Direct Versus Indirect Speech in Community Interpreting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT SPEECH IN COMMUNITY INTERPRETING: DOES IT REALLY MATTER? by PATRICK MOORE (Under the Direction of Sarah E. Blackwell) ABSTRACT This thesis analyzes interpreting as reported speech and attempts to discover whether it matters or not if interpreting is performed as direct or indirect speech. Traditionally, interpreter training prescribes direct speech. Because community interpreters may be untrained, many use indirect speech. Although direct speech is necessary in court interpreting, it may not be in medical interpreting. There has been little research done on this question and the results are inconclusive. In this study, mock interpreting sessions were videotaped and transcribed. Additionally, interpreters were surveyed via internet. All interpreters used direct speech, however the mock interpreting sessions demonstrate that the interpreting process has a tendency to introduce significant stylistic changes in the interpreted renditions, such as lengthening, shortening, changes in formality, and the omission of curse word and discourse markers. The majority of survey respondents express a strong preference for direct speech, with very few admitting to using indirect speech. INDEX WORDS: Reported speech, Direct speech, Indirect speech, Community interpreting, Interpreting DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT SPEECH IN COMMUNITY INTERPRETING: DOES IT REALLY MATTER? by PATRICK MOORE B.S., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1994 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2007 © 2007 Patrick Moore All Rights Reserved DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT SPEECH IN COMMUNITY INTERPRETING: DOES IT REALLY MATTER? by PATRICK MOORE Major Professor: Dr. Sarah E. Blackwell Committee: Dr. Marlyse Baptista Dr. Hildebrando Ruiz Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2007 iv DEDICATION To Holly, whose encouragement and love continue to inspire me. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all I would like to thank all of the professors who have instructed and helped me throughout my degree program. I am especially grateful to the professors on my committee: Dr. Hildebando Ruiz, Dr. Marlyse Baptista, and Dr. Sarah Blackwell. I would not have been able to finish this project without the guidance, editing, encouragement, and patience of Dr. Blackwell, my major professor. I am deeply indebted to the following colleagues who assisted me by performing the scripted dialogs for the mock interpreting sessions: Dr. Hilda Mata, Jennifer McDuffie, Rosa Chávez, Diego del Pozo, Javier Lluch, Ninosca Pérez-Minchola, Daniel Sánchez, and Arthur Wendorf. Special thanks go out to William Pennington who also helped by babysitting during one of the sessions. I thank all Language Resource Center staff members for their help and support. In particular I am grateful to Dr. Gary Baker for camera operation and other technical tasks. Most of all I am grateful to the interpreters who volunteered as subjects for the mock interpreting sessions, and everyone who responded to the survey. Truly, without your participation this project would not have been possible. I owe a very large debt of thanks to the interpreters who were my colleagues at the hospital where I used to work. Their thoughtful debates with me on the subject of first versus third person interpreting were the original inspiration for this work. vi Finally, I would like to again thank my wife, Holly. In addition to always telling me what I needed to hear (whether I wanted to or not), she has been a top-notch typographical and technical assistant. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1 What is community interpreting?...........................................................................2 Basic terminology .................................................................................................4 Relevance of this project .......................................................................................5 Research questions ................................................................................................7 Relevant literature .................................................................................................9 The current study...................................................................................................9 Overview.............................................................................................................10 2 INTERPRETING AS REPORTED SPEECH ..........................................................11 Characteristics of reported speech .......................................................................12 Direct speech.......................................................................................................13 Indirect speech ....................................................................................................14 Problems with the concept of reported speech .....................................................15 Interpreting as a type of reported speech..............................................................19 Direct versus indirect speech in interpreting ........................................................21 3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ........................................................................................24 Court interpreting................................................................................................24 viii Pragmatics and interpreting .................................................................................32 Other problems with legal language.....................................................................33 Medical interpreting ............................................................................................34 Dubslaff and Martinsen’s work on reported speech and medical interpreting.......35 Bot’s research on interpreting in a psychological context.....................................37 4 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION...................................................................44 Rationale.............................................................................................................44 The scripted dialogs.............................................................................................45 Actors .................................................................................................................47 Interpreters..........................................................................................................48 Equipment and studio..........................................................................................48 The sessions ........................................................................................................49 Debriefing...........................................................................................................50 The survey ..........................................................................................................50 5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS..................................................................................51 Mock interpreting sessions ..................................................................................51 Third person references .......................................................................................52 Changes from personal to impersonal references and vice-versa..........................53 Tú versus usted....................................................................................................57 Stylistic changes..................................................................................................61 Treatment of curse words ....................................................................................66 Treatment of discourse markers...........................................................................69 The survey ..........................................................................................................72 ix Open-ended questions .........................................................................................72 6 Discussion and conclusion.......................................................................................76 Does it really matter? ..........................................................................................76 The origin of first person interpreting ..................................................................77 Do certain types of language, content, or style encourage third person interpreting? .......................................................................................................77 The interpreter’s participation..............................................................................78 Conclusions.........................................................................................................80 The future............................................................................................................82 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................85 APPENDICES..........................................................................................................................89 A