Abstracts
Abstract
In Dutch and German subordinate clauses, the verb is generally placed after the clausal constituents (Subject-Object-Verb structure) thereby creating a middle field (or verbal brace). This makes interpreting from SOV into SVO languages particularly challenging as it requires further processing and feats of memory. It often requires interpreters to use specific strategies (for example, anticipation) (Lederer 1981; Liontou 2011). However, few studies have tackled this issue from the point of view of interpreting into SOV languages. Producing SOV structures requires some specific cognitive effort as, for instance, subject properties need to be kept in mind in order to ensure the correct subject-verb agreement across a span of 10 or 20 words. Speakers therefore often opt for a strategy called extraposition, placing specific elements after the verb in order to shorten the brace (Hawkins 1994; Bevilacqua 2009). Dutch speakers use this strategy more often than German speakers (Haeseryn 1990). Given the additional cognitive load generated by the interpreting process (Gile 1999), it may be assumed that interpreters will shorten the verbal brace to a larger extent than native speakers.
The present study is based on a corpus of interpreted and non-mediated speeches at the European Parliament and compares middle field lengths as well as extraposition in Dutch and German subordinate clauses. Results from 3460 subordinate clauses confirm that interpreters of both languages shorten the middle field more than native speakers. The study also shows that German interpreters use extraposition more often than native speakers, but this is not the case for Dutch interpreters. Dutch and German interpreters appear to use extraposition partly because they imitate the clause word order of the source speech, showing that, in this case, extraposition can be considered an effort-saving tool.
Keywords:
- corpus-based interpreting studies,
- cognitive effort,
- SOV,
- verbal brace,
- extraposition
Résumé
En allemand et en néerlandais, le verbe se place après tous les éléments d’une proposition subordonnée (structure sujet-objet–verbe) et forme un champ médial (aussi appelé parenthèse verbale). Ce champ rend l’interprétation à partir d’une langue SOV vers une langue SVO particulièrement difficile puisqu’il augmente l’effort de traitement et de mémoire et exige de l’interprète qu’il recoure à des stratégies (l’anticipation par exemple) (Lederer 1981 ; Liontou 2011). Toutefois, peu d’études se penchent sur la problématique du point de vue des interprètes travaillant vers une langue SOV. Les structures SOV demandent un effort cognitif particulier pour le locuteur puisque, par exemple, les propriétés du sujet doivent être maintenues en mémoire pendant 10 à 20 mots pour permettre l’accord du verbe. Les locuteurs ont souvent recours à l’extraposition, une stratégie qui consiste à placer certains éléments après le verbe pour raccourcir la parenthèse (Hawkins 1994 ; Bevilacqua 2009). Les néerlandophones y auraient d’ailleurs recours plus fréquemment que les germanophones (Haeseryn 1990). L’interprétation générant un effort cognitif supplémentaire (Gile 1999), il est probable que les interprètes raccourcissent la parenthèse verbale plus fréquemment que les orateurs.
Dans cette étude, un corpus de discours originaux et d’interprétations au Parlement européen est analysé afin de comparer la longueur des parenthèses verbales dans des subordonnées allemandes et néerlandaises, ainsi que l’utilisation de l’extraposition. Les résultats tirés de 3460 subordonnées confirment la tendance des interprètes des deux langues à raccourcir le champ plus que les orateurs originaux. Ils montrent également que les interprètes germanophones ont recours à l’extraposition plus fréquemment que les orateurs originaux germanophones. Ce n’est toutefois pas le cas pour les interprètes néerlandophones. Enfin, les interprètes néerlandophones et germanophones semblent utiliser l’extraposition en partie parce qu’ils imitent l’ordre des mots des phrases du discours source, ce qui tend à montrer que l’extraposition est un outil permettant d’économiser l’effort cognitif.
Mots-clés :
- interprétologie sur corpus,
- effort cognitif,
- SOV,
- parenthèse verbale,
- extraposition
Resumen
En alemán y en neerlandés, el verbo se coloca al final de la frase subordinada (estructura sujeto-objeto-verbo o SOV) constituyendo así una llamada zona mediana. La presencia de esta zona en lenguas de tipo SOV complica el proceso de interpretación a partir de lenguas de tipo SVO. Esto se debe a que el esfuerzo relacionado con el tratamiento de la información y la memorización aumenta, lo cual lleva al intérprete a aplicar determinadas estratégias como la anticipación (Lederer 1981; Liontou 2011). Pocos estudios se han dedicado al análisis de la interpretación hacia una lengua SOV. Estructuras de tipo SOV también causan un esfuerzo cognitivo considerable visto que la propiedades del sujeto tienen que mantenerse activas en la memoria durante 10 o 20 palabras para que la congruencia del verbo se haga correctamente. Los hablantes recurren frecuentemente a la extraposición que consiste en colocar algunos elementos más allá del verbo para reducir la zona mediana (Hawkins 1994; Bevilacqua 2009). En neerlandés, la extraposición es más frecuente que en alemán (Haeseryn 1990). El presente estudio se basa en la hipótesis de que la reducción de la zona mediana por extraposición será más frecuente en actos de interpretación, por su esfuerzo cognitivo considerable.
El artículo actual propone un análisis basado en un corpus de discursos originales y sus interpretaciones en el Parlamento europeo, con el fin de comparar la extensión de las zonas medianas en frases subordinadas en neerlandés y en alemán y, en particular, la aplicación de la extraposición. En concreto, han sido analizados 3460 casos de frases subordinadas y los resultados confirman que intérpretes reducen la zona mediana más frecuentemente que los oradores del Parlamento europeo. Los resultados también confirman que los intérpretes hablantes alemanes t usan más frecuentemente la estrategia de extraposición que los oradores del mismo idioma. Al revés, los intérpretes de habla neerlandesa no se distinguen de los oradores en este respecto. Finalmente, se comprueba que los intérpretes de ambas cabinas parecen utilizar la extraposición con el fin de imitar el orden de palabras del texto fuente, lo cual sugiere que la extraposición está instrumentalizada para reducir el esfuerzo cognitivo durante el proceso de interpretación.
Palabras clave:
- estudios de interpretación basados en el corpus,
- esfuerzo cognitivo,
- SOV,
- zona mediana,
- extraposición
Appendices
Bibliography
- Acheson, Daniel and MacDonald, Maryellen (2009): Twisting tongues and memories: explorations of the relationship between language production and verbal working memory. Journal of Memory and Language. 60:329-350.
- Baes, Eva (2012): Analyse des différences entre interprètes masculins et féminins au Parlement européen en termes de décalage. Master’s thesis, unpublished. Ghent: Haute Ecole de Gand.
- Bernardini, Sylvia, Collard, Camille, Russo, Mariachiara, et al. (2017): Building interpreting and intermodal corpora: A how-to for a formidable task. In: Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, Bart Defrancq, eds. Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Singapore: Springer.
- Bevilacqua, Lorenzo (2009): The position of the verb in Germanic languages and simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 14:1-31.
- Braecke, Chris (1990): Uit de tang’ of [+ or -] prominent [Out of the brace [+ or -] salient]? Taal en Tongval. 3:125-134.
- Cecot, Michela (2001): Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: a contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 11:63-85.
- Darò, Valeria and Fabbro, Franco (1994): Verbal memory during simultaneous interpretation: Effects of phonological interference. Applied Linguistics. 15:365-381.
- De Schutter, Georges (1994): Dutch. In: König Ekkehard and Johan vanderAuwera, eds. The Germanic Languages. London/New York: Routledge, 439-477.
- De Schutter, Georges (2003): De zinsbouw in het vroege Middelnederlands. Een case study [Sentence structure in early Middle Dutch. A case study]. Taal en Tongval. 55:41-67
- De Sutter, Gert and Van de Velde, Marc (2008): Do the mechanisms that govern syntactic choices differ between original and translated language? A corpus-based translation study of PP extraposition in Dutch and German. In: Richard Xiao, ed. Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 144-163.
- Diriker, Ebru (2004): De-/Re-contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Drach, Erich (1937/1963): Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre [Basic concepts of German syntax]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
- Eisenberg, Peter (1994): German. In: König Ekkehard and Johan vanderAuwera, eds. The Germanic Languages. London/New York: Routledge, 349-387.
- Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter, eds. (1992): Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Gile, Daniel (1999): Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – a contribution. Hermes. 23:153-172.
- Goldman-Eisler, Frieda (1972): Segmentation of input in simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1:127-140.
- Haeseryn, Walter (1990): Syntactische normen in het Nederlands. Een empirisch onderzoek naar volgordevariatie in de werkwoordelijke eindgroep [Syntactic norms in Dutch. An empirical study on variations in the word order of the verbal final group]. Doctoral dissertation, unpublished. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.
- Haeseryn, Walter (1997): Achteropplaatsing van elementen in de zin [Extraposition of elements in the sentence]. Colloquium Neerlandicum. 13:303-326.
- Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, et al. (1997): Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [Grammar of general Dutch]. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff /Wolters Plantyn.
- Hawkins, John (1994): A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Jansen, Frank (1978): Hoe krijgt een spreker zijn woorden op een rijtje? Taalgebruiksaspekten van de ‘PP over V’ konstruktie [How does a speaker get his words in the right order? Aspects of language use for “PP over V” constructions]. In: Jan Kooij, ed. Aspekten van de woordvolgorde in het Nederlands [Aspects of word order in Dutch]. Leiden: Vakg, 70-104.
- Kimura, Doreen and SEAL, Brooke (2003): Sex differences in recall of real or nonsense words. Psychological Reports. 93:263-264.
- Klapp, Stuart, Greim, David, and Marshburn, Elizabeth A. (1981): Buffer storage of programmed articulation and articulatory loop: Two names for the same mechanism or two distinct components of short-term memory? In: John Long and Alan Baddeley, eds. Attention and Performance IX. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 459-472.
- Koops, Wieber (1986): Multiphasic growth curve analysis. Growth. 50:169-177.
- Kramer, Joel, Delis, Dean, Kaplan, Edith, et al. (1997): Developmental sex differences in verbal learning. Neuropsychology. 11:577-584.
- Lass, Norman, Hughes, Karen, Bowyer, Melanie D., et al. (1976): Speaker sex identification from voiced, whispered, and filtered isolated vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 59:675-678.
- Lederer, Marianne (1981): La traduction simultanée. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.
- Lee, Tae-Hyung (2002): Ear-Voice-Span in English into Korean simultaneous interpreting. Meta. 47(4):596-606.
- Liontou, Konstantina (2011): Strategies in German-to-Greek simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based approach. Gramma. 19:37-56.
- Loonstra, Ann, Tarlow, Alison, and Sellers, Alfred H. (2001): COWAT metanorms across age, education and gender. Applied Neuropsychology. 8(3):161-166.
- Magnifico, Cedric and Defrancq, Bart (2017): Hedges in conference interpreting: The role of gender. Interpreting. 19(1):21-46.
- Magnifico, Cedric and Defrancq, Bart (2016): Impoliteness in interpreting: a question of gender? Translation and Interpreting. 8(2):26-45
- Mason, Marianne (2008): Courtroom Interpreting. Lanham/Plymouth: University Press of America.
- Maitland, Scott, Herlitz, Agneta, Nyberg, Lars, et al. (2004): Selective sex differences in declarative memory. Memory & Cognition. 32(7):1160-1169.
- Meuleman, Chris and Van Besien, Fred (2009): Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting. 11(1):20-34.
- Moser, Barbara (1978): Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In: David Gerver and Wallace Sinaiko, eds. Language Interpretation and Communication. New York/London: Plenum Press, 353-368.
- Oléron, Pierre and Nanpon, Hubert (1965/2002): Research into simultaneous translation. In: Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, eds. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 69-76.
- Russo, Mariachiara (2018): Speaking Pattern and Gender in the European Parliament Interpreting Corpus: A Quantitative Study as a Premise for Qualitative Investigations. In: Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq, eds. Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Singapore: Springer, 115-132.
- Schmidt, Thomas (2012): EXMARaLDA and the FOLK tools. In: Thierry Declerck, Khalid Choukri, and Nicoletta Calzolari, eds. Proceedings of the Eighth conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation. (LREC 2012: Eighth conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation, Istanbul, 23-25 May 2012). Paris: European Language Resources Association, 236-240.
- Seeber, Kilian (2011): Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – new models. Interpreting. 13(2):176-204.
- Shallice, Tim and Butterworth, Brian (1977): Short-term memory impairment and spontaneous speech. Neuropsychologia. 15:729-735.
- Shlesinger, Miriam (1998): Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta. 43:486-493.
- Shlesinger, Miriam (2003): Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreter’s Newsletter. 12:37-49.
- Sternberg, Saul (1969): Memory scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. American Scientist. 4:421-457.
- Thurmair, Maria (1991): Warten auf das Verb. Die Gedaechtnisrelevanz der Verbklammer im Deutschen [Waiting for the verb. The relevance of memory for the verbal parenthesis in German]. Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache. 17:174-202.
- Vallar, Giuseppe and Baddeley, Alan (1984): Fractionation of working memory. Neuropsychological evidence for a phonological short-term store. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour. 23:151-162.
- Vandenbosch, Luc (1985): PpoverV: een funktioneel-pragmatisch principe [Pp over V: a functional-pragmatic principle]. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics. 46:1-72.
- Van Haeringen, Coenraad (1947): Tangconstructies’ en reacties daarop [Brace constructions and perceptions]. De Nieuwe Taalgids. 40:1-7.
- Vigliocco, Gabriella (1998): Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: Is proximityconcord syntactic or linear? Cognition. 68:13-29.
- Willems, Annelore (2017): Uit het veld geslagen: een corpusgebaseerd multivariaat onderzoek naar de positie van voorzetselconstituenten in de Nederlandse journalistieke bijzin [Out of the field: a multivariable corpus-based study on the position of preposition’s constituents in Dutch journalistic subordinate clauses]. Doctoral dissertation, unpublished. Ghent: Ghent University.
- Zwart, Jan-Wouter (2011): The Syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.