Anthony Pym on experimenting on/with students at the Monterey Institute of International Studies

Investigating Expertise in Interpreting

I ended my last blog post on the expertise approach by saying that using the expertise approach to study interpreting will require some more development of the different constructs. I was talking about how to operationalize Ericsson’s and Smith’s three step general method for investigating expert performance. The first step says that the researcher should start with “a detailed analysis of the investigated domain and the skills necessary for experts in that domain and a systematic mapping of cognitive processes for the specific skill”.

As far as I know, there is no exhaustive analysis of the skills necessary for experts in the domain of interpreting, but there are several proposals of lists or typologies. And all of us involved in interpreting can come up with longer or shorter lists. In fact just think about the description of what you need to start interpreting school:

• - Perfect command in most domains of your mother tongue and at least perfect understanding of the foreign languages you work from.
• - Ability to adapt quickly from one situation to the other.
• - Ability to grasp quickly, conclude and anticipate next step.
• - Ability to quickly formulate in another language what you have just heard in one language.
• - Ability to listen and speak simultaneously (at least if you work with simultaneous interpreting).

This is by no means an exhaustive list it just gives an idea of what we have to deal with, when analyzing the skills necessary for experts. Another tricky thing is that a person can very well master these skills without having the ability to interpret, let alone become an expert interpreter. I know many people who have perfect native levels in two languages who are not interpreters, but neither would or could interpret. Maybe you do too.

3rd International Translation Process Reseach Worskshop

The Iberian Society of Translation and Interpreting Studies (AIETI) has released a call for papers for its 6th International General Conference, to be held at ULPGC School of Translation & interpreting, in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, Spain), in January 23-25, 2013. Guest speakers include Franz Pöchhacker (University of Vienna), Fábio Alves (UFMG, Brazil), and Elena Pérez, President of the Spanish Association of Translators, Copy-editors and Interpreters. Papers, posters, panels and round tables are welcome. More information at the web of the conference.

Within the framework of the AIETI6 Conference, a parallel session will be held in January 21-22, 2013, which will focus on the Methodology of Translation and Interpreting Process Research, as a continuation of similar workshops organized by Dr Susanne Göpferich at the University of Graz (2009) and the University of Giessen (2011). Expected speakers include Fábio Alves (UFMG, Brazil), Erik Angelone (Kent State U., USA), Giselle de Almeida (DCU, Irleland), Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow (ZHAW, Switzerland), Birgitta Englund Dimitrova (Stockholm University), Susanne Göpferich (U. of Giessen, Germany), Sandra L. Halverson (U. of Bergen, Norway), Amparo Hurtado (PACTE Research Group, UAB, Spain), Arnt L. Jakobsen (CBS, Denmark), Isabel Lacruz (Kent State U.), Celia Martín (PETRA Research Group, ULPGC, Spain), Inger M. Mees (CBS) Sharon O’Brien (DCU), Marisa Presas (PETRA Research Group, UAB, Spain), Hanna Risku (U. of Graz, Austria), Elisabet Tiselius (U. of Bergen/Stockholm Univ.), Kilian G. Seeber (U. of Geneva, Switzerland), Gregory M. Shreve (Kent State U./New York Univ.), Annette C. Sjørup (CBS) and Šárka Timarová (Lessius Hogeschool, Belgium).

¿Piensas en horizontal o en vertical?

Al presentar al traductor el texto por traducir, los programas de traducción asistida utilizan interfaces muy diferentes. Un posible criterio para clasificarlas consiste en distinguir entre las que presentan los segmentos como líneas separadas por determinados caracteres (figura 1) y las que presentan los segmentos en forma de tabla (figura 2).

Figura 1. Presentación de los segmentos en forma de líneas (horizontal)

Figura 2. Presentación de los segmentos en forma de tabla (vertical)

En el primer grupo podemos incluir la mayoría de las versiones del popular Trados, así como otros programas que parecen haberse inspirado en este sistema de trabajo, tales como WordFast Classic, Translation Workspace, Gtranslator o Launchpad Translations. En el segundo grupo, que probablemente resulte más nutrido, se cuentan Idiom Workbench, SDLx, SDL Trados y POedit, entre otros.

Aparte de la diferente manera de presentar los segmentos, los programas del primer grupo vemos también se caracterizan por incluir el texto intersticial de los segmentos, es decir, el texto que no es necesario traducir (por ejemplo, las imágenes de los documentos redactados con un procesador de textos o las etiquetas de los documentos escritos en un lenguaje de maquetación). Esta es, probablemente, la razón que motiva la elección de la presentación en tabla, ya que una distribución por líneas habría obligado a duplicar en pantalla una importante cantidad de información, sin contar con las dificultades técnicas que habría podido suponer.

La cuestión es que, independientemente de las razones por las que haya sido tomada en cada caso, esta decisión no suele ponerse en cuestión a pesar de su impacto sobre el trabajo del traductor, tanto en lo relativo a su calidad como a su rapidez. Desde luego, el método de trabajo es similar en ambos casos, ya que la mayoría de los traductores suelen comenzar a traducir un segmento copiando exactamente el texto de origen para, a continuación, sobrescribir (o machacar) el texto en la lengua de origen por la correspondiente traducción. Este método presenta la ventaja de que minimiza la posibilidad de cometer errores al tener que reproducir (o cortar y pegar) elementos como cifras, etiquetas, nombres propios, etc.

Aun así, cuando el texto se presenta en forma de columnas vemos que el menor espacio horizontal disponible obliga al traductor a trabajar con un mayor número de líneas y, curiosamente, parece que determinados errores abundan más en los textos traducidos con este tipo de interfaz. Por ejemplo, parece más habitual repetir palabras, dejar dobles espacios y, tal vez, cometer errores de concordancia entre palabras de líneas diferentes.

Al revisar el texto, la situación cambia y la presentación en forma de tabla resulta más cómoda para seguir el texto de la traducción y recurrir al texto de origen con facilidad. La presentación con el formato lineal, por otro lado, sólo resulta aconsejable cuando se puede ocultar el texto de origen y ver el texto de la traducción con el formato para el que está diseñado.

A pesar de los grandes avances que han sufrido los ordenadores durante los últimos años, resulta curioso que haya aplicaciones, como los sistemas de traducción asistida, que se han aferrado a los viejos esquemas y no incorporan conceptos ya muy populares en la informática. Por ejemplo, las aplicaciones dirigidas al gran público ya han descubierto el valor que los usuarios confieren a poder personalizar la interfaz (y hasta el comportamiento) de una aplicación a su gusto. Incorporar estas opciones a los sistemas de traducción asistida permitiría agilizar el trabajo del traductor y elevar la calidad de los textos.

Más allá de la metáfora del papel, en la que se representan en pantalla las traducciones de manera similar a como se imprimirían en un libro, una interfaz de ordenador ofrece infinitas posibilidades de presentación visual utilizando, por ejemplo, colores y signos, que nos permitirían observar el texto desde diferentes puntos de vista. Un buen comienzo, por ejemplo, podría ser permitir que el usuario pudiese elegir entre la manera en que se le presentan los segmentos por traducir y que su espacio de trabajo en pantalla deje de ser un minúsculo recuadro de la pantalla rodeado de información que no le interesa.

You can quote me on this one (4/4)

This one got me electrified

In the first post of the series on referencing in scientific works we saw what to cite, in general. In the second one, we focused on how to cite title identifiers and how to apply the author-date system. In the third one, we offered some info about major world naming systems. This fourth and last post rounds off the series with a short overview on how to handle references to electronic sources.

Web sites, e-mails, DVDs, journal articles (on the web) are all electronic sources, to name but a few. As a rule of thumb, when it comes to reference electronic sources, they are to be handled with the same criteria as printed media. For in-text citations, Harvard suggests naming the author, the year of publication, and the page number(s) when available; for detailed information on the Harvard style, see the second post of this series.

The thing gets a little more complicated when listing the references at the end of your work, as it is not always that easy to know, what to include in your reference and where to find this information. Basically, you should give as much data as possible on the authorship, source location and availability. Remember that, when some data are missing, there are appropriate abbreviations to indicate so, such as [s. n.], for sine nomine (i.e. no name of publisher), [s. d.], for sine datum (no date of publication) and [s. l.], for sine loco (no place of publication).

As we already learned in the second and third post of the series, citing styles are all quite alike but they tend to differ to some extent from each other. When no guidelines are provided, being consistent is even more important than the style you choose; that’s still valid for referencing of electronic sources: While Harvard, for example, recommends giving additional information on the electronic access, location (such as URL or a data base) and on access data (that is, when the source was viewed or downloaded), APA proposes citing the latter extra information only in case of a web site which frequently moves to another (virtual) place. To put some order in this chaos, a numbering system to identify electronic documents has been established that is becoming increasingly popular. Here you will find some information of the Digital Object Identifier system.

Check the four main styles addressed in the other posts of the series, APA; Chicago; Harvard; and MLA. In any case, the location and availability of the document are additional pieces of information which should be provided, perhaps also their DOI number when available. The date of consultation is also important, for many documents disappear after a while, specially after website updates. If you ever look for a reference in an article and it turns out it already disappeared, do not forget to check Internet archives such as the WayBack Machine, in case they have kept the earlier version there.

The world of citing

The four posts of this series are supposed to be some kind of a map of referencing; whatever route you may choose on your journey through the world of citing, at the end of the day the most important thing is to have traveled it entirely.

Bon voyage!

The adventure of culturemes: are there two sides for just one and the same coin? (2/2)

The post published last week is focused on the advantages of the notion of cultureme, according to Lucía Luque Nadal (2009). In this post, I'm going to review an article written by David Marín Hernández (2005), in which the dark side of the coin is shown. Marín (2005) raises the question of the need of changing the approach usually adopted in Translation Studies research, and suggests that, rather than as an intercultural activity, translation should be envisioned as an interpersonal activity, in order to enable a better analysis of the characteristic features of texts (see also Muñoz 2010:176).

The adventure of culturemes: are there two sides for just one and the same coin? (1/2)

“Two half-truths do not make a truth, and two half-cultures do not make a culture.”

(Arthur Koestler)

The concept of culture is a cornerstone in the research and development of Translation Studies and lexicography, among other fields. The two articles reviewed in this two post series show very different ways to approach culture: two sides of the same coin that are not mutually exclusive and may seem complementary. Both give an answer to the cultural turn currently experienced in Linguistics and also in Translation Studies.