The Quality of Interpreting As a Function of Political Rhetoric in the European Parliament ANNA,RIITTA VUORIKOSKI

ANNA-RIITTA VUORIKOSKI A Voice of its Citizens or a Modern Tower of Babel? The Quality of Interpreting as a Function of Political Rhetoric in the European Parliament ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Tampere, for public discussion in the Pinni auditorium B 1100 of the University, Kanslerinrinne 1, Tampere, on February 21st, 2004, at 12 o’clock. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 985 ACADEMIC DISSERTATION University of Tampere, The School of Languages and Translation Studies Finland Distribution University of Tampere Bookshop TAJU Tel. +358 3 215 6055 P.O. Box 617 Fax +358 3 215 7685 33014 University of Tampere [email protected] Finland http://granum.uta.fi Cover design by Juha Siro Printed dissertation Electronic dissertation Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 985 Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 317 ISBN 951-44-5877-X ISBN 951-44-5878-8 ISSN 1455-1616 ISSN 1456-954X http://acta.uta.fi Tampereen yliopistopaino Oy Juvenes Print Tampere 2004 Acknowledgments Quality assessment is an integral part of an interpreter’s career, beginning with entrance tests to schools of interpreting, continuing with final exams, and followed up with tests which give a qualified interpreter the right to work for EU institutions or any other institution employing interpreters on a permanent basis. Even if one does not apply for work at these institutions, peer assessment is an integral part of the recruitment process. Membership of professional associations is also based on peer assessment. It is not surprising, therefore, that a number of authors have been interested in the quality criteria of (conference) interpreting. As interpreters we continually ask ourselves the following questions: Have we been assessed on the basis of objective criteria? Have we received equal treatment by panels of assessors? What kind of criteria do I myself apply in evaluating colleagues and (potential) interpreters? These are some of the questions that have followed me all through the years that I have been working as an interpreter. Therefore, I was delighted when Professor Krista Varantola suggested that I do research on simultaneous interpreting. It was not a random choice on her part, as she, in fact, had shown an interest in this subject by writing on simultaneous interpreting, an academic study which was the first publication of the Turku Language Institute in 1980. After my Licentiate Thesis on users of SI and their quality expectations had been accepted by the University of Tampere (1995), I started working at the European Parliament on a regular basis. At the European Parliament, all the plenary session debates are recorded. There is consequently a large amount of interesting research material, which I was told would be available for scholarly purposes. It was Krista Varantola who suggested that I proceed to write a doctoral dissertation using this material. This study would not exist without her support and motivation. But the interesting material provided by the EP has been equally essential. I am greatly indebted to the Audiovisual Division of the European Parliament for the abundant material received. In this context I also wish to thank Reijo Kalvas at the University of Tampere for his professional help with the tapes. The study has received funding from the Academy of Finland. As may be obvious from the theoretical and methodological choices of the study, I had not a solid grounding in translation theory. In fact, it hardly existed at the time when I obtained my diploma in translation. Yet, in that pre-theoretical era of the late 1960s, the Language Institute of Tampere was a brand new school full of enthusiastic teachers. Here I would like to thank two teachers in particular, Johanna Saresvuo and Gerard McAlester, who intuitively knew that there is more to translation than finding the correct lexical item in a dictionary. At the University of Helsinki I was lucky to study under professors who inspired a keen interest in academic studies. In the Department of World Literature and Aesthetics, Professor Aarne Kinnunen taught us how to think and how to argue. In the Department of English Philology, Professor Matti Rissanen taught us how to be critical in our use of references. Whatever shortcomings in these areas are apparent in the present study, they are due to this pupil’s incapacity to put into practice what was taught by experienced scholars. Interpreting would not be so well organized in Finland without the hard work of Leena Liukkonen-Suomaa and the Finnish Translators’ Association. I am grateful to the Association, Helkky Halme in particular, for the intellectual and financial support it has given me through the years. Through the Association I became acquainted with Ritva Laakso, who invited me to participate in interpreting seminars as a speaker. Thanks to her, I got the opportunity to work at the European Parliament in autumn 1994, which enabled me to observe the institution and its interpreting arrangements for three months. Yet my first and foremost thanks are due to Kati Revell-Nielsen, without whom I would not have become a conference interpreter. As a Geneva-trained interpreter she had more to offer than anyone else in terms of interpreting standards. The Centre of Translation and Interpreting at the University of Turku, under the direction of Johanna Mäkinen, has given me many opportunities to become acquainted with the various aspects of interpreter training. Jorma Tommola and Marianna Sunnari, both experts in interpreting, have always provided inspiration. While all the stimuli referred to above have been important in the design of the present study, I owe deep felt thanks to Professor Andrew Chesterman for suggesting the rhetorical approach. Another source of inspiration was a book that I found lying on the table of my brother-in-law, Dr. Anssi Simojoki. This was the doctoral dissertation of Professor Lauri Thurén, who approached the letters of St. Peter from the point of view of rhetoric. This work convinced me of the applicability of the approach. Professor Thurén later helped me by suggesting key works in modern rhetorical studies. Krista Varantola has supervised my progress all these years with great tact. Thank you for using the carrot rather than the stick! She gave me the opportunity to attend a course on methodology, organized by Barbara Moser-Mercer, as well as a Colloquium in honor of Marianne Lederer. I am grateful to both external examiners, Professor, Dr. Franz Pöchhacker and Dr. Miriam Shlesinger, who both read the text carefully and made several suggestions for improvements. Unfortunately, due to time limits it was not possible to incorporate all of them. The Swedish examples were checked by Marja Kivilehto and the German examples by Satu Leinonen. The German audio version was checked by Dagmar Lehtonen and the Swedish audio version by Aino Öhman. I wish to thank them most cordially for their valuable help. However, the heaviest burden has been carried by my dear friend and colleague Roger Luke, who has revised the English text not only once but twice. If there are any incorrect expressions or spelling errors, I am entirely to blame. The support and encouragement of colleagues and friends is much in need during the solitary research process. The Soroptimist sisters have shown that they are true to the ideals of our organization. My special thanks go to my wonderful family and relatives, who have shown so much understanding and appreciation. I extend my thanks to my brothers, Mikko Louhivuori and Jukka Louhivuori, and Jukka’s wife Sini, whose academic expertise has been a significant support. The writing process required technical skills, too. My deep felt thanks are due to my two sons Antti and Heikki, without whom I would still not know how to use my computer. Heikki has played a major role in helping me overcome any software problems. His help in producing the audio versions of the sample texts has been invaluable. My whole family and my daughter, in particular, have shown tremendous patience. This book is dedicated to my husband Timo, who likes the idea that he has a wife with some education. Tampere 20 December 2003 Anna-Riitta Vuorikoski CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Object of study and research question 15 1.2 Interpreting quality: in search of a definition 17 1.3 Modeling the research object 19 1.4 The research strategy of the study 21 1.5 Is there need for further research on SI quality? 23 1.6 The new research question 24 2 SI RESEARCH UNDERLYING THE DESIGN OF THE PRESENT STUDY 27 2.1 Comparison of STs and TTs as a method of SI research 28 2.2 Interpreting quality in the light of translation failures 31 2.3 SI studies based on real-life corpuses 32 2.4 Written texts vs. spontaneous speech 42 2.5 Quality of interpreting as the object of survey studies 44 3 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY 48 3.1 Introduction: why an eclectic approach? 48 3.2 SI and translation theory 50 3.3 Argumentation theory 58 3.4 Text linguistics 65 3.5 The theoretical framework in brief 71 4 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT – The voice of the citizens in 11 languages 73 4.1 The European Union as the macrocontext of the texts 74 4.2 The EP meetings as an intertextual entity 80 4.3 Interpreting arrangements in the EP 83 5 MATERIAL AND METHOD 88 5.1 Research material 92 5.1.1 Selection criteria of recordings 93 5.2 Research method 98 5.2.1 Method of comparing the Source Texts with the SI versions 100 5.3 Pilot study 101 5.4 Rhetorical analysis in brief 113 6 IN SEARCH OF SI ACCURACY AND FAITHFULNESS 117 6.1 Debate on a familiar topic: television broadcasting 118 6.1.1 Structure of argumentation 121 6.1.2 Main arguments of the Source Textss – Values shared by EU 126 6.1.3 The role of speech acts in constituting the sense of the message 136 6.1.4 Rhetorical devices 145 6.1.5 Summary of the results 152 6.2 Debates displaying features of EU institutional rhetoric 156 6.2.1 Speeches on the role of the European Parliament 156 6.2.2 Argumentative features of the Source Texts 159 6.2.3 Source Text linguistic structure: Syntax 179 6.2.4 Summary of the results 182 6.2.5 Questions to the Council and Commission 184 a.

Load more