On Shlesinger's proposed equalizing universal for interpreting

The object of the present study is to observe the relative orality of two ontologically different texts. Specifically, it examines the effect of simultaneous interpreting on the orality of the target text as compared with that of the source text, based on the relative incidence of features associated with oral (spokenlike) and with literate (writtenlike) discourse. [. ] [2] The corpus used here consists of four Hebrew and four English source texts and their respective target texts (produced by a total of three professional interpreters in real, rather than simulated conditions). Two out of each set of four texts were markedly closer to the oral end of the continuum, and two to the literate one. Four of the parameters most frequently cited in the literature were used as a basis for isolating the features relevant to textual orality: (1) degree of planning; (2) shared content and knowledge; (3) lexis; and (4) degree of involvement. Every feature considered relevant to these parameters in the respective source and target texts was isolated in an attempt to pinpoint the shifts in the position of each text along the oralliterate continuum. This analysis served as a basis for testing the following three hypotheses: 1. Simultaneous interpretation exerts an equalizing effect on the position of a text on the oralliterate continuum; i.e., it diminishes the orality of markedly oral texts and the literateness of markedly literate ones. Thus, the range of the [3] oralliterate continuum is reduced in simultaneous interpreting. 2. The equalizing effect of simultaneous interpretation is a more powerful force than the position of the target text within its respective literacy system; thus, the mode of interlingual transfer is a more powerful force than the preferred position of a target text. Specifically, it was predicted that shifts from either extreme of On Shlesinger’s proposed equalizing universal 3 the continuum towards its center would supersede the ostensible tendency of Hebrew texts to become more literate in translation into English and of English texts to become more oral in translation into Hebrew. 3. The equalizing effect of simultaneous interpretation is a more powerful force than the explicitation typical of interlingual transfer. The findings reveal that interpretation does have a consistent tendency to render a literate text more oral. In the case of the oral source texts, the findings were less unequivocal. Nonetheless, the analysis indicates clearly that the range of the oralliterate continuum is reduced in simultaneous interpretation. The hypotheses concerning the relative weight of the mode [4] of interlingual transfer, on the one hand, and of the literacy tradition, on the other, was borne out in the case of the literate source texts. The findings for the oral-type source texts were inconclusive, as were those related to the bearing of the mode of transfer on explicitation. The first chapters then go over the background material: the nature of interpreting, and the research to that date on orality vs. literacy. Note that what is under study here is not whether a text is actually spoken or written, but whether it has the qualities associated with those modes. Thus a spoken text can be relatively oral or literate, as can a written one. The four features taken to represent a position on the continuum are operationalized as follows: – Degree of planning: Literate texts are more highly planned before they are produced, and this is shown in: 1) greater lexical density (i.e. a higher type/token ratio), especially as achieved by nominalizations, modifiers, subordinating conjunctions and the like; oral texts have more fragmented syntax and tend to use coordinating conjunctions, 2) use of cohesive ties, which is greater in literate texts, whereas oral texts have lower textual cohesion and thus assume greater knowledge of the context, 3) disfluencies and flow monitoring: oral texts have more redundancies, pauses, repetitions, and monitoring of information flow, to check on whether the text is being understood. [Note that here Shlesinger actually puts lexical density and cohesive ties under the same head; here we have separated them because of the relation between cohesion and the explicitation hypothesis, to which we return below. ] – Shared content and knowledge: Oral texts require that the addressee know more about the context, whereas literate texts have to be more explicit in their semantic references. [Shlesinger uses this particular continuum to argue that explicitation is a feature of more literate texts, since they are more contextindependent. This effectively offers an explanation of why explicitation is ostensibly found in translations, since they cannot assume the same degree of shared content as can nontranslations. Note, however, that explicitation in the use of cohesion markers – as in Blum-Kulka (1986) – may also be a consequence of the greater “planning” of the more literate texts. Blum-Kulka’s prior hypothesis would thus seem to be integrated under two heads here. ]