwhelming nature. It likely occurred because I tried to streamline the interpretation, but ultimately, it skewed the intended emphasis on the project’s scale as well as the timing and flow of the message.
1:00 – Did not specify what is ‘light’ – This omission leaves out critical information about how to begin tackling a large project, and the implied meaning of “light work” was not included. This might stem from an oversight or an attempt to simplify the interpretation, but it
1:20 – Incomplete metaphor connection regarding the staircase – This omission fails to convey the step-by-step progress concept effectively. This was due to not tying the stair concept back to the workload planning concept.
1:25 – “new revised plan” – This was the included portion, but I omitted the completeness of the sentence. I did not include a time marker or subject, leaving a fragmented concept.
2:34 – Omitted laughter in response to “that didn’t happen” joke – This error detracts from the shared experience and humor of the situation, potentially making the ASL audience feel disconnected from the live audience’s reaction. This omission likely occurred from my focus on linguistic content at the expense of conveying the atmosphere and communal reactions.
2:54 – title of Blog – This is an example of specifically omitting finger-spelled terms. The inability to convey the title affects the ASL audience’s understanding of specific, possibly beneficial, information. This omission resulted from not being able to hear what was said. In reviewing the source, I could still not discern the title.
3:14 – signed “MY BRAIN PROCRASTINATE PEOPLE” – This omission of the separation between concepts blurs the distinction between the speaker’s self-reflective observations and the general behavior of procrastinators.
3:30 – It is unclear what is brought today – This omission leads to ambiguity, fails to convey specifics about what is being presented, and compromises the contextual understanding of what is about to be shown.
3:32 – Left out the negation regarding the audience being experts – this significant error changes the message’s meaning entirely. It affects the perceived expertise level of the audience, potentially altering the ASL audience’s understanding of the context in which information is shared. This omission was inadvertent and noted only upon review.
4:03 – “THAT” unclear reference – This omission lacks a clear reference to the screen, which may lead to confusion about what “that” pertains to, reducing the message’s coherence.
4:25 – Omitted specific name referred – Not conveying the specific name omits potentially essential information for understanding the narrative or context, likely due to my decision to prioritize flow over specific details.
5:45 – Missing clear concepts of what human brains are capable of and which animals are not – This omission impacts the comparative understanding between human and animal cognitive abilities. Getting lost in understanding the source, I failed to emphasize humans’ distinct capabilities adequately. This error was definitely due to the challenge of my capacity to maintain clarity while managing cognitive load.
7:12 – “Least pleasant place where hard things have to be done” – Omitting this description deprives the ASL audience of understanding the emotional and psychological nuances associated with procrastination’s impact on productivity. This error inadvertently occurred, likely due to cognitive overload.
8:30 – Unclear that there are three characters internally: the monkey, the rational decision maker, and the panic monster – This may stem from a lack of clarity initially upon receiving the source message – by not clearly distinguishing among these internal characters from the onset of their introduction disrupted the narrative structure and character roles within the procrastination discussion. This omission was due to the challenge of visually representing multiple abstract entities simultaneously in ASL, which is vital for maintaining narrative coherence.
8:30 – Concepts of “happening in the near future” and “probably get started on that soon” meshed together – This resulted in an omission in both concepts, affecting the temporal clarity of the described procrastination behavior. This conflation likely stems from my attempt to streamline the interpretation but inadvertently reduces the preciseness of time-related details.
8:52 – Omitted that the monkey was who “WON” – This is an example of lack of clarity in the subject-object relationship. Adding a referent or indexing where the monkey was already established in space would have remedied this.
9:07 – Omitted “my” in reference to “face” – this affects the personalization of the narrative, making the interpretation less relatable or clear in its reference to the speaker’s experience.
9:33 – Missing context for what the speaker will “get going on” – This leaves the ASL audience unclear about the action’s subject. This omission may result from the interpreter’s lapse in connecting back to the overarching topic of the TED talk preparation.
9:35 – Left out panic monster referent – This is another reminder to include pronouns and subjects to ensure grammatical agreement.
10:08 – “1,000s of emails” – This omission of numbers impacts the scale of procrastination consequences by not specifying the overwhelming number of emails. This error occurred due to mental processing and reformulation of the message in the target language.
11:51 – Left out the concept that the panic monster only shows up in those situations – This likely stemmed from an oversight or the complexity of conveying conditional behaviors in ASL succinctly.
Additions
0:26 – The addition of “not” where it did not exist in the source material – This introduces a negation that changes the meaning of the statement. This alteration can significantly shift the interpretation’s message, leading to misunderstanding the speaker’s intent.
1:26 – Reacting and adding a facial response to Urban’s comment – This was possibly due to discomfort at my hesitation in signing “PLAN,” as well as personally finding the speaker funny. This creates a personal interpretive element that was not present in the source, distracting from Urban’s message and potentially altering the tone or focus of his talk. The interpreter’s reaction, while human and natural, should be controlled to maintain the integrity and neutrality of the interpreted message.
1:19 – Adding a specific number to the sign for “FEW” when trying to show “few months – This specific quantification where the original message was more general introduces a level of precision that Urban did not specify, potentially misleading the audience about the exact timeline Urban discussed. Such additions, even if minor, can subtly distort the original message’s intent and clarity.
3:26 – The addition of the word “TO” – This does not necessarily skew the interpretation but adds unnecessary content, and it illustrates my inclination to insert elements not present in the original speech. These kinds of additions, even when they seem benign, can accumulate and affect the natural flow and authenticity of the message being conveyed.
3:58 – Adding “POSITIVE,” which looks like “MOTHLY” – This is considered an error as it introduces confusion by inserting a term that misaligns with the context and detracts from the message’s coherence.
7:25 – Excessively adding affect to the “panic monster” – This error significantly alters the tone and somewhat more seriousness of Urban’s metaphor. Over-emphasizing this character could shift the audience’s reception from understanding the humor and underlying message to focusing on the interpreter’s dramatic presentation, thus diverting attention from Urban’s intended focus.
7:38 – Adding a pause between “DUE” and “DAY” – This error in the separation of concepts disrupts the natural flow of Urban’s speech, potentially altering the emphasis and timing of his points. Such additions lead to confusion, affecting how the audience receives and understands the information.
7:55 – “INVITE ++” – This embellishment, which indicated that only one person was being invited, could suggest a greater significance or enthusiasm in the invitation than Urban expressed, potentially misleading the audience about who or how many people were invited.
8:00 – Head nods as quick affirmations and at the end of sentences – These nonverbal cues, though they may seem to offer supportive confirmation, introduce an interpretive layer not authorized by the source content.
8:10 – Adding an extended pause between the spoken utterance and the applause reaction – This error affects the immediacy and responsiveness of the audience’s reaction in the interpretation, potentially diminishing the impact of Urban’s points or comedic timing.
8:49 – Adding an excessive pause due to thinking – This pause, unintended in the source material, disrupts the flow of information and can be perceived as the speaker’s uncertainty, which is inaccurate.
9:00 – The addition of unnecessary signs, such as “ME DECIDE” – These insertions clutter the interpretation with extraneous information, detracting from the clarity and precision of the message.
10:29 – Showing hesitation or thinking through wiggling fingers – This addition introduces a sense of uncertainty or contemplation not indicated by Urban, potentially altering the perceived confidence or clarity of his delivery. It underscores the importance of accurately mirroring the speaker’s demeanor and delivery in interpretation.
Substitutions
0:08 – “MYSELF” vs. “MY” – This substitution may seem minor, but errors like this can lead to misunderstandings about the subject’s role or actions within the context being discussed.
0:33 – “MY” vs. “ME” – Such substitutions can subtly change the meaning conveyed to the audience, emphasizing possession over the subject.
0:40 – Signed “DUE” partially – This action represents a moment of indecision in the interpretation process, where an initially considered substitution for a concept is abandoned. This disrupts the flow of information and may lead to partial or confusing messages being delivered to the audience.
0:59 – “THIS-POINT-ON” used instead of “PLANNING” – This substitution changes the temporal focus from future-oriented actions to a broader timeline perspective. This substitution affects the message’s specificity regarding the planning process or actions to be taken.
3:22 – “MRI” – I was unable to recall the sign for MRI and chose substitutions that failed to convey technical information accurately.
3:37 – Using the “LAUGH” sign for audience laughter – This error occurred when mixing up handshapes for the concept of others laughing.
5:30 – Misunderstood content – Misinterpreting the source message fundamentally undermines the interpretation’s accuracy, leading to substitution choices that misrepresent the original content.
8:44 – Signing “GOOGLE M-A-P” to finish concept” – This type of substitution can introduce ambiguity, distract from the main points, and potentially mislead the audience regarding the speaker’s original intentions. It was used as a fill to match the content spoken; however, it took away from the sentiment behind the speaker’s message at the end of this segment.
8:46 – Failing to sign audience laughter – The inconsistent substitutions for showing the audience reactions were more distracting to me than successful.
10:11 – Singing “SEND” versus “JOIN” – This exemplifies the decisions interpreters must make to balance between literal translation and conveying the speaker’s intent. The point was that others were joining in the conversation, and less about sending replies.
Conclusion
The exploration of omissions, additions, and substitutions as errors in my work has significantly enriched my understanding of my interpreting product and its effect. By critically assessing these essential aspects, as meticulously highlighted in Section 7.2.2, I have pinpointed potential pitfalls and gained insight into the origins and nature of these errors. This careful analysis has revealed that many of my omissions resulted from cognitive overload, my additions often stemmed from cognitive processing demands, and my substitutions were due to my focus being pulled in different directions and an inability to grasp the correct sign for a concept quickly. Understanding these underlying causes has illuminated these elements’ dual role: it has flagged areas ripe for improvement while emphasizing that errors in omissions, additions, and substitutions, although challenges, also offer opportunities for growth and refinement. With this comprehensive analysis as a foundation, I am poised to approach future interpreting tasks with a deeper awareness of how to minimize these errors, ultimately contributing to more effective and equivalent message delivery.
References
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. The University of Chicago Press.
Chernov, G.V. (2004). Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability-
Prediction Model. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Christoffels, I.K., de Groot, A.M.B. and Kroll, J.F. (2006). Memory and Language Skills in Simultaneous Interpreters: The Role of Expertise and Language Proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language 54(3): 324-345.
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 165–207). Gardner Press.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training (Rev. ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Leeson, L. (2005). Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting: Some considerations for signed language interpreters. In Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 51–67). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Mindess, A. (1999). Reading between the signs: Intercultural communication for sign language interpreters. Intercultural Press.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies, London and New York. Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. (2022). Introducing Interpreting Studies. Routledge.
Roy, C. B. (2000). Interpreting as a discourse process. Oxford University Press.
Russell, D. (2002). Interpreting in legal contexts: Consecutive and simultaneous interpretation. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham, & A. Dufour (Eds.), The critical link 2: Interpreters in the community (pp. 29–40). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Seleskovitch, D. and Lederer, M. (1989) Pédagogie raisonnée de linterprétation, Paris/Brussels:
Didier Érudition/OPOCE.
Shlesinger, M. (1998). Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta: Journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal, 43(4), 486-493.
Taylor, M. M. (2017). Interpretation skills: English to American Sign Language (2nd ed.). Interpreting Consolidated.
Urban, T. (2016). Tim Urban: Inside the mind of a master procrastinator [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arj7oStGLkU
this previous analysis was centered around an interpreting sample. this current analytical essay has nothing to do with my intpreting sample, just recycling the topic. He announced that we could recycle a topic for this final essay.
here are additional 5 sources i would like to include that i found:
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
METALINGUISTIC AWARENESS AND THE PRODUCTION OF INTERPRETING
Jemina Napier and
Roz Barker
Characteristics That Contribute to Effective Simultaneous Communication
Dominique Mallery-Ruganis, Susan Fischer
Lexical decisions and related cognitive issues in spoken and signed language interpreting
A case study of Obama’s inaugural address
Laurie Swabey, Brenda Nicodemus”, Marty M. Taylor and Daniel Gile
St. Catherine University / “Gallaudet University /”Interpreting
Consolidated / Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3
Interpreting omissions
A new perspective
Jemina Napier
Macquarie University
Additions in simultaneous signed interpreting
A corpus-driven grounded study
Ella Wehrmeyer
North-West University
. this makes my total of references 21, i put down 25 though in case you can further support my writing. Im mostly concerned about my references making sense and doing the best job of supporting the writing.
rubric :
Application of material
100 to >85.0 pts
Excellent
The student adeptly applies the material in a way that fully encapsulates the concept; information is presented in a coherent and academic manner
Critical thinking
100 to >85.0 pts
Excellent
The student has demonstrated excellent critical thinking skills; multiple strong and clear connections are made between the concept(s) under investigation, and academic literature beyond the textbook and course materials
1
Format
50 to >40.0 pts
Excellent
The format of the paper is excellent; the paper adheres to APA 7 style and is written in error-free academic English