الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 374 |  |  |
| | | from | 374 | | |
Abstract
Simultaneous interpretation (SI) is a relatively new field both as a practice and as a study that has started officially in the twentieth century. While it is arguable whether the size of the body of research presented in this field matches its counterpart, translation studies, research in the simultaneous interpretation of Arabic texts is rather lacking. In an attempt to explore the process of SI, and study its linguistic and cognitive aspects in relation to the simultaneous interpretation of Arabic political speeches, and to the field of crisis communication, this thesis applies the cognitive model presented by Daniel Gile (2009) for the Efforts exerted in SI, his list of the problems interpreters often face, his list of the tactics they use to cope with the difficulties of SI, along with other tactics and problems discussed by other authors in the fields of both interpreting and translation studies, to analyse the interpretation of the three speeches delivered by the former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in January and February 2011. The analysis attempts to investigate the cognitive aspects of SI; the linguistic aspects, specifically in terms of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics; and the effect of these on the crisis communication strategies involved in the three speeches.
The thesis falls into an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion. The introduction highlights the research problem, significance, questions, and methodology; presents the theoretical background briefly; and outlines the division of the thesis. Chapter One, entitled “Cognitive linguistic processes in simultaneous interpreting: Effort model of simultaneous interpreting and discourse analysis”, expands upon the theoretical framework and presents the link between the different theories and models presented in this study. It starts by highlighting the power of discourse through models of discursive psychology that argue that discourse is often intended to direct action through creating representations of the reality. This is linked to models of crisis communication, the study of how speakers in time of crisis employ certain strategies while describing the crisis (creating their representation of it) to direct the audience’s actions and perceptions in a way that contains the crisis and keeps them in good light. Scholars of crisis communication contend that in the modern world crises are no longer restricted by countries borders and often extend beyond them, hence the importance of translating and interpreting crisis communication discourse. SI, however, is a process that poses a multitude of difficulties that potentially affect the quality of the interpretation, and, in turn, the strategies utilized by the speakers. The chapter then probes into these difficulties in the light of Daniel Gile’s Efforts model (2009), as well as the tactics interpreters often resort to.
The following chapters analyse the interpretation of Mubarak’s three speeches from a linguistic perspective. The analysis maintains Gile’s model as its basis to explain how SI operates, and draws systematically from his list of SI problem triggers, tactics to cope with SI difficulties, and laws followed for the selection of such tactics. The analysis then tests the effect of the involved processes on the resulting meaning, the fluency of the interpretation, and the crisis communication strategies used in the speeches.
Chapter two, entitled “Analysis of the effect of processing capacity loads on grammar and syntax”, adopts a syntactic perspective of the analysis. It is divided into two sections: proper grammar and emphatic structure. The first section explores the difference between Arabic and English syntactic structures, how these pose a difficulty for the interpreter within the demanding process of SI, how interpreters handle language-specific structures, as well as the appropriateness of the resulting English structures. It attempts to account for the interpreters’ choices both cognitively and linguistically. The second section focuses on the Arabic emphatic structures employed in the source text, namely fronting, appositives of corroboration, repetition, superlatives, restrictive and exceptive structures, and emphatic meanings. It examines whether the emphasis they express has been delivered in the target text and the methods of emphasis used to deliver them.
The analysis has revealed that “syntactic dissimilarity” (one of the problem triggers listed by Gile) represents indeed a major problem trigger in Arabic-English simultaneous interpretation. It has also uncovered two types of triggers not listed by Gile but akin to syntactic dissimilarity, namely grammatical dissimilarity (particularly when the interpreter errs because of difference in the pronominal systems of the two languages), and morphological dissimilarity (or what Mona Baker terms “differences in form”). The most common strategy used has been parallel-reformulation. Moreover, other strategies – not listed by Gile but found in other models – have been detected, such as Vinay and Darbelnet’s transposition and modulation; Baker’s lexicalization and compensation; and Kalina and Kohn’s mental modelling. In addition, twice has the interpreter compensated for a lexical item using change in grammatical form, a tactic which might be termed “grammaticalisation”. In terms of effect, the changes on the level of syntax (properness of grammar and rendering emphatic structures) have mostly had a neutral or positive effect on meaning and fluency, and crisis communication strategies, indicating that despite the challenges that the process of interpreting posed in terms of syntax, and the changes that interpreters inevitably incur, the difference is not statistically significant.
Chapter three, entitled “Analysis of the effect of processing capacity loads
on lexical and semantic aspects”, adopts a lexical and semantic perspective of the analysis. While it continues to rely on Gile’s Efforts model (2009), it draws heavily from Henri Barik’s model of departures (1975). As per Barik’s model, the chapter analyses the omissions, additions, and substitutions that occur in the simultaneous interpretation of the 3 speeches. The analysis, however, has revealed some shortcomings in Barik’s model, therefore it draws from other models in translation and interpreting studies. The analysis also searches psycholinguistic studies to account for some of the departures that have no explanation in translation and interpreting studies. It also studies the effect of these departures on the output.
Omissions have been, as predicted, more common than additions. In terms of the problem triggers encountered, lexical dissimilarity and cultural differences ranked highest. In terms of tactics, omissions were most common, followed by using semantically related items and superordinates. The effect on meaning and crisis communication, as a whole, has been mostly neutral or positive. The analysis thus refutes Barik’s view of departures as errors.
Chapter four, entitled “Analysis of the effect of processing capacity loads
on pragmatic aspects”, adopts a pragmatic perspective of the analysis. It is divided into two sections. The first section studies the speeches and their interpretations in the light of the speech acts theory, relying mainly on Searle’s taxonomy (1976). It examines whether the types of speech acts used in the source speeches are the same in the interpretation and the effect they have on the output. The second section shifts focus to the politeness strategies employed in the source speeches, analysing them in the light of Brown and Levinson’s politeness model (1987). The analysis examines whether these strategies have been conveyed in the interpretation, then proceeds to asses the effect of the output.
The analysis shows that most speech acts have been rendered carrying the same force, chiefly through form-based interpretation and substitution. Whether rendered maintaining the same illocution or changing it, most of the interpretations of these speech acts had a neutral or positive effect on meaning, fluency, and crisis communication. Similarly, the majority of the politeness strategies used in the speeches were retained in the interpretation. The tactic that proved most frequent with no effect on the politeness strategies involved is form-based interpretation and literal translation. It seems thus that, despite the potential for syntactic errors that it bears, it serves the pragmatic aspect well. The same tactics that have been successful rendering the meaning fluently have been listed as successful in rendering the crisis communication strategies. The most frequent are form-based interpretation and equivalent substitution. As for the tactics that did affect the interpretation negatively through change or loss of politeness strategies, they are headed by parallel reformulation and mental modelling. On the other hand, in terms of affecting the crisis communication strategies negatively or omitting them altogether, equivalent substitution ranked highest.
The conclusion presents the answers to the research questions posed in the introduction. It gives a final, overall assessment of the applicability of Gile’s model, problems, and tactics, and of the effect of the tactics and choices of the interpreters on the output in terms meaning, fluency, and crisis communication. This includes a review of the problems and tactics that have been necessary to complement those listed by Gile. In terms of effect, the effect of these problems, tactics, etc. on meaning and fluency has been found to be mostly neutral or positive. A quantification of the average of the neutral and positive examples reveals 87.4% compared to 12.6% negative ones. The negative effect was most significant on the syntactic level, and least significant on the pragmatic one. The overall conclusion, accordingly, would reassert Gile’s claim that interpreting is “intrinsically difficult”, yet it asserts as well that such difficulty is either surmountable through the different tactics that interpreters employ, and even when changes inevitably occur, their effect on the interpretation is mostly insignificant.