Lingua Inglese III - Unit 2 PDF

LINGUA INGLESE III – UNIT 2 (Catenaccio) Test: - First part (30 minutes) will be a reading comprehension test. Skills A. - Second part (15 minutes) involves a variety of text completion exercises. Skills B. - Third part (60 minutes) involves writing a short text (250 words) on a specialized subject. Skills B. To clarify concepts: a simplified view Translator: Written mode, delayed delivery. Translation is delayed in time. You expect to have a perfect text. Interpreter: Oral mode, real time. Where do interpreters work? They translate simultaneously when a very important person is speaking or in conferences, they translate on TV. That’s monologic. They are speaking to an audience. There are margins for imperfections. The text it is not always perfect like a text that is translated. Being an “interpreter” is expected to be more difficult because you don’t have so much time but “translating” well is an extremely very difficult task. Cultural mediator: Oral mode, real time, cultural awareness. There are some analogies between interpreting and mediating but there are some technical differences. Cultural awareness is more important in a dialogic situation. It is in the dialogue that misunderstanding can occur. You have situations where culture play a large role. It is more important in a dialogic situation. Misunderstandings can occur. Interpreting is monologic. If you think of somebody giving a speech, you don’t have somebody replying to that person. In a monologic speech, you know what you are talking about and also the audience is very broad, they allow for a level of intercultural awareness on both parts. You don’t need to explain anything that is highly culture. It is in interaction that culture becomes prominent. When you are giving a single speech, it is not so relevant, especially if that speech is highly specialized. If you are in a hospital setting, you don’t know what is going to come up next that may be possibly problematic. Any kind of interpersonal relationship can be hugely affected by culture (starting from the way you address someone etc.). Cultural awareness is also very important in business negotiation. Anything and anywhere where you have interpersonal communication is affected by culture. The more monologic, the less involved. INTERPRETING Interpreting/interpretation is rendering spoken or signed information from a source language (SL) to a target language (TL) in oral or signed form, conveying both the register, and meaning of the source language content. Attitudes are not necessarily perceived as important, but sometimes they are. Register is the interpersonal component. You need to reflect the approach to whatever is being said that the speaker is trying to put forward. If you say, “Unfortunately the weather is not really nice today”, what is the information that you are trying to convey? What’s the basic information? “Oggi c’è brutto tempo”, the unfortunately is the interpersonal component. The facts are: “Oggi c’è brutto tempo” but the attitude could be very important. In interpreting, quite often people forget about the attitude. You also have to use the interpersonal meaning and use the same register. You have to translate “Purtroppo, oggi il tempo è brutto”. “We may buy your product” is different from saying “We are certainly buying your product”. Source language (SL) = lingua di partenza Target language (TL) = lingua di arrivo Oral transfer of messages between speakers of different languages Started during the Versailles peace talks in 1918-1919 German and French officers couldn’t talk to each other. World War II – Advances in technology → conference interpreting INTERPRETING Dialogue/Liaison/Community/Public Setting Conference service It is the setting that determines the kind of interpreting that is used. Simultaneous – is a sort of voice over. There is a very short delay between Short-consecutive – you don’t’ do a what the speaker is saying and when voice over. You don’t have a long the interpreter translates. It can be speech. Sometimes you have to done in the booth; you can do it in take notes, but not as much as person. conference interpreting. o Whispering Mode o RSI – Remote Simultaneous Remote short consecutive Interpreting Consecutive – you take notes, you wait until the end of the speech and then you some up what the speaker said. You can’t use the same words. You are on stage, but you speak after the speaker. They are monologic. There is only one person They are dialogic. You are using both speaking. You are not contributing to an languages both as a source and as a exchange. Simply a monologic deliver of target language. something. Liaison – “interpretazione di trattativa”. Interpreting for business, or for diplomacy. Community/Public service is the kind of interpreting you do in hospitals, police stations and so on. In conference interpreting, you typically interpret from the foreign language into your mother tongue and not vice versa. In dialogue interpreting you are in the middle, and you can translate from one source language to other language. It’s bidirectional. You need to switch from one language to another. Different contexts so you have different interpretive modes. The type of interpretive you are using, depends on the situation. Where is the interpreter? Who can speak in an interpreter-mediated event? How do they interact? In a communicative situation there are different participants, and those participants have certain roles. For instance, in a lecture situation, the participants are the teacher and the students. The roles are defined. The teacher does the speaking, and the students listen. If we consider the exam situation, if a teacher asks a question, the students are expected to answer. In both these cases, we are still ratified participants, all of us are there with a role. We are active parts in the communication. If somebody is there taking notes during an exam, is that person a participant? Is not a ratified participant. Somebody that overhear what is going on, is not a ratified participant. Communication is a social situation where different roles are played out and depending on the role that you play out, you will use different language. Is an interpreter contributive to a conversation? You are there, you are speaking, but are you part of the conversation? Participation framework concerns the recognition of the participant’s status based on their ability or inability to act within a communicative event, as well as their rights and obligations to do so in a certain way. Ratified participants → recognized status. Unratified participants → their participation status was unrecognized before the event. Once it has been established whether participants are actually considered as such or not, it becomes possible to describe their function or role, i.e., listener or speaker, and all their contextual variants. Interpreting contexts and participation framework CONFERENCE SETTINGS Great variety of situations and topics, but invariably monologic Audience = ratified listeners (not co-conversationalists or speakers) Mode of discourse: rehearsed or semi-rehearsed (spoken prose, no fresh talk) Consecutive interpreting: Simultaneous interpreting: the interpreter is a ratified co-speaker (but no need to produce an not really a co-participant) ‘who has to autonomous text (reliance imitate and transfer the immediate on the same semiotic interpretant of the source text into the target coordinates and visual text” (Dressler 1994: 104-105) input) Physically present in the setting, limited the interpreter is not a co- interaction with the speaker participant, but only a Some aspects are similar to dialogue “voice-over”; not physically interpreting present Note-taking, memory techniques You can work for any kind of conference, whatever the topic or the situation, it is monologic. In conference settings, you don’t have dialogues; you have somebody delivering a speech. The speech tends to be long enough, and it is prepared. The audience, they are listeners. In a conference you are not a co conversationalist. If you go to a conference, you are there to listen, you are not there to contribute. You are a ratified listener; I expect you to be there and listen. Members of the public are not allowed to speak. Imagine if you are in court, there are very strict rules about who can speak and who cannot. The mode of discourse is rehearsed or semi-rehearsed which means that typically, you have a script, and you hardly have a “fresh” talk (spontaneous). COMMUNITY / LIAISON (business and diplomacy) SETTING Great variety of situations and topics, but invariably dialogic Participants are not only ratified listeners, but also ratified co-speakers Mode of discourse: fresh unrehearsed talk, spontaneous face-to-face interactions Semi-consecutive interpreting: The interpreter is physically present in the setting (at the same level as other participants, not separated by a stage or podium) The interpreter is a ratified participant and a ratified co-speaker (even more so for cultural mediators) You got a great variety of situations. It is always dialogic. The participants are not only listeners, but they are also co-speakers. You are going to be addressed directly and you are expected to answer. They are ratified co-speakers. The mode of discourse is fresh unrehearsed talk and spontaneous face-to-face interactions. There’s a great element of unpredictability → The type of conversation may not entail complex vocabulary as you could have in a conference, but you got other difficulties. When people speak spontaneously, they don’t really “prepare” a speech (they break a sentence, they go back, they start again). Anything which is fresh talk tends to be incomplete, to have rephrasing etc. it could be more difficult to follow and also to follow the line of thought. The difficulties are different. Consecutive interpreting In consecutive interpretation, the interpreter waits for the speaker to finish a sentence or an idea, and then renders the speaker's words into the target language. Generally speaking, the more formal the setting, the longer the segments will be. o Compare: hospital settings (short-consecutive) vs. courtroom settings (consecutive) Interpreters are trained in special note taking and memory techniques that enable them to render passages as long as 6-10 minutes more faithfully and accurately. You need to finish at least the sentence, possibly the whole idea. You can’t use the exact same words; it is never verbatim interpretation (“word by word” in Latin). You are expected to summarize the idea into the target language. The more formal setting, the longer the segments will be. You have to listen to the whole story and then you have to sum it up. Interpreters are trained in note taking and memory techniques. In consecutive interpreting, you can see the interpreter, the interpreter is a ratified participant. Simultaneous interpreting It is a situation in which, if you are in an institution, you tend be in a booth (in a separate room), you are not seen. People listen to you, but you are not there physically. Sometimes you could have one-to-one simultaneous interpreting if you have one person who is a foreigner, and you are interpreting with them. Typically, in order to do a simultaneous interpreting, you use the booth. In terms of the degree of cultural intervention that you have or the involvement that you have, the cultural mediation increases from the left to the right. If you are interpreting a rehearsed speech, you will organize your speech accordingly. Linguistic and cultural mediation Pöchhacker (1992): In simultaneous interpreting the extent and feasibility of cultural mediation is often extremely limited. The lapse of time occurring between the original utterance and the translation is too short to allow any major rephrasing or cultural mediation on the part of the interpreter. This is a graph in which you can chart the time lapse (how long before you translate) and then the contact between the interpreter and the parties. Simultaneous interpreter you have no contact because you are in a booth, and you have no time lapse because you speak over the other person. In simultaneous interpreting the extent and feasibility of cultural mediation is often extremely limited simply because you don’t have time. You are translating almost word by word. In consecutive interpreting the contact increases because you are on stage, typically. You do have a closer contact and the time lapse also increases. Dialogue interpreting. You don’t have so much of time lapse, and you got a lot of contact, and you are translating consecutively because you don’t speak over the person. You never speak over the person, you wait for the person to speak, when they finish you interpret, then the other person replies, and you interpret. The time lapse is lower because you don’t have a long text and the contact has increased. The interpreter is a ratified participant. Dialogue interpreting Dialogue interpreting is “interpreter- mediated communication in spontaneous face-to-face interaction”. Dialogue interpreting is very recent. Community interpreting was not needed in the ’70s. Globalization has brought about a much greater number of people moving from country to country and then we had these massive migration movements that have affected the local population. The greater experience in the area of mediation is in the USA, Australia and Scandinavian countries. You can have dialogue interpreting in official situations. The two parties talk to each other and at every end of a turn the interpreter translates. Typically, if the turn is short enough you will interpret at the end of the turn, if the turn is very long, you don’t interrupt but you wait for a transition relevance point (for example when someone’s tone goes down). If the speaker is somebody who is experienced in having an interpreter, will find suitable transition relevance point. People need to be trained. Triadic exchange (Mason 1999) → a three-way exchange, in which each party, including the interpreter is a full participant. Triadic exchange does not necessarily mean three people; it may mean three parties (one party is the interpreter, and the other ones are the people). You are translating for everybody. Presumption of invisibility of the interpreter There is a presumption of invisibility of the interpreter. The general understating is that the interpreter is invisible. Why is that? Because it is a recent discipline, originally it was mostly simultaneous interpreting. The interpreter was invisible, and you would listen to the voice of the interpreter. The presumption was the interpreter is a speaking box and there is no contribution. Presumption of invisibility that was carried over into any other types of interpreting. Most interpreting studies focused on conference interpreting → invisibility of the interpreter o To use Goffman’s framework, interpreters take on the so-called “animator” role, almost like a “talking machine”, i.e., the body producing the sound, but not necessarily its “author”. In dialogue setting, this invisibility has been defined as a “myth”. Building on Goffman, Wadensjö (1998: 92) and then Merlini and Favaron (2003) analyzed the interpreter’s status in dialogue settings referring to it as footing, i.e. the alignment speakers decide to take in relation to their interlocutor (what type of participants they are). There is a fairly recent recognition of the fact that the interpreter may have a different role. In the past, because you would normally only work on simultaneous interpreting, the presumption of invisibility of the interpreter was document. Footing Within the three-way exchange there are continuous changes of footing, i.e., conversational alignment, position (who is the author of the message? How is the message delivered?). Sometimes even sub-dialogues are initiated (e.g., when the interpreter is addressed directly). When you have any kind of exchange, what you have is continues changing of footing (which means changing conversational alignment). You change your perspective in respect of what is being said. What is your positioning in respect of what is being said. Sometimes you can have sub-dialogues, sometimes the interpreter can be addressed directly. It is not expected, it is not necessarily a good thing to do, but it can happen. Footing has to do with the role you play in the exchange. If you are the principle, you are responsible for what you are saying. Normally, in a conversation, you are the principle, you are responsible for what you are saying, and you are saying it yourself. Animator and reporter are conceptually the same, with the difference that Wadensjo’s taxonomy applies to dialogue interpreting specifically. If I am interpreting for someone, I am not the principle because the content of what is being said is not mine. I am an animator; I am the sounding box for somebody else. The reporter says the same thing as the original speaker but in a different language. You are responsible for the faithfulness for what you are saying compared to the source text. “Quanto costa questo macchinario?” → Animator “Il cliente vorrebbe sapere quanto costa questo macchinario” → Narrator. It is indirect speech. Pseudo-co-principal → that can happen when the interpreter is part of the team, then they could use “we”. Recapitulator → they don’t use exactly the same words, but they paraphrased them. They have a personal contribution but at the same time that personal contribution reflects something that was said by somebody else. You are moving slightly out of the way from the source text changing it slightly, so you are also the author but at the same time you are reporting what the client said. Responder → if the interpreter is addressed directly then they are principle, they are talking for themselves. If you want to talk for yourself, you raise your hand and you say, “Excuse me, the interpreter wants to speak” (you speak about yourself in the third person) and what comes after, then it is you as a principle. You need to make it clear that at that point you are shifting your footing from an animator (for example) to principle. Ideally, the interpreter should not be addressed directly, the other speaker should be addressed, and the most common way of interpreting would be as a reporter. You simply change your footing, and you act as a reporter of whoever is the principle in that specific moment in time. Dialogue interpreting mediation Community – oriented interpreting Business – oriented or escort interpreting Accompanying visitors, diplomats and Public service interpreting businessmen to meetings and negotiations. Healthcare interpreting Other forms of dialogue interpreting in Interpreting in pedagogical settings various settings Interpreting in immigration hearings o Trade fair context Police station interpreting o GMP inspections (auditors coming Courtroom interpreting in national courts to inspect production of pharmaceutical) You are assuming that in a given situation, you got people from different linguistic backgrounds, and they interact at a societal level, and you are bridging gaps at a societal level. Community – oriented is not international, it is national. The It is international. Once they finish the negotiation, focus is on getting things done locally. It set in the each part go back to their country. local community, but the participants speak different languages and have different cultural backgrounds. The purpose is to help people navigate the system in a given community. The need for cultural integration in the communication is different in the two cases. In public service interpreting of course, you need to bridge the cultural gaps because people are going to be unfamiliar with the system. People need public service interpreting when they are not adjusted to the country yet. In business-oriented interpreting, the intercultural problems are contingent, you need to solve the problem at the moment. You need to bridge the gap at the moment. In the community setting, you got to adjust to each other. Public service / community interpreting "Oral and signed communication that enables access to services for people who have limited proficiency in the language of such services." (Interpreting – Guidelines for community interpreting (ISO 13611: 2014)) Community interpreters assist people o Who do not speak the societal language o Who do not speak it well enough to enable them To access services provided by public institutions o Schools, universities, and community centers o Healthcare institutions o Human and social services (refugee boards and self-help centers) o Faith-based events and emergency contexts Skills required in dialogue interpreting discursive competence ≠ professional quality INTERPRETERS MEDIATOR accuracy, language skills, interpersonal sensitivity, interpreting techniques, intercultural nuance, terminological knowledge generic integrity → knowing what your role is. You need two different sets of skills: discursive competence and professional quality. Community interpreter vs mediator Two overlapping professional figures in Europe: the community interpreter and the intercultural mediator. The terms “Language and culture mediation”, “Linguistic and cultural mediator”, “intercultural mediator” is not clearly defined. In today’s use these terms may apply to (Pokorn and Mikolič Južnič 2020: 1): o mediators involved in cultural conflict prevention and resolution (example, mediators that work in jails). If you have in certain areas potential conflicts in the population, then you need to have a mediator. o community interpreters. o language experts with multiple areas of language expertise (EU institutions). o non-professional (ad hoc) interpreters (mainly in healthcare settings) (exotic language combinations, lack of trained interpreters, convenience reasons). Very often you got children working as ad hoc interpreters. Ad hoc interpreting is studied as a phenomenon because it is inevitable. You do have constantly children who translates for their parents in school, not only. Community interpreter vs mediator Two overlapping professional figures in Europe: the community interpreter and the intercultural mediator. The terms “Language and culture mediation”, “Linguistic and cultural mediator”, “Intercultural mediator” are not clearly defined. It is not always clear what your role is. In today’s use these terms may apply to: o Mediators involved in cultural conflict prevention and resolution. You do have communities that live side by side and there might be conflicts between communities. Some communities might be in a competition with each other. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with being unable to speak a given language; you might be able to speak the local language, but you might still be in conflict. o Community interpreters. o Language experts with multiple areas of language expertise (EU institutions). o Non-professional (ad hoc) interpreters (mainly in healthcare settings) (exotic language combinations, lack of trained interpreters, convenience reasons). Mediator / mediation: a terminological question The mediating person is an individual who serves as a link between two or more cultures and social systems. The essence of the mediating function is to shape exchanges between the participating societies so that the contact will benefit those cultures, on terms that are consistent with their respective value systems. The notion of mediation applies to a lot of different situations. It is still relevant because quite often we don’t think about what is like to be a mediator between cultures and what we use to define culture. These cultures and social systems are not necessarily culture and social system that I identify along linguistic and ethnic lines, they could be any different type of social systems and cultures. The mediating function is not necessarily between people that do not speak the same language, rather they might not speak the same language culturally because they don’t understand each other so you may need a mediator between communities that have different values. Those communities can very well speak the same language in terms of code but not functioning the same ways. For example, the age difference can be a cultural barrier. The notion of intercultural mediation can apply to a lot of situations where you got different communities which might have different values system. The typical generation gap requires an effort to bridge. The mediating person TRANSLATOR SYNTHESIZER “Represent(s) one culture to another faithfully and thereby contribute(s) to “Reconcile(s) disparate culture mutual understanding and accurate cross- practices, this type of mediation having cultural knowledge” special relevance to exchanges from which “Reads” a text for the addressee as a bi- some action is to follow.” cultural expert, meaning this is what is Basic mechanism: culture learning. being said and this is what it means in your culture. I transfer the meaning; I translate It involves cognitive competence and an whatever I am reading on your behalf so affective component. You have a feeling that you can understand it. that something is amiss and also have a willingness to mediate that gap that you Confronts two language systems and two perceive. knowledge systems. Mediates alterity. TRANSLATOR The mediator represents one culture to another faithfully. I tell you what they mean, what they are trying to tell you. I describe the way in which this culture operates in a given situation. Notion in translatology; intralingual translation which occurs when you simplify a text for somebody that doesn’t understand that text. If you read something bureaucratic which is extremely complex and then you draw the general meaning of it for somebody who doesn’t have access to that difficult language, you are translating as well. From culture of bureaucracy to someone who does not belong to that community. You also compare two language systems and two knowledge systems. When something is different, you notice the difference and you explain the difference. There are a lot of behaviors, you have to translate them. Helping understand not only the different language but the different systems. The whole system is not just a code. You learn the code but then you have to mediate a system, a culture. A culture is not only a cross-ethnic characteristic. SYNTHESIZER If you are operating as a mediator in a situation where you simply translating, you need to find a mediation. We have different views of what needs to be done, is not enough to say, “This is done in this way in this culture and in another way in that culture”, you need to find a way to ensure that actions are taken. You need to negotiate a solution where you have different point of views, different expectations of what happens in a given situation. That is what intercultural awareness does. If you are interculturally aware you realize that there are situations in which people understand each other verbally but the reaction that they get in that situation is not what they expect. If you are interculturally aware, you can identify these moments of difficulty. Those are moments where these assumptions that we have about a given behavior in a given situation can stop us from understanding what the situation is like. You do have a perception that something is not the way it looks like, but you don’t know exactly what it is. It is not enough to understand what the other people mean; you also need to find a way of coordinating your different expectations and different norms of behaviors in order to develop the action that is necessary. “This is the way things are done in this culture”, I learn how things are done and then I behave accordingly. The mediator as a synthesizer Individuals at the interface between cultural systems who manage to reconcile and synthesize disparate cultural practices, without incurring the so-called ‘marginal syndrome’ (Bochner 1980, 17-19) that would make them fall between the various social systems and feel outsiders in both cultures (Stonequist 1935, 1937; Taft 1981, 59-60). they can transcend the cultures concerned, and yet comprehend the signals used in the expression of each culture. What you do in a given situation. We somehow function on multi-pilot. Certain things are done in a certain way in your culture, and you are used to do it, you don’t think about it. You assume, when you are in another culture, that that is the normal way of doing things. The notion of cultural practice is something that you do as a habit without thinking/assuming that that’s the normal way people do things. You need to change those practices. One of the risks is that you might incur marginal syndrome = this is a link to the cultural shock, when you do not belong in a culture. You constantly feel like and outsider. The outsider syndrome is quite common, young people from immigrant communities might feel outsiders everywhere they are. It takes an effort to overcome that feeling. We are going way behind language as a code. We are going to work culture practice and what is the assumption behind what we say. What we say is only a small part of what we mean. Every word we say carries with it a huge number of assumptions. As a mediator, you learn to make those assumptions explicit. Situations leading to the development of mediating abilities: o sojourns (overseas students, technical aid experts) o settling (immigrants) o subcultural mobility (entrants into a profession) o segregation (hospital patients, prisoners) o changes in society (modernization, military occupation) When you go abroad, when you have to deal with local institutions, you realize that they are different from what you are used to. You learn the two systems and you learn how to mediate between the two systems. Settling is going abroad permanently. This leads to the development of mediation abilities; you are in a situation where you are constantly comparing what you have to do in a country with what you have to do in your old country. Sub-cultural mobility, if you get a job and you enter that community of practice that is in that type of profession, then you have to learn to behave the way they do. This is also a cultural aspect. Whenever you join a new team, you need to understand how that team works. There is a time when you need to settle, that is the same with culture. You spend a lot of time looking around and trying to figure out what is the right way to behave. Segregation, you are away from the outside world; for example, the psychiatric ward, when you enter that place from the outside it is a culture shock. It is a different culture; you learn how to behave. Changes in society, when you have different people ruling your country things change, also modernization is one of those things that affects society a lot. If you think of your grandparents, they need mediation. but also, expatriation, tourism, sojourn for business purposes, etc. these situations that require “coping with an unfamiliar culture and involve a degree of culture learning and behavioral adaptation as a result of which the person becomes increasingly multicultural”. If you look at things and the way things are done in a different culture, then you do acquire some culture learning. You need behavioral adaptation. If you are interculturally aware, you tend to watch out for what is expected from you. The linguistic and cultural mediator can play both roles has both sets of abilities (translator, synthesizer) both sets of abilities are important, but language & translation competence are a sine qua non A translator means, “This is a certain cultural practice, I’ll explain to you what it means”. A synthesizer will act in such a way as to enable joint action out of that culture, it is not just explaining the cultural practice, but it is acting in such a way that enables mutual understanding and a form of third action based on that understanding. If you think of mediating function embedded in a linguistic situation you understand that language and translation competence are something that you can’t do without. The code is not the only thing, but without the code that is nothing you can understand. You need to transfer the meaning in one code to another and in that meaning you also attach all the culture knowledge. Is the interpreter’s / linguistic mediator’s role universally defined? There is evidence that the interpreter’s role varies from culture to culture. You have different culture expectations also as to what the interpreter ought to do. Therefore her/his impact on the outcomes of business negotiation or another interpreter-mediated encounter also varies. Intercultural communication and interpreters Interpreter-mediated event is an intercultural encounter. What is culture? The top is what you see, and the bottom is what is hidden but is there and it’s very large. You take a trip abroad, first what you notice is about the surface (clothes, appearance, food etc.). down there you got beliefs, attitudes, norms, habits etc. What is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. Intercultural encounter involves two (or more) different sets of values, norms and habits that influences the parties’ communication. Your assumptions down there, your notion of the way things are done, affects intercultural communication. It has to do with what you’ve been socialized into. Ever since you were very young, you’ve been socialized into behaving into a certain way. → in intercultural encounters you need a higher degree of linguistic and cultural mediation. The choice of the form of address is a form of cultural mediation. The choice that you make when translating that form of meeting, it is a form of cultural mediation. Intercultural context of communication LOW CONTEXT CULTURE HIGH CONTEXT CULTURE Indirect or implicit communication, Direct communication, ‘getting straight relationship-building and a high degree of down to business’: explicit & politeness. straightforward. The listener is already ‘contexted’ and The listener knows very little and must be does not need much background told practically everything → high in detail. information → low in detail What is said is more important than how it Implied meaning and non-verbal is said: speakers follow a linear, cause- communication: indirect style, relying on effect logic the listener’s intuition and co-operation Low context culture = the context is not so relevant; the communication is very direct. Whatever I want to say, I’ll say it explicitly. Very straight and forward and don’t rely hugely on contextual knowledge. The context has low importance. I don’t rely on the context, I just rely on the explicit manifestation of what I want, everything that I want to say is codified explicitly. You assume that your counterpart knows very little, and they must be told everything and therefore you provide a lot of details. American culture is low context culture. High context culture = you have a lot of indirect or implicit communication with relationship building require a very high degree of politeness as well. Italian culture is high context culture, the context is very high in importance. I rely on a lot of contextual cues. I need to understand from the way people behave what they actually mean. The listener is assumed to be integrated within the context and therefore is not assumed to need a lot of background information. In high context culture you provide very little, and you need to understand from contextual cues what is being said. There’s a lot of implied meaning and non-verbal communication. Ranking of culture in a scale. The important of the context grows. North-west societies tend to be lower context. ACHIEVING CULTURES ASCRIPTIVE CULTURES Accord status to people based on their Ascribe status to people by virtue of age, achievements. What you can do will define class, gender, education and so on. What your status. you are determines your status. Achieved status → cultures of doing Ascribed status → cultures of being British, German, North American, Japanese, Arabic, etc. Scandinavian and Dutch, etc. Cf. high-context cultures, not always (not an Cf. low-context cultures, not always (not an exact match) exact match) Italian culture is ascriptive. ACHIEVING CULTURES (CF. LOW-CONTEXT) Interpreter is an achiever (like any other participant). The interpreter is given the right to participate in the interaction and his/her professionality is recognized. In achieving culture, you recognize that there is a professional and that professional has got a role of his/her own. Interpreters are expected to give an «accurate, unbiased account of what was said in one language to those speaking the other language». They are independent, they are in between sand they need to facilitate the communication, but they are not taking sides. Interpreter is supposed to be “neutral, a black box”, little to non-intercultural mediation is expected. I expect minimum contribution on the part of the interpreter. Interpreter serves the interest of language comprehension, “not the interests of either party who may seek to distort meaning for their own end”. The intercultural cues are assumed by the parties to be visible to them or to be non-relevant because the communication is assumed to be very straightforward. ASCRIPTIVE CULTURES (CF. HIGH-CONTEX) Interpreter has an ascribed status as part of the team. You have the team; the interpreter is part of your team and that is ascribed. You have a status which depends on who you are in the team and not on what you are doing. interpreter not simply of language but of gesture, meaning and context → you expect a higher degree of intercultural mediation. Interpreters are expected to support their teams, even to protect them from potential confrontational conduct by the Western negotiators. You are not there to be neutral. If somebody in the other team has an attitude that is not aligning with the politeness expectation that you have in your team, that is what you do, you protect your team. Interpreters mediate what may be perceived as rude and even advise the team how to counter opposition tactics. The intercultural knowledge is put in the service of helping whoever pays you. You have a status, and you don’t have an independence. The interpreter considers herself/himself as part of the team. If the interpreter is so bound up with the team of the counterpart, achieving cultures may perceive that the interpreter lacks “professionality” and “neutrality”. Your role is seen in different ways according to the standards of achieving cultures. You are expected to behave in a certain way. o Ex: 1 min rendition into Japanese of an original 15 sec statement. If there is a remarkable difference between the original source text and the translated text, people become suspicious. Culture bumps What is culture bump? A culture bump occurs when an individual from one culture finds himself or herself in a different, strange or uncomfortable situation when interacting with persons of a different culture. A culture bump occurs when an individual has expectations of one behavior and gets something completely different. Some examples POLITENESS “In some cultures, and subcultures, being polite to the other person is more important than supplying correct information”. How do we express politeness? Forms of address → using these form of address expresses a politeness that in some culture it is very relevant compared to other cultures. o Buongiorno, Le presento Avvocato Cavallaro. o (non medical context) Scusi, ma l’abbiamo fatto insieme al dott. Rossi. Politeness filters → a higher degree of mediation. It is very important to choose the right form of address. The people that belong to that culture expect to be treated differently. Social deixis (distance): Lei / tu vs. you Wierzbicka (1986): the interpreter should make use of more indirect expressions instead of imperatives translating a request from Italian into English. o an interrogative (“What do you think?”) or a conditional form (“I’d like to know your opinion”) You do not translate literally whatever it is said in the source text, but you are trying to convey and idea that is acceptable to a target culture. Intercultural communication: TIME PERCEPTION MONOCHRONIC (Germany) POLYCHRONIC (Italy) Time is flexible and not an absolute value Time is sequential and highly scheduled. Different activities with different people Time is money, “an object” Time can be stretched Punctuality and promptness - proof of commitment “Being nice, courteous, considerate, kind, and sociable to other human beings” (Hall One task at a time 1989: 150) is more important that job No interruptions completion Very broadly identified with low Very broadly identified with high context/achievement context/ascriptive There might be negotiating issues. Intercultural communication: TURN-TAKING ANGLO-AMERICAN GERMAN Someone is saying something You said something now I can’t say something at the same time I want to say what I think about this I can say something after this I want to say it now Transition relevant time → you don’t start speaking over someone else. You wait for the time when you can interrupt. Intercultural communication: other issues Measurement system (miles vs km; inches vs cm, etc) Proxemics (Perception of space): how far or close the interpreter and/or the parties should be to each other? → space blobs Intercultural communication: Language issues in dialogue interpreting Language is undoubtedly important in intercultural communication, be it business negotiations or social services While the importance of cultural differences has long been recognized, language issues have generally been given little importance Incidentally, this is also true of language mediation for the social services, as set forth in the relevant legislation Mediation skills and professionalization To be a dialogue interpreter / mediator linguistic competence and cultural awareness alone are not enough: you need mediation/interpreting skills The problem has generally been underestimated by practitioners and researchers alike (companies and institutions often resort to ad hoc interpreters in business negotiations) This ‘has been an obstacle in the way of accepting liaison interpreting as a distinct and appropriate professional activity’ (Gentile et al. 1996) Approaches to interpreting INTERPRETIVE APPROACH MOT-A’-MOT or TRANSCODAGE Based on the reformulation of the meaning of the Word-by-word, or literal, transposition, including complete textual units independently of the surface the style of the speaker. organization of the text. Newmark’s approaches to translation & mot-à-mot vs. interpretive approach Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow the exact contextual meaning of the original. Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Approach to interpreting How to choose? o in some contexts, interpreters do have a choice o in other contexts, they don’t (e.g., police interview: only literal) the prime criterion governing translator’s strategic choices is the purpose of the overall translational action, i.e. the Skopos (cf. Reiss- Vermeer 1994) Importance of pragmatic factors (how context contributes to meaning) Particularly important aspects: social deixis, forms of politeness, forms of address, use of conversational implicature, turn-taking in conversation etc. Back to cultural bumps: translation of cultural terms CULTURE Way of life and its manifestations peculiar to one speech community. 1. Ecology (animal, plants, local winds, mountains etc.) o Ex: pot marigold, moose, spruce tree, etc. 2. Material culture (artefacts) (Food, clothes, housing, transport and communication) o Ex: porridge, pork pie, semi-det. 3. Social culture (Work and leisure) o Ex: cricket 4. Organisation, customs, ideas: o Ex: artistic, religious, political and administrative subcategories 5. Gestures and habits 6. Idioms Frame of reference Contextual factors Purpose of text Motivation and cultural, technical and linguistic level of readership Importance of referent in SL text Setting (does a recognized translation exist?) Some translation procedures 1. Transference 2. Literal translation 3. Through translation (or calque) 4. Cultural equivalent 5. Functional or descriptive equivalent (neutralization) 6. Label 7. Naturalisation 8. Deletion 9. Couplet 10. Paraphrase, gloss, note etc. 1. Transference Transference (emprunt, loan word, transcription) is the process of transferring a SL word to a TL text as a translation procedure (Newmark 1988). Ex: software, management, football, etc. 2. Through translation The literal translation of common collocations, political functions, name of organisations, etc. Chancellor of the Exchequer = Cancelliere dello Scacchiere Casa Bianca = White House UNO = ONU WHO = OMS NYPD = Dipartimento di Polizia di New York 3. Cultural equivalent Cultural equivalent: an approximate translation where a SL cultural word is translated by a TL cultural word. esame di maturità → A-levels Montecitorio → (the Italian) Westminster Roget – dizionario dei sinonimi e dei contrari cherry trifle → zuppa inglese 4. Functional equivalent This common procedure, applied to cultural words, requires the use of a culture-free word, sometimes a new specific term. It therefore neutralises or generalises the SL word. Esame di maturità → Italian secondary school leaving exam Palazzo Madama → the Italian Senate, the Italian Upper House This procedure can be seen as a form of cultural componential analysis* and is the most appropriate way (according to Newmark) of deculturalising a cultural word. * Componential analysis: the analysis of words through structured sets of semantic features, which are given as “present”, “absent” or “indifferent with reference to feature” 5. Descriptive equivalent Similar to functional equivalent, but explanatory. es. machete: ‘a Latin-American broad, heavy instrument’ Prom: ‘il ballo di fine anno (della scuola)’ N.B. Cultural, functional and descriptive equivalents are sometimes difficult to tell from each other; they have the effect of neutralizing cultural specificity. 6. Translation label An approximate equivalent, sometimes proposed as a collocation in inverted commas, which may later become commonly accepted. autogestione = worker management amministratore delegato = CEO 7. Naturalization Naturalization stands for an integrated borrowing. Common for geographical names: o Edimburgo, Padua, Piedmont And for country-specific notions: o Thatcherismo, laburismo Proper names: o Abramo Lincoln, Beniamino Franklin, Giorgio Washington, o Giovanna D’Arco, Copernico, o Leone Tolstoj, Martin Lutero o Giuseppe Stalin o Guglielmo Shakespeare? 8. Deletion "Omission of a lexical item due to grammatical or semantic patterns of the receptor language". Sometimes for pruning redundancy. Typical example: from a relative clause to a nonfinite participial clause Deletion of metaphor: o They are birds of a feather = si assomigliano moltissimo Metaphors are quite problematic in interpreting. 9. Translation couplet The transcription/transference of an institutional term plus its translation in brackets: i Beefeaters (i guardiani della Torre di Londra) Frequently used for legal system-specific terms: Questura (the police headquarters with the immigration office) Interpreter’s intervention “The interpreter must be extremely careful not to become an interpreter of cultural information in the other sense of the word, that is, not to step into the shoes of the other professional and attempt to use cultural knowledge to diagnose a situation.” The interpreter may provide information of a cultural nature to the clients provided that o it is done appropriately, ex. during briefing o all parties are informed o the interpreter is not put in a position of making decisions or judgments that belong to the other professional Dialogue interpreting in business context When do we come across the need for dialogue interpreting in business context? Import/export negotiations. When you’ve got cross-country negotiations typically involving buying and selling something. Internal discussion. Discussions between members of a subsidiary company and its foreign owner, distributorship deals (= you have an agreement with a company in another country to distribute a product). Between a businessperson and a foreign consultant, etc. Discussions on the opening of a potential join venture. Visits to the manufacturing site, fair trade contexts, etc. All these business relationships require forms of negotiations, and these forms of negotiations go across cultures and languages. Conflict and mediation Two frequently adjacent notions Mediating alterity → terminological overlap: o Mediation – an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approach (mediazione commerciale, mediazione familiar, ecc) (instead of going to court); also, at an international level. o Language and culture mediation ▪ Dialogue interpreting (language alterity) ▪ Conflict resolution between representatives of different cultures, +/- language issues In business negotiations between parties coming from different cultures both meaning are possible. Mediation is associated with the idea of conflict. A business negotiation could be difficult because you have different interests, they may entail some kind of conflicts. Mediating in the sense of providing support, to mediate and dispute it is not what you are doing. Your role as an interpreter is not to mediate a conflict. Your role is not to solve a problem, your role is to facilitate communication, but if there is a conflict, there is a conflict. When you are in between, sometimes it is not easy to understand where and when you have to stop. These problems are very underestimated, but they shouldn’t be. Conflict “A form of intense interpersonal and/or intrapersonal dissonance (tension or antagonism) between two or more interdependent parties based on incompatible goals, needs, desires, values, beliefs and/or attitudes”. “Conflicts are interactions in which two or more actors see their goals as being mutually incompatible”. This is the notion of conflict itself and it is a notion to which negotiation has to be applied. You find a definition or description of conflict as in terms of a conflict iceberg, you can have different levels of conflict. In a business negotiation you may have a conflict but more typically you have a discussion between two or more parties and then you need to find an agreement somewhere which may involve some kind of compromise. You do have some form of conflict in any business negotiation. The conflict that is involved tends to be constructive because you do want to find a solution which is mutually convenient. It is not a personal conflict. Business negotiations A discussion between two or more parties with different needs focused on conflict resolution. What type of a conflict is involved? Constructive conflict (as opposed to destructive) “The whole negotiation process is regarded as an effort on both sides to come to a mutual solution (agreement) rather than to bargain over positions closely tied to the persons involved in the negotiation”. Pragmatic concept of harmony Shared goal – to reach an agreement The conflict is not interpersonal, but issue-based: “The absence of conflict on the interpersonal level: a verbal interaction is felt to be harmonious when both partners succeed, by the use of certain communication strategies, in satisfying their own face wants as well as those of their partner. Expectations as to what is face-threatening in a specific situation may vary from culture to culture”. You have to avoid being face-threatening, you have to be able to preserve face. The notion of face varies from culture to culture. Softening, mitigating or explaining, not on the substantive issues, but yes, on the modality in which they are communicating. It is not easy to distinguish it. It is not the conflict itself, but it is more the way in which community behavior may lead to additional conflicts which are not part of the business negotiation itself. The very notion of issue can play a different role in different cultures. In a negotiation, different parties can have different issues. Most significant types of issue 1. Substantive issues (price, number of units). In individualistic culture and universalistic culture (= where you apply the same kind of behavior to all kind of relationships), substantive issues are important. If the United States are selling or buying something from Chinese negotiator, what is important is how many items you are selling me and the price. You talk directly about these aspects. 2. Relationship-based (compatibility of styles, mutual trust). This has implications for the choice of negotiators. In a culture where substantive issues are very important and dominate, it doesn’t matter what negotiator you sent, the focus is on what you want to obtain. On the other hand, a Chinese negotiation team (also Italian negotiating team) will tend to focus on relationships; they would find it very difficult to start negotiating again with somebody they haven’t seen before. If you sent different negotiator, you feel like you have to start every time from the beginning. That is a problem because loosing that relationship that you established may cause a break in the negotiation. 3. Procedural issues (type of structure), the way in which people conduct negotiation. The negotiation style, what do we start from, where do we want to get to, who starts talking, who can make some offers etc. In individualistic culture the person who is negotiating is entrusted with a lot of negotiating power. In a very hierarchal culture, the person who is negotiating doesn’t have a lot of negotiating power, it needs to go back to the headquarters. Somebody has the power to close the negotiation, somebody else does not have a power to close negotiation because of the structure of their cultures. These procedural aspects may be very important. 4. Personal internal issues (respect, reputation and dissent with negotiating teams). There are different cultural approaches to these issues. In some cultures, procedural issues may be more important that substantive issues. Business negotiations Not only competition but also cooperation because you want to solve a problem. “If [negotiators] had no incentives to cooperate, they would not bargain at all…” There are different variables in the way in which you approach a bargaining situation. Basic concept of the negotiation process DISTRIBUTIVE INTEGRATIVE Search unilateral benefit as in a zero-sum game Non-conflictual goal achievement WIN-LOSE logic, I’m not looking for WIN-WIN logic compromise. If you compromise it means Joint problem-solving, we have a problem, that you are losing face. It is very how can we solve a problem together. competitive. There are languages in which the word “compromise” is negative. Two components: “integrative” vs “distributive” Prevalence of distributive component gives rise to conflictual or confrontational behaviour. The negotiation process may be understood in different ways in different cultures. Business negotiations: elements of a conflict The boundaries are not always so clear in real life. BATNA = Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement Relative power or bargaining strength held by participants. Formalization of power: the strength of a negotiator is the greater, the number and the global value of his/her alternatives are larger and the number of global value of his/her opponent’s alternatives are lower. When you strongly got power, if your alternatives are many and they are valid on a global level, if your opponent has fewer alternatives then they have less power. The opposite is WATNA (Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). One of the factors that affects this is the power, or the bargaining strength held by participants. If you are a supplier and you are the only one with the goods, you can raise the price. If you have a lot of competitors, you need to beat the competitors as well. You need to find an agreement or if you get into a confrontational stage than you won’t be able to find that agreement. In a Best Alternative Negotiated Agreement, the factors that enable this solution are your latitude of choice, how broad your choices are. OBJECTIVE FACTORS SUPPLEMENTARY FACTORS Negotiator’s latitude of choice. Availability of information Negotiator’s capacity to sanction either Latitude of the party in respect of time, if positively or negatively, you can either help you have time, you have more power. the counterpart by giving them a greater Negotiator’s personality and status reputation or by diminishing their reputation. Negotiator’s negotiating skills Relative importance of the opponent in Negotiator’s credibility and reputation regard of her/his needs. Negotiator’s capacity to influence Negotiations, power and language Monolingual context – OK, but bi- or multilingual? “Linguistic asymmetry” in business negotiations where the participants do not all have the same command of the language that is spoken. o Native to non-native interaction. Typically, the non-native is at a disadvantage speaking to a native unless that disadvantage is compensated by much greater power that the non- native has. o Use of interlanguage – Spanish and Italian and they speak English. You may have a different knowledge of the interlanguage as well. o Interpreted-mediated encounters, the interpreter is there to enable the conversation but still you have a linguistic asymmetry that you need to solve. Linguistic asymmetry = if people in the negotiation don’t have the same command of the language, then you got a linguistic asymmetry. It is not easy to negotiate when you don’t have the linguistic ability to do so. Assymentric encounters Linguistic asymmetry + cultural asymmetry (ethnolinguistic and organization level) → misunderstandings, that is when the mediator comes in. “Disagreement and conflict in negotiations are typically reinforced by cultural differences (NB: not only caused by cultural factors!)”. Your role could be to mediate that aspect. It is a factor, but it is not the key aspect. Context in conflict cases Context is not objective, stable or fixed. In every kind of context different types of problems may arise. “Reflexive view of context”. In every situation you have to try and understand context. You need to be able to analyze the context you are in and identify the kind of factors that are affecting it. Given a situation in which you feel that something is going wrong, you need to be able to identify the issue. This doesn’t mean that you need to know everything about the other culture, you need to develop intercultural awareness. Be aware of the factors that could affect the situation. Context “is not a set of parameters external to the communicative situation which influence the interactants’ linguistic and behavioral choices, but it is rather constructed, shaped and reshaped through the words and behaviour of those involved in the interaction”. This means that we need to have a situational understanding of context. Every single moment in a situation, the context is something which is created verbally by using language in a certain manner you also manage to establish for instance trust. You mention certain things that may cause trust to develop or not. Context How is context created? “In the interactional moment-to-moment development, the parties, singly or together, select and display in their conduct which of the indefinitely many aspects of context they are making relevant, or are invoking, for the immediate moment”. Contextualization cues o “Roughly speaking, a contextualization cue is any feature of linguistic form that contributes to the signaling of contextual presuppositions”. I evoke something which comes from my culture and I make it significant in that situation. Contextualization cues Emojis (there’s even an emojipedia), you use an emoji to let people know the context. Raising of eyebrows at a certain word when you speak or other gestures. Using a foreign accent in part of a sentence. Using slang associated with a certain social group. Contextualization cues At the center of interaction, you do learn them, but you don’t know them at the beginning. Much communication (and miscommunication) rests on contextualization cues. Silence can act as a contextualization cue. Contextualization cues are not in the language; they are in the context, but they have a meaning. Add to shared understanding and meaning- making, and, if interpreted correctly by all participants in interaction, contextualization cues go by totally unnoticed. When not shared, however, it can be a factor in misunderstanding. Culturally specific view of conflicts HIGH-CONTEXT (ex: Chinese, Japanese, LOW-CONTEXT (ex: Swiss, Germans, Koreans, Vietnamese) Scandinaves, North America) Conflict is an “instrument” to achieve your goals To reach your goals by openly dealing with Conflict as an “expression” it Of personal hostility or mistrust Heated, issues-oriented discussions, you Avoiding open confrontation can fight about something, but that fight is a way of coming to a solution of that communication. Conflicts can also be seen in culture specific manner. If somebody from a high-context culture encounters somebody who is very open about disagreement, they might interpret that as contextualization cue that they don’t want to reach an agreement. You need to be able to interpret that kind of linguistic behavior. A language mediator’s role in business negotiation Expectations about the role s/he is to play are culturally mediated: Ex: near to direct participation as an ingroup member: for Japanese negotiators similar to “a black box serving the interest of modern language comprehension”: for American, British and Scandinavian negotiators AITI (Associazione Italiana per Traduttori e Interpreti) – Code of Ethics Article 5: Duty to Act with Probity and Dignity I. Translators and interpreters must act with probity and dignity. II. Translators and interpreters must not knowingly alter the content of an original text for ideological or personal reasons. Any personal opinions must be expressed with moderation and must be clearly separated from the original message. Article 6. Duty to Act Loyally and Fairly I. Translators and interpreters shall carry out their professional activities, loyally, fairly, objectively and impartially, thereby laying the foundations for a relationship of trust with the client. II. Translators and interpreters must in no circumstances derive any personal gain from the information to which they may become privy in the course of their professional activities. Article 10. Duty to Ensure Competence I. Translators and interpreters shall only accept assignments in the languages and areas of specialisation for which they are qualified and competent. II. Translators shall only translate into their mother tongue, their language of education and habitual use or a language in which they have a proven equivalent competence. Case studies IT/US: interlocutore italiano/statunitense I: interprete :: vocale prolungata (.) pausa breve (0,5 sec) [xxx] sovrapposizione tra due interlocutori. intonazione discendente … intonazione ? intonazione ascendente; = latching, esitazione vocalizzata ∋ (ehm, eh, uh, ecc.), sottolineato prominenza marcata. Case study 1: IT – INT – US IT= The owner of a small-size Italian company, which in the last ten years has acted as a distributor for a an upmarket British-made consumer product. US= one of the directors of an American multinational corporation, which three years before acquired the British producer as well as some other European and Italian concerns operating in the same sector. INT= The Italian hardly knows any English, so he is accompanied by an interpreter. Object: renewal of the distributorship contract for another decade. Expectations: ITA businessman expects the continuation of the distributorship because his company was the first to introduce the luxury product under discussion in the country, a product which previously was virtually unknown to the layman, working hard to develop the brand name and create a market for it with brilliant results. Place: The negotiation takes place at the American corporation’s European headquarters in London. [Convo] Whenever there is a conflict, they appeal the interpreter to solve the conflict. Lowering the voice is a contextualization cue. It’s a current practice – is a cultural addiction. Outcome? The American businessmen had already decided to discontinue the contract. Strategy: to start the negotiation as if the question was still open and progressively show the inadequacy of the Italian counterpart in order to have a pretext for non-renewal. Means: “special” discounts to shopkeepers. Cultural difference The fact of using money for a different purpose from that for which it is appropriated in the balance sheet is inadmissible in the US, while in Italy it is not unusual if the contingent situation so requires. Universalism (general rules) vs. particularism (flexible to circumstances). Role of the interpreter? Deontologically neutral Really tried to convey the parties’ messages Universalistic vs Particularistic approach Italian culture is very particularistic. Asking for an exception means that you think that it is acceptable. In England, for example, no one would ever dare to ask for an exception. Italian, culturally, accept the fact that individual needs come above the rule. Conversation analysis Police interviews, doctor-patient communication, commercial sales, business negotiations and first dates: what do they have in common? They are all driven by talk You want to achieve something; it is not just a casual conversation, but it is an exchange of information that is aimed at a purpose. Conversation analysts study conversation – of all kinds to see how they are directed to see how the purpose is achieved. “Talk” is the most important aspect of all these situations that may be formal or informal and more or less professional. In some of them you have a very strong professional component. Conversation analysis focuses and analyses the details of a conversation, and it focuses on how talk works. How talk works? → understanding that is crucial for success. In conversation analysis, what we do, we talk about talk; we describe the way we function linguistically. Talking about talk Metaphor of “machinery” o That produces the orderly appearance of social interactions. These patterns can vary across cultures. the response is not always the same. There are certain rules, there are some cultural cues etc. Many dynamics are language driven, they are conversation driven, you need to figure out how people interact, and this interaction is often verbally interaction. Your attention in focused on the way in which people use language to accomplish things. This language use is something which is very well orchestrated in order to achieve the purposes which are specific to that kind of situation. There is a lot of studies carried out in order to figure out the best way to conduct a conversation. Ex: “How to talk to people who have a very bad prognosis”. What make such a conversation successful? It is all conversation based. Social interactions are ordinary. It is not that easy to understand the mechanism and the patterns that rule social interactions, but in fact they do follow certain patterns and these patterns can be learned. These patterns can vary across cultures, the appropriate response to a given situation is not always the same. There are certain rules, but they are not always the same across all areas. What is conversational analysis (CA)? CA is the study of recorded, naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. Talk-in-interaction: conversations between people, not monologues or written materials. Something which requires a prompt response on your part of the interactant. Recorded: CA relies on tape – and video-recordings. The video recordings are important because they also give you contextualization cues which are not strictly linguistic. The way which people relate to each other in terms of their physical proximity. Different gestures in different languages can provide contextualization. There are contextual cues, paralinguistic. Naturally occurring: non staged, experimental, elicited Basic assumption: There is order in interaction; such order is repeatable and recurrent, a turn-by-turn sequential organization. b We do function with patterns; most of our life we are not really free; we are socialized in a pattern. We are bound by social conventions, a lot of what we say is largely predictable. Why study talk-in-interaction? To discover how participant produce and interpret talk-in-interaction To uncover the tacit reasoning procedures and competencies underlying organized, sequenced conversational activity → by analyzing this you can figure out more clearly what is happening, and this can be very important to understand what is somehow hidden below the surface. To understand the interaction organization of social activities o How is talk-in-interaction organized, how do participants accomplish orderliness, and what systematic resources do they draw on? o How do people make sense to each other? And how do they do so effectively and efficiently? CA: background and history The field of CA began with just three people, Emanuel Schegloff, Harvey Sack and Gail Jefferson – (1964). CA was founded in the 1960s because of dissatisfaction with prevailing approaches in sociology and linguistics. The problem with sociology: focus on big issues, which are unobservable and can only be investigated by questionnaires, interviews etc. The problem with linguistics: made-up sentences that are judged for well-formedness. CA: today Many years later, “CA is the dominant approach to the study of human social interaction across the disciplines of Sociology, Linguistics and Communication”, with quite a strong emphasis also on Intercultural Communication. In Intercultural Communication it is through the negotiation that is involved interaction that you can understand what people are saying. It has to do with the linguistic analysis of interactions to figure out how people negotiate. This is very important in intercultural communication or in lingua franca communication (you use a language with different background). What is studied? Anything done through talk: from diagnosing bladder infection to answering questions in court, and from talking over family matters at dinner to guiding a pilot through fog. We can study just anything. CA: illustration Medical context: patients come to a GP with many issues and leave having discussed only one of them → dissatisfaction Communication guideline for GPs “Can I help you with anything else?” → it is not an inviting answer. “Is there anything else I can help you with?” “Any more cake?” What is the expected answer? If you offering somebody something, what do you ask? “Would you like some coffee?”. “Any” elicits “No” CA intervention: “some”: “is there some other issue you would like to address?”. People felt they were invited to say more. Just a small change in a single word makes that sort of change. Relevance for dialogic context when you use one word instead of another. Conversation analysis Not “why”, not behavioral explanations Focus on regularities and patterns in responses: an architecture of conversation. What typically occurs and what is the outcome and what could be changed. Ex: “any” – only 50% of patients said more; “some” – 90% of patients said more Small change → big impact, as language is very systematic An example This is a typical structure of a conversation that could occur. Somebody makes an offer and the other one accepts. This type of transcription tends to reproduce those aspects of language that indicate a certain attitude. Transcription conventions Different systems of conventions can be used For example, for non-native (L2) conversations in English or English as a lingua franca (cf. interlanguage in Lesson 4), the VOICE conventions are used (Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English) Another, more general, system to note: Jane A. Edwards and Martin Lampert. 1993. Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Main symbols and forms of notation Units Intonation unit | | Truncated intonation unit - Speaker identity/turn start : Transitional Continuity Final. Continuing , Appeal ? Tone Fall \ Rise / Fall-rise \/ Rise-fall /\ Level - Loudness Piano, soft {p} Fortis, loud {f} Pause and loudness Example of timed pause (.3) , (2.6) Just noticeable pause (.) Latching (Latching is a term used in Conversation Analysis to refer to the absence of "natural beat of silence" between two turn constructional units.) = Wo:::rd → colons show that the speaker has stretched the preceding sound °word° → words between “degree signs” is quiet word, WORD → underlined sounds are louder, capitals louder still word [word square brackets aligned across adjacent lines denote the start of [word] overlapping talk Transcriber’s Perspective Researcher’s comment (( )) Uncertain hearing < x x > Indecipherable syllable x Transcription conventions Options as concerns the level of delicacy and the range of phenomena to be accounted for in writing. Plain transcription of utterances. Transcription of utterances with annotation of main prosodic features. Multimodal transcription: it also records paratextual features (gestures, movement, expressions, etc.) Commented multimodal transcription: it also includes the researcher’s comments. CRISTINA: You have a disorder called multinucleate cell angiohistiocytoma. It’s not a cancer. It’s ah very rare but minor. You’ll be discharged today, okay? PATIENT 1: I don’t need a surgery? CRISTINA: No. PATIENT 1: I’m not gonna die? I’m fine. CRISTINA: Fit as a fiddle. Ah whatever. Plain transcription CRISTINA: |You have a disorder called multinucleate cell angiohistiocytoma-| It’s not a cancer. It’s ah very rare but minor. You’ll be discharged today, okay? PATIENT 1: |I don’t need a surgery /|? CRISTINA: |No\| PATIENT 1: |I’m not gonna die -| |I’m [fine-| CRISTINA: ||[Fit] as a fiddle|| | Ah whatever\| With prosodic features (Cut to Cristina & Alex giving a patient with his family the results of his labs) CRISTINA: |You have a disorder called multinucleate cell angiohistiocytoma-| (A family member walks in) |It’s ^not a ^ ^ cancer|. It’s ah ^ very rare but minor| You’ll be discharged today\ | |okay/|? (The family look relieved) PATIENT 1: |I don’t need a surgery /|? PATIENT 1: |I’m not gonna die -| |I’m [fine-| CRISTINA: ||[Fit] as a fiddle|| | Ah whatever\| (The family start hugging each other and crying with joy. One of the ladies comes up to Cristina and hugs her tightly. Cristina stands stiff looking annoyed at Alex who is grinning as he’s gotten away hug free.) Multimodal (Cut to Cristina & Alex giving a patient with his family the results of his labs) CRISTINA: |You have a disorder called multinucleate cell angiohistiocytoma-| (A family member walks in) |It’s ^not a ^ ^ cancer|. It’s ah ^ very rare but minor| You’ll be discharged today\ | |okay/|? ((Here the intonation unit structure is similar to the one found in the event about the raped woman, sequence 1: level tone in all the units and medical terms. In this turn, anyway, Cristina tries to explain to the patient what the disease is not, since it seems easier than trying to explain, in more comprehensible words, what it is. The final rising tone elicits an answer)) (The family look relieved) PATIENT 1: |I don’t need a surgery /|? ((the patient hasn’t understood much, but he doesn’t ask Cristina to repeat what she’s said, since a question requiring a yes or no answer seems to be the easiest to ask)) CRISTINA: |No\| PATIENT 1: |I’m not gonna die -| |I’m fine-| ((The level tone of voice shows that the patient is waiting for a comment, though he doesn’t dare to ask his question directly, because he’s afraid of the answer) CRISTINA: ||Fit as a fiddle|| | Ah whatever\| ((Finally Cristina uses expressions from everyday language, though she betrays a certain difficulty in doing it and the interjection ah comes from an inner feeling of embarrassment)) (The family start hugging each other and crying with joy. One of the ladies comes up to Cristina and hugs her tightly. Cristina stands stiff looking annoyed at Alex who is grinning as he’s gotten away hug free.) Commented Conversation transcription: resources On transcription conventions and further examples of transcripts cf. http://ca-tutorials.lboro.ac.uk/notation.htm http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/ Turn-taking Turns are the minimal units of conversational interaction. Turn-taking system for conversation can be described in terms of 2 components: o Turn-constructional component (ex: single-word, single-phrase, single-clause turns, etc.). o Turn-allocation component: Turn-allocation techniques are distributed into two groups: ▪ (a) those in which next turn is allocated by current speaker’s selecting the next speaker. ▪ (b) those in which the next turn is allocated by self-selection. Sometimes you can intervene spontaneously in a conversation, sometimes your intervention in a conversation is required and demanded by the previous speaker. Transition relevant places Turn transfer usually takes place at Transition Relevance Places (TRPs), i.e. places where the change in turn is possible. Signals: 1. Grammatical – completion of syntactic clause 2. Intonation / prosodic – a terminating pitch contour (rise or fall) 3. Lexical – one of several stereotyped expressions (but uh, or something, you know…) 4. Vocal paralinguistic – lengthening of final (stressed) syllable, possible drop in pitch and loudness 5. Body movements – termination of hand gesture, left & down movement of head, steady gaze towards selected new speaker Turn allocation Turn-allocation techniques (a) those in which next turn is allocated by current speaker’s selecting the next speaker. (b) those in which the next turn is allocated by self-selection, in other words: How is the next turn assigned? the current speaker may simply continue the current speaker may select a new speaker a new speaker may self-select Overlap: fighting for the floor When there is an overlap, as an interpreter you can ask to stop the conversation. When there is an overlap you cannot understand, and you cannot introduce anything in the conversation. We do expect an orderly structure. Adjacency pairs Adjacency pairs represent the next level of organization above the turn. When you have a structure, you typically have turns that are dependent on one another. If I say, “Good morning”, you reply “Good Morning”. You are expected to answer. They are structures which essentially link two turns by different speakers which are relevant to one another. The two turn which are linked are called the two “pair parts” One part follows the other in an expected and conventionalized way Examples of adjacency pairs Question – answer Offer – acceptance ‘Do you know the time?’ ‘Like a drink?’ ‘Six o’clock.’ ‘Yes thanks.’ Greeting – greeting Apology – minimization ‘How do you do?’ ‘I’m sorry about that.’ ‘How do you do.’ ‘Oh, it’s nothing.’ Insertion sequence Double insertion sequence A: Where can I catch the Saarbahn? A: Are you coming to the party Thursday? B: Do you know where Landwehrplatz is? B: Will Harry be there? A: Is it just over on the Mainzer Strasse? A: Sure. B: Yeah. B: Then yes. A: Then I know how to get there. B: Well, that’s where you catch the Saarbahn. Sometimes the adjacency pair may not be so straightforward. Sometimes you don’t have a question – answer straight away, but you can have a question – answer with an insertion sequence which is meant to clarify. Relevance theory = we assume that when somebody asks us a question or somebody tells us something, whatever they are telling us it is relevant to the present conversation. We attribute meaning to context. Repair (of the turn-taking system) Repair covers various phenomena, from seeming errors in turn-taking (ex: extensive overlapping) to forms of correction, i.e. substantive faults of what someone has said. Repair is not necessarily the correction of a linguistic mistake: speakers may also try to produce a word or orient to the recipient of the turn. If you don’t understand something as a mediator, you need to use a repair strategy, you need to ask people to repeat. Structural descriptors of repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977): o Who produced the trouble source o Who initiates the repair o Who completes the repair Types of repairs Self–initiated self–repair: the speaker who produces the trouble source initiates & carries out the repair. C: I saw Judy last Tuesday – hm sorry, Monday Self-initiated other–repair: the speaker of a trouble source may try and get the recipient to repair the trouble – for instance if a name is proving difficult to remember for him/her. A: I need more storage space on my computer, so I need to get a new umm.... B: A hard drive? A: Yeah, that's right, a hard drive Other-initiated self-repair: repair is carried out by the speaker of the trouble source but initiated by the recipient. A: I saw Judy last Tuesday. B: Uh, Tuesday? A: Oh, yeah, I saw her on Monday at the party. Other-initiated other-repair: the recipient of a trouble-source turns both initiates and carries out the repair (this is a real “correction”). A: With the 6% sales tax, that would add quite a bit to the price. B: The sales tax is actually 7%. A: yeah The science of talk Elizabeth Stokoe (2015) “How to Control a Conversation with a Single Word”, wired/YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUbd9RzX9u0 Questionnaire 1. What is the topic of her lecture? (0:19) 2. What conversation analysts do? 3. What metaphor does Stokoe use to describe a conversation? (1:19) What constituent elements do she mention? 4. According to the insight of CA, talk is … (2:01) 5. Can we observe a certain pattern used to make questions about a relationship history in a speed- date context more effective? 6. What metaphor does she use to describe difficulties in communication? (4:51) 7. How is it possible to convert callers from “no” to “yes”? (5:10, especially 9:09) 8. Can CA underpin a training method? How? 9. 10:36 What problem did they identify in calls to the surgery front-offices? 10. What determined the satisfaction score on the GP patient survey? (12:43) 11. What was missing in the call to a double-glazing company? (13:50) How does Stokoe define this phenomenon? Public service/community interpreting Healthcare setting → public service interpreting (PSI) ISO 13611:2014 defines healthcare interpreters as a subcategory of community interpreters. The setting: interview between a service provider (SP) and someone who needs or wants the services (a client/patient). The interview arises out some sort of crisis in the life of the client/patient. These are not situations in which people are particularly serene. Imagine having an illness and not being able to communicate. Significant risk inherent in the situation. If I can’t express my symptoms properly, we can have very serious consequences. There is a lot of responsibilities on the mediator. Cultural differences between a healthcare professional and a client increase the initial risk inherent in a healthcare encounter. For example, descriptions of pain are very different across cultures. Interpreter – mediated healthcare encounters WHERE: in a range of sectors from emergency medicine to geriatrics and psychiatry and in a range of different settings: hospitals wards and clinics, consulting rooms and patient’s homes, community health centers. WHO: they interpret for patients and doctors, and also for nurses, physiotherapists and speech pathologists, occasionally administrative staff too. The range of linguistic skills is really broad. As a mediator you also have to have the knowledge of the processes in certain environments. When you enter a different context, at the beginning, you don’t know how that context work, once you know how a certain environment works, you can make predictions about what is going to happen. You can have local variations, but you also have practices that you get used to, they make conversations predictable. If you know what is going on it becomes easier for you to interpret because you know what to expect. The range of different specialization that you need to have is quiet broad. WHAT: not only do they provide dialogue interpreting but are asked to translate documents or write document and letters in the foreign language, even contact foreign insurance companies and embassies over the telephone. There is a wide range of competencies that you need to acquire. Language mediation in healthcare settings Effective communication in healthcare is vital Global world = global patients In most countries there is no statutory obligation for medical institutions to provide professional interpreting services, so there is hardly any control on the professional competence of persons used as interpreters. There is no law that tells you that you have to have an interpreter, it is convenient, but you can’t demand it. There is no control over the professional competence of the people that are used as

Lingua Inglese III - Unit 2 PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue