nally
Others
Court
68
77
30
23
0
2
| Previous section | Table of contents | Notes and references |
|---|
One of the purposes of this study was to find possible relations between the background variables and other data about respondents and their use of strategies for the handling of terminological neology. The sample in this pilot study is too small to allow for any comprehensive statistical calculations, but we have nevertheless - in a tentative way to test the method - made some comparisons of one factor that we had identified earlier: the possible relationship between language group and reported strategies, especially the attitudes towards loan translations and direct loans.
The language groups in our sample were all very small, but we nevertheless made a comparison between Arab language interpreters (N=10) and the results of the other subjects in the Swedish sample ("Others" in the graphs below). As a comparison we inserted the data of the Internet court interpreter sample ("Court") (see section 5.1). The subjects in the Swedish survey (but not in the Internet study) had been given the option to state different strategies for consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. Since only 13 subjects reported working in simultaneous to at least the same extent as consecutive, the scores for the simultaneous interpreting strategies have been discarded in this report.
The five alternatives for each strategy: 1. never/almost never, 2. seldom,
3. occasionally, 4. often, and 5. almost always/always, have been reduced
to make the tendencies clearer. The alternatives 1 and 2 have been combined
to "seldom", "occasionally" has been retained, and 4 and 5 have become
"often".
| Omission | seldom | occasio-
nally |
often | |
| Arab
Others Court |
40
68 77 |
60
30 23 |
0
0 2 |
|
The Arabic group follows the same tendency as the other samples when
it comes to rejecting the omission strategy. The same applies for the next
strategy, use of approximate equivalent. The Arabic group does not deviate
in any significant way from the general trend:
| Approximate
equivalent |
seldom | occasio-
nally |
often | |
| Arab
Others Court |
33
47 7 |
44
42 67 |
22
21 27 |
 |
As of strategy number 3, explanation of concept, we begin to see greater
differences between the groups. It is remarkable how the Arabic interpreters
seem to reject explaining as a feasible strategy. The group that favours
explanation the most are the court interpreters:
| Explanation
of concept |
seldom | occasio-
nally |
often | |
| Arab
Others Court |
56
14 16 |
33
48 23 |
11
38 60 |
 |
The last two strategies are the most interesting ones from the point
of view of our hypothesis that Arabic interpreters are influenced by the
lexicographic traditions of Arabic, which historically has favoured translation
loans and transcriptions of direct loans.
| Loan
translation |
seldom | occasio-
nally |
often | |
| Arab
Others Court |
20
27 44 |
20
50 23 |
60
24 33 |
 |
And indeed, the Arabic group are reportedly over 50 % more prone to
using loan translation and direct loan than the other samples.
| Direct loan | seldom | occasio-
nally |
often | |
| Arab
Others Court |
10
33 47 |
40
44 37 |
50
23 16 |
 |
Obviously, with a sample as small as a dozen people it would still be imprudent to draw any conclusions as to the general behaviour of the Arabic interpreter group as a whole. As an academic exercise we may nevertheless investigate the case a bit further. Can there be any explanation in the background variables? The Arabic interpreters in our sample have a good general education: all (12) have at least secondary school education, 5 of them have university education (at least some undergraduate course). Their professional base may be more shaky: no-one is an authorised interpreter, and only half of the group has attended more than one interpreter course.
The question whether the interpreter should be engaged in language planning work also rendered a somewhat different result in the Arabic group than in the others: 4 answered yes, 1 no, and 4 said they had no opinion. The figures in the rest of the Swedish sample is 32 yes (67 %), 5 no (10 %) and 11 no opinion (23 %).
With a larger sample of interpreters from various language groups we may be able to find more reliable statistical evidence to support or reject our hypothesis.
The sample is too small for this study to be able to prove or disprove the hypotheses put forward in section 5.3. The data in themselves are, however, useful for many purposes, as will be shown later.
On the other hand, a survey in the form of a questionnaire does not usually call for the presence of the researcher - that would be impossible in many large surveys, for example market analyses. A questionnaire is a well-known thing to most people.
An important point is made by Benhamida (1989:71-72) concerning subjects' willingness to give accurate answers to questions. There are countries where language issues have been political issues at one time or another. Alloni-Fainberg (1977:62,73) observed that subjects were suspicious and hesitant to begin with and had to be approached carefully.
Female, age 26-40 with a secondary school education and several interpreting courses; she is working free-lance but is not economically dependent on interpreting jobs. At present living in Stockholm, she was born either in Sweden or Iraq, and she has lived in Sweden for five years (that's statistics). She works mainly with community interpreting in consecutive mode, and she has been doing it for less than five years.
She does not use the WorldWideWeb and CD-ROMs, neither does she use the computer to make her own glossaries. Nevertheless she is engaged in terminology work together with colleagues, mainly at interpreter courses with the teacher as terminology wizard. She is not aware of any special organisations that work with the development of terminology, but those recommendations that she knows of, she holds in high esteem. The "Interpreters' Dictionary" of TÖI is unfortunately less reliable, mostly because it is dated. Our profile interpreter sticks to the recommended terminology as much as possible.
Our heroine is also a bit of a purist, being of the opinion that her working languages should be kept "clean", and she thinks it is the obligation of interpreters to work with language planning. Occasionally her clients misunderstand new terminology; she then tries to explain the concepts in a more understandable way.
This study has shown some interesting things which have some practical implications for the training of interpreters as well as for language planning institutions:
Interpreters are linguists. Even if we allow for a certain bragging factor in subjects' statements about their knowledge of languages, the list of language combinations in section 4.7.2 is rather impressive. Still, we can see from section 4.7.3 that their level of interpreter training is not very impressive. In other words: there is a great need for more interpreter training. The pedagogy of interpreter training should give more emphasis to questions of bilingualism and language planning issues like the one presented in sections 2-4 above; in curriculum development one could consider employing multilingual training programs, etc.
Interpreters are terminologists. At least they do a lot of terminology work, either on their own or together with colleagues. Unfortunately they seem to have little knowledge of resources for finding new terminology, and they do not use the computer aids that are available for storing and retrieving terminology. Improvement of this situation is necessary. A study that we made earlier this year (Törnqvist & Niska 1998) shows that Swedish translators are in a similar situation, doing a lot of terminology work and lacking theoretical and practical training for doing it.
Interpreters are language planners. Interpreters are very conscious about their working languages, specifically, but also have a great interest in linguistic matters in general. There is something of a purist in almost every interpreter, like in language planners. The language planning authorities and organisations would be well advised to take advantage of the commitment and practical knowledge of interpreters when it comes to development and diffusion of lexical innovations. As Rubin & Jernudd (1971:xv) point out: "Much of language planning has also been relatively restricted because of the minor role that some practitioners have accepted for themselves—practitioners who are either unwilling or unable to consider the full importance that their work might have for a developing society."
| Previous section | Table of contents | Notes and references |
|---|