JAITS

ArticleRepetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

Ishizuka Hiroyuki

This article aims to provide a description of interpreters’ conceptual processing in
English-Japanese simultaneous interpreting (SI) drawing on the conceptual complex(CC) model introduced by Funayama (e.g. 2005, 2007). CC is a concept-based
descriptive device used to trace utterance comprehension in online discourse processing.
Differences between source text (ST) and target text (TT) are analysed to explore theinterpreter’s cognitive status, one main focus being repetitive translations of one elementin the ST into two or more places in the TT. Observing repetitive translations during the
SI performance makes it possible to analyse the formation and transformation of CCs, aswell as the contribution of various cognitive resources and other relevant phenomena.
Through a description of the SI process, this article also demonstrates how the SI
performance is supported by interpreters’ conceptual processing. This is an attempt tosubstantiate deverbalization (Seleskovitch, 1978/1998) as an essential stage of theinterpreting process.

1. Introduction
The cognitive process1 in simultaneous interpreting (SI) addresses a rather conventional
but still controversial question in the field of interpreting studies: How can interpreters’
meaning construction be traced? A concept, which is a semantic representation
constructed for discourse processing, is not perceptible. We can, however, observevarious types of linguistic differences between expressions in the source- (ST) and atarget text (TT). Such differences can be analysed as empirical clues that demonstrate thereality of the interpreter’s conceptual operations during SI. One of the typical differences
between linguistic expressions in ST and TT this study focuses on are repetitivetranslations. During SI, interpreters sometimes translate one single element from the STISHIZUKA Hiroyuki, “Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI,” Interpreting andTranslation Studies, No.12, 2012. pages 83-103. © by the Japan Association for Interpreting andTranslation Studies

83

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

into two or more places in the TT. Some repetitive translations can be analysed to explain
the development of concepts while processing the ST.
The aim of this study is to offer a description of interpreters’ conceptual processing
during SI in order to explore the construction and transformation of concepts anddemonstrate how such conceptual processing supports the SI performance. To this end,
the online nature of discourse comprehension will be examined, which is the incremental
process to recover the speaker’s message as a hearer (an interpreter) processes discourse
along its temporal flow. The hearer tries to understand the speaker’s message from the
beginning of the discourse in accordance with the order of information input since
discourse is a lineal series of linguistic signs. The hearer’s comprehension, however,cannot be explained as the simple accumulation of linguistic information. Theinterpreter’s conceptual operations will be traced through analysing the actual SI
performance.
While the first section clarified the purpose of this article, the second section will
review previous research on the subject matter. The third section provides an overview ofthe study’s theoretical framework. The fourth section introduces different types ofrepetitive translation in an actual SI performance. The fifth section offers an analysis ofrepetitive translations in an SI performance sample, and the sixth section sums up theconclusions reached in this study.
2. Previous research
In spite of recent progress in pragmatics, cognitive linguistics, and cognitive psychology,
efforts to explore the online development of conceptual representations have so far been
limited in both interpreting studies and utterance comprehension. Setton’s research(1999) deserves special mention for attempting to use a cognitive-pragmatic approach toelucidate the cognitive mechanisms of SI. His analysis suggests that “no processing unit
which might be tracked from input to output can (...) be viably defined for SI in terms ofsyntactic or semantic chunks” (Setton, 1999, p.271) and that “SI must involve highlyorganised non-linguistic intermediate representations” (Setton, 1999, p.272). While hisanalysis covers a wide range of issues concerning the SI process, the online nature ofconceptual development does not seem to be of interest to him, and it is not clear in what
way his findings were incorporated into his model.
Funayama (1994) focuses on the exploration of interpreters’ conceptual operations
through the differences between ST and TT. The differences reported are repetitivetranslations, non-correspondence of lexical meaning, and long retention of information.
Also, he analyses conceptual fusion and fission from the non-correspondence of
expressions between ST and TT, suggesting the existence and function of conceptual
representation during SI. Looking at the fluid nature of concepts, Funayama (2002, 2004)
84

Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

introduces the notion of a cognitive tag as a device to secure the identity of concepts.
Shifting his interest of study to the content of concepts and its transformation during theonline processing of discourse comprehension, Funayama (2005) introduces the notion ofconceptual complex (referred to below as CC). Funayama (2006) proposes this model totrace the development of CCs in online utterance comprehension in general. In 2007 heproposed an approach that adapts the CC model in order to describe the SI process. While
this model can be useful to analyse interpreters’ conceptual operations based on theactual SI performance, Funayama covers only selected aspects of conceptual operations
to demonstrate the basic ideas of the model so far, leaving room for full-scale research. It
is expected that the comprehensive description of the SI process will be completed in the
future.
Minamitsu (2002) observed the exhibition of meta-representations throughinterpreters’ use of demonstratives and discussed the phenomenon from a relevancetheoretical point of view (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995). He did not, however, directly
refer to the nature of conceptual representations.
Ishizuka (2008) explored the non-linguistic nature of conceptual representations
through repetitive translations in actual SI performances. The development of concepts,
however, is not directly related to aforementioned repetition. In 2010, Ishizuka also
analysed the structural nature of conceptual representations looking at interpreters’
construal of causal events. Although this was not the main focus of his study, his researchsuggested that an incremental structuring of concepts occurs in the construal of causal
events.
This study focuses on the development of conceptual representations during an SI
performance, aiming to explicate interpreters’ conceptual processing drawing on the CCmodel. The study assumes that an interpreter constructs CCs during the online processingof the ST. For the interpreter, while the ST is an important resource to construct CCs, it is
not his/her only resource. Other resources as well as the non-linguistic status and theincremental development of CCs can be explored through differences between ST and TT.
This study focuses on how the interpreter comprehends the ST as a crucial part of the SI
process rather than how he/she produces the TT. For the analysis in this study, the TT
serves as an empirical clue to observe the interpreter’s conceptual operations during SI.
Before examining actual SI performances, a theoretical framework of this study will bepresented.
3. The CC Model
This part introduces basic points of the CC model, which was originally introduced anddeveloped by Funayama (e.g. 2005, 2006, 2007), and lays out a notation system for themodel.
85

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

The CC is a descriptive device of conceptual representations formed for utterancecomprehension in online discourse processing. Funayama (2005) describes the nature of
the CC as follows:(1) It is conceivable that concepts constituting utterance comprehension are formed bycapturing contextual information and knowledge rather than being stably coded withlinguistic expressions. Representations mentally constructed by a hearer of utterances
will be called ‘conceptual complexes’. This is an attempt to trace utterancecomprehension based on conceptual complexes, which transform according todevelopment of utterances alongside their corresponding linguistic expressions(Funayama, 2005, p.4).
The basic assumptions concerning CCs stated in (1) are summarised below.
(2) a. Resource: derived from both linguistic and non-linguistic resourcesb. Status: non-linguistic status as a mental representationc. Development: incremental construction during online discourse processing
Details of the theoretical framework of the CC model will not be addressed here. Rather,
the aim is to describe the non-linguistic nature of the CC. In the following, the essential
CC concept will be introduced using the following examples:(3) a. There’s nothing on telly tonight. (Carston, 2002, p.26)
b. The steak is raw. (Carston, 2002, p.27)
These examples show that the comprehension of utterances entails inferences to reduce or
expand linguistically coded meaning. For example, considering it unlikely that none of
the broadcast stations in a country are operating, (3a) is judged as false unless they all
went on strike or a similar act of god interfered with the usual course of things. In order
for a hearer to understand (3a) as the speaker intended, the pragmatic process involves
the “adding of conceptual constituents” (Carston, 2002, p.27). In this case, the topic of
the utterance is TV programmes, but this notion includes the assumption that thoseinterest the speaker and are worth watching from his point of view. The hearer
understands this while also taking in the literal meaning of the expression and narrows
down the scope of ‘nothing’2 according to this information.
The pragmatic process that leads to the comprehension of (3b), on the other hand,
involves “adjustments to linguistically encoded concepts” (Carston, 2002, p.27). If (3b) isan utterance used by a guest in a restaurant because the meat he refers to is not cooked to86

Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

his satisfaction, the meat is not in fact completely raw. In our day-to-day communication,these utterances are not comprehended simply as an accumulation of syntactic rules andlexical meaning. The hearer of (3b) assumes the starting point that the meat’s purpose is
to be eaten and that for this purpose, the speaker who intends to eat it, expects it to becooked to a certain degree. As a consequence, ‘raw’ assumes the meaning of ‘not cooked
to the speaker’s satisfaction’. In this case, the meaning of raw is expanded in contrast
with that of cooked, which is assumed to refer to the expected state of the meat for eating
purposes. In this example, “the lexically encoded concept in the logical form of theutterance is replaced by an ad hoc concept, pragmatically derived from the lexical one,and (...) this new non-lexicalized concept is a constituent of the proposition expressed by
the speaker of the utterance” (Carston, 2002, p.28).
As demonstrated in these cases, the meaning of words in utterance comprehension isconstructed with supplementary information as well as linguistically coded-information.
Seen from the perspective of conceptual construction, concepts are constructed as a
package of information derived from linguistic information and other non-linguistic
information. In the following, a notation will be provided to describe CCs constructed fortwo scenarios given in (3).

Figure 1: Notation of CCs

In Figure 1, the CCs are depicted as rounded rectangles, which contain their respective
contents. In this figure, (a) is a CC constructed for ‘nothing’ in (3a). Likewise, (b) is a
CC constructed for ‘raw’ in (3b). Normally, linguistic expressions are used to specify thecontent of a CC, but this does not mean that the content is linguistically represented.
Linguistic expression describes the approximate information in a CC only schematically.
Linguistic expression is used merely for convenience of description. In (a) Figure 1,‘worth watching’ stands for additional conceptual constituents, which narrow down the
linguistically coded meaning of nothing. (b), on the other hand, represents a CC for ‘raw’,but its linguistic meaning is replaced by ad hoc information. Description in a CC is only aminimal specification of the content. Therefore, the same CC can be described differently
according to the purpose of the discussion. For example, we can use a simplified notation
for the same CCs shown in Figure 2.

87

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

Figure 2: Simplified notation of CCs

Another important feature discussed in this article is the nested structure of grouped CCs.
When CCs are grouped, they can form a structured CC on a higher level. Funayama(2006) identifies three types of CCs: event, property, and unspecified. For example, whena hearer listens to (4), CCs are thought to be constructed for ‘we’, ‘discuss’ and ‘the issue’
to form an event.
(4) We discussed the issue.
An event CC must include one or more entity CCs as participants in the event and a
relational CC to determine the relation among participants. Figure 3 is the notion of anevent CC for (4). In this study, uppercase letters and a pair of brackets are used to specify
the type of a CC and show the difference between the abstract information concerning thetype of CC and its actual content. Two straight lines connecting a relation CC and eachparticipant CC indicate what CCs are to be associated with each other under the event.

Figure 3: An event CC for (4)If the purpose of the illustration is to show the components packaged into an event CC,
Figure 3 is a sufficient notation for the status of an event. ‘Discuss’ is a relational CC,
which determines the relationship between participants in the event. An event CC is not
simply a group of CCs but contains framing information. In this event CC, eachparticipant CC bears one semantic role respectively. Since the semantic role of aparticipant CC can be conceptually determined at the non-linguistic level, it is also88

Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

independent from trajector/landmark alignment. Langacker (2008) clearly recognises thedistinction: “at issue is the interplay between two basic aspects of conceptualorganization: semantic role (pertaining to conceptual content) and focal prominence (amatter of construal)” (Langacker, 2008, p.365). When Langacker (2008) argues the
choice of trajector in a clause (grammatical subject), he identifies two major strategies:
agent orientation and theme orientation. While the prototype of an agent is “an individual
who wilfully initiates and carries out an action” (Langacker, 2008, p.356), the basic
thematic roles are “zero, mover, patient, and experiencer” (Langacker, 2008, p.370). This
categorization of the clausal structure may suggest the prestigious status of the agent
among participants in an event. These terms will be used to distinguish participants in an
event or a situation3, although the clausal structure itself is not the object of this study. In
the example ‘discuss’ in (4), the CC for ‘we’ serves as the agent and that for ‘issue’ as
the theme.
Normally, framing information is integrated in the event CC. However, it istheoretically possible to abstract a frame from an event. Figure 4 is an illustration of theframe of the event above.

Figure 4: An event frame abstracted from Figure 3

In this case, the information necessary to construct an event CC is linguistically given in(4). In actual discourse processing, however, information for constructing CCs is notnecessarily given in linguistic expressions. In this example, for instance, the content of‘we’ and ‘issue’ in (4) is highly schematic. Normally, a hearer comprehends the richcontent of these items based on each context, constructing CCs with non-linguistic
content. Such CCs are not constructed at once, but developed step by step during
discourse processing. Until a CC is completed as an event or a property, the type of the
CC is thought to remain unspecified.
Before describing the interpreter’s online construction of CCs, the next section will
examine certain types of repetitive translations observed in actual SI performances.
89

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

4. Types of repetition
Repetitive translation can be qualified as one type of observable difference between ST
and TT. This operation demonstrates retention of the corresponding elements at least
until the last trial of the repetition. Although the taxonomy of interpreting performances
is not the focus of this study, it will address some subcategories of repetitive translations
in order to exemplify the diversity found in this field.
(5) N-14
E 010 OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FELT COULD NOT BE TOLERATED
J 010
E 011

ですからブッシュ大統領， それからアメリカの 議会も，LEST IT RESULT IN ANOTHER

そしてアメリカ

ATTACKJ 011 の市民も，こういうことは許せない，容認できない，と思ったのです．

UNPROVOKED,

また攻撃があるかもしれThe first example of repetitive translation is found in (5). In this part of the SI
performance, “TOLERATED” (E010) was translated twice as “yuruse-nai” (cannot
forgive: J011) and “younin-deki-nai” (cannot tolerate: J011). The difference between the
two TT expressions here is realised only through the selection of lexical items from a
range of synonyms. Since younin (forgive) is used in more specific context than yurusu(tolerate), the interpreter probably produced this repetition to revise the first translation.
(6) N-1
E 076 [G]: WELL, I THINK YOU’VE INDICATEDJ 076

BEFORE THERE WAS SORT OF AN OVERALL[G]: おっしゃったとおり，先に，最初示唆されましたけれども，E 077 EFFORT TO EXPLOIT INFORMATION TO MAXIMUM EFFECT. IT WAS USED BOTH TO DOMINATE
J 077 全体的な 努力が なされて，情報をできるだけ駆使しようと，それをもって，成果を最大化しIn the second example, “YOU’VE INDICATED” (E076) was repeatedly translated into
“ossyatta-toori” (as you mentioned: J076) and “shisa-sare-mashi-ta-keredomo” (as you
indicated: J076). Also, “saki-ni” (before: J076) and “saisyo” (first: J076) seem to be arepeated translation of “BEFORE” (E076). These actions can also be interpreted asrevising operations. What is more important, however, is to highlight the strategic aspectof this performance. Because this part of the ST is the beginning of the answer to aquestion, the interpreter had to wait for further information in order to determine thedirection of the discourse. The nature of SI as an interpreting mode, however, resulted in90

Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

pressure on the interpreter to produce a TT output as quickly as possible. As aconsequence, it is likely that these repetitive translations were motivated by theinterpreter’s stalling strategy.
(7) R-6
E 050 And there was also from the African side

likewise a firm and strong

J 050 けさせなくてはなりません。で、また、アフリカ側からも発言がありました。
E 051 commitment to good governance, to democracy to human rights, to respect for the rule of law.
J 051 からも強い

アフリカ側
We have said

コミットメントがありました。この法による支配、そしE 052 throughout, and I say again now, this can never be done on the basis of the old relationship of charity between donor andJ 052 て民主主義、よき統治に対するコミットメントです。これは決して以前のIn the next example, “African side” (E050) is translated into “Africa-gawa” (Africanside) in two places in J050 and “commitment” (E051) is translated into “commitment” in
J051 and J052. This operation is not a revision of the first translation or a result ofstalling, but is instead related to segmentation. When the interpreter translated the section“there was also from the African side” (E050), she added the expression “hatsugen”(statement: J050) without a corresponding ST expression. It seems that the interpreter
constructed a CC for ‘statement’ at this juncture. When she heard “a firm and strong
commitment” (E051), she introduced this information into the CC. If this is the case, theCC for ‘commitment’ was generated before the interpreter actually heard the term“commitment” (E051). Then, retaining the CC, the interpreter translated the following
section “to good governance, to democracy to human rights, to respect for the rule of law”
(E051). This is corroborated by the second translation of “commitment” (E051) in J052.
In this way, it can be explained how the interpreter constructed a CC for ‘commitment’and utilised the CC for this part of her SI performance.
In this section, three examples were examined to introduce a variety of repetitivetranslations in SI. As the extent of this article is limited, however, the construction of
CCs has not been illustrated for each example. In the next section, the SI process will be
traced and analysed drawing on the CC model in order to describe the development of
CCs in online discourse processing.
5. Describing the online development of CCs
In this section, the interpreter’s conceptual operations are analysed through observing
repetitive translations in actual SI performances. Furthermore, this section endeavours totrace the development of CCs during the online processing of the ST.
91

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)(8) N-1
E 019 IT WAS
J 019

TECHNICALLY,IMMENSELY IMPRESSIVE.

軍事的な観点からいいますと，

TREMENDOUS

技術的には，大変すばらしいものがあったと思います．

E 020 ADVANCES HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE FIRST GULF WAR MAINLY, I THINK, IN THE
J 020

さまざまな，

最初の湾岸戦争のときよりは，

E 021 APPLICATION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
J 021

発展が見られました．

E 022 AND
J 022

BETWEEN THEM

THE DECISION MAKERS, SO THAT EVERYTHING

兵器，そしてセンサーに用いたわけですが，

ですから，

すべて，

AND THE SENSORS,

特に，情報システムの適用の仕方に，大きな違いがありました．それを，E 023 HAPPENED VERY FAST.
J 023

TO THE WEAPONS

そして，意思決定者もそれを利用しました．

AND BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAPPENED
たいへん早く進みました．

VERY FAST,

そして， すべてがThis section focuses on how the interpreter processes the ST expressions in (8) from
“TREMENDOUS ADVANCES” (E019) to “THE DECISION MAKERS” (E022). The
information from this part of the ST is segmented into four expressions in the TT. In
analysing this performance, first of all, the linguistic differences found between ST andTT will be examined. Next, the transformation of CCs through repetitive translations inthis part will be analysed. Based on this analysis, the following section traces thedevelopment of CCs during the performance and examines how these conceptual
operations support this part of the SI performance. To conclude this section, thisperformance will be compared with an alternative performance.
5.1 The development of CCs
First, the differences between ST and TT observed in this part will be examined. The
excerpt of the ST in question is segmented into four parts in the TT demonstrating thedifference in sentential units. In the first segment, “ADVANCES” (E020) was translated
into “hatten” (advance: J021). In the second segment, “ADVANCE” (E020) wastranslated into “chigai” (difference: J021) with a different TT expression. In the same
segment, “APPLICATION” (E021) and “INFORMATION SYSTEMS” (E021) weretranslated into “tekiyou-no shikata” (application: J021) and “jouhou system” (information
system: J021) respectively. In the third segment, two repetitive translations can be
identified: one is “sore” (it: J021) for “INFORMATION SYSTEMS” (E021) and theother is “mochii-ta” (used: J022) for “APPLICATION” (E021). These two elements werealso translated repeatedly in the fourth segment as “sore” (it: J022) and “riyou-shi-mashi-

92

Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SIta” (used: J022) respectively. The repetitive translations observed in this part aresummarised in Table 1.

ST expressions
ADVANCES

Seg. 1

Seg. 2hattenchigai(advance)(difference)

Seg. 3Seg. 4--

tekiyou-no
APPLICATION-

sikatamochii-ta(the way of(used)

application)
INFORMATIONSYSTEMSjouhou system-(information
system)riyou-shimashi-ta(used)

sore

sore

(it)

(it)

Table 1: Repetitive translations in (8)Looking at these repetitive translations brought considerable insight into the way
information was conceptualised based on the ST during this part of the performance. The
repetitive translations for all three items are not revisions of the first translation or thesimple results of stalling tactics, but are instead clearly related to segmentation in thispart. In this performance, “ADVANCES” (E020) was translated in the first and second
segments. “APPLICATION” (E021) and “INFORMATION SYSTEMS” (E021) weretranslated in the second, third, and fourth segments. Since ‘application’ of ‘information
systems’ is the theme of the ‘advance’, a cognitive element of ‘advance’ is thought to beanchored in the interpreter’s mind. It follows that this repetition was supported by theanchoring of ‘advance’ as a topic during this part of the discourse. When the interpretertranslated this part into four segments, apart from the repeated elements, each segment
introduced a new element to the TT. Based on the CC model, it is assumed that theinterpreter constructed a CC for ‘advance’ when she heard “ADVANCES” (E020) andincorporated new conceptual information for the CC when producing each element.
Figure 5 illustrates this conceptual processing.

93

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

Figure 5: CC formation for ‘advance’

This figure identifies four phases corresponding to each segment in the TT. If an element
is identified within a certain segment, this element is considered to be activated in theinterpreter’s mind during the production of the segment. The CCs highlighted in Figure 5
represent the CCs activated at each juncture. When a CC for ‘advance’ was introduced inPhase 1, this CC includes no information to specify ‘advance’. Hence, it is described as[GENERAL]. In Phase 2, by way of ‘information systems’, the CC for ‘advance’ is thenspecified as [IT]. Phase 3 shows the status of the CC after it has developed into
[MILITARY] by incorporating an element of ‘weapons and sensors’. In Phase 4, the CC
assumes the nature of [POLITICS] by incorporating ‘decision makers’ into the picture.
This is the formation process proposed for the CC of ‘advance’.
Observing the shift in TT expressions throughout this series of repetitive translations
allows for a more detailed analysis of CC transformation.
“ADVANCES” (E020) is first translated into “hatten” (advance: J021), and “chigai”(difference: J021). The first translation is more literal than the second, and the expression
used in the second translation is more general. The explanation is that the element‘advance’ was first retained in its lexical form, but later conceptualised and separated
from its lexical form when translated again.
Next, “APPLICATION” (E021) is translated three times into “tekiyou-no shikata”(application:

J021),“mochii-ta”(used:

J022),

and“riyou-shi-mashi-ta”(J022)

respectively. Once again, this suggests a generalisation of TT expressions. More
importantly, it should be noted that taking in this element, TT expressions underwent a
shift from nominal to predicative. The explanation is that the CC for ‘application’ wasconverted from an entity to a relation type CC. It follows that the interpreter constructed
94

Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

an event CC for ‘application’ at this juncture. Although no information on the agent of‘application’ can be found in either ST or TT, it seems that the interpreter introduced a
CC as the agent of the event, although it is merely implicit in the TT.
“INFORMATION SYSTEMS” (E021) is also translated three times into “jouhou
system” (information system: J021), “sore” (it: J021) and “sore” (it: J022) respectively.
When the interpreter translates this element for the first time, the TT expression is acommon noun. In the second and the third translation on the other hand, she expresses theelement using demonstratives without any corresponding expressions in this part of the
ST. This is an exhibition of a meta-representation (Minamitsu, 2002), which
demonstrates a certain form of conceptualisation of a corresponding element.
Based on the analysis above, the CCs for each phase can be illustrated. Figure 6
illustrates the status of the CC for ‘advance’ in Phases 1 and 2.

Figure 6: The CC for ‘advance’ in Phases 1 and 2

When the CC for ‘advance’ is introduced, it contains no specific information. This isshown as Phase 1. This CC is considered to be associated with ‘Gulf War’ as produced in
the TT. However, for practical reasons, this element is omitted from this illustration. In
Phase 2, the CC for ‘advance’ takes in the elements ‘application’ and ‘information
systems’. These elements are thought to form sub-CCs. While the CC for ‘application’ isinterpreted as a theme of ‘advance’, the CC for ‘information systems’ is interpreted as atheme of ‘application’. At this stage, the type of CC is thought to remain unspecified.
Consequently, this CC evolves into Phase 3 as shown in Figure 7.

95

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

Figure 7: The CC for ‘advance’ in Phase 3

In Phase 3, a new CC is introduced for ‘weapons and sensors’ as another theme for‘application’. The CC for ‘information system’ is still there, but, as observed earlier, its
status has become conceptual. Also, the CC for ‘application’ has shifted from entity torelation type CC. At this stage, this CC is formulated as an event CC. In this operation,
an abstract CC is implicitly introduced as the agent of the event. All these features arepart of the thought model that assumes a non-linguistic nature of the CCs at this juncture.
In producing the fourth segment, it is crucial to construct CCs as illustrated in Figure 7.
Next, the conceptual processing from Phase 3 to 4 will be examined.
5.2 The role of contextual information
In order to examine the conceptual operations that result in the fourth segment, theanalysis focuses on how the interpreter translates ‘the decision makers’ (E022). In thispart, “AND BETWEEN THEM THE DECISION MAKERS” (E022) is translated into
“soshite ishi-kettei-sya-mo sore-wo riyou-shi-mashi-ta” (and the decision makers also
used them: J022). While the interpreter has obviously produced this TT based on an event
CC and ‘decision makers’ are construed as the agent in the event, there is no informationon the event or on the semantic role of ‘decision makers’ in this part of the ST. In thefollowing, it will be retraced how this particular interpreter determines the semantic roleof ‘decision makers’. Refer to the list below for the necessary steps to determine thesemantic role of ‘decision makers’.
(9) a. Construction of an event CC for ‘application’b. Input from the ST
c. Construction of a CC for ‘decision makers’ and reference assignment of ‘them’d. Introduction of ‘decision makers’ into the event as the agent

96

Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

Among the necessary steps listed above, (9a) has already been examined. As analysed
above, by the time the interpreter produces the third segment, she has constructed an
event CC with an abstract agent. In this environment, the ST for the fourth segment isintroduced (9b). Then, a CC for ‘decision makers’ is constructed and ‘them’ isunderstood as ‘information systems’ and ‘weapons and sensors’ (9c). While the semanticrole of ‘information systems’ and ‘weapons and sensors’ has already been determined in
the event, that of ‘decision makers’ is still open. Although ‘decision makers’ might beunderstood as an entity between two elements from this part of the ST, this information isstill insufficient to identify ‘decision makers’ as the agent of the event. Even when an
entity CC is constructed where an event has an abstract agent, this is still not enough toconstruct a coherent concept. (10) examines whether other entries can be understood as
the agent of the event here.
(10) a. and between them tanks
d. and between them logistics
c. and between them engineers
d. and between them journalists
The interpreter determines the semantic role of the ‘decision makers’ when she processes“AND BETWEEN THEM THE DECISION MAKERS” (E022). (10a) to (10d) are
examples that consider other entries instead of decision makers. All entries in (10) havethe same structure as decision makers, but cannot form an agent CC for the event of‘application’. (10a) and (10b) are inanimate entities and thus inappropriate for the agentof ‘application’. Since (10c) and (10d) are animate, volitional entities, they are both
possible candidates to be the agent of ‘application’ in general. On the other hand, they are
by no means eligible players to control information systems as a military strategy in the
Iraq War. This means that the determination of the semantic role of ‘decision makers’
requires background information on the topic as well as the existing event CCs andimmediate ST expressions. In conclusion, the resources utilised to construct CCs in thisSI performance are summarised below.
(11) a. Linguistic information form the ST
b. Background informationc. History of the CCs
If contextual information is defined as the non-linguistic information required forutterance comprehension, it consists of (11b) and (11c). It is conceivable that the
linguistic information from the ST grants the interpreter’s mind access to background97

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

information she already has about politics. The history of the CCs at this juncture isillustrated in Figure 7. An event CC is constructed for ‘application’ with an abstract agent
and two themes for ‘information systems’ and ‘weapons and sensors’. As previously
examined, due to these elements, the aspect ‘advance’ is thought to have evolved from
[GENERAL] via [IT] to [MILITARY]. As a result, the cognitive process that leads to CC
construction in Phase 4 can be understood as illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Construction of CCs for Phase 4

In this figure, the outside box represents the entire cognitive environment of theinterpreter. Dotted arrows show the information flow that leads to the construction ofCCs. Although the ST input for the fourth segment is only “BETWEEN THEM THE
DECISION MAKERS” (E022), the interpreter produces a predicative expression of“riyou-shi-mashi-ta” (used: J022) with ‘decision makers’ as its agent. This is possible
only because of the history of CCs constructed for the previous part of the discourse andexisting background information on the subject. This article does not discuss thecomposition of background information in detail, but suffice it to say that backgroundinformation consists of various types of information. Listed below are the items
considered to be necessary information in order to identify ‘decision makers’ as the agentof the event.
(12) a. World knowledge
b. Knowledge about the subject
c. Communication setting
d. Introduction of respective utterances98Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

World knowledge includes frames (Fillmore, 1982/2006) on military strategy andinformation systems. Knowledge about the subject includes information about the Iraq
War, which is the topic of this programme, and information about the ST speaker who isa guest on the programme. Regarding background information, we need to consider thesetting of this SI performance. The communication setting provides information about theinterpreting site. The ST is part of a Japanese TV programme called “Tettei Kensyo Iraq
Sensou” (A Comprehensive Examination of the Iraq War). The ST speaker is a British
military official. The interpreter interprets his speech during a live broadcast. The
introduction of the respective utterances contributes to the identification of the source
speaker (there are two English speakers as guests) and narrows down the topic of the ST
according to the questions asked by the programme’s host. The ST is the answer to aquestion concerning his view on the Iraq War, asked by the programme’s host. By virtueof such information, a CC is constructed so that the ‘decision makers’ are understood as
officials, which constitute the agent of a military event. The CC shares its basic feature
with the mental model proposed by Johnson-Laird (1983), which may support the idea ofCCs.
It is not asserted here that the interpreter should always identify the ‘decision makers’
as the agent of ‘application’. This is only one possible performance for this ST, andanother interpreter might produce a different TT. As the interpreter produces the TT inthis way, however, the differences between ST and TT make it possible to explore thedetails of the interpreter’s conceptual processing. The point here is not the quality of the
SI performance, but the process involved in it. The CC model can result in alternative
performances. The next section will outline a different possibility concerning thedevelopment of CCs for the same ST.
5.3 Alternative performance
Another interpreter may produce a more literal TT for this part. (13) and (14) arealternative translations for the third and fourth segments.
(13) a. to the weapons and the sensors
b. heiki-to sensor-ni (to the weapons and the sensors)(14) a. between them the decision makers
b. sore-ra-no aida-ni ishi-ketteisya (between them the decision makers)(13a) and (14a) are the ST for the third and fourth segments, and (13b) and (14b) arealternative translations for them. It is possible to produce (13b) without constructing an
event CC for ‘application’. If the interpreter does not construct an event CC, the fourth
segment must be translated without it. Even in this case, (14b) can be produced as a99

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

literal translation for this part. Figure 9 illustrates the status of CCs in the case that theinterpreter does not construct an event CC.

Figure 9: Alternative conceptual operation

Although a CC for ‘decision makers’ is constructed in the interpreter’s cognitiveenvironment, it is not associated with the history of CCs, and background information
does not play any role. This case may seem extreme, but as novice interpreters tend to
pay too much attention to the superficial features of the ST, they may not be able toconstruct sufficient CCs to support their SI performance. If this is the case, it isextremely difficult to determine the semantic role of ‘decision makers’.
Even when an interpreter constructs sufficient CCs, he/she may produce a TT
without any observable linguistic differences from the ST. A literal translation in itself
might not be a problem. Whether it is comprehensible for the audience or not, it is not anerror as long as the interpreter translates the ST accurately. However, in order to makesegmented information comprehensible, supplementary information is required in manycases. The sample performance suggests that segmentation is not simply the splitting up
into parts of ST expressions, but involves the conceptualisation of discourse. Whatshould be supplemented depends on how the interpreter constructs CCs during his/her
online processing of the ST.
The TT is produced to represent part of the CCs. When it comes to CC construction,
the level of elaboration varies according to individual differences between interpreters. If
an interpreter constructs elaborate CCs and produces part of the TT information based onthese CCs, any necessary information is usually added naturally in the process. If theinterpreter constructs insufficient CCs, on the other hand, it seems more difficult toseparate information derived from the corresponding parts of the ST and produce literaltranslations in the TT.
100

Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

6. Conclusion
This article’s objective was to explore interpreters’ conceptual processing during the SI
performance, and give a description of the observations made based on the concepts laidout in the CC model. In addition, it demonstrated that among the various types ofdifferences between ST and TT, repetitive translations are of special interest in thiscontext. The central phenomena identified in this study through the analysis of repetitivetranslations are listed below.
Retention of CCs

Incremental formation of CCsConceptualisation of CC content

Transition a CC from entity to relation

Implicit introduction of a CCContribution of contextual information

Repetitive translation is a common operation in SI, whose specific form depends on theconditions in the SI performance. Through repetitive translations, it can be analysedwhen and how interpreters introduce contextual information in online discourse
processing. Repetition is not an independent technique, but the performance is supported
by conceptual operations involved in natural discourse processing.
This article aims to support the notion of deverbalization (Seleskovitch, 1978/1998)
based on actual SI performances. The analyses in this paper represent hypotheses about
conceptual operations during SI that are based on linguistic evidence, which ought to be
examined by non-linguistic evidence in the related cognitive sciences (e.g. philosophy,
psychology, and artificial intelligence). As a model of online discourse processing, which,based on the observation of actual SI records, seems plausible, this must be validated byfurther interdisciplinary research.

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Professor C. Funayama for his advice before, during, and after I carriedout this study.
..............................................
About the author
ISHIZUKA Hiroyuki is a Ph.D. candidate at Kobe City University of Foreign Studies. His
research interests include the cognitive process of interpreting and utterance comprehension
in general.
..............................................
101

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)

Notes
1.

The word process is used in this paper to refer to a series of events that occur in a
specific order so as to achieve a purpose, and the word processing is used to refer to aset of operations to deal with information. But as long as they can be properly
understood in the context of use, this differentiation may not be definite.

2.

In this study, italics are used to mark linguistic expressions and single quotation marks
to specify the content of each expression. The content of an expression under this study
includes both the linguistic meaning of the expression and its conceptual representation.

3.

There is little agreement as to the number or the terms of participants’ roles. But as theclassification of participants’ roles is not part of this study, agent-like participants (e.g.
an instrument) and others (e.g. a goal) are also referred to as themes.

4.

The titles of the two SI performance sample transcripts analysed in this study, N-1 and
R-6, are included in two volumes of JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research reports(Funayama et al., 2005; Funayama et al., 2008). The number given with each example
identifies the respective source transcript.

References
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982/2006). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics:
Basic readings (pp. 373-399). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (Reprinted from Linguistics inthe morning calm, pp. 111-137, by Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), (1982). Seoul:
Hanshin)Funayama, C. (1994). Douji-tsuyaku-ni arawareru ninchi-file [Cognitive files formed during
simultaneous interpreting]. Current English Studies, 33: 1-12.
Funayama, C. (2002). Cognitive tags in simultaneous interpretation. Interpretation Studies, 2:
15-27.
Funayama,C.

(2004).

Conceptualization

processesinsimultaneousinterpretation.

Interpretation Studies, 4: 1-13.
Funayama, C. (2005). Hatsuwa-rikai-no micro model [A micro model of utterancecomprehension]. In C. Funayama (Ed.). Douji-tsuyaku-data-ni motozuku gengo-rikaikatei-no micro-bunseki [Micro analysis of language comprehension based on
simultaneous interpreting data] (2003-2004 Report of JSPS Grant-in-aid for scientificresearch (C) (2) 15520262, pp. 1-16). Kobe City University of Foreign Studies.
Funayama,C.

(2006).

Hatsuwa-rikai-no

online-gainen-hyouji[Conceptual

on-linerepresentation in utterance comprehention]. The Kobe City University Journal, 57: 1-22.
Funayama, C. (2007). Enhancing mental process in simultaneous interpreting training. The
Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1 (1): 97-116.
102

Repetitive Translation and Conceptual Processing in SI

Funayama, C. (2008). Concept-based representation of simultaneous interpreting. In C.
Funayama(Ed.).

Douji-tsuyaku-ni-okeru

gainen-ka-no

kensyo[Examinationofconceptualisation in simultaneous interpreting]. (2006-2007 Report of JSPS grant-in-aid
for scientific research (C) (2) 17520272, pp. 1-13). Kobe City University of Foreign
Studies.
Ishizuka, H. (2008). Douji-tsuyaku-no SL/TL no sai-kara saguru datsu-gengo-ka-no jittai [Anexamination of conceptualisation in simultaneous interpreting based on the differences
between SL and TL]. Interpreting and Translation Studies, 8: 19-36.
Ishizuka,H.

(2010).

Douji-tsuyaku-sya-ni-yoru

shieki-teki-jisyou-kouzou-no

haaku[Construction of a causal event structure by a simultaneous interpreter]. Interpreting andTranslation Studies, 10: 1-20.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language,inference, and consciousness. MA: Harvard University Press.
Langacker, W. R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Minamitsu, Y. (2002). Douji-tsuyaku-ni-okeru syouou-kankei-no kouchiku: shiji-hyougen“sou-iu” wo tegakari-ni [A cognitive-pragmatic account of demonstratives insimultaneous interpretation-the case of souiu]. Interpretation Studies, 2: 43-61.
Seleskovitch, D. (1998). Interpreting for international conferences (3rd ed., S. Dailey, & N.
McMillan, Trans.). Arlington, VA: Pen and Booth. (First translated edition published in
1978. French original published in 1968 as L'Interprète dans les conférencesinternationals: Problèmes de langage et de communication. Paris: Minard Lettres
Modernes.)
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell. (First edition published in 1986.)103

『通訳翻訳研究』No.12 (2012)104