Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting: A Corpus-based Discourse Analysis of Interpreters’ Role Deviation (SpringerBriefs in Linguistics) 9811914419, 9789811914416

Citation preview

SpringerBriefs in Linguistics Juan Hu

Hedges in ChineseEnglish Conference Interpreting A Corpus-based Discourse Analysis of Interpreters’ Role Deviation

SpringerBriefs in Linguistics

A platform for peer-reviewed short research monographs on all topics in the study of language, including syntax, semantics, philosophy of language, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics, translation studies, languages and literature, computational linguistics, as well as cross- and interdisciplinary studies in linguistics, and across all schools of thought and all methodologies. Volumes offer concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across a wide spectrum of fields within linguistics. Compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages cover a range of content from theoretical to experimental and applied research in linguistics. Typical topics might include: • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques • A bridge between new research results published in journal articles and a contextual literature review • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic • An in-depth case study or fieldwork results • A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make independent contributions. The publishing editor, Christopher Coughlin, welcomes your proposals and ideas for monographs that fit in this series.

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/11940

Juan Hu

Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting A Corpus-based Discourse Analysis of Interpreters’ Role Deviation

Juan Hu School of Foreign Languages Guizhou Normal University Guiyang, Guizhou, China

ISSN 2197-0009 ISSN 2197-0017 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Linguistics ISBN 978-981-19-1441-6 ISBN 978-981-19-1442-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3 Jointly published with Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press The print edition is not for sale in China (Mainland). Customers from China (Mainland) please order the print book from: Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press. © Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

The idea of this book was inspired by my leader Liu Jin who has always encouraged me to publish my dissertation after the doctoral graduation. Her support directly made this book possible. Since I was admitted by College of Foreign Languages and cultures of Xiamen University in 2014, I fell into studies on interpreters’ role and continuously persisted in this topic in my dissertation. After embarking on studies of interpreters’ role, I was perplexed and plagued by three obstacles: research method, theoretical and analytical framework and conceptual acceptance. In the past 45 years, the overwhelming majority of studies on interpreters’ role are case-based discourse analysis, the combination of corpus and Python will be a new and intriguing methodological attempt. Besides, interpreters’ role are frequently viewed from some unsystematic lens such as Goffman’s participation framework, Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, field, and capital, and Simmel’s the third space theory, a well-established theoretical framework directly feeding into my study is still in absence. My argument of role deviation for conference interpreters might also be another conceptual rethinking. In this context, this book mainly tries to serve a dual purpose. On one hand, it aims at applying corpus and Python programming into data-mining of interpreters’ discourse, so that it can offer grounds for a further exploration of interpreters’ role. On the other hand, this book is intended to share a theoretical and analytical framework built on role theory, so that it can enrich the research theory in this domain. Meanwhile, this book is intended as a renewed call for the research community to further develop the field of studies on interpreters’ role with other intervening points in corpus-based method and from the lens of role theory. This book consists of seven Chapters. Chapter 1 offers a brief introduction on research impetuses, significance, purposes, questions and methodology. Chapter 2 presents a review of literature to explain the link between what has already been established as interpreters’ role and our current research. Chapter 3 firstly takes stock of the conceptual relations among role, interpreters’ role and role deviation, and then theoretically demonstrate the rationale for role deviation as perceived through the use of hedges. Chapter 4 introduces the process of corpus building, namely, from press conference of Chinese government to CECIC. In what follows, Chapter 5 mainly deals with corpus-based quantitative analysis on hedges and shifting. Chapter 6 v

vi

Preface

is devoted to qualitative analysis on role deviation in hedges shifting. In the last Chapter, Chapter 7 serves as a conclusion of the whole study, presents major findings and contributions, acknowledges our limitations and provides some suggestion and recommendation for future studies. Guizhou, China

Juan Hu

Acknowledgments

The completion of this book is not possible without the assistance of these important people in my life, to whom I would like to extend my heartfelt acknowledgments. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest respect and gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Chen Jing. I have always been feeling lucky for being her Ph.D. student in Xiamen University. I am proud of being part of her research team in interpreting studies. During the past five years, I always remembered the nervous but happy moment that we had spent together in her class. At the beginning of my doctorate study, she treated me patiently and encouraged me to read literature as much as possible. After I pinpointed my research topic, I was stuck by piles of literature and baffled by the lack of research theoretical framework; she cared about me, enlightened me with her incisiveness and expertise, so that I can untangle my research thoughts. Besides, she often inspired me to relieve pressure, keep a healthy body and enjoy the painful and perfect time. I honestly admire her, because she is not only my Ph.D. supervisor, but also my teacher in life. She really sets a good example for me on how to do things and how to be a person of commitment. Secondly, my sincere thanks would go to my leader Liu Jin in the School of foreign language in Guizhou Normal University. She trusted me in teaching and academic work, encouraged me to take part in the entrance examination for Ph.D. candidacy, and gave me full understanding and great support when I encountered obstacles in the pursuit of my doctorate. Apart from these, I would like to express my appreciation for my colleagues, for what they have undertaken for me while I was not on job. Then, I extremely want to give my special acknowledgement to my father, mother and husband. My parents have given me unconditional love, support, understanding and tolerance. During my doctoral study, I could not accompany them, even when they were ill, I can only ask remote help from my friends. I feel deeply indebted for my dear parents. Meanwhile, I also feel deeply touched and grateful for Mr. Xu for his unconditional love, support and tolerance, so that I could peacefully stay in Xiamen and concentrate on my study. Besides, I also would like to extend my appreciation to teachers in interpreting team and my classmates in Xiamen University. I will never forget the days we

vii

viii

Acknowledgments

discussed research topics together, because they gave me much illuminating suggestion. They are Xiao Xiaoyan, Deng Yi, Liu Ying, Fu Yanqi, Su Wei. Meanwhile, I hope to thank my classmates for their selfless sharing, encouragement, companionship and earnest help. They are Chen Yuping, Fu Rongbo, Xing Xing, Han Chao, Xiao Rui, Chen Pushun, Yang Huabo, Wu Qiong, Wu Wenmei, Wen Yanjuan, Wang Sisi and Huang Jiahui. Additionally, my thanks will be offered to my best friend Chen Qiaoyun. I still want to show my gratitude to three people, whose help are crucial steps in my book. Sun Xiaolong deserves my sincere thanks for his consultancy in statistical knowledge. I also do really want to thank Yao Hongfu for his technical support in natural language process. Without his assistance, the empirical part may not go smoothly. Although my heartfelt thanks go to Evelyn Erin Barclay, she really deserves my gratitude for her sincere help and encouragement, I will cherish such a friend like her forever. Finally I am also grateful to the Springer team and the team of HuaZhong University of Science and Technology Press for their generous help and patience, especially Song Yan. Any error is, of course, of my own making. In addition, my sincere thanks also go to Guizhou Normal University, Guizhou Normal University Social Science Foundation and Guizhou Province Social Science Foundation; without this fund, this book can not be possible.

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Impetus for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Why Study Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation in Conference Interpreting? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Why Take Hedges as the Intervening Point to Explore Interpreters’ Role? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Why Select Press Conferences Held by the Chinese Government as Our Data Source? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Research Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Research Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Layout of this Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2

8 9 11 12 13 15 16

2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Overview of Interpreters’ Role in Interpreting Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Theoretical Review of Interpreters’ Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Empirical Review of Interpreters’ Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Studies on Role Deviation of Conference Interpreters . . . . . 2.2 Overview on Hedges in Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Hedges in Linguistic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Hedges in Translation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Hedges in Interpreting Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Studies on Interpreters’ Role Through Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 19 20 22 26 27 27 28 29 31 32

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Interpreters’ Roles and Role Deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Role and Interpreters’ Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Role Deviation: Role Expectation vS. Role Behavior . . . . . .

35 35 36 39

3 5

ix

x

Contents

3.1.3 Role Deviation in Interpreting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Rationale for Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Hedges as the Intervening Point to Investigate Role Deviation as Perceived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Analytical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Building CECIC for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Corpus as a Tool to Probe into Interpreters’ Role Deviation . . . . . . . 4.2 From Press Conferences of Chinese Government to CECIC . . . . . . . 4.3 Corpus Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Transcription, Segmentation, Annotation, Parallel Alignment and Python Coding Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting . . . . . . . 5.1 A Vertical Distribution of Hedges in CI Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 The Total and Sub-categories of Hedges Distribution in Chinese in CI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 The Total and Sub-categories of Hedges Distribution in English in CI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 The High Frequency Hedges Distribution in the Total . . . . . 5.1.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 A Horizontal Description of Hedges Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 The Additions of Hedges by Interpreters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 The Abridgements of Hedges by Interpreters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 The Substitutions of Hedges by Interpreters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 The Equivalences of Hedges by Interpreters in CI . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41 42 42 49 50 52 55 56 57 58 59 63 65 66 68 69 71 75 77 78 79 81 82 84 87

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting . . . . . . . . . . 89 6.1 Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 6.1.1 Role Behavior of Interpreters Through Hedges in CECIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.1.2 Role Expectations in Ethical Codes for Interpreters in CI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 6.1.3 Role Deviation with Role Expectations as a Frame of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6.2 Roles Performed by Interpreters in Role Deviation Through Functions of Hedges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 6.2.1 Interpreters as Keepers of Semantic Information Through Adapters and Rounders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Contents

6.2.2 Interpreters as Regulators of Pragmatic Tone Through Plausibility Shields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Interpreters as Distributors of Discourse Responsibility Through Attribution Shields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Interpreters as Controllers of Cognitive Resources Through Adaptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Hedges Distribution and Statistical Significance Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 Role Deviation via Hedges Shifting and Shifting Regularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3 Actual Roles in Role Deviation of Conference Interpreters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Contributions of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Limitations and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

102 103 105 107 108 111 111 112 113 113 114 116 118

Appendix A: AIIC Code of Professional Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Appendix B: AUSIT Code of Ethics for Interpreters & Translators . . . . . 121 Appendix C: AVLIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Professional Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Appendix D: NRPSI Code of Conduct for Public Service Interpreters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Appendix E: ATA Code of Professional Conduct and Business Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

About the Author

Juan Hu, Ph.D. is currently an associate professor and dean at the English Department of School of Foreign Languages of Guizhou Normal university. She is also a member of Translators Association of China. She conducted her Ph.D. research at the College of Foreign Languages and Cultures at Xiamen University with world-renowned reputation in interpreting studies, focusing on the role of interpreters. Her research interests include interpreters’ role, corpus-based interpreting discourse analysis, gender differences in interpreting product. Her recent publications have appeared in such journals as: Chinese Translators Journal (CSSCI core journal), Babel (SSCI-indexed), Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics (SSCI-indexed), Journal of Beijing International Studies University, Translation Horizon, and Minority Translators Journal. She has recently been an active interpreter in many important conferences and a researcher in community interpreting in China. She has been undertaking the projects funded by Guizhou Province Social Science Foundation, Guizhou Normal University Social Science Foundation. She also gained the awards such as Outstanding Achievement Award in Philosophy and Social Science of Guizhou Province, Outstanding Achievement Award of Ph.D. students in Xiamen University.

xiii

Abbreviations

A AIIC AS ATA AUSIT AVLIC CECIC CI CPPCC DI Paradigm EPIC ICTCLAS IPRI NPC NRPSI PS R Sig. SL TL

Adapters International Association of Conference Interpreters Attribution Shields American Translator Association Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators Association of Visual Language Interpreter of Canada Chinese-English Conference Interpreting Corpus Conference Interpreting The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Discourse-based Interaction Paradigm European Parliament Interpreting Corpus Institute of Computing Technology Chinese Lexical Analysis System Interpreter’s Interpersonal Role Inventory National People’s Congress National Register for Public Service Interpreters (UK) Plausibility Shields Rounders Significant Difference Source Language Target Language

xv

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 6.1

Conceptual relations from role to hedges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The linkage between research purposes, research questions and research methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The conceptualization of role deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prince et al.’s taxonomy of Hedges (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical and analytical framework for role deviation as perceived through the use of hedges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal and vertical data analysis in CECIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Corpus structure of CECIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Homepage of Tmxmall in Corpus textual alignment . . . . . . . Importing transcribed texts into Jupyter Notebook . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two target files generated in Jupyter Notebook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading target files for hedges identification and categorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hedges normalized frequency in Chinese corpus VS. hedges normalized frequency in English corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significant differences analysis and its implications . . . . . . . . . . . . Role deviation of conference interpreters in CECIC . . . . . . . . . . .

6 13 40 45 46 51 59 62 67 67 68 70 77 99

xvii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Table 5.11 Table 5.12 Table 5.13 Table 7.1

Basic introduction of CECIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic information of CECIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The total and sub-categories of hedges distribution in Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The total and sub-categories of hedges distribution English . . . High frequency hedges in the Chinese corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High frequency hedges in English corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paired sample statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paired sample correlation coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paired sample T test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hedges additions from Chinese to English in CECIC . . . . . . . . Hedges abridgements from Chinese to English in CECIC . . . . Hedges substitutions from Chinese to English in CECIC . . . . . Hedges equivalences from Chinese to English in CECIC . . . . . Data on hedges additions, abridgements, substitutions and equivalences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data on hedges shifting and shifting regularities (C-E) . . . . . . .

60 68 68 69 72 73 73 74 74 79 80 82 83 84 113

xix

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract This research, drawing upon theories from sociology, pragmatics, and cognitive linguistics, is an interdisciplinary corpus-based study that explores interpreters’ role deviation in interpreting at Chinese government press conferences, with hedges as the intervening point. This chapter offers a brief introduction on impetuses for this research and meanwhile concisely explains why study interpreters’ role and role deviation in conference interpreting, why take hedges as the intervening point to delve into interpreters’ role, why select press conferences held by the Chinese government as our data source. Next, This chapter also highlights the research significance from conceptual, methodological and empirical aspects. Besides, the overall purpose of examining role deviation of conference interpreters through hedges shifts and shifting regularities is clearly presented in this chapter. To achieve this above-mentioned research purpose, three research questions are correspondingly raised: RQ1: RQ2:

RQ3:

What is the correlation between hedges and interpreters’ role? Why can interpreters’role be perceived through the use of hedges? What is the distribution of hedges in Chinese and English corpus? Are there shifting regularities when hedges are rendered into the target language of English? Can role deviation of conference interpreters be perceived through the use of hedges in corpus? What roles have conference interpreters actually performed in role deviation?

Keywords Interpreters’ role deviation · Corpus-based · Hedges · Role theory

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3_1

1

2

1 Introduction

This research, drawing upon theories from sociology, pragmatics, and cognitive linguistics, is an interdisciplinary study that explores interpreters’ role1 in interpreting at Chinese government press conferences. To be specific, interpreters’ role, as a broad and abstract concept, is narrowed down to an interpreting discourse level and rests on hedges. In this research it is reasoned that interpreters’ role can be perceived through the use of hedges, because hedges, when analyzed from the semantic, pragmatic and cognitive functions, can reflect interpreters’ potential discourse intentions or possible communicative purposes and this, in turn, can point to interpreters’ role. Thus, for descriptive adequacy of linguistic features, a scaled Chinese-to-English conference interpreting corpus is built; subsequently, natural language process technology Python is employed to extract data on hedges. Interpreters’ role is analyzed by using hedges distribution, hedges shifts and shifting regularities. Finally, empirical results show that role deviation for conference interpreters actually exists and some non-prescriptive roles are enacted by interpreters in role deviation. What follows next is the impetus for this study, research significance, research purposes, research questions, research methodology and the layout of the whole study.

1.1 Impetus for the Study To begin with, “role is a core construct in role theory, it is originally brought into sociology from movies and drama by American sociologist Mead” (Biddle 1986, p. 4). Later, “role is gradually used to explain human behavior and examine attitude between at least two participants in social situation” (Gentile 1996, p. 30). In this research, interpreters’ role as a neutral concept is defined as some patterns of behavior for interpreters; those patterns of behavior can exercise some discourse functions or achieve some potential discourse intentions. According to the role theory which is the main theoretical underpinning in this study, role can be divided into two major components in sociology: role behavior and role expectation.2 When role behavior is observed with role expectations from others3 as a frame of reference, if role behavior 1

Presently no consensus has been reached in previous studies as to whether we should use “interpreters’ role”, “interpreter’s role”, or “interpreters’ roles”. In general, “interpreter’s role” frequently occurs in case studies. Occasionally scholars use “interpreters’ role”. Given that this is a corpusbased study in which interpreting products of many interpreters from 30 instances of conference interpreting are included, we use the term “interpreters’ role”. In this research, when “role” is treated as a collective noun, we adopt its singular form; when we need to emphasize its partitioned sub-roles, we adopt its plural form. 2 “Role behavior” and “role expectation” are two major components in role theory in sociology, since behavior is an abstract and inclusive term, we use its singular form in this research, and however, as role expectation may come from different parties, and as each party may have more than one expectation, we mostly use its plural form in this research. 3 According to Biddle (1986), role expectations are phenomenal events that people are aware of. There are different classifications of role expectations: individual expectations versus shared expectations, personal expectations versus positional expectations, and expectations of the self versus expectations of others. In this research, we are only concerned with expectations that other parties

1.1 Impetus for the Study

3

is in accordance with role expectations from others, this is role conformity; however, if actual role behavior of interpreters is in disagreement with role expectations from others, or actual role behavior diverges from ideal role expectations, this is role deviation. In this connection, role deviation is proposed by the current author as a key argument which refers to the departure or variation between interpreters’ actual role behavior and prescriptive role expectations from others or interpreters themselves. In the following, role behavior of interpreters is narrowed down to an interpreting discourse level and rests on hedges, that is, how conference interpreters process hedges from Chinese to English. Role expectations of interpreters may come from different parties, including users, audiences or professional interpreting organizations. In this research we take interpreting practice standards and professional ethics in conference interpreting formulated by authoritative professional interpreting organizations as role expectations of interpreters, these will be our frame of reference to observe behavior of interpreters. If actual role behavior of interpreters diverges from the ideal role expectations, this is considered role deviation and is what we will be studying in this research. Next, the following are the three impetus which prompt the current author to embark on this research into interpreters’ role and role deviation in conference interpreting.

1.1.1 Why Study Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation in Conference Interpreting? First and foremost, the contradiction between interpreters’ actual role in practice and prescriptive role in theory sparks my curiosity to look into conference interpreters’ role. Traditionally, “the conduit model of interpreting is often associated or even equated, with the principle of neutrality/impartiality as enshrined in nearly all interpreting practice standards and ethical codes around the world” (Dam 2017, p. 230). Such an ingrained impression of interpreters’ prescriptive role has been held for too long. Thus, the new argument of role deviation of conference interpreters brought forth in this research may offer a new perspective on this issue, that is, interpreters in practice inevitably step out of the prescriptive role boundary. Thus, it is necessary to adopt a descriptive approach towards the study of role deviation of conference interpreters. Furthermore, the contradiction between interpreters’ actual role in practice and prescriptive role in theory hinders interpreters when attempting to properly position themselves in multiparty interaction. Therefore, it is imperative to revisit conference interpreters’ role and to rethink present-day role expectations of interpreters. Secondly, interpreters’ role is instrumental in interpreting communication. “Interpreters’ role directly or indirectly hinges on other dimensions within interpreting (audiences, users, professions etc.) hold of conference interpreters. Interpreting practice standards and professional ethics from authoritative organizations such as AIIC and ATA are deemed as role expectations (from others on interpreters).

4

1 Introduction

studies and even studies of neighboring disciplines” (Zhang 2013, p. 17). This is another consideration in this research. Since the beginning of cross-linguistic communication, interpreters have been integral in facilitating interpersonal communication. This is the basis for interpreters’ role. What information do interpreters filter, omit or maintain in interpreting communication? How should we evaluate performance of interpreters and interpreting quality? Interpreters’ role in communication is highlighted when seeking answers to those above questions. Besides, studies on interpreters’ role are inevitably interwoven with the interpreting process, interpreting products and interpreting participants in communication. For instance, role behavior of interpreters in the interpreting process, linguistic features in the interpreting products, power differentials and interpersonal negotiation among the participants are often investigated in the quest to explore and define interpreters’ role. Moreover, studies on interpreters’ role, in a sense, can enrich the repertoire of role studies in sociology, linguistics and communication science. Third, there is an agreed paucity of literature on conference interpreters’ role. Thus, a complete understanding of interpreters’ role in conference settings can not be further from these inadequacies of previous studies. Apart from those above, the special context of Chinese government conference interpreting also problematizes the issue of interpreters’ role. The lack of research in conference interpreters’ role means that this research will hopefully make a valuable contribution to this new area of study. Furthermore, there is a shortage of studies that focus on Chinese-to-English consecutive interpreting especially in the context of Chinese government conference interpreting. As such, this research, if not unique, is one of very few such targeted studies. It has been suggested in literature review that conference interpreter’s role is still under-researched. “The majority of studies on conference interpreting concentrate on cognitive process in order to gain a better understanding of the interpreting process” (Gile 1995, p. 152). Actually, “even today, an extensive literature nowadays has accumulated on the cognitive, psychological and physiological aspects of interpreting process either in consecutive or simultaneous interpreting” (Diriker 2015, p. 181). Comparatively, studies on interpreters’ role in community settings have overwhelmingly outnumbered studies in conference setting. In current global and national dialogues, conference interpreting has been widely applied to ensure smooth multiparty communication. Therefore, studies of conference interpreters’ role should not be marginalized any longer. This research focuses on the interpreting done in Chinese government press conferences held with members of the foreign press. Press conference interpreting in the Chinese government is characterized by a solemn and formal atmosphere, sensitive content, and diplomatic and institutionalized parlance. Furthermore, “a conference interpreter, is physically limited to interact in a certain way, the channel of communication imposed on conference interpreter is mostly a monologue mode” (Wadensjö 1998, p. 27). In other words, barely do conference interpreters have any backchannel from other parties, but they have to be meticulous about wording so as to transmit semantic and pragmatic information and convey the speaker’s tone and intention. In principle, no negligence or mistake by an interpreter can be allowed

1.1 Impetus for the Study

5

in foreign publicity conference interpreting. In the context of Chinese government conference, conference interpreters’ role has a direct bearing on whether the voices of Chinese foreign publicity can be effectively heard and correctly understood by international communities. As for role deviation, the current author argues that role deviation of interpreters exists in conference interpreting. In previous literature, it is claimed by some scholars that conference interpreters must have intervened into communication. The truth is that “interpreters in conference interpreting actually act but not to be seen” (Wadensjö 2010, p. 67). However, no empirical studies are made to justify those claims. To validate this argument of role deviation of conference interpreters, we deem it of necessity to observe role behavior of interpreters in a self-built corpus CECIC (Chinese-English Conference Interpreting Corpus), and then verify role deviation of conference interpreters through empirical data, with role expectations from others on interpreters (interpreting practice standards and professional ethics) as a frame of reference. That the issue of conference interpreters’ role is approached by corpus-based discourse analysis via hedges raises two questions: what are hedges? and what’s the connection between hedges and interpreters’ role? The supporting reasons are presented in the next section.

1.1.2 Why Take Hedges as the Intervening Point to Explore Interpreters’ Role? The term of “hedges” was defined from the perspective of fuzzy linguistics by Lakoff in his representative article Hedges: A study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts in 1972. Lakoff defines “hedges” as words or phrases “whose jobs are to make things fuzzier or less fuzzier”. Later, scholars such as Zadeh (1972), Wu (1979), and Hyland (2005) give various definitions of hedges from different angles. This is expounded on at length in Sect. 3.2.1.1. In a word, hedges can be metadiscourses, stance-takers, evaluations, attitude words and modalities. “Vagueness is the basic nature of natural language” (Zadeh 1972, p. 458), hedges are commonly seen in daily conversation and used to control the amount of information, shun discourse responsibility, show uncertainty and so on. It is evident that hedges are indispensable means in daily social communication. Now that we have a general idea of the definitions of hedges, there are three reasons to claim that conference interpreters’ role can be perceived through the use of hedges, as illustrated in Fig. 1.1: Primarily, hedges are concrete representations of interpreters’ role at a discourse level Fig. 1.1 illustrates this conceptual relation from general to specific. Given that “the complex and abstract concept of interpreters’ role is like a diamond with multi-facets” (Wadensjö 1998, p. 63), it is advisable to take a funnel approach to narrow down the wide scope of interpreters’ role to concrete linguistic items. In

6

1 Introduction

Fig. 1.1 Conceptual relations from role to hedges

Role

Behavior

Discourse

Hedges

this research, interpreters’ role is defined as some patterns of behavior which can exercise discourse functions or which may achieve possible and potential discourse intentions. Then, interpreters’ role can be gradually narrowed down to patterns of behavior, and further to behavior at a discourse level and finally to hedges. This top-down conceptual narrowing is supported by sociological explanations of role and behavior. “Human behaviors are meaningful events in social science, because behavior performer is conceived as an agent responsible for choosing among behavioral possibilities, therefore, behavior can mirror roles of human being” (Biddle 1986, p. 25). By mapping this to interpreting studies, discourse behavior of interpreters is also a meaningful communicative event; the interpreting product is conceived as an ultimate discourse choices among all the discourse possibilities. Inferentially, discourse behavior of interpreters can reflect interpreters’ role, and vice versa, interpreters’ role can also be seen through discourse behavior of interpreters in their use of hedges. Secondly and more crucially, hedges can reflect interpreters’ potential discourse intentions and possible communicative purposes, and ultimately point to interpreters’ role. This is mainly related to functions of hedges. As documented in the literature, a bag of functions of hedges has been elaborated by linguistic scholars from various points of view. In this research, functions of hedges are categorized and integrated into three aspects: semantic function, pragmatic function and cognitive function. In the semantic aspect, the use of hedges can be a semantic phenomenon, and hedges carry ideational meanings and functions. For instance, hedges can increase or decrease semantic fuzzy degree by marking information as uncertain, unspecific or imprecise. It is this semantic uncertainty that creates expressive and explanatory leeway or imaginary room among participants in an interaction. In interpreting practices, hedges are familiar to interpreters, as they are often employed as coping tactics when interpreters have not grasped the meaning of certain utterances in the source language or when interpreters regard it inappropriate to precisely render semantic meaning. In a sense, hedges can provide a semantic buffer zone in which interpreters can take advantage of fuzzy semantic meaning to achieve their communicative intentions. In the pragmatic aspect, the use of hedges can be a pragmatic phenomenon, and hedges carry interpersonal meanings and functions. As such, “hedges can reveal

1.1 Impetus for the Study

7

meta-pragmatic awareness and even discourse intentions of language user” (Zheng, 2012, p. 47). Concrete linguistic functions are listed in Sect. 3.2.1.2. To put it simply, “Pragmatics is motivational, analysis on pragmatic phenomenon is usually linked with potential motivation of language user” (Leech 1983, p. 24). Hedges are usually studied as a pragmatic phenomenon. Thus, we may infer that pragmatic functions of hedges inevitably interplay with motivations or intentions of language users. Therefore, when interpreters, as language users, use hedges in the interpreting process, the use of hedges of interpreters is possibly driven by some motivations and intentions. Similarly in interpreting, as stated by Chen (2004, p. 51), “professional interpreting is triggered by an aim or intention”. Interpreters in conference interpreting are usually professional interpreters whose behaviors are normally functional and motivational. Hence, how interpreters process the pragmatic information of hedges could partially and indirectly uncover interpreters’ possible discourse intentions and even interpreters’ role. In the cognitive aspect, how hedges are processed by interpreters is a reflection of their cognitive load in cognitive process. As Pöchhacker states: “interpreting is mediation among contractual aspect (social relations), cognitive aspect (cognitive resources) and cultural aspect (intercultural relations)” (2008, p. 27). It is very common that interpreters need to mediate among all parties to balance cognitive context and reallocate cognitive resources. For instance, sometimes interpreters in practice may release cognitive load by deleting hedges in order to spare extra cognitive effort. Thus, how hedges are processed by interpreters can reflect interpreters’ cognitive behavior and possible considerations. Thirdly, from the perspective of communication theory, hedges can be a language medium or language filter for interpreters’ role as perceived. Through hedges, interpreters’ role can be perceived in the use of hedges by audiences in communication. According to Samovar (2000, p. 57) and Chen (2004, p. 53), “perception is the complex process by which people select, organize and interpret sensory stimulation into a meaningful and coherent picture of the world”. To go further, “there are four perception media or filters for human: the first filter is psychological, the second one is social engineering, the third filter is individual, and the last filter is language” (Katan 1999, p. 178; Chen 2004, p. 54). Based on this, it can be reasoned that language can filter and influence human perceptions of reality. In conference interpreting, interpreters’ language, as a perception filter or medium, should influence how audiences or users perceive interpreters’ role. As “hedges are representative characteristics in diplomatic and institutionalized discourse” (Pang 2007; Pan 2014; Wang and Li 2015), the use of hedges by interpreters should influence interpreters’ role as perceived by audiences. Conversely, interpreters’ role as perceived by audiences can be embodied and reflected by hedges. In the following section, we will move to another crucial factor which makes this research different: its interpreting setting.

8

1 Introduction

1.1.3 Why Select Press Conferences Held by the Chinese Government as Our Data Source? In this research, Chinese government press conferences are chosen as the data source for four reasons. They are respectively corpus material quality, the special textual values of conference interpreting, the unique context of Chinese government conference interpreting, and the research reality and condition. First, in light of corpus material quality, Chinese government press conferences can provide first-hand interpreting materials of high quality. These authentic interpreting materials are from official interpreters in the Foreign Ministry. These welleducated interpreters have received intensive training and are equipped with abundant professional experience and sharp political awareness. A wealth of homogeneous transcribed texts can provide clear data evidences of interpreters’ behavioral regularities. In this aspect, the quality of our corpus material can be guaranteed, and our empirical data from corpus is considered more reliable. Second, from the view of special textual values of conference interpreting, the reasons for selecting press conferences held by the Chinese government as our data source are in two folds. Discourse in conference interpreting is institutionalized discourse. The aim of institutionalized discourse is to analyze how participants are involved in institutional discourse to negotiate interpersonal relations. This coincidentally accords with our need to analyze how interpreters use discourse to exert influences on communication and perform their role. Besides, according to the corpus studies of Pan (2014), Wang and Li (2015), Xu (2017) and others, there is a high density of hedges in diplomatic discourse. It seems appropriate to observe the use of hedges by interpreters in conference interpreting. High density of hedges in institutional discourse, as language devices, can reflect how interpreters tactfully employ hedges to accomplish communicative purposes and perform their role. Apart from those above, the unique context of Chinese conference interpreting comes into our consideration. Chinese government conference interpreting can be regarded as a unique context in global interpreting studies. This is a distinct type of interpreting, compared to the more commonly-known public service interpreting, liaison interpreting and community-based interpreting. The primary participants in Chinese press conferences are officers, institutional representatives and journalists, both domestic and foreign. The basic form of Chinese press conference interpreting is a question-and-answer format. Due to the deeply-ingrained impression of interpreters’ role in conference interpreting, it seems impossible for interpreters to have any opportunity or leeway to deviate from their prescriptive role, because of the solemn occasion, formal atmosphere, precise wording, sensitive content and rigid question-and-answer format of these press conferences. As Angelelli also comments, “conference interpreting particularly in governmental or institutional level is somewhat monopoly of discourse” (2004, p. 47). Under such context, conference interpreters normally should not have any wriggle room to present their role. But for community interpreters, they can perform their role in an active and visible manner. This directly indicates the fact that conference interpreters’ role is different from that

1.1 Impetus for the Study

9

of community interpreters. As a matter of fact, what should conference interpreters’ role be like, especially when interpreting institutionalized discourse in Chinese government press conferences? This is truly worthy of our exploration. Our final consideration in selecting conference interpreting materials as the data source is the research reality and condition at present. The accessibility to authentic interpreting materials is a prerequisite to interpreting studies. The interpreting process is transient, which is a major obstacle to collecting interpreting recordings particularly in some special areas due to privacy and confidentiality. With the benefit of the widespread internet and the open access of Chinese government press conferences granted by authorities, conference interpreting videos or recordings can be conveniently downloaded from the internet, making it possible to investigate conference interpreters’ role using corpus-based discourse analysis.

1.2 Research Significance “Interpreters’ role, as a topic of forty years, is just like a diamond with multi-facets, which attracted continuous efforts to grind it from different facets in nearly forty years” (Wandesjö 1998, p. 63). Undeniably, this topic is of significance. Although an arsenal of studies on interpreters’ role has been made by many scholars, some imperfections have to be pointed out from conceptual, methodological and empirical aspects. Accordingly, our research aims to contribute a new understanding of interpreters’ role using a theoretical and analytical framework, a method of corpus-based discourse analysis, and a set of exploratory empirical data on hedges. On this ground, a brief review of interpreters’ role is needed to contextualize our study, problematize current research and highlight our research significance. Conceptual discussions of interpreters’ role are fairly ambiguous in previous studies. Furthermore, systematic theoretical framework in foregoing studies is absent. In other words, although the name and nature of interpreters’ role has evolved from negative metaphors like conduit, telephone line, and information converter, to communication facilitators or cultural mediators, nowadays interpreters’ role is still a nebulous concept. Meanwhile, according to a review made by the current author, the majority of studies on interpreters’ role are devoid of systematic and theoretical framework. Only several studies have artfully borrowed fragmentary terms or perspectives such as Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, field, and capital in sociology (Inghilleri 2005; Ren 2011; Liu 2013), Goffman’s participation framework in sociolinguistics (Wadensjö 2008; Sun 2014), and role theory in sociology (Mason 2009; Pöllabauer 2015). As such, the unclear definition of interpreters’ role and lack of systematic theoretical framework are obstacles to developing a solid argument and extending relevant studies in the future. This explains why a theoretical and analytical framework is established on role theory in this research. In the methodological aspect, the methods used to explore interpreters’ role are mostly either pure theoretical speculation or discourse analysis. As documented in the

10

1 Introduction

literature, pure theoretical speculation has been overwhelmingly adopted in conceptual discussions such as invisibility and visibility, ethical dilemmas for interpreters etc. As statistics in the literature shows, discourse analysis, as the second predominant method, is primarily favored by scholars specializing in community interpreters’ role. Both of the aforementioned methods draw skeptical reactions and even rebuttals from scholars for the methodological deficiencies such as the arbitrariness in choosing analytical materials, researchers’ subjective perspectives, and researchers’ incomplete knowledge and so on. Accordingly, corpus-based discourse analysis is deliberately chosen in this study for its methodological strength and instrumental innovation. In the empirical aspect, firstly, a large proportion of case studies have brought forth abundant perspectives on interpreters’ role; however, conceptual controversies from various case studies may impede data-based empirical studies on interpreters’ role. To be specific, “in medical interpreting, interpreters are expected to do more than just co-construct and interact in communicative event, they should be powerful parties” (Angelelli 2004, p. 97). However, “in court interpreting, legal interpreters are recommended to be unobtrusive and invisible ciphers, accurately rewording in language B what is said in language A, and Vice versa” (Timarovà et al. 2015, p. 232). Those controversies compound the complexity of interpreters’ role and impede data-based empirical studies on interpreters’ role. Secondly, with reference to the literature existing on interpreters’ role, conventional studies of interpreters’ role mostly rely on observing linguistic features in interpreting products (Jacboson 2001; Amato 2007). Scarce scholars jump out of their traditional thinking and establish a link between the linguistic features in interpreting products and interpreters’ role and behavior. Interpreters’ role is an issue of concept. It is really challenging to conduct an empirical study on interpreters’ role with a quantitative method. Thus, it is not surprising to discover various elaborations on interpreters’ role in case studies. It is those conceptual controversies that ignite the interest and enthusiasm of scholars and practitioners to discuss the nature of interpreters’ role, but barely has any discussion been justified by empirical studies. Conventional studies on interpreters’ role mainly discuss linguistic features of interpreting products. Hardly have those studies been extended to delve into possible reasons or potential discourse intentions behind interpreting discourse. To some extent, this might be a self-restricted research thinking. In the present research, exploring interpreters’ role as perceived through the use of hedges in corpusbased discourse analysis should be a new and open empirical path. Not only are hedges distribution and deployment discussed, but also possible reasons or potential discourse intentions behind hedges shifts are tentatively explored. These all point to interpreters’ role. Against this backdrop, this research highly concentrates on role deviation of conference interpreters. Role behavior of conference interpreters is observed in selfbuilt corpus with hedges serving as the intervening point. Then, based on hedges shifts and shifting regularities, potential discourse intentions or communicative purposes of conference interpreters can be tentatively uncovered through functions of hedges.

1.2 Research Significance

11

In turn, role deviation of conference interpreters can be verified and visualized by schematization, as displayed in Chap. 6. This research attempts to make an further improvement on a theoretical, methodological and empirical level. First, this study uses role theory as a theoretical underpinning to construct an analytical framework which steers our research and deepens our understanding of interpreters’ role and role deviation. As Hale (2013, p. 6) states, “all research should be theory-based”. Our research is solidly grounded in this theoretical framework (see in Sect. 3.3), unlike studies that are weak in systematic theoretical framework. Theoretical framework “gives us concepts, provides us basic assumptions, directs us to the important questions and suggests ways for us to make sense of data” (Neuman 2000, p. 60). In this research, role theory puts interpreters’ role in the context of role behavior and role expectation. By doing so, role deviation of conference interpreters observed via hedges in the corpus of CECIC has theoretical underpinnings, with role expectations (from others on conference interpreters) as a frame of reference. Theoretically, “role deviation” as a conceptual breakthrough can renew our understanding of interpreters’ role in conference settings. Second, the corpus-based discourse analysis in this research can make up for methodological deficiencies in previous studies and consolidate a convincing and representative argument. Although “discourse analysis offered descriptive means of discovering regularities of interpreters’ behavior” (Mason 2014, p. 116), discourse analysis conclusions from cases are inevitably refuted for their subjectivity, onesidedness and weak persuasiveness. Comparatively, the corpus-based method can extract co-occurrence of various linguistic features and show regularities of discourse behavior in interpreter-mediated interaction. These linguistic features and regularities of discourse behavior can barely be perceived and discovered through individual case. Therefore, the corpus-based method can offer invaluable insights into the nature of interpreters’ role in communication. Lastly, empirical results in this research can provide a set of exploratory data to further the debate on interpreters’ role and to serve as a strategic reference for interpreting students when learning the proper use of hedges. Besides, qualitatively analyzing possible discourse intentions or potential communicative purposes, as will be done in this study, opens a new possibility of new revelation and discoveries for conventional studies on interpreting products by observing linguistic features. Because most foregoing studies on interpreters’ role are stranded in conventional discussions of linguistic features of interpreting products, it is worth making further inquiries into possible intentions behind linguistic features and regularities.

1.3 Research Purposes In this research, we are concerned with interpreters’ role in Chinese government conference interpreting. Our core purpose is to judge whether role deviation of conference interpreters exists in a self-built conference interpreting corpus. Given

12

1 Introduction

this, hedges are deliberately selected as the intervening point to observe role behavior of interpreters. By doing so, this research will operationalize the terms “role deviation” and “hedges” by establishing theoretical and analytical framework on role theory, carrying out corpus-based discourse analysis on hedges from semantic, pragmatic and cognitive functions, and linking hedges shifts and shifting regularities with possible discourse intentions and role deviation of conference interpreters. Herein, the overall purpose of this study is to examine role deviation of conference interpreters through hedges shifts and shifting regularities, so as to generate empirical evidences of hedges to validate our argument. This overall research purpose is slightly broad, so it can be divided into three concrete purposes as following: • To theoretically rationalize the correlation between hedges and interpreters’ role and justify that interpreters’ role can be perceived through the use of hedges. • To inquire into hedges distribution, hedges shifts and shifting regularities in Chinese to English conference interpreting. • To empirically verify whether role deviation of conference interpreters exists in Chinese government press conference interpreting

1.4 Research Questions Three tailored questions are set step by step to achieve the research purposes. Answering these three questions will uncover how role deviation of conference interpreters can be seen through the use of hedges. In light of the fact that there are three critical points in this research, namely, role deviation, hedges and corpus, three questions are correspondingly linked to the three critical points. Meanwhile, the three research questions will correspond to our research purposes and govern the research methods employed in this study. The link between research purposes, research questions and research methods is illustrated in Fig. 1.2. Now that role deviation of conference interpreters is claimed be seen through hedges shifts and shifting regularities, in order to have a strong hold, we attempt to address these following questions: • RQ1: • RQ2:

• RQ3:

What is the correlation between hedges and interpreters’ role? Why can interpreters’ role be perceived through the use of hedges? What is the distribution of hedges in Chinese and English corpus? Do shifts take place when hedges are rendered from Chinese to English? If so, are there shifting regularities when hedges are rendered into the target language of English? Can role deviation of conference interpreters be perceived through the use of hedges in corpus? What roles have conference interpreters actually performed in role deviation?

1.4 Research Questions

13

RP1: Rationalize role can be

RP2: Inquire into hedges

RP3: verify role deviation

seen through hedges

distribution & shifting

for interpreters

Research Question 1

Research Question 2

Research Question 3

Research Method 1

Research Method 2

Research Method 3

Documentary Analysis

Corpus-based Method

Discourse Analysis

Theoretical Speculation

Fig. 1.2 The linkage between research purposes, research questions and research methods

To address those three questions, a combination of quantitative method and qualitative method are required. The first question is conceptual, and it entails documentary analysis and theoretical speculation. As for the second question, a corpus-based method is an effective instrumentation to extract data of hedges in the empirical process. To answer the third question, discourse analysis from various perspectives may offer appropriate assumptions and possible explanations of discourse intentions of conference interpreters.

1.5 Research Methodology Responding to the research questions above, four methods have been adopted in the present study. They are documentary analysis, theoretical reasoning, corpus-based method, and discourse analysis. Quantitative method and qualitative method are comprehensively both taken into account in this study. Documentary analysis is a pre-requisite and essential step for any study. It enables us to orient our study, and more importantly in this case, to figure out why interpreters’ role can be seen through hedges. Literature from the areas of linguistics, sociology, interpreting studies contribute to the theoretical and analytical framework in this research. Based on this framework, corpus-based empirical analysis on hedges can be carried out. The corpus-based method originates from corpus linguistics, it refers to “a corpus as a source of examples to check researcher intuition, or explore, validate or revise certain theory or hypothesis or to examine the frequency or plausibility of the language contained within a smaller data set” (Bonelli 2001, p. 99). Furthermore, Bonelli mentions that, “the researcher does not question pre-existing traditional descriptive units and categories in corpus-based studies” (2001, p. 99). With the development of corpus linguistics, the corpus-based method has begun to be used in descriptive translation studies as they have been found to naturally complement

14

1 Introduction

each other. According to Hu (2011, p. 2), “corpus-based method is firstly applied into translation studies by Mona Baker in 1993”. Subsequently, “the corpus-based method has made a triumphant entry into interpreting studies since Shelsinger issued the paper Corpus-based Interpreting Studies as an Offshoot of Corpus based Translation Studies in Meta in 1998”, according to Chen and Fu (2014). The corpus-based method allows translation scholars to achieve a high degree of descriptive adequacy in linguistic features and patterns of distribution. Furthermore, “linguistic feature observed in corpus can be taken as evidences for the existence of laws, norms, regularities or even universals governing translator’s behaviors” (Sergio and Falbo 2012, p. 15). Considering that hedges are taken as the intervening point to investigate conference interpreters’ role in corpus, naturally, we deem it of necessity to describe hedges distribution and to discover shifting regularities. At this point, the powerful descriptive adequacy of the corpus-based method is compatible with our empirical need. However, the corpus method is not always invincible in all aspects of textual analysis. It has some deficiencies in data interpretation. The majority of corpus-based interpreting studies only provide packages of data on interpreting products; no further effort is made to look into reasons behind different interpreting products. Scholars might frequently bury their heads in data packages and center on data differences, ignoring causation behind data-driven studies. Probably this might be a self-confined research thinking. Thus, Pym points out, “the risk of raising the specter of a generation of translation scholars busy in observing corpus data without think our people” (2005, p. 39). Interpreting corpus materials are produced by people, so data variances or differences in corpus could be explained by the variances between people. Therefore, in this research, after describing hedges shifts and shifting regularities, we attempt to explore interpreters’ discourse intentions or communicative purposes in deploying hedges, so as to gain a deeper insight into interpreters’ role. Due to limitations of research condition, it is unrealistic to expect access to interview most of the conference interpreters who have taken the interpreting tasks of Chinese government press conferences. As such, discourse analysis might be a feasible alternative to discern interpreters’ potential intentions or motives behind hedges shifts and shifting regularities. Discourse analysis mainly “concentrates on semantic relations among sentences structures, coherence and cohesion among text, conversation analysis, relation between discourse and context, relation between discourse and ideology, relation between genre and social culture and so on” (Zhu 2013, p. 45). With reference to the literature, discourse analysis appeared in interpreting studies for the first time in the 1990s, when Roy and Wadensjö adopted a discourse-based approach to analyze dialogue interpreting as social interaction and co-construction of discourse. This ushered in the establishment of the DI Paradigm (Discourse-based Interaction Paradigm) in five interpreting studies paradigms. “Discourse analysis offered descriptive interpreting studies a means of discovering regularities of interpreter behaviors” (Mason 2010, p. 57). As such, the discourse behavior of interpreters is a visible path to interpreters’ role.

1.5 Research Methodology

15

In this research, after extracting the data of hedges distribution and shifting regularities, our logical inference prompts the following questions: why do such shifting regularities occur in Chinese-to-English interpreting? what are possible intentions or motives for conference interpreters when processing hedges from Chinese to English? Discourse analysis can provide evidential answers to the questions above mentioned. Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged that “discourse analysis has occasionally been criticized for its deficiencies for researchers’ subjectivity and arbitrariness in selecting analysis materials, its essence consists in adopting a certain vantage point or stance, because nobody lives in pure vacuums” (Xin 2008, p. 68).

1.6 Layout of this Book The organization of this book follows the logic of addressing the three research questions stated above. Thus, there are a total of seven chapters below. This chapter briefs some fundamental considerations in this study, for example, what prompts the current author to choose this topic; what specific research questions are pinpointed by the author in their further quest of interpreters’ role; what research methods are employed in this study; and what research purposes the current author strives to achieve. In a word, this chapter introduces and contextualizes this study, and presents the layout of the whole research. Since this book is dedicated to conference interpreters’ role and their role deviation as perceived through the use of hedges, following the introduction, we review studies on interpreters’ role, hedges and corpus-based interpreting studies in Chap. 2. To put it simply, interpreters’ role is reviewed in both theoretical and empirical aspects. Similarly, hedges are reviewed in linguistic studies, translation studies and interpreting studies. In the final section of this chapter, we review corpus-based studies on interpreters’ role. Holistically, literature review in Chap. 2 orients our study and highlights our research significance. Against this research backdrop, Chap. 3 takes a funnel-approach to narrow concepts from general to specific, that is, from role to interpreters’ role, to role deviation of interpreters. Chap. 3 theoretically justifies the rationale for role deviation as perceived through the use of hedges. The rationale justification can be illustrated in Sect. 3.2.1. Since interpreters’ role as an inclusive and obscure concept rests on hedges in this book, a theoretical and analytical framework is established in Chap. 3. The whole research is grounded in and operationalizes on this framework. Next, great effort is made to build CECIC and analyze hedges, so as to flesh out the framework. Chapter 4 introduces basic information about the self-built corpus CECIC, such as its data source, corpus capacity, language pair, transcription, annotation and hedges identification. The reason why a corpus-based method is employed in this study is also elaborated on in this chapter. In addition, natural language processing tool Jupyter Notebook written in Python code is briefly introduced before data extraction. Chapter 5 and Chap. 6 are the main body of the whole study.

16

1 Introduction

In Chap. 5, data of hedges is described, including Chinese hedges distribution in total and subcategories, English hedges distribution in total and subcategories, and high frequency words. Hedges distribution in Chinese and English can be calculated through vertical investigation into hedges in the Chinese corpus and in the English corpus. A horizontal comparison is conducted between each pair of hedges in Chinese and English, that is, adapters (C-E), rounders (C-E), plausible shields (C-E), and attribution shields (C-E). From this, any significant difference between the four pairs can be calculated, and in turn, hedges shifts and shifting regularities can be spotted. Chapter 6 extends quantitative data to qualitative analysis on role deviation of conference interpreters. Statistical differences analysis of Chap. 5 and shifting regularities in Chap. 6 both directly point to role deviation of interpreters. Given that role behavior and role expectation are two juxtaposed components of role theory, role deviation of conference interpreters is confirmed by the empirical data, with role expectations from others (that is, interpreting practice standards and professional ethics) as a frame of reference. Finally, Chap. 6 uncovers that interpreters in conference settings have actually perform the roles such as: keepers of semantic information, regulators of pragmatic tone, distributors of discourse responsibility, and controllers of cognitive resources. Chapter 7 winds up the book by summarizing major findings and primary contributions at conceptual, empirical and methodological level in the current investigation. Admittedly, there are certainly some limitations which need to be overcome in future studies. Finally, in this part, some future directions and prospects are given for any follow-up endeavors in the future.

References Angelelli, C. 2004. Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Amato, A. 2007. The Interpreter in Multi-party Medical Encounter. In The Critical 4: Professionalism of Interpreting in the Community, ed. C. Wadensjö and B. Dimitrova. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Biddle, B. 1986. Recent Developments in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology 12: 63–92. Bonelli, T. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chen, Jing. 2004. Intercultural Noise in Interpreting as Communication Process: Sources and Solutions. Unpublished Ph: D.thesis at Xiamen University. Chen, Jing, Fu., and Rongbo. 2014. Guoneiwai Yuliaoku Kouyi Yanjiu Jinzhan [New Developments in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Relevant Chinese and Overseas Literature]. Chinese Translators Journal 1: 36–42. Diriker, E. 2015, Conference Interpreting. In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. H. Mikkelson and R. Jourdenais. London: Routledge. Dam, H. 2017. Interpreter Role, Ethics and Norms: Linking to Professionalization. In The Changing Role of Interpreter: Contextualizing Norms, Ethics and Quality Standards, ed. M, Biagini et al. London: Routledge. Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models in Interpreter and Translator Training . Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gentile, A. 1996. Liaison Interpreting: A Handbook. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

References

17

Hyland, K. 2005. Meta Discourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum. Hu, Kaibao. 2011. Yuliaoku Fanyixue Gailun [Introducing Corpus-based Translation Study] Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. Hale, S., and J. Napier. 2013. Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. London: Bloomsbury. Inghilleri, M. 2005. Interpreting Justice: Ethics, Politics and Language. New York: Routledge. Jacobsen, B. 2001. Pragmatics in Court Interpreting: Addition. In The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, ed. Louise Brunette et al. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Katan, D. 1999. Translating Culture: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters, and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London/ New York: Longman. Liu, Fungming. 2013. Revisiting the Translator’s Visibility: Does Visibility Bring Rewards? Meta 58: 29–61. Mason, I. 2009. Role, Positioning and Discourse in Face-to-Face Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome. Mason, I. 2010. Role, Positioning and Discourse in Face- to- Face Interpreting. In Interpreting and translating in Public Service Setting: Policy, Practice, Pedagogy, ed. R. de Pedro Ricoy, I. Perez and C. Wilson. Manchester: St. Jerome. Mason, I. 2014. Power in Face-to-Face Interpreting Event. In The Sociological Turn in Translation and Interpreting Studies, ed. Claudia V. Angelelli. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Neuman, W.L. 2000. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Pym, A. 2005. Studying Interpreting Through Corpora:An Introduction. In Breaking Ground in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, ed. F. Sergio and C. Falbo. New York: Peter Lang. Pang, Jianrong. 2007. Mohu Xiuci de Yuyong Fenxi [Pragmatic Analysis of Rhetoric Vagueness]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching And Research Press. Pöchhacker, F. 2008. Interpreting as Mediation. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting, ed. C. Garcés and A. Martin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pan, Feng. 2014. Jiyu Yuliaoku de Hanying Huiyi Kouyi Mohu Xianzhiyu de Yingyong Yanjiu [A Corpus-based Study of the Application of Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal 4: 21–29. Pöllabauer, R. 2015. Role. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. F. Pöchhacker et al. London & New York: Routledge. Ren, Wen. 2011. Shilun Kouyi Guochengzhong Yiyuan de Zhonglixing Wenti [On the Neutrality of Interpreters in Interpreting Process]. Chinese Translators Journal 6: 36–41. Samovar, L.A. 2000. Communication between Cultures. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Sergio, F., and C. Falbo. 2012. Breaking Ground in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. New York: Peter Lang. Sun, Tingting. 2014. Interpreting China: Interpreter’s Mediation of Government Press Conferences in China. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching And Research Press. ˇ nková, Reine Meylaerts, Erik Hertog, Arnaud Szmalec, and Wouter Timarová, Šárka, Ivana Ceˇ Duyck. 2015. Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory Capacity. In Psycho linguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, ed. A. Ferreira and J. Schwieter. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wu, Tieping. 1979. Mohu Yuyanxue Chutan [An Preliminary Exploration on Fuzzy Linguistics]. Journal of Foreign Languages 4: 39–44. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London/New York: Routledge. Wadensjö, C. 2008. In and Off Show: Co-constructing Invisibility in an Interpreter-Mediated Talk Show Interview. Meta 53: 184–203. Wadensjö, C. 2010. The Double Role of a Dialogue Interpreter. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 1: 105–221.

18

1 Introduction

Wang, Li, and Tao Li. 2015. Jiyu Yuliaoku de Hanying Huiyi Kouyi Mohu Xianzhiyu Yanjiu [A Corpus-based Study on Hedges from Chinese to English Conference Interpreting]. Chinese Translators Journal 5: 96–100. Xin, Bing. 2008. Piping Huayu Fengxi: Piping yu Fansi[Critical Discourse Analysis: Criticisms and Reflections]. Foreign Language Research 6: 63–70. Xu, Jing. 2017. Zhongmei Waijiao Xinwen Fabuhui Huayu zhong Mohu Xianzhiyu de Duibi Yanjiu [A Contrastive Study on Hedges in China and American Diplomatic Press Conferences]. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis at Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University. Zadeh, L.A. 1972. Fuzzy-Set-Theoretical Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges. Journal of Cybernetics 2: 4–34. Zheng, Zhijin. 2012. Mohu Xianzhiyu de Yuyong Gongneng ji Huayu Shengcheng he Lijie de Renzhi Yuyongxue Yanjiu [A Study of Pragmatic Functions of Linguistic Hedges in Utterance Production and Comprehension from the Perspective of Cognitive Pragmatics].Suzhou: Suzhou University Press. Zhang, Wei. 2013. Huiyi Kouyiyuan Zhiye Juese Ziwo Rending de Diaocha Yanjiu [An Investigation into the Perception of Professional Role of Conference Interpreters]. Chinese Translators Journal 2: 17–25. Zhu, Yongsheng. 2013. Huayu Fenxi Wushinian: Huigu yu Zhanwang [Fifty Years of Discourse Analysis].Journal of Foreign Languages 3: 43–40.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Abstract This chapter presents a review of literature to explain the link between what has already been established as interpreters’ role and our current research. Given that interpreters’ role is observed through the use of hedges in a self-built conference interpreting corpus in this research, this literature review covers three major components: overview of interpreters’ role in interpreting studies, overview of hedges in previous studies and studies on interpreters’ role through corpus. To take a further step, studies on interpreters’ role are reviewed in two aspects: theoretical and empirical. Theoretical studies mostly center on role construct and function, essentially, the name and nature of interpreters’ role. Empirical studies mainly focus on role expectations and perceptions, and role behavior description. Insomuch as hedges are critical links between interpreting product and interpreters’ role in this research, this chapter also investigates hedges in linguistic studies, hedges in translation studies and hedges in interpreting studies. Lastly this chapter offers us a brief account of studies on interpreters’ role through corpus, for corpus, as a new and effective vehicle, is the instrumentation of our empirical analysis. Keyword Role behavior · Role expectation and perception · Hedges · Corpus

2.1 Overview of Interpreters’ Role in Interpreting Studies This section will explain the search process in retrieving relevant literature, and examine both theoretical and empirical studies in this field, so as to discover this research’s niche and establish the link between previous studies and the current study. In order to ensure that relevant literature can be collected within the extensive scope of interpreting studies, the following key words are used to locate research materials: “interpreters’ roles”, “interpreter’s role”, “interpreter’s roles”, “interpreters’ role”, “role of interpreter”, “role of interpreters”, “roles of interpreters”, and “roles of interpreter”. Periodical papers indexed by CSSCI and SSCI are included. Some doctoral dissertations, monographs and symposium papers are also included as part of the literature consulted.

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3_2

19

20

2 Literature Review

In what follows, studies on interpreters’ role are reviewed in two aspects: theoretical and empirical. As far as the research content is concerned, theoretical studies center on role construct and function. Empirical studies mainly focus on role expectations and perceptions, and role behavior description.

2.1.1 Theoretical Review of Interpreters’ Role The topic of “interpreters’ role is virtually unexplored until Anderson’s paper Perspectives on the Role of Interpreter came out in 1976” (Pöchhacker 2003, p. 208). Before and after 1976, interpreters’ role has long been referred to using negative metaphors such as tongue man, parrot, conduit, telephone line, echo machine and mouthpiece. As Anderson argues, although there are many conceptual ambiguities and conflicts regarding interpreters’ role, we ought to realize and acknowledge that interpreters are actually middle figures who hold power. Arguably, Anderson’s statement emancipates interpreters’ role from a traditional structuralism thinking model in which interpreters are equated with instruments of language delivery and translation megaphones. Anderson ignites many scholars’ keen interest in interpreters’ role. In 1989, Roy unveiled the myth of conduit metaphor in her doctoral dissertation A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Interpreter’s Role in the Turn Exchanges of an Interpreted Event. Roy used turn-taking in dialogues to decipher the conduit metaphor by discourse analysis and interview. We might say that Roy tears away the negative label given to interpreters’ role, and thereafter, usheres in a discourse-based interaction paradigm to analyze interpreting product and interpreters’ role. Not long after in 1998, Wadensjö in her book Interpreting as Interaction pointed out “dialogue interpreters’ physical presence and the image of them as ‘non-present’ created what we could call a communicative wiggle room in which interpreters could hide themselves to do meaning negotiation” (1998, p. 187). According to Wadensjö, “the communicative wriggle room is characteristics of dialogue-interpreted encounters and available as a communicative resources to those interacting them” (1998, p. 187). In this wriggle room, interpreters may “act but not to be seen” in interpreting communication. In Wadensjö’s later publication in 2008, she further developed this argument and revealed the illusive “invisibility” of interpreters in interpretermediated talk shows. She revealed that interpreters are virtually visible agents, which triggered further debate on invisibility and visibility. Three years later in 2001, Angelelli, another renowned researcher and practitioner in community interpreting, empirically deconstructed this so-called invisibility of interpreters and claimed that community interpreters are visible, powerful individuals who have agency in interaction in her doctoral dissertation Deconstructing the Invisible Interpreter: A Critical Study of the Interpersonal Role of the Interpreter in a Cross-Cultural/Linguistic Communicative Event. In her another publication in 2004, Angelelli designed IPRI (Interpreters’ Interpersonal Role Inventory) to measure interpreters’ self-perceptions along a visibility and invisibility continuum.

2.1 Overview of Interpreters’ Role in Interpreting Studies

21

Her results show that medical interpreters perceive themselves as more visible than court and conference interpreters. Given the ingrained belief that interpreters’ role is mechanical, her findings are important in challenging the myth of the invisible interpreters. In a similar vein, Katan and Sergio (2001) discuss the tension between traditional norms of invisibility and visible involvement of talk show interpreters from an ethical standpoint. There seems to be no exact and clear line that can be drawn between visibility and invisibility, because this is a setting-related continuum. If the debate between visibility and invisibility is a dichotomy, it can’t reveal the true complexity of interpreters’ role. After all, interpreters’ role is a multidimensional issue. In 2004, Pöllabauer borrowed the concept of “role discrepancy” from sociology to describe interpreters’ actual behavior, taking audiences’ role expectations as a frame of reference. In her Interpreting in Asylum Hearings: Issues of roles, responsibility and power, Pöllabauer investigated how interpreters assume discrepant roles using corpus-based critical discourse analysis in 20 instances of asylum interpreting. She attempted to ascertain interpreters’ possible discourse intentions so as to discover the true roles of interpreters such as coordinator of dialogues, face manager, relation consolidator etc. Pöllabauer’s study progresses the concept of interpreters’ role and enriches the dimensions of interpreters’ role by surmounting the obstacle of the visibility versus invisibility debate and looking at interpreters’ role from the perspective of role behavior and role expectation. Another study from the perspective of narratology on interpreters’ role was contributed by Turner in 2007. According to Turner, “the interpreter’s role is a weavertogether of narratives and a connector of people. In the process of meaning negotiating, participants constantly align and re-align themselves to achieve their collective communicative goals” (2007, p. 109). Turner reinterpreted the interpersonal role of interpreters from the narratology, which was a theoretical step forward. Later in 2014, Jones and Lee went further and established a three-dimensional “role space” using X, Y, Z axes to analyze community interpreters’ self-presentation and positioning. Role space can shed much light on roles taking, roles positioning and self-presenting of interpreters. As commented by Napier in Jones and Lee’s work (2014), “the concept of role space provides a theoretical framework for describing the need of interpreters to be flexible and accommodating according to the context of communication” (2014, p. 1). However, role space is initially tailored to community interpreters’ role. So far we have no clear knowledge as to whether this role space is applicable in a conference setting to explain conference interpreters’ behavior. In 2016, Ozolins launched an in-depth discussion of the myth of invisibility in the periodical Interpreting. According to Ozolins (2016), interpreters’ departures from invisibility, such as introducing and organizing turn-taking, clarifying, filtering, aligning and replacing, are not departures from so-called impartiality but re-establish the possibility of continuing to interpret. In addition, Ozolins called for the complex roles of interpreters to be defined without recourse to the concepts of visibility or invisibility. Whether and how interpreters achieve their communicative intentions could be a wise intervening point in future studies. His new thinking on interpreters’ role could be an interesting conceptual breakthrough.

22

2 Literature Review

This overview is far from panoramic to cover all theoretical or conceptual development on this topic; however, it can be summarized that interpreters’ role has evolved from being referred to using negative metaphors, to being considered a powerful figure, or cultural mediator. Later, the debate between visibility and invisibility gradually gives way to a communicative continuum, role discrepancy, and then to three-dimensional role space. To conclude, the chief concerns of theoretical studies are interpreters’ role construct and interpreters’ functions, which can be considered as, essentially, the name and nature of interpreters’ role. It should be acknowledged that there are still several imperfections to be pointed out: scholars might have difficulty in defining key terms such as interpreters’ role, involvement and non-involvement, visibility and invisibility, which leads to controversial, overlapped, and fragmented research conclusions on this topic. In discussing role construct, pure theoretical reasoning is prevalently adopted, but this method has long been refuted by scholars for its subjectivity and randomness. Although some theoretical perspectives are occasionally drawn upon to discern interpreters’ role, such as Goffman’s participation framework, Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, field, and capital, and Simmel’s the third and the strange theory, rarely can we find any systematic and theoretical framework in which studies on interpreters’ role are grounded. Besides, despite the breadth of literature coverage, it is obvious that the overwhelming majority of literature is concerned with community interpreters’ role; interpreters’ role in conference settings is exceedingly under-researched and still awaits further exploration. Finally, current theoretical studies on interpreters’ role are mostly confined to discussions of visibility versus invisibility, and contrast between ideal role behavior described in interpreting ethics and actual role behavior of interpreters in practice. As can be seen above, a comprehensive conceptual definition of interpreters’ role, a tailor-made theoretical framework, and an innovative and open thinking model may bring a refreshing perspective to the debate over conference interpreters’ role. Therefore, a theoretical and analytical framework is established in Chap. 3. Additionally, the current author delves into interpreters’ role behavior using corpus-based discourse analysis, with role expectations of interpreters from interpreting practice standards and professional ethics as a frame of reference.

2.1.2 Empirical Review of Interpreters’ Role The previous section has enabled us to approach theoretical studies of interpreters’ role and to have a grasp of the evolution of role construct of interpreters. Be that as it may, empirical review and theoretical review often go hand in hand, although there is not a clear-cut boundary between the two. For this reason, let us now review empirical studies of interpreters’ role. Empirical studies on interpreters’ role are basically comprised of two parts: one is role expectations and perceptions; the other is role behavior description. Next, a brief

2.1 Overview of Interpreters’ Role in Interpreting Studies

23

discussion of empirical studies on this topic is provided, special attention being paid to their research settings, research methods and research intervening points, with the purpose of highlighting the new contribution our research aims to provide.

2.1.2.1

Role Expectations and Perceptions

In empirical studies on interpreters’ role, studies on role expectations and perceptions are one of the major components. In general, role expectations (from audiences on interpreters) of performances, interpreters’ self-perceptions, and service providers’ perceptions are investigated through questionnaires and interviews. As early as 1998, Pöchhacker surveyed different perceptions held by service providers and community interpreters of interpreters’ task. As statistical data suggests, service providers expect interpreters within their setting to do much more than “just translate”. Interpreters are found to share this expansive perception of their role. Furthermore, there is usually a gap between role expectations from audiences and self-perceptions from interpreters. By a similar approach, Angelelli (2001) surveys interpreters’ perception of visibility in conference, court and medical interpreting by designing IPRI (interpreter’s interpersonal role inventory) in questionnaires to measure their visibility. Based on her statistical evidences, conference interpreters perceive their roles as being less visible than court and medical interpreters do. As demonstrated here, role perception of interpreters is subject to setting. In a similar vein, Perez and Wilson interviewed policemen perceptions of interpreters’ work and interpreters’ self-perceptions in 2004. Subsequently, GRETI group used structured interviews and semi-open questionnaires to examine community interpreters’ role perceptions, especially when they confronted issues such as adaption of language register, cultural explanation, expansion and omission of information. Apart from the aforementioned studies on role expectations and perceptions in community interpreting, Zhang (2013), Li (2013), Xiang and Zheng (2015) respectively look into interpreters’ self-perception in conference interpreting in consecutive and simultaneous modes through surveys and questionnaires. In short, the studies mentioned above regularly fit the mode of comparison between role perceptions by interpreters themselves and by audiences through questionnaires and interviews. Furthermore, little research has so far touched upon interpreters’ role in conference settings, possibly due to ingrained impressions or inappropriate understandings of conference interpreters’ role. Besides, quantitative data of interpreters’ role from interviews or questionnaires can’t avoid the potential risks caused by questionnaires designing, sampling, response rate of questionnaires, data coding and processing, interviewer’s involvement and so on.

24

2.1.2.2

2 Literature Review

Role Behavior Description

In empirical studies of interpreters’ role, another crucial component which is juxtaposed with role expectations and perceptions is role behavior description. As we have claimed, it is feasible to gain an insight into interpreters’ role by observing their behavior in interpreting interaction. It is not surprising that scholars have attempted to analyze interpreters’ role via their discourse behavior, being the most accessible evidence. Analyzing interpreters’ role via interpreting products has been a trend in the most recent four decades, although this research paradigm is far from perfect. Jacobsen (2001) discusses interpreters’ use of addition in mock court interpreting by analyzing transcribed interpreting text. He concludes that not all additions have equal impact on the semantic or pragmatic content of the source text. Two big drawbacks of Jacobsen’s study are unclear identification criterion of addition and random and subjective discourse analysis. Discourse-based studies in cases on interpreters’ role usually encounter refutation of this kind. Later, Pöllabauer (2004) builds an English-German corpus from asylum hearings to analyze interpreters’ strategies to maintain face among asylum-seekers, officials and interpreters. She assumes that interpreters are involved in face management, and that this may be a deviation from other participants’ role expectations of interpreters’ role. Although she claims that a corpus method is employed, no data evidence is presented in this publication. Essentially, this is still a discourse-based study whose reasoning and argumentation may not be so convincing. In 2005, Bot analyzed the additions of reporting verbs and the changes in personal pronouns in health-care interpreting. She conjectures that those aforementioned changes made by interpreters may indicate interpreters’ motives and position. Nevertheless, her qualitative discourse analysis can’t persuasively explain empirical data and defend her argumentation. In a similar vein, Lee (2010) explores how the indirect reported speeches in Korean are handled by court interpreters, and how they are translated into direct reported speeches. Some deficiencies in this study are the overlapped taxonomy of reported speeches and their sparse samples. Empirical data generated from the sparse samples may be of less reliability. In his doctoral dissertation, Zhan (2013) discovers interpreting shifts in a self-built Chinese-English political interpreting corpus and demonstrates conference interpreters have actually worked as cultural mediators in political settings. It is worth noting that Zhan’s study is the first corpus-based discourse analysis of interpreters’ role in China. This is indubitably a sign of methodological progress. Later, Schäffner (2015) extends critical discourse analysis to her research. She explores how interpreter-mediated encounters influence the positioning of participants and the construction of social roles. Although she also claims the use of corpus, she does not present any data evidence. In essence, this is still example-based discourse analysis. Recently, Zhan and Zeng (2017) demonstrate Chinese medical interpreters’ achievement of visibility through text ownership in a self-built corpus. Their corpusbased discourse analysis of text ownership is a good instrument to prove interpreters’

2.1 Overview of Interpreters’ Role in Interpreting Studies

25

visibility; however, the definition of text ownership of interpreters may be more or less problematic. Nevertheless, this mixed method, using both a corpus-based method and discourse analysis, still deserves our thunderous applause. Although not all empirical studies on interpreters’ role have been included in this review, it can be generalized that role expectations and perceptions, and role behavior description constitute two major components of empirical studies. In a nutshell, role expectations and perceptions are routinely approached by surveying interpreters’ self-perceptions and users’ or audiences’ perceptions of interpreters’ role through questionnaires and interviews. For studies of role behavior description, the path of textual or discourse analysis is taken by most scholars. In short, this study ventures to achieve the following aims: Firstly, as the foregoing literature suggests, few studies discuss interpreters’ role in conference interpreting, and even if there are few, they are mostly vague and superficial discussions. By contrast, a large proportion of scholars have investigated community interpreters’ role. Thus, conference interpreters’ role especially in the context of Chinese foreign publicity is an interesting topic which has the potential to enrich the repertoire of global studies on interpreters’ role. Secondly, methodologically speaking, questionnaires and interviews are generally employed to elicit quantitative data of role expectations and perceptions. However, issues such as the designing of questionnaires, their reception ratio and interviewing skills may lead to invalid conclusions. Even if interpreters’ role is approached through discourse analysis of interpreting products, this method still can’t be free from refutation due to its randomness, arbitrariness, and subjective interpretation of discourse intentions. To make up for the deficiencies of discourse analysis, the method of corpus-based discourse analysis is used to observe role behavior of conference interpreters. It is often considered in the literature that “corpus methods and discourse analysis are perfect bedfellows, they are increasingly seen as complementary approaches which can inform and enrich each other” (Hyland 2012, p. 167). Furthermore, corpus can move away from deficiencies in the case-based discourse analysis and reveal patterns of role behavior of conference interpreters. Those patterns of behavior and linguistic regularities can hardly be discerned through individual case study. Thirdly, as for research intervening point, many scholars take certain linguistic feature in interpreting products as an intervening point to delve into interpreters’ role. For instance, linguistic features such as reporting verbs, direct speech and indirect speech, and personal pronouns are utilized as intervening points to observe interpreters’ role. By its very nature, this is a feasible bottom-up research route. However, those studies only seek to address the basic distribution of a targeted linguistic feature; no further effort is made to explore interpreters’ possible intentions or motivations behind the use of those particular features. Therefore, it can be briefly generalized that current studies on the description of role behavior remain at the linguistic level of interpreting products. Rethinking of the possible discourse intentions or motivations of interpreters may extend and advance studies on interpreters’ role. Above all, the current study aims to gain a deep insight into interpreters’ role. More specifically, conference interpreters’ role is explored in this research using corpus-based discourse analysis, with hedges as the intervening point. The aim is to

26

2 Literature Review

provide a set of empirical data on interpreters’ performance and to breed some new ways of thinking about conference interpreters’ role. To go further, since the current author argues that role deviation of interpreters exists in conference interpreting and our ultimate research purpose is to seek answers to the question of whether role deviation of conference interpreters can be perceived through the use of hedges in corpus, it entails a review of role deviation of conference interpreters.

2.1.3 Studies on Role Deviation of Conference Interpreters Role deviation refers to the divergence between interpreters’ obligatory, prescribed and ideal role performance as expected by others and their actual role behavior. The working definition of role deviation is given in Chap. 3. As early as 1998, Wadensjö brought forward the term “role distance” in her book Interpreting as Interaction. “Role distance refers to divergence between professional obligation and actual role performance, and role distance can apply to the case when a conflicting discrepancy occurs between the self generated in actual social interaction and the self associated with status and identity” (1998, p. 85). Wadensjö’s idea of role distance serves as a source of inspiration for the idea of role deviation in the current study. Later in 2004 and 2007, Pöllabauer concluded that interpreters in asylum hearings often assume roles which are discrepant from their prescriptive role as determined by the perceived role expectations from the officers in charge of making asylum decisions. However, the boundaries between role expectations and role behavior in this case are not clear-cut. Pöllabauer has not offered a detailed definition of role discrepancy, but her discussion of this concept demonstrates that traditional interpreting practice standards and professional ethics may only be valid on paper. Next year, Mikkelson, a scholar in legal interpreting, discussed the evolving standards for legal interpreters’ role and built a matrix of interpreters’ role. Based on this matrix of interpreter’s role, he acknowledged that even legal interpreters often depart from their prescriptive role. In his doctoral dissertation, Zhan (2013) discovers shifts between the Chinese source language and the English target language in political interpreting and presents them as evidences of conference interpreters’ mediation in interaction. “Shifts” are defined by Zhan as “changes which occur or may occur in the process of translating” in his working definition. Despite the definition of “shifts” being vague and extensive, “shifts” are a kind of deviation from prescriptive norms and codes. The idea of “role space” by Jones and Lee in 2014 better illustrated role deviation of interpreters using X, Y, and Z axes. According to Jones and Lee, the perceived role space of interpreters and the actual role-space of interpreters can both be schematized in a number axis. If these two role spaces are compared, any part that does not overlap with the other is a kind of role deviation. However, in their publication, Jones and Lee’s role space is only tailored to community interpreters’ role.

2.1 Overview of Interpreters’ Role in Interpreting Studies

27

Role deviation is constructed in this research based on the theoretical and analytical framework in Chap. 3. Macroscopically, role deviation provides us with a holistic view of actual role behavior of interpreters with role expectations (from others on interpreters) as a frame of reference. Microscopically, a specific language feature is employed as an intervening point to delve into interpreters’ role and seek textual evidences for their role deviation.

2.2 Overview on Hedges in Previous Research Hedges are critical links between interpreting product and interpreters’ role in this research. Next, we have a look at how hedges have been explored in linguistics, translation studies and interpreting studies, aiming to explain why hedges have been chosen as the intervening point to observe interpreters’ role in conference interpreting.

2.2.1 Hedges in Linguistic Studies On the whole, “studies on hedges in linguistics can be divided into four periods: theories introduction, rethinking and rearguing of concepts and problems, research reviews, and multi-perspective empirical studies” (Jiang 2013, p. 45). In the incipient stage, Lakoff (1972), Zadeh (1972), and Wu (1979) introduce some theories of fuzzy language and elaborate on definitions and classifications of hedges. Chen and LI (1994) make a similar attempt to define hedges by semantic criterion. Subsequently, Dong (2003) and Zeng (2005) both discuss hedges definitions and taxonomies. Studies in this incipient stage are mainly basic introductions and can be considered as explorative attempts. When it comes to the stage of rethinking and rearguing of concepts and problems, Fan (2007) firstly acknowledges that hedges are a potentially new concept in linguistic studies and advocates scholars to delve into reasons behind the use of hedges using psychological and cognitive approaches. Obviously, Fan explains the value of exploring hedges and their use. Later, Xu (2012) makes a theoretical criticism, saying that hedges are randomly misused with fuzzy language in many academic studies. Basically, this period is a transition from theories introduction to the criticizing of problems. With the increasing number of scholars engaging in hedges studies, considerable progress has been made, providing a good foundation for reviews of such studies. Pan (2007) points out that a new niche can be found among the interplay between hedges and pragmatics, critical discourse analysis, cross-cultural communication, rhetoric, stylistics, fuzzy logics and artificial intelligence. Based on this, Zhang (2010) reviews hedges in corpus studies using bibliometrics and analyzes

28

2 Literature Review

existing problems in current studies, for example: imbalance among research themes, monotonous research objects and backward research methods. Afterward, empirical studies on hedges gradually emerge, mainly concerning three aspects: hedges in legal discourse at court, the correlation between gender and hedges, and hedges in academic writing and second language acquisition. Xiao (2006) and Cui (2012) observe hedges in the Simpson Case from different vantage points. The former concentrates on the discourse power imbalance between hedges users; the latter analyzes how hedges are dealt with by language users from the standpoint of adaptability theory. Apart from those above, gender is an interesting perspective to observe hedges in sociolinguistics. Duan (2015) discovers a correlation between gender of Chinese college students and their use of hedges by corpus-based analysis. In a similar vein, Zhang and Xia (2014) find that gender has an effect on hedges used by native speakers in the BNC corpus; however, the reason why gender affects the output of hedges has not been uncovered. In addition, hedges in academic writing and second language acquisition constitute another large component of empirical studies. Hyland (2005) investigates how students with Cantonese as their L1 use hedges and boosters in writing and elaborates on the pragmatic and strategic functions of hedges. Yoon (2010) analyzes hedges distribution and functions in Korean in corpus-based discourse analysis in his doctoral dissertation. In the closing of this section, a brief comment needs to be made on hedges studies in linguistics. As can be seen above, a large proportion of linguistic studies on hedges concern academic writing, second language acquisition, doctor-patient conversation and legal discourse. Empirically, for those corpus-based studies on hedges, much effort is made in data description of linguistic features; however, no further explanation of empirical data follows. A plethora of pragmatic theories such as relevance theory, theory of linguistic adaptation and face theory are frequently used to elaborate the use of hedges in certain cases.

2.2.2 Hedges in Translation Studies As we know, fuzziness is the basic nature of natural language. It is of no surprise that fuzziness is commonly seen in translation, and as such, translators are very familiar with hedges in their translating process. At present, hedges in translation studies are approached from the standpoints of fuzzy aesthetics, fuzzy stylists or fuzzy math. As early as 1989, Markkanen and Schröder explored the phenomenon of hedging, regarding it as a problem in translation, especially in the translation of scientific texts. Their discussion surfaces on correspondence and non-correspondence of hedges between the source texts and target texts. Schäffner and Hickey (1998) observe hedges translation in political texts and discuss the strategies used by translators when dealing with hedges. Similarly, Cheng (2002) addresses how to process hedges in the translation of scientific texts. Her discussion on hedges still rests on the level of translating skills. Later, Jiang (2006) proposes a new concept of “transplanting fuzziness” when encountering hedges in translation. Jiang’s study, by its very nature,

2.2 Overview on Hedges in Previous Research

29

is critique of translating skills and summing-up of translating experience. Then, Shao (2008) tries to establish a link between the law of fuzziness and translation theories, so as to apply the law of fuzziness in translation studies. Tan (2010) suggests that the fuzzy degree can be calculated between the source language and the target language for assessing translation quality. This is creative but very challenging, because an algorithm in computational linguistics must be applied to calculate the fuzzy degree. With corpus as a widely applied vehicle in textual analysis in translation studies, Zhao et al. (2011) analyze hedges distribution in the source language of English and in the target language of Chinese through corpus-based method and Chi-square tests. Although Zhao et al. discover that there is significant difference between adapters in the source language of English and adapters in the target language of Chinese, their discussions only surface on corpus data description. Perhaps qualitative analysis of reasons of significant difference would better complement quantitative data and make their conclusions more scientific. Subsequently, Peterlin and Moe (2016) initiate an investigation into hedging devices in media discourse. Not only do they explore hedging devices in translated texts, but they also delve into the reasons why hedging devices are modified by the translators through interview. This is a sign of progress, as it shows that scholars are beginning to investigate reasons behind the use of hedges through interview. As it can be seen from the previous studies, there are insufficient studies on hedges in translation. In its initial period, hedges studies in translation usually surface on translating skills and translating style. Gradually some scholars advocate approaching hedges from theoretical building and application. Theoretical building on hedges and their application in translation are definitely promising but also challenging, because it involves fuzzy math and computational linguistics. That is a daunting task for scholars in translation studies. As for discourse analysis on the use of hedges, it seems that previous research findings tend to be weakened by their subjectivities and randomness. Hence, with corpus method having found a myriad of applications in textual analysis in translation, corpus-based studies on hedges distribution and ways of hedges processing should merit praise and encouragement.

2.2.3 Hedges in Interpreting Studies Hedges in interpreting studies are commonly seen in interpreting product. According to the latest statistics by the current author, so far there are only 5 pieces of literature on hedges in interpreting studies at home and abroad. Hale was the first scholar to inquire into hedges in court interpreting in 2004 in her book The Discourse of Court Interpreting. Hale addressed how interpreters in Spanish court render hedges and discourse fillers. She concluded that three strategies: addition, abridgement and equivalence are adopted by interpreters in the interpreting process to achieve their communication purposes. The two weaknesses in her paper are as following: she does not take into consideration the situation where interpreters may use other words

30

2 Literature Review

to transform the original meaning of hedges; her discourse analysis on hedges is only case-supported. Thus her research conclusions in this study are apt to be questioned. Ten years later, Sun (2014) proceeds from Goffman’s participation framework to observe how conference interpreters use hedges to shift their footing and show their alliance in interaction. Indeed, Sun’s analysis is a very good case-supported study from the perspective of sociology, however, it can be better refined if a corpus-based or corpus-driven method were integrated into her study. Next year, Pan (2014) builds a Chinese government conference interpreting comparable corpus to examine the distribution of hedges in Chinese-English interpreting. Meanwhile, Wang and Li (2015) focus on the hedge “some” in self-built Chinese conference interpreting corpus and calculate its distribution and interpreting skills. Although those two studies resemble each other methodologically, a common imperfection is that they talk about data for the sake of data. As a matter of fact, possible reasons for data regularities and data differences are more noteworthy, because “data without theoretical exploration is sterile and theoretical exploration without data is empty” (Setton 2011, p. 33). Specifically, Pan, Wang and Li just superficially extract data of hedges distribution in Chinese-English conference interpreting corpus; they do not go further to penetrate into interpreters’ role. The latest publication on hedges in interpreting is contributed by Magnifico and Defrancq from Belgium in 2017. They compared the frequencies of hedges used by female and male interpreters, based on EPIC corpus. Their results suggested that female interpreters use more hedges in simultaneous interpreting than male interpreters do. Admittedly, there might be two defects in their study; one is that it has been found in previous studies that females produce more hedges in natural discourse than males do. Magnifico and Defrancq’s conclusion cannot differentiate natural discourse and interpreting discourse. The other is that this gender-perspective study on hedges only briefly touches hedges distribution and hedges shifts in conference interpreting. The possible reasons behind distribution differences and shifting regularities are not uncovered at length. All in all, scholars in interpreting studies mainly confine their attention to hedges distribution either in case or corpus study. By and large, quantitative data description of hedges is not followed by qualitative explanation regarding hedges distributive differences and hedges shifts. To some extent, data reporting in the aforementioned studies is just discussing data for the sake of data. Therefore, in this research not only are hedges distribution and hedges shifts observed in corpus, but also possible discourse intentions or motivations of interpreters behind hedges shifts are analyzed via functions of hedges. To do so, quantitative data and qualitative explanation are linked and mutually completed.

2.3 Studies on Interpreters’ Role Through Corpus

31

2.3 Studies on Interpreters’ Role Through Corpus We have looked back on studies of interpreters’ role and hedges respectively in Sect. 2.1 and 2.2. Given that hedges, interpreters’ role and corpus are three critical points in this research, this section will offer us a brief account of studies on interpreters’ role through corpus, for corpus, as a new and effective vehicle, is the instrumentation of our empirical analysis. “In the past fifteen years, great stride has been made in corpus-based interpreting studies” (Chen and Fu 2014, p. 36). According to Bendazzoli, “Since its inception in Shleshinger’s paper Corpus-based Interpreting Studies as Offshoot of Corpusbased Translation Studies in 1998, corpus-based interpreting studies have been developing into a research paradigm” (2012, p. 92). For corpus has proved instrumental to investigate both product and process of interpreting, opening up descriptive studies in quantitative and qualitative terms. Perhaps, in the near future, with the progress of big data technology, corpus will be developed to be used in many dimensions, such as interpreter-mediated interaction, interpreting training, empirical research in interpreting process and theory-building. The majority of corpus-based interpreting studies involve interpreting process and strategies, and textual features of interpreting product. Few studies on interpreters’ role use a corpus-based method. According to statistics made by the current author, there are only 9 papers on interpreters’ role using corpus approach. “Wadensjö has pioneered to analyze the role of dialogue interpreters in face-toface institutional encounters in Sweden and included interrogations by immigration authorities in her corpus in her PhD thesis in 1992” (Pöllabauer 2004, p. 150). It is Wadensjö that has taken the first initiative to apply corpus to study interpreters’ roles. A couple of years later, Pöllabauer (2004) integrates critical discourse analysis with a corpus method to discover role discrepancy of interpreters in asylum hearings, which disproves the ideas of invisibility and non-involvement of interpreters in community interpreting. In the same year, Diriker (2006) decontextualizes conference interpreters’ role through corpus-based critical discourse analysis. In 2007 and 2012, proceeding from corpus method, Pöllabauer brought a new perspective on community interpreters’ role. Beaton (2012) uses corpus to explore how interpreters deal with two competing ideologies in language in European parliament simultaneous interpreting, because institutional communication in European parliament conference interpreting is ideologically significant. Corpus has made it possible for researchers to discover that interpreters secretly fine tune cohesion, lexical repetition and metaphor strings. In 2013, Gutiérrez revealed the power imbalance in doctor-patient conversation with an interpreter as mediator. He employed corpus to discern lexical asymmetry and participatory asymmetry, then he interviewed interpreters to ascertain the reasons for the imbalanced power between healthcare staff and patients. Meanwhile in China, Zhan (2013) builds a political interpreting corpus for exploitation of interpreters’ mediating role; soon Zhan and Zeng (2017) construct “text-ownership” in cooperation to verify the visibility of medical interpreters in corpus.

32

2 Literature Review

Above all, corpus-method studies on interpreters’ role have several drawbacks. In the early stages, although Wadensjö and Pöllabauer mentioned that corpus is applied to analyze interpreting product, no concrete data is included in their publications, so that their qualitative explanation is virtually example-based discourse analysis. After 2007, the studies of Beaton (2012), Gutiérrez (2013), Zhan and Zeng (2017), presented quantitative data description of role behavior and qualitative explanations, complimenting each other well. Compared with previous methods, from incipient anecdotal summing-up, to conceptual debating, to case studies, to a purely corpus-based method, to corpus-based critical discourse analysis, this current mixed method is a small improvement. This is because corpus data can’t automatically explain reasons why the data gives certain results. Without exploring these reasons, researchers may get lost in the data matrix and find themselves unable to penetrate into the core of the problem of interpreters’ role. Overall, only 3 studies from Diriker (2006), Beaton (2012), and Zhan (2013) in the total of 9 corpus-based studies on interpreters’ role touch upon conference interpreters’ role, which indicates that corpus-based studies on conference interpreters’ role is certainly a topic with research potential.

References Angelelli, C. 2001. Deconstructing the Invisible Interpreter: A Critical Study of the Interpersonal Role of the Interpreter in a Cross D cultural/Linguistic Communicative Event. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis at Stanford University. Angelelli, C. 2004. Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bot, H. 2005. Dialogue Interpreting as a Specific Case of Reported Speech. Interpreting 7: 237–261. Beaton, M. 2012. Interpreted Ideologies in Institutional Discourse. The Translator 2: 271–296. Bendazzoli, C. 2012. Introducing FOOTIE Simultaneous Interpreting in Football Press Conference. In Breaking Ground in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies, ed. F. Sergio and C. Falbo. New York: Peter Lang. Chen, Linhua, and Fuyin Li. 1994. Jiaoji zhong de Mohu Xianzhiyu [Hedges in Communication]. Journal of Foreign languages 5: 55–59. Cheng, Tongchun. 2002. Mohu Xianzhiyu zai Keji Yingyu zhong de Yingyong yu Fanyi [Application and Translation of Hedges in Sci-tech English]. Chinese Science & Technology Translators Journal 2: 85–88. Cui, Fengjuan. 2012. Tingshen Yupian zhong Mohu Xianzhiyu de Shunyingxing [Adaptability of Hedges in Courtroom Discourse]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching 4: 42–49. Chen, Jing, and Rongbo Fu. 2014. Guoneiwai Yuliaoku Kouyi Yanjiu Jinzhan (1998–2012)Yixiang Jiyu Xiangguan Wenxian de Jiliang Fenxi [New Developemnts in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Relevant Chinese and Overseas Literature]. Chinese Translators Journal 1: 36–42. Dong, Na. 2003. Mohu Xianzhiyu de Jieding he Fenlei [Hedges: Definition and Categorization]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University 4:28–34. Diriker, E. 2006. De/Re Contextualizing Conference Interpreting Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? Interpreting 1: 112–116.

References

33

Duan, Shiping. 2015. Fuza Xitong Lilun Kuangjia xia Zhongguo Daxuesheng Yingyu Kouyu Mohu Xianzhi Yukuai Shiyong Yanjiu [Studies on the Uses of Hedges by Chinese College Students Under the Theory of Complicated System]. Foreign Language World 6: 45–53. Fan, Wuqiu. 2007. Mohu Yanyan Yanjiu Chuxian de Jige Wenti [Language Fuzziness Research: Problems and Solutions]. Modern Foreign Languages 2: 155–162. Gutiérrez, L. 2013. Natural Interpreters’ Performance in the Medical Setting. In Interpreting in a Changing Landscape Selected Papers from Critical Link 6, ed. Christina Shäffner et al. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. 2005. Meta Discourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum. Hyland, K. 2012. Corpus Application in Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum. Jacobsen, B. 2001. Pragmatics in Court Interpreting: Addition. In The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community, ed. Louise Brunette et al. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jiang, Yue. 2006. Yizhi Mohu yu Qita [Transferring Fuzziness and Other Factors]. Chinese Translators Journal 1: 84–86. Jiang, Ping. 2013. Guonei Mohu Yuyanxue Yanjiu: Xianzhuang yu Mubiao [Fuzzy Linguistic Research in China: An Overview and a Foresight]. Journal of Foreign Languages 5: 43–49. Katan, D., and F.S. Sergio. 2001. Look Who Is Talking. The Translator 2: 213–237. Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lee, J. 2010. Interpreting Reported Speech in Witness’s Evidence. Interpreting 1: 60–82. Li, Dan. 2013. Tongchuan Yiyuan de Xianshenxing Yanjiu [Studies on Visibility of Interpreters in Simultaneous Interpreting]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. Llewellyn-Jones, P., and R.G. Lee. 2014. Redefining the Role of Community Interpreter: The Concept of Role Space. Lincoln: SLI Press. Markkanen, R., and H. Schröder. 1989. Hedging as a Translation Problem in Scientific Texts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mikkelson, H. 2008. Evolving Views of the Court Interpreter’s Role: Between Scylla and Charybdis. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemma, ed. C. Valero-Garcés and A. Martin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Magnifico, C., and B. Defrancq. 2017. Hedges in Conference Interpreting: The Role of Gender. Interpreting 1: 21–46. Ozolins, U. 2016. The Myth of the Myth of Invisibility. Interpreting 18: 273–284. Pöchhacker, F. 2003. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. Pöllabauer, S. 2004. Interpreting in Asylum Hearings: Issues of Role, Responsibility and Power. Interpreting 6: 143–180. Pan, Jianrong. 2007. Mohu Xiuci de Yuyong Fenxi [Pragmatic Analysis of Rhetoric Vagueness]. Beijing: Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Pan, Feng. 2014. Jiyu Yuliaoku de Hanying Huiyi Kouyi Mohu Xianzhiyu de Yingyong Yanjiu [A Corpus-Based Study of the Application of Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching 4: 21–29. Peterlin, A., and M. Moe. 2016. Translating Hedging Devices in News Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 102: 1–12. Roy, C. 1989. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Interpreter’s Role in the Turn Exchanges of an Interpreted Event. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis at Georgetown University. Schäffner, C., and L. Hickey. 1998. Hedges in Political Texts: A Translational Perspective. In The Pragmatics of Translation, ed. Hickey, L. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Press. Schäffner, C. 2015. Speaker Positioning in Interpreted-Mediated Press Conference. Target 3: 422– 439. Shao Lu. 2008. Lun Fanyi de Mohu Faze [The Law of Fuzziness Translation]. Journal of Foreign Languages 3: 84–92. Setton, R. 2011. Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies: Overview and Prospects. In Corpus-Based Translation Studies Research and Application, ed. A. Kruger and K. Wallmach. UK: Continuum.

34

2 Literature Review

Sun, Tingting. 2014. Interpreting China: Interpreter’s Mediation of Government Press Conferences in China. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Turner, G. 2007. Professionalization of Interpreting with the Community. In The Critical 4: Professionalism of Interpreting in the Community, ed. C. Wadensjö and B. Dimitrova. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tan, Zaixi. 2010. Fanyi Mohu Faze Xinxishang [Translation, Fuzziness of Language, and Information Entropy]. Chinese Translators Journal 4:11–16. Wu, Tieping.1979. Mohu Yuyan Chutan [A Tentative Exploration into Fuzzy Languages]. Journal of Foreign Languages 4:39-44. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Routledge. Wang, Li., and Tao Li. 2015. Jiyu Yuliaoku de Hanying Huiyi Kouyi Mohu Xianzhiyu Yanjiu [A Corpus-based Study on Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting]. Chinese Translators Journal 5: 96–100. Xiao, Tangjin. 2006. Mohu Xianzhiyu yu Fating Quanshi zhi Zheng [Fuzy Languages and Power in Court]. Jiangxi Social Sciences 5: 215–216. Xu, Zhanghong. 2012. Guonei Mohu Xianzhiyu Yanjiu Wuqu Tanyuan [An Exploration of the Causes of Misconceptions in Research on Linguistic Hedges]. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University 3: 16–24. Xiang, Xia, and Binghan Zheng. 2015. Chuang er You Du: Lun Shangwu Lianluo Yiyuan de Zhutixing yu Lunli Yishi [Restricted Creation: A Questionnaire-Based Study on Perceptions of Subjectivity and Ethics of Business Liaison Interpreters]. Journal of Foreign Languages 5: 88–99. Yoon, Y. 2010. An Analysis of Selected Korean Hedges in Spoken Discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis at the University of Hawaii. Zadeh, L.A. 1972. Fuzzy-Set-Theoretical Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges. Journal of Cybernetics 2: 4–34. Zeng, Wenxiong. 2005. Guoneiwai Mohu Xianzhiyu de Yuyanxue Yanjiu [Linguistic Studies of Hedges in China and Abroad]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal 3: 23–26. Zhang, Ruihong. 2010. Mohu Yuyan de Shunyingxing Jieshi [Adaption Interpretation of the Vague Language]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 6: 26–33. Zhao, Qiurong et al. 2011. Jiyu Leibi Yuliaoku de Mohu Xianzhiyu Yanjiu [A Comparable CorpusBased Study on Hedges]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching 4: 21–26. Zhan, Cheng. 2013. Zhengzhi Changyu zhong Kouyiyuan de Tiaokong Jiaose [The Interpreter’s Role as a Mediator in Political Settings]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Zhan, Cheng, & Lishan Zeng. 2017. Chinese Medical Interpreters’ Visibility through Text Ownership: An Empirical Study on Interpreted Dialogue at a Hospital in Guangzhou. Interpreting 1: 97–117. Zhang, Wei. 2013. Huiyi Kouyiyuan Zhiye Juese Ziwo Rending de Diaocha Yanjiu [An Investigation into the Perception of Professional Role of Conference Interpreters]. Chinese Translators Journal 2: 17–25. Zhang, Jidong and Mengru Xia. 2014. Xingbie Yuyan Lichang Biaojiyu de Shiyong Tezheng: Yixiang Jiyu Yingyu Guojia Kouyu Yuliaoku de Yanjiu [A Gender Study on the Stance Markers in Britain Spoken English Corpus]. Foreign Languages Research 6: 10–18.

Chapter 3

Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges

Abstract This chapter firstly takes stock of the conceptual relations among role, interpreters’ role and role deviation, by defining role from sociology, defining interpreters’ role from interpreting studies and elaborating on role deviation from role theory. Then, the major argument of this research is that role deviation of interpreters can be perceived through the use of hedges in conference interpreting, since it is so, Chapter 3 sets to theoretically demonstrate the rationale for role deviation as perceived through the use of hedges and to articulate the reasons for hedges being used as the intervening point to penetrate into interpreters’ role deviation, which involves the definitions, classifications and linguistic functions of hedges. After untangling the above-mentioned conceptual relations, this chapter, drawing upon role theory in sociology, finally builds a theoretical and analytical framework by using role behavior and role expectation, so that corpus-based studies on hedges can be operationalized on this framework. In brief, this chapter is an attempt to address three questions: what is the relation between role, interpreters’ role and role deviation? why conference interpreters’ role can be perceived through the use of hedges? what theory is this analytical framework established on? Keywords Role behavior · Role expectation · Role deviation · Theoretical and analytical framework

3.1 Interpreters’ Roles and Role Deviation It has been widely acknowledged by academics that interpreters’ role is a complex issue with many facets, each of which can be examined in their own right. Interpreters’ role has countless phenomenological representations, one of these being role deviation of interpreters. Following this vein, interpreters’ role comes under the umbrella of role. Thus, role, interpreters’ role, and role deviation, are all involved in funnel-like hierarchical relations. That is from general to specific.

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3_3

35

36

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

3.1.1 Role and Interpreters’ Role Role is a core construct of role theory. Role theory is the major theoretical underpinning on which the theoretical and analytical framework is established in Sect. 3.3. As such, we deem it of necessity to briefly introduce role theory and articulate role in role theory. According to Biddle, a renowned scholar in sociology, “role theory is a science concerned with the study of role behavior that is characteristic of persons within contexts and with various processes that presumably produce, explain, or are affected by those behaviors” (1979, p. 4). At present, the definition of role theory is not universally recognized in the behavioral sciences because theoretical statements are obscure and confusing. Be that as it may, role theory is still a mainstream theory in the field of role studies. According to role theory, “role behavior and role expectation are two key components of role theory” (Biddle 1979, p. 6; Xi 2010, p. 118). They are commonly used in social science to develop research-specific theoretical frameworks for individual research purposes. This is a common and encouraged practice in social science and it has generated a wide array of interesting and diverse research results. Since role theory focuses on human behaviors in social communication, and interpreters are social human beings who are involved in social interaction, normally it follows that role theory can be applied in studies on interpreters’ role. Thus, a theoretical and analytical framework is established in Sect. 3.3 in this chapter. All quantitative investigation and qualitative analysis are operationalized on this framework. From role to interpreters’ role, it is interesting to discover that there is much overlapping between role theory in sociology and interpreters’ role in interpreting studies. Therefore, this research views interpreters’ role as being within the context and frame of role in role theory. To make sense of the relation between role, interpreters’ role and role deviation, it is imperative that we expand on the definition of role in sociology and interpreting studies and offer the working definition of interpreters’ role.

3.1.1.1

The Definition of Role in Sociology

Role in sociology has always been a much discussed topic. According to Biddle (1986), role originates from theatrical metaphor. Nowadays, role serves as an umbrella term for studies from different disciplines such as social psychology, anthropology and communication science. Since it is so, how is the concept of role defined in sociology? This question generates a myriad of concepts which can’t be listed here in full. However, to better understand interpreters’ role, role theory in sociology needs to be reckoned with in the following part. According to influential sociologists such as Linton (1945), Turner (1956), Merton (1976), Biddle (1979), Ding and Zhang (1987), Qin and Zhou (2011) etc., it has

3.1 Interpreters’ Roles and Role Deviation

37

been agreed that “role theory is a science mainly concerned with the study of role behavior that is characteristics of persons within contexts and with various processes that presumably produce, explain, or are affected by those behaviors” (Biddle 1979, p. 4). According to role theory, role is comprised of two major components: role behavior and role expectation. So far, although there are different definitions of role, sociologists have come to a consensus that role is person-associated, contextual, functional and context-specific. Perhaps that is why there is a wide range of observational conclusions on role from case analysis. In this research, role, as an extensive and elastic concept, is taken in its broad sense and from the perspective of behavioral science. This is also advocated by Biddle (1966, p. 83), as “the best way of studying roles is to observe the characteristics of behavior of persons as they cope with real world problems and context”. In what follows, this research looks at interpreters’ role through the window of behavior and how interpreters’ role is conceived and defined in interpreting studies.

3.1.1.2

The Definition of Role in Interpreting Studies

Interpreters’ role, either in community or conference interpreting, remains a controversial but intriguing issue. This is because a wealth of variables such as settings, participants in interaction, interpreting professional development level etc. are involved in defining interpreters’ role. Unsurprisingly, it is rather challenging to pin down a universally-agreed-upon definition of interpreters’ role. Both scholars and practitioners have lamented the lack of a definition of interpreters’ role, as it leads to confusion among users of interpreting services and academia of interpreting studies, and to insecurity among practicing interpreters. What’s worse, “a kaleidoscope of roles is not conductive to the creation of professional identity, ethical standards, esprit de corps among interpreter and performance assessment of interpreters” (Gentile et al. 1996, p. 32). Thereby, both interpreting studies and interpreting practices need to further clarify what interpreters’ role is. As the present literature indicates, the definition of interpreters’ role is mostly approached by scholars in two ways. One way is to avoid defining what role is, and instead, directly entering into a discussion on what interpreters should and should not do; in this way, it seems that role definition is assumed to be a familiar concept to us all. The other is to compare and contrast interpreting practice standards and professional ethics with interpreters’ actual role behavior. Be that as it may, interpreters’ role is still vast and ill-defined, despite the fact that it has been discussed for more than 45 years, first being initiated by Anderson in 1976. As stated by Anderson in his landmark publication Perspectives on the Role of interpreter, “interpreters’ role is always partially defined” (Anderson 1976, p. 189). He mentions that “role prescriptions are not adequate to cover interpreters’ behavior, because interpreters are often not clear on what he or she is to do” (1976, p. 189). This point of view is echoed by Roy who specializes in sign language interpreting, particularly sign language interpreters’ role. She points out that “no one really knows

38

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

how to clearly define the role of interpreters, where to draw a line on the involvement of interpreters, even in the ethical rules” (1989, p. 17). In community settings, Pöchhacker advocates that interpreters have rather an expansive concept of role. He explains that: The role and task of interpreter in community settings is an issue of main concern and controversy in the drive for professionalization of interpreter. The service providers expect interpreters within their institutional settings to do much more than just translate. Interpreters themselves were found to share a rather expansive conception of role. (1995, p. 76)

With regard to interpreters’ role in liaison interpreting, Mason (2009) suggests replacing “role” with “positioning”. In a broad sense, “the term of ‘positioning’ is used to describe the continuously changing nature of interaction among the participants in interpreter-mediated communication” (Pokorn 2015, p. 313). “In concrete sense, the term of ‘positioning’ can be used to describe the physical position of the interpreter in face-to-face encounters” (Pokorn 2015, p. 314). According to Mason (2009), she believes that positioning is reflexive, interactive and dynamic, and it can better capture the dynamics of interpreting discourse. The above are definitions or understandings of interpreters’ role in sign language interpreting, community interpreting and liaison interpreting; however, it is really necessary to point out that “setting is a key component in defining these aspects of role” (Slatyer 2005, p. 71). In our attempt to seek descriptions of conference interpreters’ role specifically, we only find that there is a paucity of clear definitions. Zhan (2013), Sun (2014), Li (2013), Diriker (2006), and Beaton (2012) investigate interpreters’ role in conference settings; however, none of these scholars have given direct and specific definitions of interpreters’ role. Almost all scholars acknowledge that defining interpreters’ role is a complex and intricate issue, but most of them tacitly assume that interpreters’ role is a familiar concept, or subtly use some other terms as a substitution for the term of “interpreters’ role”. To sum up, it is not easy to find a widely accepted definition of interpreters’ role. Perhaps role behavior and role expectation, as two major components of role theory, can be taken into consideration when deciding on the working definition of interpreters’ role. This is supported by Pöllabauer who comments that: “metaphorically a role can be viewed as a script for a particular behavior in a particular situation, staged in front of the audience. Less metaphorically, role can be defined as a set of expectations society has of individuals in a given social position or status” ( 2015, p. 356). Hence, what follows next is a research-specific working definition of interpreters’ role.

3.1 Interpreters’ Roles and Role Deviation

3.1.1.3

39

The Working Definition of Interpreters’ Role

Now that a basic understanding of the multifarious definitions of interpreters’ role is presented in the preceding section, a research-specific working definition of interpreters’ role should be ascertained, based on role theory and the research purposes. Role theory in sociology is the main theoretical underpinning in this research. According to role theory, “role” comprises role behavior and role expectation. Inspired by role theory in which role is prevalently regarded as some patterns of behavior associated with social position, or some expectations that an individual needs to abide by, this research gives the working definition of interpreters’ role in a broad sense. From this research, the working definition of interpreters’ role is as following. In interactional contexts in the interpreting process, when conference interpreters take some patterns of discourse behavior which can exercise discourse functions or which may achieve some possible and potential discourse intentions, this can be basically conceived as a fact that interpreters are performing their roles in communication. In the current research, with reference to this working definition above, conference interpreters’ patterns of behavior in hedges processing from Chinese to English are deemed as an occurrence that interpreters are performing their roles. Although interpreters’ role has various behavioral representations, this research only takes discourse behavior, particularly hedges into account. Alongside the landscape of role definition in sociology and in interpreting studies, a working definition of interpreters’ role as above-mentioned comes naturally. As for our research aim to investigate role deviation of conference interpreters within the theoretical and analytical framework created from role theory, it is essential to account for what role deviation is. In light of this, interpreters’ role behavior should be juxtaposed with role expectations (from others on interpreters). To be specific, interpreters’ role behavior on linguistic level is our major concern; interpreters’ paralinguistic behavior and subconscious behavior, such as locution and pet phrases, are not taken into consideration. Role expectations (from others on interpreters) are expounded in Sect. 3.1.2.

3.1.2 Role Deviation: Role Expectation vS. Role Behavior Role deviation of conference interpreters is proposed for the first time as an argument in this research. In fact, similar concepts are discussed in several previous studies, albeit with different names. For instance, Wadensjö (1998) brings forth the term of “role distance” in her Interpreting as Interaction. Role distance refers to divergence between obligation and actual role performance for interpreters. Pöllabauer (2004) puts forth the term of “role discrepancy” in her study on asylum interpreting, which she uses to refer to difference between the actual roles of interpreters and the roles

40

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

Fig. 3.1 The conceptualization of role deviation

of interpreters as expected by police officers in legal interpreting. Mikkelson (2008) uses “role departure”, meaning that interpreters have departed from the conduit role. Although the emphasis of each of these terms is slightly different, it is clear that to some degree, scholars have already begun to compare actual role behavior of interpreters with ideal, prescribed and expected role behavior of interpreters. It suggests that there is likely divergence, distance or discrepancy between the real performance of interpreters and ideal performance prescribed or expected by others. It is this discrepancy that attracts huge interest from researchers and practitioners, including the current author, to delve into interpreters’ role. In this research, role expectations (from others on interpreters) are used as a frame of reference. According to role theory, if the actual role behavior of interpreters is in accordance with role expectations (from others on interpreters), this is deemed role conformity; if the actual role behavior of interpreters is in disagreement with role expectations (from others on interpreters), or diverges from ideal role expectations, this is what we will call role deviation. As this description is slightly abstract; it is visualized in Fig. 3.1: As Xi Congqing, a renowned sociological scholar specializing in role theory, states, “role behavior refers to those that displayed when individual undertakes certain role or a serial of roles” (Xi 2010, p. 118). In general, “role behavior can accomplish function, establish relationships, and have immediate and proponent effects on others” (Biddle 1979, p. 25). According to Xi (2010, p. 100), “role expectation refers to that society, organizations, communities, and others may place their expectations or even requirements on certain individual who undertakes some roles”. It implies that social communities set expectations on the behavior of social individual. To put it simply, social communities expect individuals to do things like this, not like that. Besides, role expectations are often written in forms of behavioral codes and ethics, regulations and standards. According to interpreting practice standard and ethical codes from influential professional organizations such as AIIC and ATA etc., in an ideal mode, interpreters’ role behavior should be completely conform to the role expectations described in those interpreting practice standards and ethical codes. However, things may be a little different in actual interpreting performance. As Fig. 3.1 illustrates, when role

3.1 Interpreters’ Roles and Role Deviation

41

behavior and role expectation are juxtaposed, role deviation can be visualized by the shaded part, indicating the displacement between role behavior and role expectation.

3.1.3 Role Deviation in Interpreting The preceding section has equipped us with theoretical knowledge of role deviation. As our ultimate purpose is to verify whether role deviation of conference interpreters exists, it naturally comes to offer an account of role deviation in interpreting. As elaborated in the last section, it is taken that role deviation occurs in such a circumstance when the actual role behavior of interpreters is not in accordance with role expectations (from others on interpreters). This is regarded as role deviation of interpreters. In this research, interpreting practice standards and professional ethics from authoritative professional organizations like AIIC, AUSIT, ATA and so on will be regarded as role expectations (from others on interpreters), because interpreting practice standards and professional ethics are, to some extent, substantial expectancy norms.1 Expectancy norms refer to “what the target language community expects a translation to look like, regarding grammaticality, acceptability, appropriateness, style, textuality, preferred conventions of form or discourse and the like” (Chesterman 1993, p. 17). Arguably, no translation takes place in a vacuum, and almost all the behavior of translators and interpreters is governed by high-order norms. Expectancy norms are role expectations that authoritative professional organizations hold in terms of conference interpreters’ behavior in interpreting. Returning to our role deviation, if interpreters’ actual role behavior departs or diverges from the role behavior of interpreters as formulated by and described in these interpreting practice standards and professional ethics, role deviation of interpreters is considered to have occurred. Nevertheless, this is only a theoretical account of role deviation. How can role deviation of interpreters be perceived in our corpusbased study? To respond to this question, observing role behavior in corpus and conducting discourse analysis is a must. By doing so, some linguistic features and their transforming regularities in the interpreting process can be analyzed as evidential support for our claim that role deviation of conference interpreters occurs. On this ground, hedges are chosen as the intervening point to observe behavior of interpreters and to penetrate into interpreters’ role. As for the rationale that role deviation can be perceived through the use of hedges, Sect. 3.2.1 offers some explanations at length. Role behavior of interpreters includes verbal and non-verbal behavior. Only verbal behavior of interpreters in communication is taken into account in this research, paralinguistic behavior and subconscious utterance habits are excluded. 1

Expectancy norms and professional norms are two core concepts initiated by Andrew Chesterman in 1993. Inspired by norms in linguistics and sociology, Andrew Chesterman divided translation norms into two major categories: expectancy norms and professional norms. To be further, professional norms are subdivided into three types: accountability norms, communication norms, relations norms. Norms are often used to explain behavior of translators or translation phenomena.

42

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

Role expectation itself is a multidimensional concept. Conference interpreting generally involves three parties at least. Each party holds different role expectations of the performance of interpreters, and vice versa, interpreters also hold different expectations on each party. The interpreting profession and relevant organizations also place role expectations on interpreters. The multiplicity of role expectations complicates the issues of interpreters’ role and interpreters’ performance assessment. Although role expectation is multifaceted, to simplify this issue, only interpreting practice standards and professional ethics formulated by authoritative professional organizations like AIIC, ATA are regarded as role expectations (from others on interpreters) in this research. Role expectations merely serve as a frame of reference; whether role deviation of conference interpreters exists depends on the empirical results from corpus-based discourse analysis on hedges. Next, we come to observe role behavior of conference interpreters with hedges as the intervening point to see if there is any discrepancy between role behavior of interpreters and role expectations (from others on interpreters).

3.2 Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges In this study, the current author’s main point is that role deviation of interpreters can be perceived through the use of hedges in conference interpreting, despite the fact that interpreters’ role is stereotyped as being a passive “non-person”. Since it is so, it is necessary to justify role deviation of conference interpreters as perceived through the use of hedges. This justification is in two folds. One is to theoretically demonstrate the rationale for role deviation as perceived through the use of hedges; the other is to articulate the reasons for hedges being used as the intervening point to penetrate into interpreters’ role deviation.

3.2.1 Rationale for Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges To validate that role deviation can be perceived through the use of hedges, logically, there must be correlation between hedges and role deviation empirically and conceptually. In empirical studies, this research takes a funnel-approach with hedges as the intervening point to investigate interpreters’ discourse behavior, namely, how interpreters process hedges from Chinese to English. In turn, hedges shifts and shifting regularities can reflect interpreters’ discourse intention and even role deviation. This is an interlocked and bottom-up empirical design. In the conceptual scope, a generalto-specific conceptual narrowing is made from role, to interpreters’ role, to role behavior, to language behavior and finally to hedges use. This inferring process is just like an inverted triangle in schematization. Both empirically and conceptually,

3.2 Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges

43

it is rather challenging to study such an obscure concept like interpreters’ role. An empirical study usually needs an intervening point to elicit data, and conceptual analysis of interpreters’ role also needs to rest on concrete linguistic features. Arguably, there is empirical and conceptual correlation between hedges and interpreters’ role, making hedges an appropriate option. To allow for smooth extraction of corpus-based data on hedges, it is particularly significant to take stock of hedges definitions, classifications and its working definition. Otherwise, it is impossible to identify, classify and annotate hedges, not to mention discerning hedges shifts and any shifting regularities.

3.2.1.1

The Definitions and Classifications of Hedges

Definitions of Hedges Hedges,2 as an umbrella concept in fuzzy linguistics, are often misused with the concept of fuzzy language. “Fuzzy language is an unspecified and elastic language which can be stretched and negotiated in responding to the strategic communicative needs” (Zhao and Zhang 2012). On the other hand, hedges refer to those words that adjust, modulate or qualify the fuzzy degree of language. In a sense, hedges are meta-languages. As for the definition of hedges, no agreement has so far been reached by scholars, although some advances have been made in hedges studies in the past several decades. Lakoff was the first to introduce hedges in his Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts in 1972. According to Lakoff, hedges are defined as words or phrases “whose jobs are to make things fuzzier or less fuzzier” from the perspective of language philosophy. In the same year, Zadeh (1972) regards hedges as operators that act on the fuzzy set representing the meaning of their operands. Later, Brown and Levinson (1987), and Prince et al. (1982) define hedges from the angle of pragmatics. Swale (1990) proceeds from communicative strategy to treat hedges as rhetorical devices used for “projecting honesty, modesty and proper caution in self-reports and for diplomatically creating space in areas heavily populated by other researchers”. Another scholar Hyland (2005), specializing in academic writing, regards hedges as a means of expressing tentativeness and possibility, resources of anticipating a reader’s possible rejections of propositions and presenting claims with precision and caution. In China, Wu (1979) basically accepts western definitions of hedges and pioneers to introduce hedges to China. He (1985) follows to introduce Prince et al.’s definition and classification of hedges to China, whilst also making his own supplement. He (1985) thinks that these hedges affect the truth value of propositions (approximators) as perceived from semantics; those hedges do not affect the truth value but reflect the speaker’s commitment to truth value of all proposition shields as perceived from pragmatics. 2

When hedges are deemed as a collective noun which technically refers to one thing, one collection, one concept or one phenomenon, the singular form is used in sentences; when hedges refer to all individual hedges, the plural form is used in sentences.

44

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

To sum up, no consensus has been made by scholars on how to define hedges due to various research purposes and perspectives. The definition of hedges is still an open issue; nevertheless, the working definition of hedges is still given in Sect. 3.2.1.2. Classifications of Hedges Wu (1979) pioneers the exploration of hedges in Chinese and English at the same time, and proposes a classification which can be applied in both languages in accordance with grammatical categories: – some adjectives or adverbs such as very, actually, regular, actually, always, usually, quite, sort of, etc. – words with suffix such as –ish, -ly e.g. greenish, sweetish, reddish, manly. – grammatical structures like, so…that, as if…, so…as to…, to give forth a clause denoting the fuzziness degree of an adjective or an adverb and show the speaker’s uncertainty of something. – phrases or clauses which are used to express one’s opinion in a subjective way, I think, I guess, I believe, we hope, I estimate, etc. (1979, p. 40) As it can be seen above, Wu’s classification criterion is based on grammatical structure. He does not explain for what reasons or considerations he classifies hedges into the aforementioned four categories. After that, Chen and Li (1994) suggest dividing hedges into five categories by semiotic meanings. Prince et al. (1982) and Brown and Levinson (1987) divide hedges according to the pragmatic functions and discourse intentions; while Hyland (2005) divide hedges by both semantic and pragmatic perspectives in academic writing. Later, Li (2007) and Cai (2014) endeavor to propose classification criteria and divide hedges into three categories by the fuzzy degree, fuzzy range and frequency; however, it is a pity that their taxonomies are partially overlapped. In retrospect, Prince et al.’ s classification of hedges accords with our need to analyze interpreters’ possible discourse intentions, and as such, Prince et al.’ classification of hedges is adopted in this research. There are three reasons. The first reason is that Prince et al.’ s classification criterion is based on semantic meanings and pragmatic meanings and has been widely accepted and applied in academic studies as a mature and influential classification criterion, not only in English but also in Chinese. Secondly, Prince et al.’s classification is tailored chiefly to oral interaction. Since “interpreting is social interaction” (Wadensjö 1998, p. 4), it is reasonable to identify hedges in interpreting interaction using Prince et al.’s classification. Admittedly, there are other classification criteria, but it is not appropriate to use classification criteria of second language writing in oral interaction. For the final reason, Prince et al.’s classification is utilized in this research for its lucid descriptors in each category of hedges, which means it is feasible and convenient to identify hedges in both Chinese and English. According to Prince et al. (1982), hedges are divided into approximators and shields. Approximators can be further divided into adapters and rounders; shields can be divided into plausibility shields and attribution shields. As Prince et al. state, approximators can alter the originally defined scope of proposition and affect or

3.2 Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges

45 adapters

approximators

rounders Hedges

plausibility shield

shields attribution shields

Fig. 3.2 Prince et al.’s taxonomy of Hedges (1982)

even change the truth value of discourse. Conversely, shields do not affect the truth value of discourse, but can implicate that the speaker may be uncertain of his or her commitment to a statement. The taxonomy of hedges by Prince et al. (1982)3 is illustrated in Fig. 3.2. Since hedges have been selected as the intervening point for the current study of interpreters’ role, this may arouse the curiosity to ask the reasons why hedges are eligible as the intervening point. Because we use functions of hedges to infer interpreters’ possible discourse intentions, in turn, interpreters’ role can be reflected and perceived via interpreters’ possible discourse intentions or potential purposes. To achieve this purpose, it comes naturally to take a close look at semantic, pragmatic and cognitive functions of hedges (Fig. 3.3).

3.2.1.2

The Functions of Hedges in Semantic, Pragmatic and Cognitive Aspects

Given that functions of hedges are evidential support in analyzing possible discourse intentions and revealing what roles conference interpreters have actually played, functions of hedges from semantic, pragmatic and cognitive aspects are generalized as follow. Semantic Functions of Hedges Semantic functions of hedges were primarily discussed by Lakoff in his representative work Hedges: a Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts in 3

For better elucidation, examples for each category of hedges are presented here. Adapters refer to hedges such as “a little”, “a bit”, “kind of”, just name a few; rounders refer to “strictly speaking”, “generally speaking”, “about”, “more or less” and so on. Plausibility shields refer to hedges like: “I think”, “I hope”, “maybe”, “I guess” and so on; attribution shields refer to hedges like: “according to what May said”, “somebody told me that”, “it is said by…” etc.

46

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

Rationale

Role theory

Interpreters’ roles

Role expectations (frame of reference)

Role behavior

Discourse behavior

Interpreting practice standards and professional ethics

Hedges Corpus

Phenomenon

Hedges shifting

Hedges functions

Foci

Role deviation

Fig. 3.3 Theoretical and analytical framework for role deviation as perceived through the use of hedges

1972, in which he brought forth the concept of hedges for the first time and elucidated their semantic functions through the example of robin birds. According to Lakoff (1972), there is a hierarchical semantic structure in hedges. Li and Wang (1992) add that hedges can narrow and restrict the semantic scope of words. Li (2015) holds a similar view that hedges can generalize semantic meanings or constrain the range of semantic meanings when precise prepositional information is not available. Based on the above, He and Jiang (1994) summarize four semantic functions. • Cancellability: semantically, hedges can alter the truth value of the original discourse or cancel the original meanings by means of context. For example: William is a regular fish Here, “regular” as a hedge, cancels the original meaning of “William is a fish”, because William could not be a fish at all. • Markedness: hedges can distinguish one component from other components in linguistic analysis. Here is an example: He is a tall man. (unhedged) He is a very tall man. (hedged)

3.2 Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges

47

• Indefiniteness: hedges can express some inaccurate and indefinite claims or attitudes and hide absoluteness. To some extent, the uncertainty of hedges can wholly or partially mirror a speaker’s psychological and cognitive process when carrying out some speech act. • Indirectness: hedges can express semantic meanings in an indirect way. In short, hedges have semantic functions such as increasing or decreasing the semantic fuzzy degree by marking information as uncertain, unspecific or imprecise. Changing the semantic fuzzy degree may place the truth value of referential information somewhere on the continuum between absolute truth and falsehood. It is the semantic ambiguity caused by hedges that creates enough expressive leeway and explanatory room between speakers and listeners. Pragmatic Functions of Hedges Apart from semantic functions, hedges also have pragmatic functions. Using hedges is a very typical pragmatic phenomenon. How the pragmatic information carried by hedges is processed by interpreters is subject to interpreters’ discourse intentions. As such, it is possible to analyze interpreters’ discourse intentions with reference to pragmatic functions of hedges. Next follows a summarization of pragmatic functions. Channell, an influential scholar in vague language, summarized in 1994 that hedges have ten pragmatic functions. Zheng (2012) in his doctoral dissertation summarizes eight pragmatic and cognitive functions of hedges in English. Pragmatic functions of hedges are not further elaborated by Channell and Zheng. With reference to pragmatic functions discussed in previous studies, a summarization of pragmatic functions of hedges is made by the current author as following. Hedges can • serve as an interpersonal politeness strategy, either in positive politeness or in negative politeness; • maintain and save face in interaction; • demarcate discourse responsibilities; • establish dialogue or relations between speakers and listeners; • express persuasion; • fine-tune conversational tone; • serve as a self-protection mechanism or risk-avoiding strategy; • represent the meta-pragmatic awareness of language users; • claim or assert discourse power; As we can see above, there are adequate reasons to believe that the pragmatic functions of hedges can help to deduce interpreters’ possible discourse intentions. In other words, why do interpreters process hedges in a certain way? Ultimately, exploring discourse intentions of interpreters enables us to gain an integral understanding of conference interpreters’ role.

48

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

Cognitive Functions of Hedges “Interpreting as a process involving a multitude of cognitive (sub) processes takes place within a process of situated interaction as part of a particular social practice” (Pöchhacker 2005, p. 693). Cognitive resources and cognitive load are key factors in the interpreting task that we need to take into consideration. As language resources and linguistic devices for interpreters, hedges and how they are dealt with by interpreters in the interpreting process are undoubtedly subject to cognitive factors. Given that hedges have cognitive functions, it is necessary to acquaint ourselves with cognitive functions of hedges. Currently, most scholars discuss functions of hedges from the viewpoints of both cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. According to Silverstein (1993), Caffi (1998) and Verschueren (2000), hedges can reflect meta-cognition and meta-pragmatic awareness. The above-mentioned scholars claim that “language users have reflective awareness which occurs when the communicator makes linguistic choices, in other words, when linguistic choices are made, language users know more or less what they are doing”. Discussions on the functions of hedges in the cognitive aspect chiefly center on the meta-cognition and meta-pragmatic awareness of language users. A summarization of hedges cognitive functions is now made by the current author. Hedges can save cognitive resources, because they can produce semantic fuzziness. Fuzziness is the basic nature of natural language, and in turn, language fuzziness can reflect fuzziness in the cognitive process. Normally, fuzzy cognition often consumes less effort than what is usually required. In the high-stress and highrisk interpreting process, especially when interpreters’ working memory is overloaded, interpreters are prone to utilize hedges to economize cognitive effort for better managing of cognitive resources needed in note-taking, note-reading, and coordination. Hedges can help to reallocate and manage cognitive resources. Consecutive interpreting is usually a tri-party and bilingual social interaction which at least involves the speaker, interpreter and audiences. A three-dimensional model of interpreting as mediation has been put forward by Pöchhacker in 2008. According to Pöchhacker (2008), interpreting is a mediation among a contractual aspect (social relations), a cognitive aspect (cognitive resources) and a cultural aspect (intercultural relations). From the perspective of cognitive aspect, interpreting is cognitive mediating. With regards to the speaker, interpreter and audience, each party occupies different cognitive abilities and resources. If one party is in a high cognitive context and the other is in a low cognitive context, there is unavoidable cognitive gap between them. At this point, interpreters often use hedges to give a fuzzy and general meaning to narrow the cognitive gap among each party, or if a certain interpreting task consumes much cognitive effort, interpreters may use hedges to reallocate cognitive resources to other interpreting tasks. In short, the functions of hedges are like a bridge linking hedges with the possible discourse intentions of interpreters and further with interpreters’ role. Thus, the argument for role deviation of conference interpreters might not hold water without discussion of hedges functions.

3.2 Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use of Hedges

49

The crux comes with the fact that functions of hedges point to possible discourse intentions of interpreters when hedges shifts and shifting regularities occur in corpus. To be theoretical, according to Halliday’s theory (1989) of systemic functional linguistics, language is social semiotics and a system of meaning potentials. Language users may choose certain semiotics from meaning potentials based on dynamic context. Every time language users make decisions to choose semiotics, this generates changes in semiotic number, semiotic arrayal, and semiotic meaning and functions. Conversely, changes in semiotic meanings and functions may reflect that language users are choosing possibilities in all meaning potentials. There is a high likelihood that what pushes language users to choose from meaning potentials are their discourse intentions or motivations. By analogy, in the interpreting process, an interpreter, as a language user, often makes language choices in communicative context, which may lead to alterations or even changes in semiotic meaning and functions. It is those changes in semiotic meanings and functions made by interpreters that are indicators of their discourse intentions. Exploring discourse intentions of interpreters enables us to develop a profound understanding of conference interpreters’ role.

3.2.2 Hedges as the Intervening Point to Investigate Role Deviation as Perceived As reviewed in Sect. 2.1.2, empirical studies on interpreters’ role mainly center on role expectations and perceptions, and role behavior description. As far as role behavior description is concerned, this is presently approached by describing linguistic features of interpreting product so as to discern interpreters’ role. Routinely, a certain linguistic item is taken as an intervening point to penetrate into interpreters’ role. A myriad of linguistic items might be eligible as intervening points, why have hedges been chosen in this research? The reasons are set forth in the following: Firstly, as we reason in the previous Sect. 3.2.1, functions of hedges in semantic, pragmatic and cognitive aspects can point to interpreters’ possible discourse intentions and motivations. Justifiably, functions of hedges serve as a bridge which leads to discourse intentions of interpreters, and then we can interrelate discourse intentions with interpreters’ role. Secondly, hedges appear with high frequency in diplomatic and political interpreting discourse. This has been demonstrated by Pan (2014), Wang and Li (2015), Magnifico and Defrancq (2017) etc. Interpreting discourse in diplomatic and political settings is institutionalized discourse which features unique genres, highly sensitive contexts, a formal style, precise diction, subtle speaking finesse, interwoven connotations, strong ideology, imbalanced power and rich rhetoric, just to name a few. In these circumstances, interpreters may encounter such situations as cunning questions, harsh criticism, cognitive constraint, or even confidentiality. Hedges can provide wriggle room for interpreters to achieve communicative purposes such as

50

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

reducing risks or distancing responsibility. Not surprisingly, commonly seen hedges in Chinese government conference interpreting are relatively appropriate alternatives used to cope with these difficult situations. Thirdly, clear classification and identification of hedges make it possible and feasible to elicit corpus data for empirical analysis. Prince et. al.’s classification (1982) is adopted in this research, so that adaptors, rounders, plausibility shields and attribution shields are clearly identified in both the Chinese corpus and the English corpus. By doing so, hedges distribution and shifting regularities can be ascertained. Comparatively, there might not be clear-cut classification criteria for other linguistic items such as personal pronouns, discourse markers, cohesive means, footing, reporting verbs and direct speech and indirect speech. Furthermore, those aforementioned linguistic items seem to be only applied in a certain interpreting settings as the intervening points. As for this research, observing conference interpreters’ role with hedges as the intervening point is the major concern. Hedges distribution and shifting regularities can be extracted by corpus-based analysis. Then, with functions of hedges as a key link to possible discourse intentions or motivations, we can infer the possible discourse intentions of interpreters in hedges shifts, and in turn to see through role deviation of conference interpreters in the interpreting process. Therefore, hedges are a thoughtfully-chosen intervening point to see through role deviation.

3.3 Analytical Framework Insomuch as this research is oriented as an empirical study to investigate role deviation of conference interpreters by corpus-based discourse analysis and using hedges as the intervening point, in the previous two sections in this chapter, we have untangled the concept and relation between role, interpreters’ role and role deviation, and rationalized how role deviation of conference interpreters can be perceived through the use of hedges. Prior to embarking on our corpus-based quantitative study, it is indispensable to establish a theoretical and analytical framework. After all, “theory gives us concepts, provides basic assumptions, directs us to the important questions, and suggests ways to make sense of data” (Neuman 2000, p. 60). A theoretical and analytical framework is established, based on which the whole research is operationalized theoretically and empirically. This analytical framework primarily draws on role theory from sociology. Inspired by role theory, this tailored analytical framework is built by using role expectation and role behavior. The concept of interpreters’ role is gradually narrowed down, so that at the discourse level it can be perceived through the use of hedges. Corpus, as an effective instrumentation, is taken to elicit data on hedges. Finally, hedges shifts and its shifting regularities are uncovered. To gain an insightful understanding as to why there are such shifting regularities when hedges are interpreted from Chinese to English, functions of hedges in three aspects can help to explain and deduce possible discourse intentions for

3.3 Analytical Framework

51

interpreters, all taken together point to the fact that role deviation of conference interpreters exists. Although role expectations have a stock of taxonomies, only interpreting practice standards and professional ethics from international influential interpreting professional organizations is concerned as role expectations.They serve as a frame of reference, so as to reinforce our argument for role deviation of conference interpreters. Since the empirical investigation and qualitative analysis are operationalized on this theoretical and analytical framework, an introduction of our analyzing procedures vertically and horizontally is still needed, with the aim of clearly straightening out each group of empirical data on hedges in Chapter 5. To be more specific, this research involves two kinds of analysis: vertical and horizontal. Vertical analysis involves investigation done within one corpus, whether it is the Chinese corpus or the English corpus. Horizontal analysis involves comparing data between the two corpuses. Figure 3.4 below gives a visual representation of this. The first step in the data analysis of this research is the categorization of hedges. When categorizing hedges in both the Chinese and the English corpuses, the method described by Prince et. al. has been employed. That is, hedges in both corpuses have each been respectively identified as adapters, rounders, plausibility shields and attribution shields. The total number of hedges in each corpus and the number of hedges in each category will be reported. As this step involves working within a single corpus, it is considered vertical analysis. Following this classification process, the number of hedges in each category is compared with the corresponding category in the other corpus. For example, the number of adapters in Chinese and adapters in English are compared. Any disparity between the number of hedges in each category in the Chinese corpus and in the

Adapters

Adapters

Rounders

Rounders

Plausibility Shields

Plausibility Shields

Attribution Shields

Attribution Shields

Chinese corpus

English Corpus

Horizontal Analysis

Fig. 3.4 Horizontal and vertical data analysis in CECIC

Vertical Analysis

52

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

English corpus is evaluated for their level of significant difference. This is the first instance of horizontal analysis in this research. The next step is the second instance of horizontal analysis in this research. Both the Chinese and English corpuses are cross-examined to identify how interpreters process hedges. There are four possibilities which we collectively call “hedgeprocessing ways”: hedges additions, hedges abridgments, hedges equivalences, and hedges substitutions. The numbers of hedges that fall into each of these four ways of hedges processing are reported. The following step is to report the number of hedges that are subject to each of the aforementioned hedge-processing ways. For each hedge-processing way the hedges are again categorized into the four kinds of hedges identified by Prince et al. For example, when looking at hedges additions, we report the total number of hedges additions, and then identify and report the number of adapters, rounders, plausibility shields and attribution shields that fall in this category. This is repeated for the remaining three ways of hedges abridgments, hedges equivalences, and hedges substitutions.

References Anderson, B. R. 1976. Perspectives on the Role of Interpreter. In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. F. Pöchhacker. London: Routledge. Biddle, B. 1966. Role Theory: Concepts and Research. New York: Wily. Biddle, B. 1979. Role Theory: Expectations, Identities and Behaviors. New York: Academic Press. Biddle, B. 1986. Recent Developments in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology 12: 63–92. Brown, P., and B. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beaton, M. 2012. Interpreted Ideologies in Institutional Discourse. The Translator 2: 271–296. Chesterman, A. 1993. From “Is” to “Ought”: Laws, Norms, and Strategies in Translation Studies. Target 5: 1–20. Chen, Linhua, Li., and Fuyin. 1994. Jiaojizhong de Mohu Xianzhiyu [Hedges in Communication]. Journal of Foreign Languages 5: 55–59. Caffi, C. 1998. Meta Pragmatics. In Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, ed. L. Mey and E. Asher. Holland: Elsevier. Channell, J. 2000. Vague Language. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Cai, Zhongkai. 2014. Shen Yizu Tongyici Shiyi Mohu Yanjiu[ A Study on the Fuzziness of Interpretation of the “Shen”]. Journal of Zaozhuang University 1: 28–30. Ding, Mushui, and Xushan Zhang. 1987. Shehui Jueselun [Theory of Social Roles]. Shanghai: Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press. Diriker, E. 2006. De/Re Contextualizing Conference Interpreting Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? Interpreting 1: 112–116. Gentile, A. 1996. Liaison Interpreting: A Handbook. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. He, Ziran. 1985. Mohu Xianzhiyu yu Yanyu Jiaoji [Hedges and Verbal Communication]. Journal of Foreign Languages 5: 27–32. Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. 1989. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. London: Oxford University Press. He, Jisheng, and Xiaohui Jiang. 1994. Mohu Xianzhiyu de Yuyi Tezheng ji Fenlei [Sementic Features and Classifications of Hedges]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching 2: 6–9.

References

53

Hyland, K. 2005. Prudence, Precision and Politeness: Hedges in Academic Writing . Quaderns de Filologia: Estudies Lingüistics4: 99–112. Linton, R. 1945. The Science of Man in the World Crisis. New York: Columbia University Press. Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts, ed. P. Peranteau et al. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Li, Min, and Anjie Wang. 1992. Ye Tan Mohu Xianzhici [On Hedges]. Journal of Shanxi Normal University 4: 88–93. Li, Dan. 2013. Tongchuan Yiyuan de Xianshenxing Yanjiu [Studies on Visibility of Interpreters in Simultaneous Interpreting]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. Li, Qianju. 2007. Lun Mohu Ciyu de Shiyi Fangfa [On How to Interpret Fuzzy Words]. Lexicographical Studies 2: 57–64. Li, Qianju. 2015. Xiuci yu Mohu Yuyan [Studies on Rhetoric and Fuzzy Languages]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Merton, R. 1976. Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. New York: Free Press. Mikkelson, H. 2008. Evolving Views of the Court Interpreter’s Role: Between Scylla and Charybdis. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemma, ed. C. Valero-Garcés and A. Martin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mason, I. 2009. Role, Positioning and Discourse in Face-to-Face Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome. Magnifico, C., and B. Defrancq. 2017. Hedges in Conference Interpreting: The Role of Gender. Interpreting 1: 21–46. Neuman, W.L. 2000. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Prince, et al. 1982. On Hedging in Physician Discourse. In Linguistics and The Profession, ed. J. Robert, 83–97. Norwood, NJ: Alex Publishing Corporation. Pöchhacker, F. 1995. Shifts and Shifts in Simultaneous Interpreting. In Topics in Interpreting Research, ed. J. Tommola. Turku: University of Turku Press. Pöllabauer, S. 2004. Interpreting in Asylum Hearings: Issues of Role. Responsibility and Power. Interpreting 6: 143–180. Pöchhacker, F. 2005. Introduction: Discourse-based Research on Health Care Interpreting. Interpreting 2: 157–165. Pöchhacker, F. 2008. Interpreting as Mediation. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting, ed. C. Garcés and A. Martin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pan, Feng. 2014. Jiyu Yuliaoku de Hanying Huiyi Kouyi Mohu Xianzhiyu de Yingyong Yanjiu [A Corpus-Based Study of the Application of Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal 4: 21–29. Pokorn, N. K., 2015. Positioning. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. ed. Pöchhacker, F. et al. London & New York: Routledge. Pöllabauer, R. 2015. Role. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. F. Pöchhacker. London and New York: Routledge. Qin, Qiwen, and Yongkang Zhou. 2011. Juesexue Daolun [On Role Studies]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Roy, C. 1989. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Interpreter’s Role in the Turn Exchanges of an Interpreted Event. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis at Georgetown University. Swale, M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silverstein,M. 1993. Meta-pragmatic Discourse and Meta-pragmatic Functions. In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Meta pragmatics, ed. J. Lucy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slatyer, H. 2005. Review of Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico and the United States’ and Medical Interpreting and Cross-Cultural Communication. Interpreting 2: 313–321.

54

3 Interpreters’ Role and Role Deviation as Perceived Through the Use …

Sun, Tingting. 2014. Interpreting China: Interpreter’s Mediation of Government Press Conferences in China. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching And Research Press. Turner, R. 1956. Role-Taking, Role Standpoint and Reference-Group Behavior. American Journal of Sociology 4: 316–328. Verschueren, J. 2000. Understanding Pragmatics. Arnold: The Holder Headline Group. Wu, Tieping. 1979. Mohu Yuyan Chutan [A Tentative Exploration into Fuzzy Languages]. Journal of Foreign Languages 4: 39–44. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Routledge. Wang, Li, and Tao Li. 2015. Jiyu Yuliaoku de Hanying Huiyi Kouyi Mohu Xianzhiyu Yanjiu [A Corpus-based Study on Hedges from Chinese to English Conference Interpreting]. Chinese Translators Journal 5: 96–100. Xi, Congqing. 2010. Jueselun-Geren yu Shehui de Hudong [On Personal Roles: The Mutual Interaction between An Individual and Society]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University. Zadeh, L.A. 1972. Fuzzy-Set-Theoretical Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges. Journal of Cybernetics 2: 4–34. Zhao, Xiaohua, and Zhang, Qiao.2012. Hanyu Tanpan zhong de Mohu Yuyan[Negotiating with Vague Language: A Chinese Perspective]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Zheng, Zhijin. 2012. Mohu Xianzhiyu de Yuyong Gongneng ji Huayu Shengcheng he Lijie de Renzhi Yuyongxue Yanjiu [A Study of Pragmatic Functions of Linguistic Hedges in Utterance Production and Comprehension from the Perspective of Cognitive Pragmatics]. Suzhou: Suzhou University Press. Zhan, Cheng. 2013. Zhenzhi Changyu zhong Kouyiyuan de Tiaokong Juese [The Interpreter’s Role as a Mediator in Political Settings]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Chapter 4

Building CECIC for the Study

Abstract This chapter covers why corpus is an effective and powerful tool to investigate interpreting products and interpreters’ role. In this context, chapter 4 introduces the process of corpus building, namely, from press conference of Chinese government to CECIC. To be specific, CECIC design and structure, access to the interpreting recordings, basic corpus information such as the interpreting setting, the topics of discussion, the interpreter’s gender and duration are all presented in this chapter. Besides, transcription, segmentation, annotation, parallel alignment and Python-coding statistics as a part and parcel of corpus building are addressed at length in this chapter. Justifiably, the integration of and interplay between corpus and Python will be a new technical breakthrough in corpus interpreting studies, particularly in interpreters’ role. Keywords Corpus information · CECIC · Python coding Having established the theoretical and analytical framework for this research, now this research moves on to conference interpreting corpus building. This self-built CECIC (Chinese-English Conference Interpreting Corpus) makes it possible to observe some linguistic phenomena and discern regularities which rarely can be discovered in individual case or example. Arguably, “corpus-based interpreting today represent the most reliable approach allowing analysts to investigate linguistic regularities and identify recurring patterns in interpreters’ translational behaviour” (Fovo 2018, p. 162). Hence, corpus is the instrumentation used in pooling data in this study. This chapter plans to account for the reasons why corpus is used in data collecting and extracting. In addition, this chapter also introduces basic information of CECIC and gives a detailed description of corpus building.

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3_4

55

56

4 Building CECIC for the Study

4.1 Corpus as a Tool to Probe into Interpreters’ Role Deviation Corpus-based discourse analysis is an effective and powerful method to investigate interpreting products and interpreters’ role. First and foremost, the corpus method can draw more representative and convincing conclusions than example-based analyses or case studies, especially when the corpus method is taken to analyze linguistic features in interpreting products. Example-based analyses or case studies frequently incur skepticism and refutation for their subjectivities and arbitrariness. Comparatively, a large-scale corpus enables us to adequately describe linguistic features and discover tendencies or regularities which rarely can be perceived in individual case. Thus, corpus method can increase the representativeness and objectiveness of the research conclusions and meanwhile mitigate bias from researchers. Secondly, powerful functions of corpus in textual analysis are compatible with our need to analyze hedges for role deviation of interpreters. “Using corpus in interpreting studies means considering interpretation as a text production activity, thereby reducing the complexity of interpreting to written text” (Sergio and Fablo 2012, p. 33). After transcription from oral texts to written texts, corpus can help us to achieve descriptive adequacy of translated language features with its powerful functions of extracting textual data and analyzing linguistic regularities. Furthermore, with the advent of the internet age, the convenience of information sharing makes it possible to collect a wealth of conference interpreting materials, especially those from annual conferences such as CPPCC and NPC. The availability of authentic interpreting materials, the need for textual analysis, corpus powerful functions, and these things taken together make corpus a wise and workable method. Analyzing interpreting corpus can provide us with deep insight into linguistic features, which can reduce the complexity of interpreting interaction to a transcribed textual level. Corpus findings may show us how interpreters interpret, but they can’t tell us why interpreters interpret the way they do. In the particular instance of this study, our corpus data on hedges can reveal how interpreters process hedges as well as allowing us to see hedges distribution and shifting. However, why interpreters process hedges in the way they do can not be disclosed without further discourse analysis. This means that in order to probe into interpreters’ discourse intentions, it calls for going beyond linguistic features and look for cognitive, pragmatic, social and cultural explanations outside interpreting texts. As the current author does not have direct access to interpreters from state-level departments, rather than using common methods of ascertaining possible discourse intentions, like questionnaires and interviews, discourse analysis might be an acceptable method used when inducing possible discourse intentions.

4.2 From Press Conferences of Chinese Government to CECIC

57

4.2 From Press Conferences of Chinese Government to CECIC CECIC is our self-built Chinese-English bilingual and parallel corpus which is composed of 30 instances of interpreted Chinese government conferences. This includes 16 instances of Prime Minister Meets the Press1 and 14 instances of Foreign. Minister Meets the Press.2 It has been a long journey from the texts of Chinese government press conferences to the self-built CECIC. Many issues need to be pondered over before corpus building. The first issue concerns the availability of authentic interpreting materials, a very important issue and the first requirement for an interpreting study. Interpreting discourse transiently disappears once it is produced, which makes interpreting studies challenging and daunting. Unavailability of authentic interpreting materials is the first stumbling block for researchers. Thanks to the widespread use of new media technologies such as the internet, live broadcast on satellite TV, Wechat sharing and more open channels, Chinese government press conferences, either at state level or ministerial level, are accessible through internet searching. Admittedly, collecting interpreting material and data is never a random and unreflective process; instead, it is a reasoned and realistic undertaking which needs to take quality and homogeneity into account. Therefore, interpreting materials used in this research are from a total of 30 instances of state-level conference interpreting, to meet the statistical requirement. Politics, economics, culture and social security etc. are common topics for the comparability and homogeneity of interpreting materials. Conference interpreting materials have some unique textual values. Those texts can help us to achieve our research purposes. Specifically, discourse in conference interpreting is institutionalized discourse whose aim is to analyze how discourse participants use institutional discourse to become involved in communication and to negotiate interpersonal relations. This coincidentally accords with our need to analyze how interpreters avail of discourse to exert influence on communication and perform their role. Furthermore, in previous studies a high density of hedges in diplomatic discourse are discovered and reported by many scholars. High density of hedges in institutional discourse can reflect how interpreters tactfully use hedges to accomplish communicative purposes and intentions and secretly perform other non-prescriptive roles. After having established the above, our next step is corpus building. It entails theoretical knowledge of corpus linguistics, data collecting and processing, corpus technological operation, statistical data description, and interdisciplinary data explanation. To be more specific, textual transcription, segmentation, parallel alignment 1

Prime Minister Meets the Press is annually held after the closing session of National People’ Congress, Chinese Prime Minister meets the journalists from home and abroad and take questions on Chinese policies and diplomacy. 2 Foreign Minister Meets the Press is annually held by Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the sideline of National People’s Congress. Chinese Foreign Minister takes questions from the journalists on foreign policies and international relations.

58

4 Building CECIC for the Study

and annotation are all indispensable steps. Although voice recognition is increasingly mature with the development of natural language processing, total extrication from manual operation and intervention is impossible in these procedures. Although it is a time-consuming process, gathering targeted interpreting materials and integrating them into a scaled corpus is a worthwhile endeavor. Doing so allows us to extract targeted data on certain linguistic feature and explore possible discourse intentions of hedges shifts and shifting regularities, so that this research may take a new path to delve into interpreters’ role.

4.3 Corpus Information CECIC Design and Structure. The CECIC in this research includes consecutive interpreting materials from 30 instances of Chinese government press conferences. More specifically, the CECIC consists of 14 instances of Chinese Foreign Minister Meets the Press and 16 instances of Chinese Prime Minister Meets the Press. Mostly, the press conferences are attended by ministerial-level officials, the decision-makers in the respective ministries, journalists from home and abroad, the host of the press conference, interpreters and audiences etc. They are live broadcast and consecutively interpreted into English or from English where necessary. In general, the press conferences almost always follow a rigid question-and-answer format and leave little space for further clarification and comment. As for interpreting directionality in this research, only Chinese-to-English interpreting materials are used in our corpus, because the majority of press conference materials involve Chinese-to-English interpreting, with only a few questions and answers involving English-to-Chinese interpreting. In brief, the CECIC is a bilingual and parallel spoken corpus, which consists of two corpuses, namely, the Chinese corpus (Source Language) and the English corpus (Target Language). Both kinds of conference interpreting, the 14 instances of Chinese Foreign Minister Meets the Press and 16 instances of Chinese Prime Minister Meets the Press, involve political, economic, cultural and diplomatic topics with a certain degree of homogeneity. This is a deliberately intended corpus design, with the view to include a high density of hedges in political or diplomatic discourse and homogeneity of interpreting materials. In what follows, the corpus structure of CECIC is clearly illustrated (Fig. 4.1). After designing the corpus, the next move is to seek access to interpreting materials and make preparations to elicit data of hedges. Access to the Interpreting Recordings With the advent of the big data era, widespread internet, big data mining, cloud storage, social networks sharing make it more convenient to access and acquire our targeted materials such as interpreting videos and tapes. Sources such as China Net, blogs of professional interpreters, CCTV News, and Youku Video are readily available online. Nevertheless, collecting the records or videos as mentioned above

4.3 Corpus Information

59

Fig. 4.1 The Corpus structure of CECIC

CECIC CI

SL-CN-sub

TL-EN-sub

is only the first step. Substantial effort must be made to listen to and transcribe all of the original videos into machine-readable texts. Although the technology such as voice recognition can be a truly efficient helper, it can not perfectly guarantee one hundred percent accuracy, particularly when a strong accent occurs from Chinese to English interpreting. In these cases, voice recognition may not necessarily work. For this reason, it entails manual operation in recording listening, text proofreading, text storage, text cleaning, text annotating, text importing, text alignment and so on, before a machine-readable and workable corpus is built. A quick scan of basic introduction of CECIC is given in Table 4.1. Basic Introduction of CECIC In Table 4.1, basic information of the interpreting materials in CECIC is presented. This includes in which year the press conference took place, the interpreting setting, the topics of discussion, the interpreter’s gender and duration. From above, almost 30 instances of press conference interpreting materials concern politics, their duration ranges from 73 to 182 minutes, and 11 male interpreters and 19 female interpreters have undertaken the tasks of interpreting.

4.4 Transcription, Segmentation, Annotation, Parallel Alignment and Python Coding Statistics Transcription is a fundamental phase in the creation of any spoken corpus. As Cecini and Aston describe vividly, “transcribing is just like resurrect the corpus by recording and listening to it and type it out” (2002, p. 47). Currently, although voice recognition software can provide technological support, the transcribed texts produced by voice recognition are not completely precise and reliable. Therefore, transcribing interpreting materials still calls for some manual effort. In addition, “transcription for spoken data is not conceived to be exhaustive until four components are considered: verbal, prosodic, paralinguistic and extra linguistic features” (O’Connell and Kowal 2009, p. 21). In this study, due to limited conditions and resources, only the verbal words uttered by interpreters are included in our transcribing process. In other words, prosodic, paralinguistic and extra linguistic features are not taken into consideration.

60

4 Building CECIC for the Study

Table 4.1 Basic introduction of CECIC Year

Interpreting Setting

Topics

Interpreter

Duration(min)

2002

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

M

73

2003

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

M

109

2004

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

F

107

2005

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

F

115

2006

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

M

129

2007

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

M

115

2008

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

M

110

2009

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

M

144

2010

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

F

138

2011

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

F

161

2012

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

F

182

2013

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

M

106

2014

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

F

110

2015

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

F

146

2016

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

F

128

2017

Prime Minister Meets the Press

Politics/economics/culture/social security etc

F

138

2004

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

124

2005

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

99

2006

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

98

2007

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

127 (continued)

4.4 Transcription, Segmentation, Annotation, Parallel Alignment …

61

Table 4.1 (continued) Year

Interpreting Setting

2008

Topics

Interpreter

Duration(min)

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

114

2009

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

113

2010

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

121

2011

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

117

2012

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

103

2013

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

F

93

2014

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

M

96

2015

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

M

92

2016

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

M

119

2017

Foreign Minister Politics/diplomacy/military etc Meets the Press

M

120

All transcriptions are saved in.txt format for machine reading. In case of unrecognizable code, Chinese texts are saved in the code of GB 2312; English texts are saved in the code of UTF-8. Sometimes, there are some inevitable formatting problems such as incorrect punctuations, unnecessary blank spaces, and mismatched case etc., so manual textual cleaning is a must. In the end, proofreading is required to minimize any possible error or omission before the final electronic text is ready. Segmentation is another essential step in Chinese-English parallel corpus building. “Segmentation, also called tokenization, refers to transferring a continuity of characters into discrete and identifiable tokens” (Liang 2013, p. 45). In English, all words are taken as tokens in the segmenting operation; generally, a blank space can be added between each English word to separate it from other tokens. Things in Chinese are much more complicated, because Chinese words may be made up of more than one character, and yet words are not separated by a blank space as they are in English. Where one Chinese word ends and another begins is not immediately obvious to the computer, thus, segmentation must be carried out to show each discrete word. Besides, in text collecting, various textual sources and formats might be the roots of textual differences. If texts are not segmented, this may lead to problems such as data retrieval errors, statistical errors, and difficulties in future corpus processing. So far, ICTCLAS, a Chinese lexical analysis system developed by the Institute of

62

4 Building CECIC for the Study

Computer Technology of Chinese Science Academy, has been a widely accepted solution. In this research, a programming language called Python is employed in the segmentation of Chinese characters, because it has much higher accuracy and more user-friendly convenience in segmentation compared to ICTCLAS. In spite of its relatively high accuracy in words segmenting, manual work is still required in some segmenting parts. “Annotation refers to tagging some attributions of texts in corpus by means of tags” (Hu 2011, p. 48). In general, annotation includes metadata markup, POS tagging, syntactical tagging, and semantic tagging etc. As for what should be annotated in a text, it depends on the research purposes. Through annotation, a variety of textual information can be extracted from corpus. That why Liang (2013, p. 75) points out that “Annotation can give plain texts more added values”. In this research, only the categories of hedges and interpreters’ way of hedges processing are taken into consideration and marked in corpus. To produce the data of how interpreters process hedges, manual identification of ways of processing hedges is carried out through a website called Tmxmall, which is a large-scale on-line corpus alignment processor in China and has been widely embraced by many scholars specialized in corpus studies from Chinese institutions of higher learning. Besides, Tmxmall works efficiently with parallel alignment in sentences. Parallel alignment in CECIC enables us to judge interpreters’ ways of hedges processing such as whether interpreters have added, omitted, or substituted hedges, or faithfully interpreted hedges into their equivalences from Chinese to English. Tmxmall has established wide cooperation with translation and interpretation departments in domestic universities; and it has the largest on-line corpus alignment processor. In Fig. 4.2, its homepage in corpus textual alignment is shown. On-line alignment in Tmxmall saves us a large amount of manual work, when compared with parallel alignment by Paraconc which is conventionally employed in textual alignment. Through parallel alignment in Tmxmall, quantitative analysis on additions, equivalences, abridgements and substitutions on hedges can be undertaken in Chapter 5.

Fig. 4.2 The Homepage of Tmxmall in Corpus textual alignment

4.4 Transcription, Segmentation, Annotation, Parallel Alignment …

63

Finally, after parallel alignment between sentences has been completed, it comes to data extraction and statistical analysis. In this research, Jupyter Notebook3 running Python4 code is a powerful technical instrumentation in data extraction. As a newly emergent means of statistical production, Python might be slightly unfamiliar to the majority of scholars in corpus interpreting studies. So far, hardly has it been adopted by domestic scholars in interpreting studies, although Python has gained wide acceptance and application in psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, commercial analysis, machine learning, artificial intelligence and big data analysis. As a matter of fact, Python can be incredibly useful in corpus interpreting studies. In traditional corpus translation studies, corpus retrieval tools such as Paraconc, Antconc, and Wordsmith are used to mine data in texts. By means of those tools, text cleaning and text code transferring are extremely complicated and laborious, and any tiny negligence incurs messy and unrecognizable code in texts or even paralysis of retrieval tools. Comparatively, Python has stronger functions in processing natural language texts, processing pictures, corpus exploration, machine translation and language emotional analysis etc. Therefore, it is a courageous and innovative attempt to use Python in data mining of hedges frequency and distribution. In detail, hedges identified exhaustively in CECIC are listed in an Excel file, in which no repetitions are included. Next, this Excel file with all the exhaustively identified hedges is imported into Jupyter Notebook for calculating word frequency and distribution. In this research, the operation of Jupyter Notebook is based on Python code written in a mathematical algorithm according to our research purposes. As it were, data mining by Python code has already been a mainstream approach in studying the natural language process. In this research, the integration of and interplay between corpus and Python might be a new technical breakthrough in corpus interpreting studies.

References Cecini, M. & Aston, G. 2002. Resurrecting the Corp (us/se): Towards an Encoding Standard for Interpreting Data. In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. G. Garzone and V. Maurizio. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fovo, E. 2018. European Politics Interpreted on Screen: A Corpus-Based Investigation on the Interpretation of the Third 2014 EU Presidential Debate. In Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, ed. M. Russo et al. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

3

The Jupyter Notebook is an open-source web application that allows you to create and share documents that contain live code, equations, visualizations and narrative texts. Its uses include: data cleaning and transformation, numerical simulation, statistical modeling, data visualization, machine learning and data extraction. 4 Python is a new programming language that let people work more efficiently and quickly. It can be applied in many areas such as web and internet development, scientific computing and data analysis, teaching programming and business. Generally Python can run everywhere and play well with other systems. In this research, Python can run in Jupyter Notebook to extract data of hedges distribution.

64

4 Building CECIC for the Study

Hu, Kaibao. 2011. Yuliaoku Fanyixue Gailun [Introducing Corpus-Based Translation Studies]. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaotong University Press. Liang, Maocheng. 2013. Yuliaoku Yingyong Jiaocheng[Using Corpora: A Practical Coursebook]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching And Research Press. O’Connell, D., and S. Kowal. 2009. Transcription Systems for Spoken Discourse. In The Pragmatics of Interaction, ed. S. D’hondt and J. Verschueren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sergio, F., and C. Falbo. 2012. Breaking Ground in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. New York: Peter Lang.

Chapter 5

Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

Abstract This chapter deals with corpus-based quantitative analysis on hedges and shifting. In the first place, it briefly introduces how to run the self-built corpus in Jupyter Notebook where Python code is written beforehand according to our research purpose. Then, an overview is given of the basic information in CECIC, such as token, type, type/token ratio, and standardized type/token ratio in both the Chinese corpus and the English corpus respectively. In what follows, efforts are made to investigate the vertical distribution of hedges in both Chinese and English corpuses, that is, the total number of hedges, and the number of hedges in the four different categories. Then, Paired-sample T tests are carried out to seek data regularities and to check for significant differences between corresponding hedges in Chinese and English from each category. In addition, the horizontal observation from Chinese to English is described, especially how hedges are processed by interpreters. It has been observed that interpreters may have four alternatives to render hedges, namely, addition, abridgement, substitution and equivalence. Lastly, this chapter examines whether there are some hedges shifting regularities in additions, abridgements, substitutions, and equivalences. Keywords Vertical/horizontal analysis · Ways of hedges processing · Hedges shifting · Shifting regularities Now that all the preparatory work of corpus building has been completed, Jupyter Notebook should be a prioritized option to extract quantitative data from the corpus. The corpus of CECIC is imported to Jupyter Notebook, where Python code written according to our research purposes will also be imported. Jupyter Notebook then runs this Python code using the corpus as its data set. This chapter firstly presents a brief introduction of how to run our self-built corpus in Jupyter Notebook. Then, an overview is given of the basic information in CECIC, such as token, type, type/token ratio, and standardized type/token ratio in both the Chinese corpus and the English corpus respectively. Secondly, given that hedges are our intervening point to look into interpreters’ role, the research uses vertical analysis to investigate how hedges are distributed in the Chinese corpus, that is, the total number of hedges, and the number of hedges in the four different categories. A similar approach is taken in the English corpus. In © Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3_5

65

66

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

this process, high frequency hedges automatically generated by Jupyter Notebook in both corpuses are reported. Paired-sample T tests are carried out to seek data regularities and to check for significant differences between corresponding hedges in Chinese and English from each category. In the last part of this chapter, horizontal observation from Chinese to English is made to describe how hedges are processed by interpreters. To go further, interpreters may have four alternatives to render hedges, namely, addition, abridgement, substitution and equivalence. This latter part takes stock of whether there are some hedges shifting regularities in additions, abridgements, substitutions, and equivalences.

5.1 A Vertical Distribution of Hedges in CI Corpus To gain an understanding of the vertical distribution of hedges in both corpuses, the first step is to import all transcribed interpreting texts into Jupyter Notebook, whose Python code is written according to a mathematical algorithm and its corresponding research purposes. Then, some basic information concerning the size and composition of CECIC is automatically generated. The operational procedure is illustrated in Fig. 5.1. As soon as 30 transcribed Chinese texts and 30 transcribed English texts are respectively imported into Jupyter Notebook, a text file containing the complete Chinese corpus and a similar text file of the complete English corpus are produced and saved automatically in a targeted file as shown in Fig. 5.2. Then, an exhaustive list of hedges in an Excel file is imported into Jupyter Notebook as a benchmark to identify hedges and extract their frequencies and distribution. For a reliable result, all words with uppercase characters need to be converted into lowercase characters to ensure correct machine reading and precise identification, as shown in Fig. 5.3. Hedges frequencies and distribution in the Chinese corpus and the English corpus are calculated and the results are automatically generated and put into two Excel files with the names of eng_ret.csv and chi_ret.csv. Now, let’s have a look at the basic information of CECIC, that is, tokens and types, type/token ratio, standardized type/token ratio and high frequency words in Table 5.1. As shown in Table 5.1, the overall size of CECIC in this study amounts to 321, 594 tokens, in which there are 130,898 Chinese tokens and 190,696 English tokens. As for standardized type/token ratio (STTR), it is clear that the interpreted English texts have relatively lower STTR than the original Chinese texts do. With reference to corpus linguistics, “standardized type/token ratio is regarded as a reliable indicator for the measurement of lexical diversity” (Liang 2013, p. 10). Similarly, Gui points out, “higher standardized type/token ratio can suggest a lexical diversity in text” (Gui 2014, p. 29). As can be inferred from Table 5.2, there are more diverse lexis in the original Chinese texts than in the interpreted English texts, because the standardized type/token ratio in the Chinese corpus is slightly higher than that in the English corpus. It is possible the unique nature of the interpreting

5.1 A Vertical Distribution of Hedges in CI Corpus

Fig. 5.1 Importing transcribed texts into Jupyter Notebook

Fig. 5.2 Two target files generated in Jupyter Notebook

67

68

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

Fig. 5.3 Reading target files for hedges identification and categorization

Table 5.1 Basic information of CECIC Sub-corpus

Token

Type

Type/token ratio

Standardized type/token ratio

CI-CN

130,898

113,65

8.682

41.673

CI-EN

190,696

106,67

5.594

34.127

Table 5.2 The total and sub-categories of hedges distribution in Chinese Category

Adapters (A)

Rounders (R)

Plausible shields (PS)

Attribution shields (AS)

Raw frequency

2,491

961

793

177

Normalized frequency (1000 tokens/per)

19.030

7.334

6.058

1.352

Total

4,262

communicative event itself can account for the lower standardized type/token ratio in the English corpus. Interpreters in high-stress situations may not spare extra effort to weight wording and diversify diction, instead, only concentrating on the sense of the source language and continuity of language flow.

5.1.1 The Total and Sub-categories of Hedges Distribution in Chinese in CI In this section, data on hedges distribution in the Chinese corpus are reported. “Frequency is one of the most significant terms in corpus linguistics, because contrastive studies between corpuses finally rest on frequency” (Liang 2013, p. 10). Likewise, the frequency of certain linguistic item in corpus can indicate the probability that

5.1 A Vertical Distribution of Hedges in CI Corpus

69

an item appears in language practice. Thus, this section focuses on frequency of hedges in each category in the Chinese corpus. Based on the calculation from Jupyter Notebook, hedges distribution in total and sub-categories is presented in Table 5.2. As shown in Table 5.2, there are 4,262 hedges in total in the Chinese corpus. All Chinese hedges are divided into four categories with reference to Prince et al.’s classification criterion. Adapters appear 2,491 times, rounders 961 times, plausible shields 793 times, and attribution shields only 177 times. In fact, it is not scientific or reliable to directly compare raw frequencies of hedges between the two corpuses, because these two corpuses may not have the same total volume. Therefore, the raw frequency needs to be normalized through standard processing and converted into normalized frequency. As displayed in Table 5.2, adapters and attribution shields are distributed with the highest normalized frequency and the lowest normalized frequency respectively. This might be ascribed to the uniqueness of Chinese political and diplomatic texts. At political and diplomatic occasions, official statements are often ambiguous and vague. Rarely are propositions made by speakers in absoluteness. The functions of adapters and attribution shields are suited to the unique features of political and diplomatic discourse. That is because adapters can adjust the truth value of certain propositions, and attribution shields are employed to demarcate discourse source and discourse responsibility. In addition, rounders are distributed with a slightly higher frequency than that of plausibility shields in the Chinese corpus.

5.1.2 The Total and Sub-categories of Hedges Distribution in English in CI Our second research question can be specified into two questions: what is the distribution of hedges in the Chinese and English corpus? Do hedges shifts take place when hedges are rendered from Chinese to English? Correspondingly, it entails to investigate hedges distribution in the English corpus. As such, the total and subcategories of hedges distribution in the English corpus are explored using Jupyter Notebook. Results are tabulated in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 The total and sub-categories of hedges distribution English Category

Adapters (A)

Rounders (R)

Plausible shields (PS)

Attribution shields (AS)

Raw frequency

2,741

780

1,150

302

Normalized frequency (1000 tokens/per)

14.583

4.158

6.978

1.626

Total

4,973

70

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

In the English corpus, there are 4,973 hedges in total, among which adapters appear 2,741 times, plausible shields 1,150 times, rounders 780 times, and attribution shields 302 times. Those are the raw frequencies of hedges in each category. They may not adequately testify the distributive tendencies of hedges in English. Whereas, it is sound to judge the distributive tendencies of hedges in English using normalized frequency. It is illustrated in Table 5.3 that adapters rank first in the English corpus with the highest normalized frequency, and like in the Chinese corpus, attribution shields have the lowest normalized frequency. It is shown that plausibility shields have a slightly higher normalized frequency than that of rounders in the English corpus. As far as this current result is concerned, hedges frequencies in the source Chinese language may have more or less influence on hedges frequencies in the target language of English in the interpreting process. However, influences from interpreters may also contribute to this result. Thus, influences from interpreters is to be fully discussed in the succeeding sections. The normalized frequency of hedges in the Chinese corpus and English corpus are juxtaposed in Fig. 5.4 for contrastive purposes. Figure 5.4 allows us to make a contrast between the differences of the normalized frequencies of hedges in the source language of Chinese and the target language of English. What is interesting is that in both the Chinese and English corpuses adapters and attributions shields are of the highest and the lowest frequencies respectively. Possibly, hedges frequencies in the target language of English may be influenced by hedges frequencies in the source language of Chinese in the interpreting process. To gain an in-depth insight into interpreters’ role, empirical evidences on how hedges are processed from Chinese to English by interpreters in Chinese government press conference interpreting are needed. Above all, it can be deduced from the data that in the Chinese-English interpreting process, the differences between normalized frequencies of adapters and rounders 20 18 16 14 12 10

Chinese

8

English

6 4 2 0 Adapters

Rounders

Plausibility Shileds Attribution Shields

Fig. 5.4 Hedges normalized frequency in Chinese corpus VS. hedges normalized frequency in English corpus

5.1 A Vertical Distribution of Hedges in CI Corpus

71

respectively in each corpus are fairly large, while the differences between normalized frequencies of plausibility shields and attribution shields respectively are comparatively small. It may be inferred that the influence or role of interpreters contributes to this result; however, further empirical demonstration is still called for. To better understand what happens to hedges in the Chinese-to-English interpreting process, paired-sample T tests are carried out thirty times, each test taking a pair of Chinese and English texts. By judging whether there is significant difference between each corresponding pair of hedges in the Chinese corpus and the English corpus, we attempt to ascertain whether interpreters exercise influence on the interpreting discourse. This statistical analysis is specified in Sect. 5.1.4.

5.1.3 The High Frequency Hedges Distribution in the Total Before conducting paired-sample T tests1 between hedges of each category in the Chinese corpus and hedges of corresponding categories in the English corpus, the lists of high frequency hedges in both corpuses have been automatically generated by Jupyter Notebook. These frequency lists include high frequency hedges in Chinese and in English. The current author deems it of necessity to briefly mention high frequency hedges here for the following three reasons. First, high frequency hedges can characterize diplomatic and political texts in both the Chinese corpus and the English corpus and represent linguistic universals. According to corpus linguistics, high frequency words are typical characteristics in corpus-based or corpus-driven studies and can reflect “linguistic universals”. “Linguistic universals are traditionally understood as cross-linguistic generalizations” (Bybee 2010, p. 179). As Liang et al. states, Words at the top of frequency list, in the middle of frequency list and at the bottom of frequency list have different research value in corpus linguistics. Linguistic universals can be seen through high frequency words; real proficiency of language users can be investigated through intermediate frequency words; individualized discourse style or textual genre can be extracted through low frequency. (2013, p. 78)

In this connection, high frequency hedges in both corpuses can commonly characterize the linguistic universals of diplomatic and political texts in the source language of Chinese and in the target language of English. Second, differences between high frequency hedges in the Chinese corpus and the English corpus can reflect how interpreters make choices in the interpreting process. This is echoed by Hu who says “in contrastive studies in English-to-Chinese or Chinese-to-English translation, concrete differences on linguistic features between 1

According to The Statistics Glossary (2017), a pair-sample T test is used to determine whether there is a significant difference between the average values of the same measurement made under two different conditions. Both measurements are made on each unit in a sample, and the test is based on the difference between these two values. The usual hypothesis is that the difference in the means values is zero.

72

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

source language and target language can reflect what translator actually choose and how translator make a compromise” (Hu 2011, p. 29). Third, since interpreting texts in this research are products from high-level professional interpreters, those high frequency hedges can serve as references for interpreters-in-training as to how well-trained interpreters use hedges. For the above reasons, two automatically generated frequency lists are presented in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. The figure in the column of total refers to all tokens in corpus; the figure in the column of unique refers to types which do not appear repetitively in corpus. Count refers to the total number of times a certain item appears in the corpus. “A”, “R”, “PS”, “AS” are short forms of “adapters”, “rounders”, “plausibility shields” and “attribution shields” respectively. Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 are symbols for coding different categories for machine reading. The figure in the last column of 1000X refers to word frequency per 1000 tokens. Table 5.4 shows that the most common hedges in the Chinese corpus are “很”, “ 我想”, “一些”, “特别”, “非常” and “全面”. It also shows that adapters are the most frequently used hedge in the Chinese corpus. To some extent, the frequently used hedges reflect features of political and diplomatic discourse in Chinese. They finetune the tone, express tentativeness, flexibility and probability, and blur discourse boundaries. The high frequency hedges in political and diplomatic discourse help to Table 5.4 High frequency hedges in the Chinese corpus

5.1 A Vertical Distribution of Hedges in CI Corpus

73

gain wide acceptance of audiences and create some leeway or discourse space for the statement produced by the speaker. As displayed in Table 5.5, the most common hedges in the English corpus are “very”, “some”, “many”, “I believe”, and “I would like”. In the English corpus, adapters and plausible shields have the most frequent occurrence. The high frequency hedges in Chinese and English do not completely overlap. It is noteworthy that more plausible shields occur in the list of hedges in the English corpus. Plausible Table 5.5 High frequency hedges in English corpus

Table 5.6 Paired sample statistics Mean

N

SD

SE

Pair 1

A_C

21.2000

30

4.28631

A_E

20.4667

30

3.10432

0.56677

Pair 2

AS_C

3.8333

30

1.78274

0.32548

AS_E

6.0333

30

2.28161

0.41656

PS_C

8.5333

30

2.82517

0.51580

PS_E

11.2333

30

2.92060

0.53323

R_C

10.5333

30

2.02967

0.37056

R_E

11.3333

30

1.97105

0.35986

Pair 3 Pair 4

0.78257

74

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

shields are pragmatic-oriented; they offer pragmatic modesty, extend possibility of discourse interpretation, and show respect to others. This result may be associated with influences or involvement from interpreters due to some discourse intentions.

5.1.3.1

Significant Differences

The differences between the normalized frequencies of hedges in Chinese and English as seen in Sect. 5.1.2 may not necessarily be a result from the role behavior of conference interpreters. In order to draw conclusions from the data, we need to go further to delve into statistical evidences in the texts. For this reason, pairedsample T tests are employed in data analysis. By doing so, we have more stable grounds to judge whether shifting occurs when hedges are rendered from Chinese to English. The statistical results in this section are not only a response to our second research question, but also produce direct and solid testimony that interpreters have exercised influences on hedges processing and that hedges shifts actually occur. As such, hedges data from the 30 transcribed Chinese texts and 30 transcribed English texts are imported into SPSS, and the results are presented in Tables 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8. According to Table 5.8, as for pair 1 (A_C & A_E), the t value is 0.831. Furthermore, it has been concluded in previous Sects. 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 that Chinese adapters count 2,491 times with a normalized frequency of 19.030, and English adapters count 2,471 times with a normalized frequency of 14.583. Statistically, there is no significant difference between adapters in the Chinese and English corpus. Table 5.7 Paired sample correlation coefficient N

Coefficient

Sig

Pair 1

A_C & A_E

30

0.174

0.357

Pair 2

AS_C & AS_E

30

0.527

0.003

Pair 3

PS_C & PS_E

30

0.260

0.165

Pair 4

R_C & R_E

30

0.471

0.009

Table 5.8 Paired sample T test Coupled difference scheme Mean

SD

SE

t

df

95% confidence interval of the difference Lower

Sig. (two-tailed)

Upper

0.73333

4.83474

0.88270

−1.07199

2.53865

0.831

29

0.413

−2.20000

2.02399

0.36953

−2.95577

− 1.44423

−5.954***

29

0.000

−2.70000

3.49532

0.63815

−4.00517

− 1.39483

−4.231***

29

0.000

−0.80000

2.05779

0.37570

−1.56839

− 0.03161

−2.129*

29

0.042

5.1 A Vertical Distribution of Hedges in CI Corpus

75

As for pairs 4 (R_C & R_E), the t value is −2.129, we can conclude that they have significant difference (p < 0.05*). As for pair 3 (PS_C & PS_E), the t value is −4.231, plausible shields in the Chinese and English corpuses obviously present a strong significant difference (p < 0.001***). As for pair 2 (AS_C & AS_E), the t value is − 5.954, thus, attribution shields in the Chinese and English corpuses present significant difference (p < 0.001***). Then, what do these significant differences in paired-sample T tests suggest? Substantially, these significant differences in this section between rounders (C-E), plausibility shields (C-E), and attribution shields (C-E) can be considered empirical evidences of hedges shifts In what follows, this research interprets the statistical results and associates the statistical results with role performance for interpreters in conference interpreting.

5.1.4 Discussion This section presents a vertical investigation into hedges distribution and frequencies in the Chinese corpus and the English corpus. It uses paired-sample T tests to judge whether shifts occur to hedges when they are rendered from Chinese to English. Then, this research interprets the statistical results from paired-sample T tests and reflects on this statistical finding.

5.1.4.1

Interpreting Statistical Results

As indicated in Sect. 5.1.4, there is no significant difference between adapters in the Chinese corpus and in the English corpus, and only weak significant difference in rounders. However, there is a significant significance between plausibility shields in the Chinese corpus and in the English corpus, and similarly a significant difference between attribution shields in the Chinese corpus and in the English corpus. Significant difference is a term used in statistical hypothesis tests; it is used to evaluate data difference. In general, when P > 0.05, there is no significant difference between two groups of data; when 0.01 < P < 0.05, there is a certain significant difference between two groups of data; and when P < 0.01, there is a strong significant difference between two groups of data. Generally speaking, significant difference results from either different experimental objects or populations, or influences from some processing procedures. What possible reasons are there for statistical differences between rounders (C-E), plausibility shields (C-E), and attribution shields (C-E)? What do these statistical differences suggest? In what follows is our tentative exploration of possible reasons for statistical differences between those three pairs and reflections on our statistical findings.

76

5.1.4.2

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

Reflection on Statistical Findings

First of all, the possible reason for statistical differences is that conference interpreters may exercise influences on hedges in the interpreting process. According to the statistical principle, some processing procedures in experimentation may directly cause fundamental data differences between experimental objects. Although absolute equivalence is always the priority in translating and interpreting practice standards and professional ethics, statistical differences still exist respectively between rounders (C-E), plausibility shields (C-E), and attribution shields (C-E). Therefore, we conclude that it is very likely due to the influences exercised by interpreters on hedges in the Chinese-to-English interpreting process that these statistically significant differences occur. In other words, interpreters’ role is more than an invisible “middle man” or “conduit”. In fact, interpreters in conference setting have played active roles and exerted some influences on hedges when rendering from Chinese to English in the interpreting process. Secondly, based on statistical results, it can be inferred that hedges shifts do occur when hedges are rendered from Chinese to English in the interpreting process. Furthermore, hedges shifts occur specifically in the aspects of semantic functions and pragmatic functions. With reference to the hedges classification by Prince et al. (1982), adapters and rounders carry semantic meaning, and they can alter or change the truth value of discourse. That there is no significant difference and only weak significant difference between adapters and rounders respectively in the Chinese and English corpus indicates that hedges carrying semantic meaning are maintained to the utmost by interpreters. As a result, the truth value of discourse, particularly in adapters and rounders is basically unchanged. On the other hand, plausibility shields and attribution shields have pragmatic functions, and they do not affect the truth value of discourse but implicate uncertainty or possibility. There is strong significant difference between plausibility shields and attribution shields in the Chinese corpus and in the English corpus. These results indicate that interpreters may have altered or changed hedges carrying pragmatic meanings from Chinese to English to achieve certain communicative purposes. To go further, we use Fig. 5.5 to elaborate on what the statistical results implicate. As shown in Fig. 5.5, it can be concluded that the possible reasons for statistical differences are conference interpreters’ influence on hedges in the interpreting communication, and hedges shifts occur in the interpreting process in the aspects of semantic meanings and pragmatic meanings. This is the very response to the second research question. Theoretically, hedges shifts in semantic meanings and pragmatic meanings by interpreters suggest that interpreters are key pivots in information transmission in multiparty interactions; when necessary, conference interpreters may step out of their prescriptive roles to influence the interpreting communication. As for what roles have conference interpreters have actually played in Chinese government press conference, this is further uncovered in Chap. 6.

5.2 A Horizontal Description of Hedges Processing

A

No Sig.

77

A Semantic Meaning

/Function

R

PS

Weak Sig.*

Strong Sig.***

R

PS Pragmatic Meaning

AS

Strong Sig.***

AS

/Function

Fig. 5.5 Significant differences analysis and its implications

5.2 A Horizontal Description of Hedges Processing After the above-mentioned vertical investigation into hedges distribution and hedges shifts, a horizontal observation is undertaken. Then, how hedges shifts occur in the interpreting process is probed into, in other words, how hedges are processed by interpreters when interpreting from Chinese to English. By doing so, we can gain a profound insight into how interpreters process hedges. As generalized by the current author in the forgoing part, there are four ways of hedges processing: addition, abridgement, substitution and equivalence. Our horizontal investigations involve paragraphs alignment through the on-line Tmxmall processor and manual identification. Furthermore, two language directionalities are examined. This research takes Chinese as a frame of reference and examines the hedges in Chinese and then compares these with hedges produced in English (doing so will identify hedges subject to the hedges-processing ways of equivalence and abridgement). Then, we take English as a frame of reference, tagging the hedges in English and comparing them with the hedges in Chinese. (This shows where hedges have been processed via equivalences and additions). Apart from those, there is a possibility that interpreters may not choose any of addition, abridgement, or equivalence; instead, interpreters may alter part of their expressions, or employ other words as substitutes for the original. This may more or less maintain the original fuzzy semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning. This substitution can be identified by examining two language directionalities. Next, we enquire into how hedges shifts occur, namely, how hedges are shifted by additions, abridgements, equivalences and substitutions, with the purpose of discovering the shifting regularities of hedges, rethinking underlying reasons behind shifting regularities, and verifying role deviation of conference interpreters.

78

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

5.2.1 The Additions of Hedges by Interpreters Addition is a commonly seen way of hedges processing in both the translating and interpreting process. In this research, hedges additions are identified by examining parallel aligned texts from the source language of Chinese to the target language of English. However, it can’t be ruled out that a handful of hedges are produced by interpreters due to discourse habits or subconscious behavior. This small proportion of hedges is regarded as an event with a small probability. Their influences on statistical results can be lessened by the big data in the corpus of CECIC. Therefore, hedges additions are treated as conscious behavior. The same is true of hedges deletions, equivalences, and substitutions. In this research, English is firstly regarded as a frame of reference. If there is a hedge in the English corpus, and no correspondence is found in the Chinese corpus, this is a hedge addition. Examples 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate hedges additions from Chinese to English: Example 5.1 SL-C TL-E

第四项是政府机构改革。关键在于政府职能的转变, 成败与否在此一举 。 Fourth is the institutional reform of the government. The plan of the reform has been made well known to you all. I think this reform is actually a makeor-break reform for the conformation of the function of the government. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2003)

Example 5.2 SL-C

TL-E

最近台湾国民党主席马英九先生在英国访问的时候, 在这个过程与当 地人员有一些冲突, 遭到一些阻挠, 事实上, 类似的事情在不断地发生, 两岸有识之士在不断地呼吁两岸之间不要再僵持, 不要在国际上做这 样的事情, 最好能 “外交”休兵, 对这样的事情, 您是怎么看的? President Mr. Ma Yingjiu visited the UK, it is reported that his visit has been obstructed by a diplomatic personnel from the mainland, and there are some conflicts of such incidents globally, a lot of people with vision say that the mainland and Taiwan should put an end to their practices of diplomatic war, what is your view on this? Foreign Minister Meets the Press (2006)

As shown in Example 5.1, it is apparent that “I think” and “actually” are added by the interpreter in the target language of English, because no corresponding items are spotted in the source language. Similarly, as displayed in Example 5.2, aside from “一些” which is interpreted into its equivalent in English, “it is reported that” and “a lot of” are added by interpreters. The possible intentions or motivations for these hedges additions are discussed in the next chapter. Now that hedges additions have been expounded explicitly, it naturally comes to quantitative description of hedges additions. Questions to be addressed are: how

5.2 A Horizontal Description of Hedges Processing

79

Table 5.9 Hedges additions from Chinese to English in CECIC Category

Adapters

Rounders

Plausibility shields

Attribution shields

Times

618

135

712

101

Addition in total

1566

many times have hedges been added by interpreters when interpreting from Chinese to English? Among all added hedges, which category of hedges is most frequently added? What do these shifting regularities suggest? To seek answers, laborious efforts have been made to manually identify additions by contrastive analysis between aligned sentences in CECIC. The statistical results of hedges additions are presented in Table 5.9. As demonstrated in Table 5.9, hedges are added a total of 1,566 times, among which plausibility shields are added by interpreters 712 times, adapters 618 times, rounders 135 times, and attribution shields only amount to 101 times. It is apparent that interpreters have added plausibility shields the most. According to Prince et al. (1982), plausibility shields can modify and restrict, but not change the truth value of certain propositions or statements. Often, plausibility shields are utilized to adjust pragmatic meanings so as to manage or maintain interpersonal meaning of discourse. Analytically, based on this regularity of hedges additions, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that interpreters may have an inclination or tendency to modify the pragmatic effect, and exert influences on the interpersonal meaning by adding a large number of hedges in Chinese-English government conference interpreting.

5.2.2 The Abridgements of Hedges by Interpreters For similar reasons, abridgement is likewise a commonly seen way of hedges processing in the translating and interpreting process. Hedges abridgements are identified by examining parallel aligned texts from Chinese to English. With Chinese as a reference, if there is a hedge in the Chinese corpus, but no corresponding hedge is spotted in the English corpus, this is a hedge abridgement. In what follows, Examples 5.3 and 5.4 illustrate hedges abridgements. Example 5.3 SL-C

TL-E

国际金融危机后, 世界经济在曲折艰难中复苏, 世界大变革、大调整、 大发展的趋势不断深入, 世界经济治理机制的改革也不断向前推进, 新 兴经济体在迅速崛起, 因此我觉得, 国际力量对比正在向着渐趋均衡的 方向发展。国际安全形势, 我认为, 总体上是稳定的, 但不确定、不稳定 的因素也不少。 After the international financial crisis, the world economy struggled to recover, our world continued to undergo major changes, major adjustments

80

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

and major development. Steady progress was made in the reform of the world economic governance structure. There was a rapid rise of emerging economies and there was greater balance of international power. The international security situation was on the whole stable; however, at the same time, destabilizing factors and uncertainties increased. Foreign Minister Meets the Press (2011) Example 5.4 SL-C

TL-E

我记得前不久看外媒报道, 说是到了中国的某个重化工企业, 感到经济 不景气, 而到科技城看, 那里的场面火爆, 好像经济还在两位数增长, 这 跟我们下去调研的一些感受是类似的。实际上, 它说明了中国经济是困 难和希望并存, 如果从底盘和大势来看, 希望大于困难。 A few days ago, I read a foreign media report saying that one visit to a heavy industry company in China, he would feel that the economy is bleak, but if he goes to a science and technology zone, he will feel that the economy is growing at the doubt-digit rate, that report is very in line with the information we have also gained our feelings to various localities, and that shows that there are both difficulties and hopes for China’s economy, but given the underlying trends and fundamentals, there are more hopes than difficulties. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2016)

As exemplified in Examples 5.3 and 5.4, the two hedges “我觉得”and “我认为” have been abridged by the interpreter, as no corresponding words can be spotted in the English corpus. In the same way, the three underlined hedges “我记得”, “一些” and “实际上” have been abridged by the interpreter. Now Table 5.10 presents a report on the quantitative data of hedges abridgements, as was done with hedges additions, such as how many times did interpreters abridge hedges when interpreting from Chinese to English? Among those abridged hedges, which category of hedges is abridged the most? What does this discovery suggest? As reported in Table 5.10, it is obvious that hedges are abridged 872 times in total, among which adapters are abridged by interpreters 558 times; plausibility shields are abridged 120 times; rounders 100 times; and lastly, attribution shields are abridged 94 times. Interpreters abridge adapters the most in Chinese-to-English conference interpreting. It is unexpected that interpreters abridge so many hedges, especially adapters and rounders which carry semantic meanings. In principle, interpreters should render and maintain semantic meaning to the utmost extent. However, seeing that interpreters are always working under huge stress and high cognitive load, it Table 5.10 Hedges abridgements from Chinese to English in CECIC Category

Adapters

Rounders

Plausibility shields

Attribution shields

Times

558

100

120

94

Abridgement in total

872

5.2 A Horizontal Description of Hedges Processing

81

can be inferred that those abridgements may be a result of the shortage or imbalance of their cognitive resources. As such, possibly driven by meta-cognition and metapragmatic awareness, conference interpreters abridge those hedges for economizing cognitive efforts. In other words, abridging hedges helps interpreters to save and relocate their cognitive resources, which helps to ensure that the interpreting process can go smoothly. Hence, we may deduce that interpreters abridge so many hedges for economizing and re-balancing cognitive resources, even though in doing so, they may be altering the truth value of discourse.

5.2.3 The Substitutions of Hedges by Interpreters In the interpreting process, substitution is also a common occurrence when interpreters use another expression or moderately make some adjustments to transmit the original meaning, instead of mechanically producing word-to-word correspondence in the target language. This is called substitution in the interpreting process. In general, rarely can we see absolute word-to-word correspondence in interpreting, because “in many cases interpreters’ utterances are analyzable as reformulations of prior original utterances” (Wadensjö 1998, p. 106). Interpreters may use another expression to convey and maintain the original meaning. In this research, substitutions are identified from two directionalities, that is, from Chinese to English and from English to Chinese. In more specific terms, substitutions are identified here as when there is a hedge in the Chinese corpus, and no correspondence can be pinpointed in the English corpus, yet another expression is used in the place of the original hedge, such that the original semantic and pragmatic meaning is more or less conveyed. Example 5.5 illustrates hedge substitution. Example 5.5 SL-C

TL-E

中方是伊核谈判的重要一方, 迄今我们推动解决了谈判的焦点和难点, 作出了积极的贡献。我们愿和各方一道, 早日跑完伊核谈判这场马拉松 。 China is an important party to the negotiation, and we have made a positive contribution to resolving the difficult issue and sticking points in the negotiation. We are prepared to work with other relevant parties to finish the marathon negotiation on the Iranian nuclear issue at an early date. Foreign Minister Meets the Press (2015)

As exemplified in Example 5.5, “我们愿” as a Chinese hedge is interpreted as “we are prepared to” which is not a hedge in English. After some thoughts, it seems that the substitution of “we are prepared to” for the Chinese hedge reinforces the message that China is willing to collaborate with other relevant countries to manage the South China Sea issue at any time. Although “we are prepared to” is not regarded

82

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

Table 5.11 Hedges substitutions from Chinese to English in CECIC Category

Adapters

Rounders

Plausibility shields

Attribution Shields

Times

45

19

23

48

Substitution in total

136

as a hedge in English, it partially transmits the original meaning, to some degree. This is a hedge substitution. Now that hedges substitution has been elucidated by example, hedges substitutions in the interpreting process are counted and reported in the succeeding Table 5.11. Again, similar questions to be addressed are: how many times are hedges substituted by interpreters when rendering from Chinese to English? Among the total substituted hedges, which category of hedges is substituted the most? What does this result indicate? As described in Table 5.11, in this self-built CECIC hedges are substituted 136 times altogether. Compared to our previous analysis, this is a relatively small amount. Among all the substituted hedges, attribution shields are substituted 48 times, adapters are substituted 45 times, plausibility shields 23 times, and lastly rounders are substituted 19 times. It is very obvious that attribution shields are substituted the most by interpreters when interpreting from Chinese to English. As for the reason that interpreters substitute attribution shields the most, it may pertain to the linguistic functions of attribution shields; further analysis is to be presented in Chap. 6.

5.2.4 The Equivalences of Hedges by Interpreters in CI Equivalence has long been the most problematic and divisive issue in translation and interpreting studies. “Equivalence is a term used to refer to the relationship existing between the translation and the original” (Palumbo 2016, p. 49). Scholars hold a variety of perspectives on equivalence, such as formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, pragmatic equivalence, grammatical equivalence, stylistic equivalence and so on. As a matter of fact, its core debate is the correspondence and non-correspondence between the source language and the target language. “If two texts are described as equivalent, we should establish relevant units of comparison, specify a definition of sameness and enumerate relevant qualities” (Halverson 1997, p. 210). In this connection, firstly, this research establishes equivalence at the word level in this study. This is because hedges, as our chief objects of observation in corpuses, are those words making things fuzzier or less fuzzier. In this research, equivalences of hedges are identified using hedge-to-hedge comparison between the Chinese corpus and the English corpus. Hedges equivalences are cross-checked from both language directionalities. If a hedge exists in the Chinese corpus, and its corresponding hedge is spotted in the English corpus, and vice versa; this is conceived as hedge equivalence.

5.2 A Horizontal Description of Hedges Processing

83

Table 5.12 Hedges equivalences from Chinese to English in CECIC Category

Adapters

Rounders

Plausibility shields

Attribution Shields

Times

972

401

529

235

Equivalence in total

2,137

Secondly, in hedges equivalences identification, semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning should be both meticulously taken into consideration. After all, “equivalence in interpreting product is not only in semantic level, but also in pragmatic level” (Hatim and Mason 1990, p. 27). Hedge-to-hedge comparison from both language directionalities is operational in this study. Next, Example 5.6 illustrates hedge equivalence. Example 5.6 SL-C

TL-E

从2005年到现在, 我们对台湾同胞实施了大约近 近60项的优惠政策。为了 台湾同胞的利益, 我们甚至愿意做出必要的牺牲, 比如说, 大陆与台湾 的贸易, 台湾多年保持着巨额的顺差。 Between 2005 and now, we have adopted nearly 60 preferential policies that are beneficial to our people in Taiwan. To serve the interest of people in Taiwan, we are even ready to make necessary sacrifices. For example, when we talk about trade between the two sides, over many years, Taiwan has been running a huge amount of pre-surplus in the trade with the mainland. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2008)

As presented in Example 5.6, “近”, and “多年” are interpreted into their equivalents. Based on those aligned annotations and identifications, the statistical data of hedges equivalences is reported in Table 5.12. This Table shows how many times hedges have been interpreted into their corresponding equivalents, and which category of hedges is interpreted the most frequently using their equivalents? With reference to Table 5.12, hedges are interpreted into their corresponding equivalents 2,137 times in total, among which adapters are equalized 972 times, in descending order, plausibility shields 529 times, rounders 401 times, and lastly equivalences in attribution shields occur 235 times. As we can see, adapters have the largest proportion of all hedges equivalences. Close to 1,000 adapters are interpreted into their corresponding equivalents, which accounts for almost half of the 2,137 hedges equivalences that have occurred in total. The most frequent hedgesprocessing way utilized by interpreters is hedge equivalence. The most frequent hedges that are rendered using equivalence are adapters. This, coupled with the fact that adapters carry semantic meaning and can change truth value of discourse, may indicate that adapters are retained to the utmost extent by interpreters. This may result from interpreters’ role behavior driven by some communicative purposes or discourse intentions. Regarding role behavior of interpreters, there are 2,137 hedges equivalences, in which 972 adapters, 529 plausibility shields, 401 rounders and 235 attribution shields are spotted. These can be considered as patterns of behavior of

84

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

Table 5.13 Data on hedges additions, abridgements, substitutions and equivalences Hedges processing Additions

Abridgments

Substitutions

Equivalences

Times

872

136

2,137

1,566

The most apparent Plausibility shields Adapters (558) Attribution shields Adapters (972) category (712) (58)

interpreters in hedges processing. They may exercise discourse functions or achieve possible discourse intentions. Essentially, this is also a representation of interpreters’ role.

5.2.5 Discussion This section carries out a horizontal observation of how hedges shifts occur in the interpreting process, and explores how additions, abridgements, substitutions and equivalences are utilized in hedges shifts the current author firstly tabulates statistical data in Table 5.13, and then interprets this statistical data, and finally reflects on the relevant results.

5.2.5.1

Interpret Statistical Data

According to Table 5.13, equivalences are the most frequently employed by conference interpreters in Chinese conference interpreting. Additions are the second most frequent, then abridgements and finally substitutions. In this regard, it is not surprising that interpreters have achieved hedges equivalences from the source language to the target language in conference interpreting. After all, Chinese government press conferences are at solemn and formal occasions; their discourses are often rigorous and sensitive, and sometimes associated with diplomatic risks. To go further, adapters are the most common hedges subject to hedges equivalences. Since adapters carry semantic information and can also change the truth value of prepositions or statements, it can be reasonably concluded that interpreters are prone to employ hedges equivalences when faced with adapters so as to reproduce semantic meaning and maintain the truth value of discourse. Hedges additions are the second most common as shown in the above table. There are 1,566 hedges additions in our corpus, of which 712 plausibility shields account for the largest proportion. Almost half of hedges that are added are plausibility shields. This figure may disclose that interpreters have an inclination or tendency to modify the pragmatic effect of discourse by largely adding plausibility shields in the Chinese-to-English interpreting process. Thirdly, there are 872 hedges abridgements, in which adapters are abridged the most at 558 times. Given that adapters can change the truth value of discourse from

5.2 A Horizontal Description of Hedges Processing

85

the semantic perspective, normally, interpreters do not choose to delete hedges unless cognitive effort is overloaded. Hereby, it very likely that interpreters have a tendency to abridge adapters for sparing extra cognitive effort to process core information in the language flow. Finally, substitutions appear only 136 times in CECIC within a volume of more than 300,000 words, the most common substitutions are attribution shields with a total of 58 instances. In light of the fact that attribution shields in fuzzy linguistics can distinguish discourse distance, imply the source of discourse and demarcate discourse responsibility, it can be inferred that conference interpreters may have the possibility to mark or demark discourse responsibility via attribution shields, especially when they encounter certain sensitive expression.

5.2.5.2

Reflection on Statistical Results

Based on the statistical results above, Table 5.13 presents an overview of the ways of hedges processing, being additions, abridgements, substitutions, and equivalences, and hedges shifting regularities. Substantially, these are patterns of behavior and linguistic regularities observed in the interpreting product of conference interpreters. In descriptive translation studies, translation norms are the central plank when describing translation regularities and explaining the translation phenomenon. Therefore, the concept of translation norms can be extended into interpreting studies as a heuristic tool when discussing and explaining interpreters’ behavior. Norms have been well-theorized and heatedly discussed in translation studies by Toury (1980) and Hermans (1996). As fort the categorization of translation norms, Toury (1980) has described three norms: preliminary norms, initial norms and operational norms; Chesterman (1993) has differentiated expectancy norms and professional norms. As far as the current author is concerned, Chesterman’s classification on norms can better accommodate interpreting interaction, because Chesterman has taken the interaction between translator and audience into account. According to Chesterman (1993), professional norms are subdivided into three types: the accountability norm, the communication norm, and the relations norm. To be specific, the accountability norm refers to the fact that “a translator should act in such a way that the demands of loyalty are met with regard to the original writer, and this is an ethical norm requiring professional standards of integrity and thoroughness” (Chesterman 1993, p. 8). The communication norm stipulates that a translator should optimize communication in accordance with communicative purposes. The relation norm refers to the fact that “a translator should act in such a way that an appropriate relation is established and maintained between target text and source text; the nature of this relation is essentially the type and degree of equivalence which is determined by the translator” (Chesterman 1993, p. 9). Given the above, let us expound on statistical results on hedges shifts and shifting regularities in the context of interpreting norms. As shown in Table 5.13, equivalences are the most frequently employed by conference interpreters in Chinese-to-English conference interpreting. Of these, interpreters

86

5 Corpus-Based Quantitative Analysis on Hedges and Shifting

choose to render adapters into their equivalents most frequently (972 times). In a sense, this above-mentioned regularity can be approached as the accountability norm in interpreting. In other words, interpreters may conform to the accountability norm and meet the demands of loyalty by employing hedges equivalences when faced with adapters. Additions are the second most frequently used by conference interpreters; of these, interpreters add the most plausibility shields (712 times). In light that norms have explanatory power in language choice and translator’s behavior, attempt is made to approach this regularity as the communication norm in interpreting. As we may say, interpreters modify the pragmatic effect by employing hedges additions when faced with plausibility shields; this is in conformity with the communication norm. Abridgements are the third most frequently used by conference interpreters in conference interpreting; moreover, interpreters abridge the most adapters (558 times). Inspired by the idea that “interpreters’ language choice is definitely not rambling, it is governed by norms; however, translators can also choose not to obey the norms for their own considerations” (Li and Deng 2004, p. 72), thus, this regularity is deemed as a fact that interpreters disobey the accountability norm by employing hedges abridgements when faced with adapters. This is possibly related to cognitive effort management of conference interpreters. Substitutions are the fourth most frequently adopted by conference interpreters; of these, interpreters choose to substitute attribution shields the most (58 times). Following the above vein, this regularity is considered as the communication norm in interpreting. In other words, interpreters conform to the communication norm and demarcate discourse responsibilities by employing hedges substitutions when faced with attribution shields. Taken together, on the surface, hedges shifts and shifting regularities are patterns of behavior for interpreters; to go deeper, those regularities are actually interpreting norms. The descriptive translation studies encourage scholars to describe norms in the translation and interpreting process. That is why interpreting norms are described to explain our statistical results. Additionally, no matter whether it is pattern of behavior or interpreting norm, both of them point to role deviation of conference interpreters. Overall, the central issue in this research is the concept of role deviation of conference interpreters. It is the first time that conference interpreters’ role has been approached by corpus-based discourse analysis using hedges as the intervening point in Chinese-to-English interpreting. Besides, empirical data in this research from hedges distribution, hedges shifts and shifting regularities progressively and logically point to role deviation. Therefore, empirically, the corpus-based discourse analysis in this study provides a set of exploratory data of hedges that can be utilized in furthering the debate of interpreters’ role. Theoretically, role deviation of conference interpreters is verified by our empirical data. It not only deconstructs the ingrained “non-person” stereotype of conference interpreters’ role, but also freshens our understanding of interpreters’ role in conference interpreting.

References

87

References Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chesterman, A. 1993. From “Is” to “Ought”: Laws, Norms, and Strategies in Translation Studies. Target 5: 1–20. Gui, Shichun. 2014. Jiyu Yuliaoku de Yingyu Yuyanxue Yuti Fenxi [A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Register of English Linguistics]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Hatim, B., and I. Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Hermans, T. 1996. Norms and the Determination of Translation. In Translation, Power, Subversion, ed. R. Alvarez and M.C.A. Vidal. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Halverson, S. 1997. The Concept of Equivalence in Translation: Much Ado About Something. Target 2: 207–233. Hu, Kaibao. 2011. Yuliaoku Fanyixue Gailun [Introducing Corpus-based Translation Studies]. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaotong University Press. Li, Dechao and Jing Deng. 2004. Chuantong Fanyi Guannian de Yuyue: Qiesiteman de Fanyi Guifanlun [Chesterman’s Translation Norms: The Transcendence of Traditional Translation Concepts]. Journal of Foreign Languages 4: 68–76. Liang, Maocheng. 2013. Yuliaoku Yingyong Jiaocheng [Using Corpora: A Practical Coursebook]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Prince, E.F. et al. 1982. On Hedging in Physician Discourse. In Linguistics and the Profession, ed. J. Robert, 83–97. New Jersey: Alex Publishing Corporation. Palumbo, G. 2016. Key Terms in Translation Studies. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Toury, G. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis at Tel Aviv University. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Routledge.

Chapter 6

Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

Abstract This chapter is devoted to qualitative analysis on role deviation in hedges shifting. Concerning that hedges shifts and their shifting regularities, to some degree, can point to role deviation of conference interpreters, this chapter integrates quantitative data on hedges shifts and their regularities with qualitative discourse analysis, verifies role deviation of conference interpreters in Chinese government press conferences, and exemplifies what roles conference interpreters actually play. In the first part of this chapter, role behavior of interpreters in their use of hedges is described, focusing on the additions of plausibility shields, abridgements of adapters, substitutions of attribution shields, and using equivalences to interpret adapters. With role expectations as a frame of reference, the existence of role deviation of conference interpreters is ascertained. In the second part of this chapter, the actual roles that conference interpreters perform in interpreting are uncovered through shifting regularities and functions of hedges in semantic, pragmatic and cognitive aspects, namely: interpreters as keepers of semantic information through adapters and rounders, interpreters as regulators of pragmatic tone through plausibility shields, interpreters as distributors of discourse responsibility through attribution shields, interpreters as controllers of cognitive resources through adapters. Keywords Role behavior · Role expectations · Role actually-performed

6.1 Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting Our empirical data in Chapter 5 adequately points to role deviation in hedges shifting. Nevertheless, in this section, qualitative analysis is employed to ascertain the role deviation of interpreters through their use of hedges, with role expectations as a frame of reference. First, the definition of role deviation as given in Chapter 3 is to be briefly reviewed. Role deviation may appear in such a circumstance when role behavior and role expectation are juxtaposed. Using role expectations from others as a frame of reference, if the actual role behavior of interpreters is in accordance with role expectations from others, this is considered role conformity. However, if the actual role behavior of interpreters is in disagreement with role expectations from others, or the actual role behavior of interpreters diverges from the ideal role © Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3_6

89

90

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

expectations, this is considered role deviation. The definition of role deviation in this research is in accordance with the statements from mainstream sociologists. Role behavior is an extensive concept, so this research only take discourse behavior into consideration, more specifically, the use of hedges. Therefore, the patterns of behavior of interpreters in their use of hedges are our main concern. Role expectations are also complex and sometimes obscure. They are often written in the forms of behavioral and ethical codes, regulations and standards. Interpreting practice standards and professional ethics are forms of role expectations of interpreters from audiences, users and professional organizations. Thus, interpreting practice standards and professional ethics from authoritative professional organizations like AIIC, AUSIT, and ATA etc. are regarded as role expectations (from others on interpreters). Role expectation is taken as a frame of reference in this research. In a sense, empirical data on hedges shifts and shifting regularities directly points to the role deviation of conference interpreters. Qualitative discourse analysis in this chapter supports this argument and reinforces the argument that role deviation of conference interpreters in corpus exists. Next is a description of role behavior through hedges in CECIC.

6.1.1 Role Behavior of Interpreters Through Hedges in CECIC Hitherto, it has been justified that interpreters’ role can be embodied by the patterns of behavior of interpreters in their use of hedges. Statistical data from the foregoing chapters shows that plausibility shields are the most apparent feature in hedges additions. By the same token, adapters are abridged the most, attribution shields are substituted the most, and adapters are interpreted into their equivalents the most. Concerning that “interpreting mediation can’t be discussed without reference to such features of human interaction as discourse intentions, expectations, attitudes, status and power” (Pöchhacker 2008, p. 13), to delve further, discourse analysis can help to explain the behavior of interpreters, to go further, their possible discourse intentions.

6.1.1.1

Plausibility Shields in the Additions

According to Table 5.13 in Sect. 5.2.5, plausibility shields are added by interpreters 712 times among all 1,566 hedges additions. This is a noteworthy behavioral pattern and shifting regularity. As for why plausibility shields are added the most by interpreters, for a clear illustration, some examples are taken from the corpus to elaborate on the possible discourse intentions behind role behavior.

6.1 Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

91

Example 6.1: SL-C:

现在中日两国关系存在的主要问题是: 日本有些领导人多次参拜供有 甲级战犯亡灵的靖国神社, 极大地伤害了中国人民的感情和亚洲人民 的感情。在中国受害的家庭不是一、两个家庭, 死亡的就有2000多万。 所以日本领导人应当恪守中日关系的三个政治文件, 做到以史为鉴, 面向未来, 不要再做伤害中国人民感情的事情, 不要影响中日两国领 导人的正常互访和两国关系的正常发展。

TL-E:

Now the main problems in China-Japan relations lie in the fact that some leaders in Japan keep on visiting the Yasukuni Shrine which enshrined class-A war criminals. This hurt the pride of the Chinese people and people in other Asian countries. In fact, in China those who suffered from the Japanese War of Aggressions were by no means just individual families. More than 20 million people died as a result of Japanese aggression. We hope that the Japanese leaders will strictly abide by the three ChinaJapan political documents and can truly draw lessons from history and look forward to the future. We hope they will refrain from doing anything that hurts the dignity of the Chinese people or that affects the normal exchange of high-level visits and the normal development of relations between our two countries Prime Minister Meets the Press (2004)

In Example 6.1, it is found that “we hope” has been added twice by the interpreter in this short segment. That interpreter has chosen to add “we hope” should be interpreted as a meaningful event, because these two additions of “we hope” have their own linguistic functions. The interpreter adds some semiotics of “we hope” with specific linguistic functions. Inferentially, the interpreter in this case may have a certain tendency or intention to influence interaction by employing some semiotic functions. The interpreter may want to convey politeness and modesty by adding plausibility shields. After all, the historical issue between China and Japan is extremely sensitive, the phrase “we hope” can soften the tune in political and institutionalized discourse, so that the statement might be better accepted by the audiences. This reflects the interpreter’s potential communicative intentions of conveying politeness and softening the tune. Example 6.2: SL-C:

董建华先生担任香港特别行政长官7年多来, 为贯彻 “一国两制”方针 和香港特别行政区基本法, 保持香港的繁荣稳定, 做了大量开创性的 工作。董先生勤勤恳恳、任劳任怨、敢于担当, 表现出对国家、对香 港高度负责的精神。他所做的努力和贡献, 香港特别行政区同胞是不 会忘记的。

TL-E:

In the past seven years, Mr. Tung has done tremendous and creative work for the implementation of the principle of “one country, two systems”, the basic

92

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

law and for continuing the prosperity and stability in Hong Kong. He is hardworking, he has few complaints and he has the courage to take responsibility to compatriots in Hong Kong and to the country. I believe history will treat him fairly for his efforts and contribution. I believe compatriots in Hong Kong shall never forget what he has done. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2005) In Example 6.2, “I believe” has been added twice by the interpreter in this case. As we have expounded in Sect. 3.2.1, language is a system of social semiotics, and language users may choose from all meaning potentials, based on dynamic context and communicative purpose. This is a constant concern in systemic functional linguistics. According to Halliday, “meaning is choice and choice is meaning”. Thus, “any act of language choice is value, because it involves changing in all three metafunctions (Halliday and Hasan 1989, p. 21). It follows that the additions of “I believe” should be interpreted as meaningful events. “I believe” as a plausibility shield carries pragmatic function and interpersonal meaning, although it can’t alter the truth value of discourse. In the context that our Prime Minister is speaking highly of Mr. Tung’s contribution to Hong Kong and our country, the interpreter adds “I believe” which can express the speaker’s expectation, trust and benediction to the listener. In this sense, it can be deduced that the interpreter has a tendency to convey deference and politeness and establish good relations by adding plausibility shields.

6.1.1.2

Adapters in the Abridgements

Likewise, in Table 5.13, hedges are abridged 872 times in total, 558 of these being adapters abridgements. That is to say, what interpreters have abridged the most are adapters, then plausibility shields, rounders and finally attribution shields. Interpreters’ abridgements have more or less departed from the conventional impression or perception held by the majority of audiences, that is, interpreters are machine-like decoders and encoders who should not have any opportunity or leeway to change the source language. However, data from the large-scaled corpus can speak far more powerfully and convincingly than these personal feelings. Since it is so, it is believed that the data in this research adequately typifies universal behavioral patterns and shifting regularities. As for possible explanations for adapters abridgements, perhaps some representative examples can throw light on it. Example 6.3: SL-C:

关于台湾参加世界卫生大会的问题, 总理在政府工作报告中曾提到 会通过协商作出合情合理的安排。在这里想请总理进一步为台湾民众 分析台湾今年参加世界卫生大会的可能性。另外一个是比较个人的问 题, 总理知道台湾观光资源很丰富, 也很多元, 如果您有机会到台湾走 一走的话, 不知道您会想去哪儿看一看?

6.1 Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

TL-E:

93

In your report on the work of government, Mr. Premier, you said that the mainland is willing to make fair and reasonable arrangements for Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Assembly. And I would like to ask you to analyze the situation for people in Taiwan, is it possible for Taiwan to participate in the activities of the World Health Assembly this year? Another final question that we know Taiwan is renowned for rich sightseeing resources and a lot of people went to Taiwan for sightseeing trips. And if you have an opportunity to visit Taiwan and to do sightseeing, where would you like to go? Prime Minister Meets the Press (2009)

As displayed in Example 6.3, the three adapters “比较”, “很丰富” and “很多 元” are directly abridged in the target language of English. One possible reason is that the interpreter’s cognitive resources are likely to run out when interpreting in high-stress situations that demand a high cognitive load and involve on-site immediacy. Abridging some hedges can save cognitive effort. The other possible reason is the interpreter assumes that abridging certain hedges won’t affect semantic core. In principle, conference interpreters should not delete items of original discourse. However, “比较”, “很丰富” and “很多元” are abridged by the interpreter, which may be associated with interpreters’ possible discourse intention of sparing and rebalancing cognitive resources to handle other interpreting tasks. This could also be exemplified by Example 6.4. Example 6.4: SL-C:

中俄战略合作伙伴关系, 最近几年进行得非常的好, 特别是去年, 江泽 民主席和普金总统签订了中俄睦邻友好合作条约, 更加巩固了我们友 好合作的关系。

TL-E:

Over the past few years, the strategic and cooperative relations between China and Russia have been making good progress. Last year, president Jiang and President Putin signed the treaty on good-neighboringness, friendship and cooperation between China and Russia. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2002)

Example 6.4 clearly shows that the two adapters “非常” and “特别是” are directly abridged by the interpreter in the target language of English. As we know, adapters can alter and even change the truth value of discourse. Nevertheless, abridgements of adapters might be resulted from the interpreter’s inadequate cognitive effort. Above all, that there are 558 adapters in the abridgements is actually pattern of behavior for interpreters when rendering from Chinese to English. Abridging adapters can lessen cognitive load and mirror interpreters’ meta-cognitive or metapragmatic awareness. As a matter of fact, “language users know more or less what they are doing when using language, even if certain choices are virtually automatic in comparison with others that may be highly motivated” (Verschueren 2000, p. 187). Thus, this research can further penetrate into interpreters’ role via meta-cognitive or meta-pragmatic awareness in the abridgements of adapters.

94

6.1.1.3

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

Attribution Shields in the Substitutions

As reported in Table 5.13, hedges are substituted 136 times altogether, among which attribution shields account for the largest proportion at 48 times. Since hedge substitution does not occur often, it may be impossible to notice this tendency when looking at an individual case. The advantage of using CECIC is that it allows us to identify the 48 attribution shields substitutions. As such, a query usually arises: why attribution shields are substituted the most by interpreters in Chinese government press conferences? Example 6.5: SL-C:

据有关部门告知, 3月7日南航CZ6901H航班由新疆的乌鲁木齐飞往北 京, 在飞行途中发现个别旅客持有可疑的液体, 为了确保乘客安全, 飞 机在兰州中川机场备降, 机上的乘客和机组人员安然无恙。

TL-E:

I was informed that on March 7th , China Sothern Airlines flight CZ6901 which was scheduled to fly from Urumqi, Xingjiang to Beijing. During the flight, the crew member found that some passenger in possession of suspicious liquid. For the safety of passenger, the plane landed at Zhongchuan Airport, Lanzhou, and the passengers and the crews were safe. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2008)

As illustrated in Example 6.5, the Chinese attribution shield of “据有关部门告 知” is substituted with “I was informed that”. As for the reason why interpreters have chosen to interpret it like this, in the light of the fact that we can’t directly interview the official interpreters, discourse analysis might provide us an alternative to reason out the possible reasons for this hedge substitution. As mentioned by Prince et al. (1982), attribution shields can often demarcate discourse responsibility, so in daily utterances speakers often distance their discourse responsibility using attribution shields. According to Dong (2003), attribution shields can rule the speaker out of the interaction, so that the seemingly “speaker absence effect” can negate the speaker’s responsibility which he should take for his statement. Attribution shields can suggest that the speaker doesn’t want to divulge the actual source of the statement. In a word, attribution shields can demarcate or distribute discourse responsibility in multiparty interaction. Returning to Example 6.5, “据有关部门告知” indicates that the speaker is uncertain and in-determinant regarding his statement. It is possible that the speaker is not clear on the source and channel of information or the speaker assumes that it is unnecessary to give detailed information. By means of attribution shields, the speaker can, at a maximum, avoid shouldering responsibility for his words. What’s more, the speaker can hold back some information by employing attribution shields. To some extent, using “据有关部门告知” is not only a method of self-protection, but also a protection for the information source. The hedge “据有关部门告知” is substituted into “I was informed that” in the target language by the conference interpreter. Although this interpreter uses another expression, he maintains the basic semantic

6.1 Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

95

information and conveys hidden pragmatic information. “I was informed that” has not exposed the information source. The speaker’s communicative intention to demarcate discourse responsibility is nevertheless retained by the interpreter’s substitution. Hereupon, it can be inferred that the interpreter in this example have the tendency to demarcate discourse responsibility through substituting attribution shields. Example 6.6: SL-C:

我听说中方经过外交渠道表示过, 希望日本的皇太子和太子妃来中国 访问, 您认为如果他们来的话, 能否推动日中关系发展?另外他们会受 中国老百姓欢迎吗?

TL-E:

According to my information, through diplomatic channels the Chinese side had expressed the hope that the crown prince and the crown princess of Japan can come to China or a visit. My question is, will their visits facilitate the growth of bilateral ties? And whether they will be welcomed by the Chinese people? Prime Minister Meets the Press (2002)

Similar to the previous case, “我听说” is substituted into “according to my information” by the interpreter. As we have known, “attribution shields are important rhetorical devices in distancing responsibility, blurring discourse sources, evade communicative risks” (Hyland 2005, p. 101). Thus, “attribution shields are frequently used as strategic rhetoric in diplomatic discourse” (Pan 2007, p. 69). Returning to Example 6.6, “我听说” may indicate that the speaker will not expose the news source for the sake of privacy protection or responsibility evasion. Although the interpreter substitutes “我听说” into another attribution shield, being “according to my information”, the overall semantic meaning and basic pragmatic intention are retained using this similar expression. Here, attribution shields in substitution help to reproduce the speaker’s hidden discourse intention of distancing utterance responsibility and blurring discourse sources. Although only 48 instances can be spotted in the corpus, this small figure still represents interpreters’ behavioral regularities which are almost imperceptible in individual cases.

6.1.1.4

Adapters in the Equivalences

As evidenced in Sect. 5.2.4, hedges equivalences occur 2,137 times. It is the most frequently used way of dealing with hedges. There are 972 adapters in all hedges equivalences. This result matches our expectation that conference interpreters should maintain the original meanings and information to the utmost extent. It is not surprising at all that equivalence is the most apparent feature among all ways of hedges processing. To take a further discussion, discourse analysis on the following representative examples of hedges equivalence is indispensable.

96

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

Example 6.7: SL-C:

最近, 在一些行业和一些地区, 确实接连发生了一些重特大的安全生 产事故, 这是我们感到非常痛心的事情。我在政府工作报告中, 已经提 出来加强安全生产的各项措施。

TL-E:

It is true in some industries and in some localities; there have been some major or sometimes extraordinary workplace safety accidents. We are greatly saddened by the occurrence of those accidents. In my government’s work report, we have already spelt out the various measures that we are going to take to strengthen workplace safety. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2006)

As exemplified in Example 6.7, “一些” and “非常” as adapters in Chinese are equally interpreted into their corresponding English adapters “some” and “greatly”. The reason why adapters are rendered into their equivalents may be associated with the linguistic functions of adapters. As mentioned in previous sections, adapters can alter or change the truth value of certain propositions or statements, because adapters carry semantic information. Yet “adapters allow writer or speakers to convey their attitude to the truth of the statements, thereby presenting unproven claims with prudence and softening assertions” (Hyland 2005, p. 100). As such, it can be tentatively deduced that this conference interpreter has the tendency to maintain adapters using equivalence, to the effect that the truth value of proposition is not changed. Example 6.8: SL-C:

香港回归近9年了, 香港的资本主义制度没有改变, 法律基本没变, 港 人的自主权利得到了应有的保障。香港在亚洲金融危机带来的苦难以 后, 经济有了新的发展, 民生逐步得到改善。香港有世界上最自由和开 放的经济体系, 具有比较完备的法律制度, 有着良好的营商环境和广 泛的国际市场联系, 拥有一大批熟悉国际经济的人才。

TL-E:

It has been 9 years since Hong Kong’s return to the mother land. We can see the capitalist system in Hong Kong remains unchanged. Laws and regulations in Hong Kong remain basically unchanged. The freedom and rights of people in Hong Kong are duly protected. After overcoming the difficulties created by the Asian financial crisis, Hong Kong has registered fresh growth in its economy and gradually improvement in the lives of its people. Hong Kong, as it stands now, is the freest and most open economy in the world. It has a fairly favorable business large number of professionals who are very familiar with the international economy. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2006)

In Example 6.8, the speaker uses adapters such as “基本”, “应有的”, “逐步”, “比 较” to show expressive prudence and to soften the assertions, so that the speaker may have certain leeway in his proposition. According to Prince et al. (1982),

6.1 Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

97

adapters can’t alter the truth value of discourse because they carry semantic meaning. The interpreter renders “基本”, “应有的”, “逐步”, “比较” into “basically”, “duly”, “gradually” and “fairly”, which not only maintains the truth value of the original discourse, but also reproduces the speaker’s discourse intention of showing prudence and softening of assertions. In total, 972 adapters in the equivalence are observed in corpus, which is sufficient to represent patterns of behavior of conference interpreters. Hence, this research have enough reasons to believe that conference interpreters have tendency to retain adapters using equivalences.

6.1.2 Role Expectations in Ethical Codes for Interpreters in CI Since a quick sketch of role behavior of interpreters has been given in the forgoing section, it logically comes to role expectation, as it is the frame of reference with which role behavior of conference interpreters is compared, thus finally role deviation of conference interpreters can perceived and discerned. As such, it is necessary to mention again what role expectations are as described in Sect. 3.1.2. “Role expectations refer to that society, organization, community, and others place their expectations or even requirements on certain individual who undertakes some roles” (Xi 2010, p. 100). In the light of the fact that role expectations are conceptually extensive and multidimensional and are often written in forms of regulations, standards and norms, interpreting practice standards and professional ethics from authoritative professional organizations like AIIC, AUSIT, and ATA etc. are deemed as role expectations (from others on interpreters) in this research. This makes sense both logically and theoretically, because “interpreter’s role is shaped not only by the interaction with the primary participants, but also by role expectations from audiences, users or professional conduct and ethics” (Wadensjö 2004, p. 121). For a better understanding of role expectations (from others on interpreters), interpreting practice standards and professional ethics from AIIC, AUSIT, AVLIC, NRPSI, and ATA1 are carefully read through. The clauses for prescribing the conducts of interpreters are attached in the appendix at the end of this book. AIIC Code of Professional Ethics is a holistic guideline for the conduct of conference interpreters. AIIC Code of Professional Ethics (2018) from the official website of AIIC stipulates that interpreters and translators must take all reasonable care to be accurate; interpreters should render exactly the message from the source language

1

We investigate interpreting practice standard and professional ethics respectively from AIIC Code of Professional Ethics (2018), AUSIT Code of Ethics for Interpreters & Translators, AVLIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Professional Conduct Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada, NRPSI Code of Conduct for Public Service Interpreters, ATA Code of Professional Conduct.

98

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

into the target language. This is deemed as role expectations from the AIIC on interpreters. As for role expectations from other four professional organizations, “although there are no unified interpreting practice standards and professional ethics, some commonalities can be found such as accuracy, integrity and confidentiality” (Setton 2011, p. 144). Overall, although each interpreting practice standard or ethics is slightly different, it has been mostly acknowledged that accuracy, integrity and confidentiality are the guiding principles, no matter it be in conference interpreting, public service interpreting, or sign language interpreting. As such, accuracy should be undoubtedly prioritized in Chinese government press conference interpreting. To ascertain role deviation of conference interpreters necessitates observing role behavior with role expectations as a frame of references.

6.1.3 Role Deviation with Role Expectations as a Frame of Reference The foregoing parts offer the account of interpreters’ ways of hedges processing, especially additions of plausibility shields, abridgements of adapters, substitutions of attribution shields, and equivalences of adapters. Subsequently, this research identified interpreting practice standards and professional ethics from authoritative professional organizations as essentially role expectations (from others on interpreters). In what follows, based on the self-built theoretical and analytical framework in Chapter 3, effort is made to verify whether role deviation of conference interpreters exists and reply to the third research question: can role deviation of conference interpreters be perceived in the use of hedges in corpus? What roles have conference interpreters actually performed in role deviation? For a clear illustration of whether role deviation of conference interpreters exists, role behavior of conference interpreters in the use of hedges is brought into our major focus, with role expectations as a frame of reference. Finally, quantitative data of role behavior and qualitative explanation of role expectations jointly contribute to role deviation of conference interpreters. As for quantitative data of role behavior, it has been clearly demonstrated that there is significant difference between rounders (C–E), plausible shields (C–E), and attribution shields (C–E). These statistical results suggest that conference interpreters must have exerted influence on interpreting interaction by ways of hedges processing. Inferentially, hedges shifts and shifting regularities exist. In more specific terms, hedges are added a total of 1,566 times, hedges are abridged 872 times, substituted 136 times, and equalized 2,137 times. Furthermore, there seems to be tendencies in hedges shifting: plausibility shields are the most added, adapters are the most abridged, attribution shields account for the largest proportion for the category of substitution, and adapters account for the same in the category of equivalence. In effect, these are shifting regularities.

6.1 Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

99

After reviewing interpreting practice standards and interpreting ethical codes formulated by international professional organizations such as AIIC, AUSIT, AVLIC, NRPSI and ATA, it is found that accuracy, integrity and confidentiality are common guiding principles. In particular, accuracy is required in many codes of conduct for interpreters around the world. However, there are few explicit definitions of accuracy in interpreting studies. Barik (1971) measures accuracy as gauged by omissions, additions and substitutions based on assessing interpreting product. Mackintosh (1983) measures accuracy as semantic equivalence of meaning units. Gile suggests “viewing accuracy, integrity in interpreting as a variably weighed combination of content (information transfer) and packaging” (1995, p. 35). This research regards commonalities among interpreting practice standards and interpreting ethical codes by AIIC, AUSIT, AVLIC, NRPSI and ATA as role expectations (from others on interpreters). In principle, addition, omission, abridgement, and substitution are not allowed and accepted in conference interpreting. Taken together, significant differences in hedges shifts between rounders (C-E), plausible shields (C-E), and attribution shields (C-E), and shifting regularities can generate adequate evidential support to role deviation of conference interpreters. With role expectations (from others on interpreters) as a frame of reference, it is self-evident that there is a deviation between interpreters’ actual behavior and role expectations. As states by Ozolins, “any filtering, aligning or replacing can in no way be reconciled with impartiality, this is behavioral deviation” (2016, p. 273). Hence, a safe conclusion can be drawn that role deviation of conference interpreters can be perceived through the use of hedges in CECIC, based on corpus-based discourse analysis. Lastly, this conceptual process of role deviation can be schematized by Fig. 6.1.

Fig. 6.1 Role deviation of conference interpreters in CECIC

100

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

6.2 Roles Performed by Interpreters in Role Deviation Through Functions of Hedges It has been demonstrated that role deviation of conference interpreters in CECIC can be perceived through the use of hedges. Given that this is a case, what roles have conference interpreters actually performed in role deviation? To find out the actual roles performed by conference interpreters as perceived through the use of hedges, it is necessary to examine the empirical data of hedges and to consider the linguistic functions of hedges. By doing so, it is feasible to discern what roles interpreters have actually played in their use of hedges in conference interpreting. In the above sections, statistical significance among rounders (C–E), plausibility shields (C–E), and attribution shields (C–E) can be taken as solid proof of role deviation of conference interpreters. What follows is a thorough inquiry into conference interpreters’ actual roles, based on functions of hedges.

6.2.1 Interpreters as Keepers of Semantic Information Through Adapters and Rounders As Table 5.13 shows, it is apparent that hedges equivalences are the most prominent features of Chinese-English interpreting in CECIC. A total of 2,137 hedges equivalences are counted. Among those 2,137 hedges equivalences, there are 972 adapters and 402 rounders, the total of which makes up more than half of hedges equivalences. According to the classifications and functions of hedges by Prince et al. (1982), adapters and rounders can modulate fuzzy degree from a semantic level and alter the truth value of discourse, because they mostly carry semantic information and ideational meanings. Meanwhile, plausibility shields and attribution shields can qualify and constrain fuzzy degree from a pragmatic level, thus they can’t alter the truth value of discourse, because they carry pragmatic information and interpersonal meanings. Against this backdrop, 2,137 hedges are interpreted into their equivalents, among which 972 adapters and 402 rounders carry semantic information and ideational meanings. In other words, semantic information and ideational meaning of 1,374 hedges are maintained by conference interpreters. Next, the possible reason why conference interpreters keep hedges semantic information is explored in Example 6.9. Example 6.9: SL-C:

我们在利比里亚的维和人员近600人, 他们的精神状态非常好, 是威武 之师、文明之师, 还是利比里亚人民的好朋友。他们除了完成根据联 合国有关决议赋予他们的职责, 还帮助当地老百姓做好事, 参加一些 扶贫工程, 深受欢迎。

6.2 Roles Performed by Interpreters in Role Deviation Through Functions …

TL-E:

101

we have about 600 peace-keepers in that country, and all of them are in very high spirits. They are a mighty and well-disciplined contingent and also good friends with the local people. Besides discharging their obligations and responsibilities stipulated in relevant UN resolution, they have also assisted the local people in some poverty-alleviation programs and are very popular among the locals. Foreign Minister Meets the Press (2007)

As Example 6.9 displays, adapters “非常”, “一些” and the rounder “近” have been processed into their corresponding equivalents. From a semantic angle, semantic information and ideational meanings of adapters and rounders have been retained by the conference interpreter in this case. Example 6.10: SL-C:

目前有来自400多家外国媒体和700多名记者在中国常驻, 朋友们的工 作都很辛苦, 我们希望你们能够进一步发挥积极作用, 向中国人民介 绍世界, 也向世界介绍中国国内的发展、中国的外交方针政策, 更多 地起到 桥梁和纽带的作用。

TL-E:

Now there are over 700 foreign correspondents representing over 400 media organizations working in China. You have all been working very hard and I hope that you will continue to play an active role in helping the Chinese people know more about the outside world and also informing the outside world about China’ domestic development and its foreign policy. And I hope that you will all serve as a bridge and bond in increasing mutual understanding between China and other countries in the world. Foreign Minister Meets the Press (2010)

Similarly, “400多”, “700多”, “很辛苦” are rendered into “over 400”, “over 700” and “very hard”. Concerning that adapters and rounders can modulate fuzzy degree but can’t change the truth value of discourse, adapters and rounders in this example are interpreted into their correspondences, which actually maintains semantic meanings and the truth value of discourse. Although individual examples taken from CECIC can only serve an explanatory and argumentative purpose, it is still true that examples of hedges equivalences add up to 1,376 in total. Hence, it can be concluded that when conference interpreters process hedges from Chinese to English in Chinese government conference interpreting, for the most part, conference interpreters take the role of semantic information keepers through adapters and rounders.

102

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

6.2.2 Interpreters as Regulators of Pragmatic Tone Through Plausibility Shields This section shows how conference interpreters in CECIC perform as the regulators of pragmatic tone through plausibility shields. As displayed in Table 5.9 in Sect. 5.2.1, 1,566 hedges have been added by interpreters when interpreting from Chinese to English, among which 712 are plausibility shields. That is, close to half of hedges additions are plausibility shields. This is a new discovery in shifting regularities. “Discourse is understood as the process of communication, language regularities from interpreting product can be evidences of interpreters’ decision-making and strategies” (Mason 2014, p. 112), inferentially, that plausibility shields have been added the most is not only language regularity but also evidence of interpreters’ decision-making and interpreters’ role. Next, the actual roles of interpreters as seen through pragmatic functions of plausibility shields should be under discussion. According to Prince et al. (1982), plausibility shields can modify, restrict but not change the truth value of certain proposition or statement. In many occasions, plausibility shields can adjust pragmatic meaning so as to manage interpersonal meaning of discourse. Furthermore, based on previous studies, plausibility shields help to soften speech tones, show politeness and modesty, convey uncertainties and negotiate interpersonal relationships etc. In many cases, plausibility shields function as the modulator of pragmatic meaning and interpersonal relationship; plausibility shields can also soften the tone of political and diplomatic statements and make them easier for the audience to accept. Above all, it is discovered that 712 plausibility shields are added by interpreters. This will be better elaborated on Example 6.11: Example 6.11: SL-C:

中国的四大国有银行, 有十几万亿的人民币资产, 在个别的分支机构 发生违法事件, 这不是什么太奇怪的。你们美国不是也出现了安然事 件吗?由于你们认真地在处理安然事件, 我们中国的报纸杂志上面, 舆 论界没有怎么大肆渲染这个事情。同样, 中国的个别分支机构发生一 些违法事件, 也不值得大家渲染。

TL-E:

The big four commercial banks of China possess a total of over a dozen trilling RMB Yuan of assets, so it is not surprising in some individual branches such illegalities have occurred. In US you also have the problem of Anran corruption. Because the US side is dealing with the problem of Anran corruption very seriously, the Chinese media has not been playing up that incident. So I think in the same situation, there is no need to make the problem in some individual branches of Chinese banks into sensational stories. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2002)

6.2 Roles Performed by Interpreters in Role Deviation Through Functions …

103

It can be observed from Example 6.11 that “I think” has been added by the interpreter. Based on its function, it can be reasoned that the discourse intention of the interpreter is to soften pragmatic tone, show personal politeness and modesty, and persuade American media into giving up sensationalizing illegalities of Chinese banks. Therefore, in a sense, the interpreter here is not only conveying semantic messages but also regulating and fine-tuning pragmatic meanings in order to smooth the interaction. Example 6.12: SL-C:

近年来巴基斯坦在全球反恐斗争中发挥了很大作用, 中国如何看待中 巴反恐合作?您如何看待巴基斯坦努力解决与印度之间的问题?

TL-E:

I have two questions. In recent years, Pakistan has played a major role in the global fight against terrorism. I would like to know, how do you look at China-Pakistan cooperation in terms of anti-terrorism? And I would like to know your comments on Pakistan’s constant efforts to resolve disputes with India. Foreign Minister Meets the Press (2004)

In Example 6.12, “I would like to” are added twice by the interpreter, it could be inferred that the interpreter possibly shows the modesty and politeness to our foreign minister. This is a typical example that how the conference interpreter employs plausibility shields to perform the role of regulators of pragmatic tone in interpreting discourse to achieve communicative intention.

6.2.3 Interpreters as Distributors of Discourse Responsibility Through Attribution Shields Since role deviation of conference interpreters has been demonstrated in Sect. 6.1.3, this section inquires into how interpreters perform the role of distributors of discourse responsibility through attributions. As displayed in Table 5.11 in Sect. 5.2.3, it is reported that hedges are substituted a total of 136 times in CECIC, among which 48 of the hedges substituted are attribution shields. Although the figure is relatively small in comparison to such a large corpus volume, it is still a discernable tendency in hedges distribution. What is interesting is that almost one third of hedges substituted are attribution shields. The function of attribution shields may shed light on this shifting regularity. As claimed by Prince et al. (1982), plausibility shields and attribution shields can modulate pragmatic meaning by inducing implicature and conveying markedness in discourse. Beyond that, He (1985, p. 30) comments that “attribution shields can’t directly suggest stance and attitude of speaker, instead, opinion citation from the third party often indirectly imply stance or attitude of speaker”. In the same year,

104

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

He added that attribution shields can mark discourse source or evidentiality and distance discourse responsibility. This statement by He (1985) is echoed by Dong (2003) who points out that “attribution shields can leave some discourse space and decrease the responsibility that speaker should take for a certain proposition, and they seemingly can expel speaker out so as to make an illusion that speaker is absent for self-protection and distancing responsibility”. Similarly, Hyland (2005) responds that attribution shields help authors to distance discourse responsibility in writing. As such, our next effort is made to delve into how interpreters perform as distributors of discourse responsibility through attribution shields. Example 6.13 accounts for our claim further. Example 6.13: SL-C:

我想起前两天看到国际上有一个权威智库发表文章, 他们认为, 如果 中美发生贸易战的话, 首当其冲的是美资企业。我不希望看到打贸易 战, 贸易战带不来贸易公平, 而且双方都受损。现在全世界都比较关心 中美关系, 中方希望, 中美关系不管有什么样的坎坷, 还是要向前走, 向好处走。中美两国人民都是伟大的人民, 我们有智慧来管控分歧, 我 们有需要也有条件来扩大共同利益。谢谢。

TL-E:

Recently I come across an article around an international think tanks, it is said that should a trade war broke out between China and USA, and what would be it if investment companies in particular the US foreign company that bear the blunt of it? We don’t want to see any trade war broke out between the two countries, which would make our trade barrier. I know that there is great attention has been paid to China-US relations in the international communities, our hope on the part of Chinese said is that no matter what bumps of this relationship may run to, we hope this relationship will continue to move forward in a positive direction, people of both countries are both great people, we believe that our people have the wisdom to properly manage the differences, there is a need and there are also conditions in place for us to continue to expand our common interests, thank you. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2017)

In example 6.13, “他们认为” should have been rendered into “they think”, however, the conference interpreter has used “it is said that”, instead. Against the backdrop of the intense China-USA trade war, it is possible that the speaker finds it inconvenient and improper to directly expose his opinion and stance. He wants to save the face of those on the American side. In order to get around this, the speaker borrows the opinion or statement from a third party, and tacitly and indirectly conveys his attitude. Thus, the speaker says “他们认为”, instead of “I think”. It is possible that the interpreter has grasped the potential communicative intention of the speaker, and as such, renders “他们认为” into the attribution shield “it is said that”. Using this attribution shield means that the potential communicative intention of the speaker can be comprehended and reproduced, and the speaker does not need to

6.2 Roles Performed by Interpreters in Role Deviation Through Functions …

105

take any responsibility and risk for his discourse, because this statement comes from an unidentified party. This helps both the speaker and interpreter to shield against discourse responsibility and risk. The phrase “it is said that” as employed by the interpreter can blur discourse evidentiality and hide the discourse source, meaning that nobody needs to be responsible for this statement, meanwhile, the possible communicative intention of the speaker can still be conveyed by means of attribution shields. Example 6.14: SL-C:

据目前统计, 20多个国家的元首或政府首脑、50多位国际组织负责人 、100多位部长级官员以及总共1200多名来自世界各国、各地区的代 表将齐聚一堂, 共襄盛举。

TL-E:

We foresee that the heads of state and government from over 20 countries, the leaders of over 50 international organizations, over 100 ministerial-level officials and around 1200 delegates from different countries and regions participating in the forum. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2003)

In this example 6.14, the speaker employs “据目前统计” to blur accurate information, to show uncertainty on current statistics and to shun discourse responsibility. The interpreter uses “we foresee” to mark evidentiality and to distance discourse responsibility.

6.2.4 Interpreters as Controllers of Cognitive Resources Through Adaptors Apart from the above-mentioned three roles of conference interpreters identified in role deviation, this section continues to uncover how interpreters perform the role of controllers of cognitive resources through adapters, based on the cognitive function of hedges. It has been widely acknowledged that “conference interpreting studies is cognition-oriented and process-oriented” (Zahran 2007, p. 35). Inevitably, conference interpreters are involved in coordinating cognitive resources and bridging the gap between the cognitive contexts of each participant in multiparty interaction. Interpreting is cognitive mediating. This is echoed by Pöchhacker (2008) when he concludes that interpreting is a mediation among contractual aspect (social relations), cognitive aspect (cognitive resources) and cultural aspect (intercultural relations). How do interpreters perform the role of controllers of cognitive resources through adapters? Without a better technical tool, discourse analysis of the linguistic features of interpreting product offers an expedient approach to penetrate into interpreters’ cognitive decision making and role performances.

106

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

With reference to Table 5.10 in Sect. 5.2.2, it is shown that 872 hedges are abridged in total, among which 558 are adapters. Since it is so, 558 abridgements of adapters can adequately typify shifting regularities. What does this data of shifting regularities suggest? This calls for further elaboration on the connection between adapter abridgements and cognitive resources allocation for interpreters by functional-based discourse analysis on adapter abridgements. Example 6.15: SL-C:

对于今年的改革, 主要有五项任务: 第一, 推进政府自身的建设与改革, 转变政府职能。第二, 推进国有企业改革, 主要是健全公司法人治理结 构, 加快股份制改革。第三, 推进金融改革。这是十分重要的任务, 要下 大力气。第四, 推进以税费改革为核心的农村改革, 主要是解决农村上 层建筑不适应经济基础的某些环节。第五, 推进社会保障制度改革, 加 快建立适合中国国情的社会保障体系。确切说, 今年是改革攻坚年。

TL-E:

For this year, there are five priorities in our reform. First, to reconstruct government bodies and to transform the functions of the government. Second, to promote state-owned enterprises reform, focusing on corporate governance and share-holding systems. Third, to promote financial reform, which is a critical and often problematic aspect of our economy and requires great efforts from us. Fourth, rural reform should center on reform of the rural taxes and administrative fees, the purpose is to change those elements in the superstructures in the rural areas that are no longer consistent with the economic phase. And fifth, social security reform. We must step up the development of a social security system that is suitable for China’s reality. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2005)

As seen in Chapter 3, not only can hedges economize cognitive resources, but they can help language users to reallocate and control cognitive resources, because “hedges give the right amount of information so as to cover lexical gap or spare cognitive effort” (Channell 2000, p. 78). As presented in Example 6.15, the underlined Chinese adapters have been abridged in English. In principle, conference interpreters should try their utmost to maintain semantic and pragmatic information, thus, it is not permitted for interpreters to make any addition, deletion or alteration of the original language. Nevertheless, it is very apparent in Example 6.15 that adapters in the source language of Chinese have been abridged by the interpreter. By inference, this may be a result of the limited cognitive resources of the interpreter in conference interpreting. Conference interpreters’ work is extremely high stressed, severely strenuous and involves strong mental and cognitive load, so it is not strange that interpreting requires mental energy that is only available in a limited supply. This opinion is echoed by Gile (1995) for his effort model. That is, when the cognitive effort required for each part of a task is more than cognitive effort available for each part of that interpreting task, consecutive interpreting may not proceed smoothly. Thus, it is highly likely

6.2 Roles Performed by Interpreters in Role Deviation Through Functions …

107

that interpreters abridge those adapters in order to spare extra cognitive resources to fulfill other interpreting tasks. These abridgements of adapters may be driven or affected by meta-cognitive or meta-pragmatic awareness of interpreters in language use. As such, conference interpreters in CECIC perform the role of controllers of cognitive resources through adapters. Example 6.16: SL-C:

今年上半年是我们比较困难的时期, 大概记者先生也懂得因为翘尾因 素影响大。1月份, 我们的CPI到达4.9%, 2月份还保持在4.9, 但你知道, 2 月份翘尾因素的影响高达3.7%。

TL-E:

We will still face difficult situation in the first half year. I am sure that you are well aware of the carry-out effects on the CPI. In January this year, the CPI rose 4.0% and stayed at the same level in February. But we have a strong carry-over effect standing at 3.7%. Prime Minister Meets the Press (2011)

Two adapters “比较” and “大概” in the source language of Chinese are abridged by the interpreter. There are two possible reasons: first, the interpreter may want to save cognitive resources and reallocate them to other interpreting tasks; second, the interpreter may assume that these two adapters will not affect semantic core of the sentences at all. That adapters are abridged by interpreters might be driven by their meta-cognitive awareness, which, in a sense, can reflect interpreters’ role.

6.3 Summary To sum up, this chapter contributes a qualitative analysis of role deviation of conference interpreters in their use of hedges. It is a complement to the quantitative data of hedges in Chapter 5. Firstly, role behavior of interpreters in their use of hedges is described; focusing especially on the additions of plausibility shields, the abridgements of adapters, the substitutions of attribution shields, and the equivalences of adapters. Secondly, with role expectations as a frame of reference, the role deviation of conference interpreters is confirmed by examining the quantitative data of hedges and performing qualitative analysis on hedges shifting regularities. Then, this research proceeds from functions of hedges in semantic, pragmatic and cognitive aspects to analyze the actual roles that conference interpreters have practically performed in role deviation. With some representative examples as evidences, it is observed that the combination of empirical data and qualitative explanation suggests that conference interpreters have actually performed four roles using hedges: keepers of semantic information through adapters and rounders, regulators of pragmatic tone through plausibility shields, distributors of discourse responsibility through attribution shields, and controllers of cognitive resources through adapters. This is not in line with the ingrained impression of

108

6 Qualitative Analysis on Role Deviation in Hedges Shifting

conference interpreters such as “non-person”, mechanical information conveyors, and “non-agents”. Furthermore, these four roles are slightly different from the conventional roles of interpreters in previous studies in the following two aspects. In the first place, the new findings in this chapter renew our understandings and perceptions of interpreters’ role in conference interpreting. Influenced by the conventional and ingrained impression of “non-person”, most of us assume that conference interpreters should stay in their prescriptive roles; however, it is proved by data and facts that conference interpreters have a wriggle room to perform the aforementioned deviated roles by using hedges. Hardly can this aforementioned finding be perceived by users or audiences through individual cases. It is only when using a scaled corpus can we observe those role behavior of interpreters, namely, hedges shifts and shifting regularities. As Wadensjö (1998) mentions, interpreters “act but not to be seen” in the interpreting interaction, but she does not undertake further empirical study. In this research, we have discerned those above-mentioned subtle phenomena by using corpus-based discourse analysis. Secondly, the new findings in this chapter broaden our horizon, allowing us to view interpreters’ role free from traditional and rigid ways of thinking. In previous studies, the concept of interpreters’ role has evolved from negative metaphors such as conduit or telephone line, to invisibility versus visibility, to communication facilitator or cultural mediator, to continuum, and to role deviation in the current study. Arguably, role deviation gives us another macroscopic perspective to view interpreters’ role.

References Barik, C. 1971. A Descriptive of Various Types of Omissions, Additions and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpreting. Meta 4: 199–210. Channell, J. 2000. Vague Language. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Dong, Na. 2003. Mohu Xianzhiyu de Jieding he Fenlei [Hedges: Definition and Categorization]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University 4: 28–34. Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models in Interpreter and Translator Training. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins. He, Ziran. 1985. Mohu Xianzhiyu yu Yanyu Jiaoji [Hedges and Verbal Communication]. Journal of Foreign Languages 5: 27–32. Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. 1989. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. London: Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. 2005. Prudence, Precision and Politeness: Hedges in Academic Writing. Quaderns de Filologia: Estudies Lingüistics 10 (4): 99–112. Mackintosh, J. 1983. Relay Interpretation: An Exploratory Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of London. Mason, I. 2014. Power in Face-to-Face Interpreting Event. In The Sociological Turn in Translation and Interpreting Studies, ed. C. Angelelli. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ozolins, U. 2016. The Myth of the Myth of Invisibility. Interpreting 18: 273–284. Prince et al. 1982. On Hedging in Physician Discourse. In Linguistics and the Profession, ed. J. Robert, 83–97. Norwood, NJ: Alex Publishing Corporation.

References

109

Pan, Jianrong. 2007. Mohu Xiuci de Yuyong Fenxi [Pragmatic Analysis of Rhetoric Vagueness]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Pöchhacker, F. 2008. Interpreting as Mediation. In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting, ed. C. Garcés and A. Martin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Setton, R. 2011. Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies: Overview and Prospects. In Corpus-Based Translation Studies Research and Application, ed. A. Kruger and K. Wallmach. London, UK: Continuum. Verschueren, J. 2000. Understanding Pragmatics. Arnold: The Holder Headline Group. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Routledge. Wadensjö, C. 2004. Dialogue Interpreting: A Monologising Practice in a Dialogically Organized World. Target 1: 105–124. Xi, Congqing. 2010. Jueselun-Geren yu Shehui de Hudong [On Personal Roles: The Mutual Interaction Between an Individual and Society]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University. Zahran, A. 2007. The Consecutive Conference Interpreter as Intercultural Mediato: A CognitivePragmatic Approach to the Interpreter’s Role. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Salford.

Chapter 7

Conclusion

Abstract This Chapter serves as a conclusion of the whole study on interpreters’ role as perceived through the use of hedges in Chinese government conference interpreting, presents major findings and contributions, acknowledges our limitations and provides some suggestion and recommendation for future studies. The three major findings involve hedges distribution and statistical significance results, interpreters’ role deviation via hedges shifting and shifting regularities, actual roles in role deviation of conference. At the empirical level, this research reports a set of data on hedges in ChineseEnglish conference interpreting, which is believed to further the debates over interpreters’ role in future studies. The conceptual contributions mainly consist in the demonstration of role deviation of conference interpreters and the establishment of theoretical and analytic framework. The combination of corpus-based discourse analysis and programming language Python should be a courageous and creative attempt in methodology. Despite these above-mentioned findings and contribution, several limitations of this research should be reckoned with. A small proportion of hedges might be produced subconsciously or out of utterance habituation, which possibly disturbs our final results. Interpreters’ language choice and their decision-making process need to be further delved into in future studies. Keywords Major findings · Contributions · Limitations and future directions

7.1 Major Findings Overall, this research centers on interpreters’ role as perceived through the use of hedges in Chinese government conference interpreting. In brief, hedges are taken as the intervening point to observe and describe role behavior of conference interpreters in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting in conference settings. With role expectations as a frame of reference, role deviation of conference interpreters in Chinese government press conference interpreting is verified by quantitative data of hedges shifts and qualitative discourse analysis. Taken together, there are three major

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3_7

111

112

7 Conclusion

findings which are tightly correlated with our research questions given in Chap. 1. Accordingly, these findings are considered responses to our three research questions.

7.1.1 Hedges Distribution and Statistical Significance Results The first empirical finding involves the distribution of hedges in Chinese and in English and the statistical significance results. The data includes the distribution of hedges in total as well as the sub-categories of hedges as defined by Prince et al. High frequency words in both corpuses are also identified. This finding enriches the repertoire of studies on hedges not only in interpreting studies but also in fuzzy linguistics. The distribution of hedges as reported in this research offers a set of exploratory data to further the debate on interpreters’ role in conference settings. It can also serve as reference for interpreting learners when considering their use of hedges. In addition, statistical difference analysis among three pairs of hedges shows that: • there is no significant difference between adapters in Chinese and in English; • there is slight significant difference between rounders in Chinese and in English; • there is strong significant difference between plausibility shields in Chinese and in English; • there is strong significant difference between attribution shields in Chinese and in English. From these statistical results, it can be inferred that conference interpreters have exerted influences on the interpreting interaction by ways of hedges processing. In other words, conference interpreters have performed some non-prescriptive roles, which results in statistical differences among those three pairs of hedges identified above. Hedges distribution and statistical results are the preliminary exploratory findings in this research. Previous studies of Hale (2004), Wang and Li (2015), Pan (2015) etc., are still confined to the pragmatic effect of hedges in individual cases or hedges distribution in corpus. Their data of hedges is purely described; in-depth exploration into possible reasons behind data differences is still absent. Compared with previous studies, this research is partially in line with the results of the studies by Wang and Li (2015) and Magnifico and Defrancq (2017). In essence, this research might be an extension of previous studies, from data description to data mining and data reflection. Our second finding involves role deviation of conference interpreters via hedges shifts and shifting regularities.

7.1 Major Findings

113

Table 7.1 Data on hedges shifting and shifting regularities (C-E) Hedges ways of processing

Additions

Equivalences

Abridgements

Substitutions

The Total Number

1,566

2,137

872

136

The Most Apparent

712

972

558

58

Category

(Plausibility shields)

(Adapters)

(Adapters)

(Attribution shields)

7.1.2 Role Deviation via Hedges Shifting and Shifting Regularities The most crucial finding in the whole study is that role deviation of conference interpreters exists. This statement is supported by the empirical data of hedges shifts and shifting regularities. By horizontally comparing aligned paragraphs and carefully observing hedges between the Chinese corpus and the English corpus, it can be summarized that conference interpreters have adopted four ways to process hedges from Chinese to English. They are addition, abridgement, substitution and equivalence. According to corpus-based data on hedges shifts gathered by the present research, the frequency of ways of hedges processing in the interpreting process are as Table 7.1. To take a further step, the most common type of hedges in each way of hedges processing are identified as followed: • • • •

adapters are the most common in the equivalences category; plausibility shields are the most common in the additions category; adapters are the most common in the abridgements category; attribution shields are the most common in the substitutions category;

These above are hedges shifting regularities. Overall, a combination of empirical data of hedges shifts and shifting regularities makes it possible and safe to draw a conclusion that role deviation of conference interpreters actually exists. In previous studies by Wadensjö (1998), Pöllabauer (2012), Jones and Lee (2014) etc., similar concepts of interpreters’ role have been brought up such as “role distance”, “role discrepancy” and “role space”. These are only tailored for community interpreters’ role. Also, no empirical evidence are offered to support those claims. In this research, that hedges shifts and shifting regularities apparently point to role deviation of conference interpreters could be a methodological finding.

7.1.3 Actual Roles in Role Deviation of Conference Interpreters Having established that role deviation of conference interpreters exists, the present research seeks to identify what non-prescribed roles conference interpreters have

114

7 Conclusion

actually performed. By analyzing functions of hedges involved in hedges shifting regularities as identified above, four possible roles are named: keepers of semantic information, regulators of pragmatic tone, distributors of discourse responsibility, and controllers of cognitive resources. Based on the aforementioned hedges shifting regularities and their corresponding linguistic functions, it is possible to derive that interpreters have performed some roles via functions of hedges: The role of keepers of semantic information through adapters and rounders; The role of regulators of pragmatic tone through plausibility shields; The role of distributors of discourse responsibility through attribution shields; The role of controllers of cognitive resources through adapters; As discovered in the previous two chapters, 2,137 hedges are interpreted into their equivalents, among which 972 adapters and 402 rounders carry semantic information, thus it can be observed that conference interpreters have in effect maintained the role of semantic information keepers. A total of 1,566 hedges have been added by interpreters when interpreting from Chinese to English, among which 712 plausibility shields carry pragmatic meaning and functions. Following this vein, it can be deduced that interpreters have employed plausibility shields to perform the role of regulators of pragmatic tone. 136 hedges are substituted by interpreters, among which 48 attribution shields carry the functions of distancing discourse responsibility, so it can be reasoned that interpreters are occasionally performing the role of distributors of discourse responsibility through the use of hedges. 872 hedges are abridged by interpreters, among which 558 adapters can economize and balance cognitive resources of interpreters. Unsurprisingly it could be argued that conference interpreters are also performing the role of controllers of cognitive resources. Those newly-discovered roles of conference interpreters are different from the conventional view that interpreters should only perform a passive role within the prescriptive role boundary. However, role deviation of conference interpreters is more likely unacceptable in traditional literature and interpreting professional standards. The findings of non-prescriptive roles of conference interpreters contribute a new and interesting perspective towards the issue of interpreters’ role. On the whole, the three major findings from this research shed new lights on conference interpreters’ role in Chinese government context, both empirically and conceptually. The findings also make a strong argument for interpreters’ role in conference interpreting being far from the so-called simple converter or mouthpiece. In fact, conference interpreters deviate from their prescriptive role as written on paper. They may shift their roles by means of discourse according to context and potential communicative intentions.

7.2 Contributions of This Study As Gile mentions, “research contribution can take three forms: empirical contribution, conceptual (theoretical) contribution, and methodological contribution”.

7.2 Contributions of This Study

115

Empirical contributions refer to the discovery of unknown physical, social and behavioral entities or the unveiling of facts describing their nature or behaviors. Conceptual contributions are mainly related to new theory, new hypotheses to test, and new analysis on known facts and so on. Methodological contributions are involved with new methods for data collecting, new experimental design, new statistical procedures, or new categorization tools. (2001, p. 5)

As such, in this current research on interpreters’ role as perceived through the use of hedges, it is believed that we have made three contributions: the first on an empirical level, the second on a conceptual level, and the third on a methodological level. The empirical contribution made by this study refers to the set of data on hedges that has been extracted and reported. It includes hedges frequency, distribution in total and subcategories, statistically significant differences and its shifting regularities. This exploratory set of data can further the debates over interpreters’ role in future studies and provide some more materials with which to reflect on previous studies on interpreters’ role from other perspectives. Corpus-based discourse analysis on specific linguistic features can provide convincing evidences for conference interpreters’ patterns of behavior, meaning that in-depth exploration of interpreters’ role can be undertaken in the future. The conceptual contributions of this research are in two parts. The first is that role deviation of conference interpreters exists. This is a breakthrough in the concept of interpreters’ role, because it can help deconstruct previous views of interpreters’ role such as the conduit metaphor. It can also emancipate studies on interpreters’ role from the controversy of visibility and invisibility and renew our understanding of interpreters’ role from the vantage point of behavioral science. This could be considered as a conceptual progress. The second conceptual contribution is related to the theoretical and analytical framework in Chap. 3. This framework is a theoretical contribution that can be utilized in future studies of interpreters’ role. At present, rarely can we find a complete theoretical and analytical framework for studies on interpreters’ role; what we can find are only fragmented theoretical perspectives borrowed from neighboring disciplines without much independent thought. In this research, we establish a theoretical framework based on role theory and correlate it to our research questions and purposes. In a sense, this framework is a theoretical contribution for future studies on interpreters’ role. The final contribution, which comes on a methodological level, is the method of corpus-based discourse analysis, which is a noteworthy methodological contribution in this research. Studies on interpreters’ role in the literature are mostly based on case analysis and theoretical speculation; as such, their various conclusions are inevitably more or less subjective and biased. Comparatively, corpusbased discourse analysis can adequately describe linguistic features, providing evidences of interpreters’ patterns of behavior. Data-driven conclusions regarding interpreters’ roles are less subjective than conclusions made directly from individual cases. Nevertheless, corpus data can only take you so far; further effort is required to delve into reasons behind statistical differences. Thus, this research

116

7 Conclusion

integrates quantitative data from corpus with qualitative discourse analysis, with the aim to address the weaknesses of the corpus-based approach. In addition, what is noteworthy is that a programming language called Python is integrated into corpus in this study for the first time, which is a courageous and creative attempt in corpus interpreting studies. Python can overcome the deficiencies of traditional corpus and make corpus more powerful in data retrieval, extraction, word segmentation, data visualization and so on. In short, the present research is expected to shed light on interpreters’ role using a new method, a new empirical path, and a new perspective. The current author hopefully believes that it may contribute to the revisiting of the concept of conference interpreters’ role and the rethinking of current conference interpreting practice standards and professional interpreting ethics.

7.3 Limitations and Future Directions This study has some unavoidable limitations which mainly manifest in two aspects. In the first place, hedges, as the intervening point in this research, play an important role in our findings. As such, in the present study, hedges additions, abridgements, substitutions, and equivalences have all been treated as conscious language behavior of interpreters when interpreting in consecutive mode. However, it has to be acknowledged that there might be a small proportion of hedges that are not consciously produced by interpreters. Some hedges may be produced subconsciously or out of utterance habituation. This may incur query and even discredit from some scholars, as they may say, this small proportion of hedges might make a slight difference to the final results. The current author remains with her argument and attempts to account for this limitation. For one thing, due to restricted research conditions, it is a huge challenge for researchers to make a distinction between conscious output and subconscious output when producing discourse. For another thing, considering that conference interpreters in diplomatic settings need clear consciousness to judge and cope with sensitive problems and consecutive mode can allow interpreters to have several seconds to make conscious decisions in the interpreting process, this research prefers to believe that hedges shifting are driven by conscious role behavior of interpreters. Besides, systemic functional linguistics, pragmatics, social linguistics and cognitive linguistics all are inclined to acknowledge that language choice is conscious. Just as explained by Tian, “if all language choice is subconscious, language studies would be limited to language itself without language users, and language studies would be meaningless” (Tian 2007, p. 11). Therefore, this research regards interpreters’ use of hedges and their ways of processing hedges as conscious behavior. What’s more, the corpus-based method is intentionally taken by the current author in this research, with the aim of not only discovering hedges distribution and shifting regularities, but also attenuating the effect brought about

7.3 Limitations and Future Directions

117

by the hedges produced subconsciously or habitually, because this proportion of hedges can be regarded as a small probability event which is insignificant and negligible in the big data of large-scale corpus. In the second place, though this research attempts to probe into the reasons why interpreters have made the decision to add, abridge, substitute and equalize certain hedges, it still constitutes another limitation of this research. In fact, the most effective and direct approach to discern the reasons behind language choices is to ask the interpreters themselves; however, it is difficult to gain access to most of the official state-level interpreters whose interpreting product was used in this study. Owing to this restriction, it is not feasible to directly ask why conference interpreters make certain decisions when dealing with hedges. In this research, our explanations as to why interpreters choose to add, abridge, substitute or equalize hedges, or why certain kinds of hedges are densely distributed in those categories, are merely some preliminary possible account for interpreters’ decision-making processes. Further study needs to be made to delve into interpreters’ language choice and their decision-making process. Although the second problem can not be surmounted at the moment, three possibilities it hopefully to be sketched: First, in order to figure out reasons behind interpreters’ ways of hedges processing, the current author investigates some speeches, interviews, and lectures of conference interpreters of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, with the purpose of seeking some indirect hints. According to the experience sharing and discussion from state-level conference interpreters, there is no exception that political sensitivity and loyalty are both prioritized by interpreters in press conferences. As mentioned by Zhang (2017) in her speech in universities, “interpreters need to have sensitive political awareness; besides, weighing the words, modifying the pragmatic effect, maintaining the loyalty are indispensable”. Following this vein, it can be induced that political awareness and professional loyalty of conference interpreters in Chinese government press conferences are two possible factors involved in interpreters’ ways of hedges processing. Secondly, to gain an insight into interpreters’ ways of hedges processing, integrating corpus-based analysis with the method of interview or think aloud protocol may provide a window into interpreters’ mental thinking when processing hedges in the translation and interpreting process. Thirdly, in the era of big data and artificial intelligence, interdisciplinary cooperation among brain science, cognition, behavioral science and corpus linguistics might throw light on decision-making in the interpreting process. For instance, functional magnetic resonance image (FMRI) and eye tracker have been applied to explore the simultaneous interpreting process. Despite those limitations, this research is successful in discovering role deviation of interpreters and the actual roles performed by interpreters. A new path is arguably being taken to explore interpreters’ role via a certain language item as an intervening point to penetrate into role behaviors and discourse intentions of interpreters. Nevertheless, this research has only uncovered a small part of interpreters’

118

7 Conclusion

role. Interpreters’ role is still a vast topic with much potential. After all, a single research can’t solve all of the problems in this domain. The majority of research can only add one more brick to the building which has been erected by predecessors. Therefore, future studies on this topic is worthwhile as it may allow us to see interpreters’ role more deeply and comprehensively. Future researches may be conducted in the following aspects: A closer look at interpreters’ role in other modes of interpreting (SI mode) in political and diplomatic settings. In due course, a corpus-based comparative investigation can be made into the differences between role behavior for consecutive interpreters and role behavior for simultaneous interpreters. A closer look at role performance of different groups of interpreters by analyzing their interpreting products in corpus, e.g. expert interpreters VS. novice interpreters, experienced interpreters VS. non-experienced interpreters, female interpreters VS. male interpreters and so on. A closer look into how and why interpreters make language choices. Interpreters’ decision-making process is an area that needs deep exploration, especially using methods such as interviews, think aloud protocols, eye tracker and functional magnetic resonance image (FMRI). Due to the lack of direct access to majority of conference interpreters, the investigation into interpreters’ decision making would be better conducted in dialogue interpreting or public service interpreting, as it is more practicable and plausible.

References Gile, D. 2001. Getting Started in Interpreting Research: Methodological Reflections, Personal Accounts and Advice for Beginner. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hale, S. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Llewellyn-Jones, P., and R.G. Lee. 2014. Redefining the Role of Community Interpreter: The Concept of Role Space. Lincoln: SLI Press. Magnifico, C., and B. Defrancq. 2017. Hedges in Conference Interpreting: The Role of Gender. Interpreting 1: 21–46. Pöllabauer, S. 2012. Gate Keeping Practice in Interpreted Social Service Encounters. Meta 1: 213–234. Pan, Feng. 2014. Jiyu Yuliaoku de Hanying Huiyi Kouyi Mohu Xianzhiyu de Yingyong Yanjiu[A Corpus-based Study of the Application of Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting].Shangdong Foreign Language Teaching 4: 21–29. Tian, Hailong. 2007. Yuyan Xuanze Yanjiu de Houxiandai Tezheng[Late Modernity in the Multiple Approaches to Language Choice]. Foreign Language Research 6: 8–12. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London/New York: Routledge. Wang, Li, and Tao Li. 2015. Jiyu Yuliaoku de Hanying Huiyi Kouyi Mohu Xianzhiyu Yanjiu[A Corpus-based Study on Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting]. Chinese Translators Journal 5: 96–100. Zhang, Lu. 2017. Speech Delivered by Zhang Lu in Hongkong: On Diplomatic Translation. http:// www.sohu.com/a/128800507_126. Accessed 10 June.

Appendix A

AIIC Code of Professional Ethics1

Purpose and Scope Article 1 a)

b) c)

This code of Professional Ethics lays down the standards of integrity, professionalism, and confidentiality which all members of the Association shall be bound to respect in their work as conference interpreters. Candidates and precandidates shall also undertake to adhere to the provisions of this Code. The Disciplinary and Disputes Committee, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes, shall impose penalties for any breach of the rules of the profession as defined in this Code.

Code of Honor Article 2 a)

b)

1

Members of the Association shall be bound by the strictest secrecy, which must be observed towards all persons and with regard to all information disclosed in the course of the practice of the profession at any gathering not open to the public. Members shall refrain from deriving any personal gain whatsoever from confidential information they may have acquired in the exercise of their duties as conference interpreters.

https://aiic.net/page/6724.

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3

119

120

Appendix A: AIIC Code of Professional Ethics

Article 3 a)

b)

c) d)

Members of the Association should pursue continuing professional development. Regions may adopt specific policies or regulations in this regard either on voluntary basis or on the basis of relevant legislation where continuing professional development constitutes a statutory obligation. Said policies or regulations shall be submitted to the Executive Committee for approval. Members of the Association shall not accept any assignment for which they are not qualified. Acceptance of an assignment shall imply a moral undertaking on the member’s part to work with all due professionalism. Any member of the Association recruiting other conference interpreters, be they members of the Association or not, shall give the same undertaking. Members of the Association shall not accept more than one assignment for the same period of time.

Article 4 a) b)

Members of the Association shall not accept any job or situation which might detract from the dignity of the profession. They shall refrain from any act which might bring the profession into disrepute.

Article 5 For any professional purpose, members may publicize the fact that they are conference interpreters and members of the Association, either as individuals or as part of any grouping or region to which they belong.

Article 6 a) b)

c)

It shall be the duty of members of the Association to afford their colleagues moral assistance and collegiality. Members shall refrain from any utterance or action prejudicial to the interests of the Association or its members. Any complaint arising out of the conduct of any other member or any disagreement regarding any decision taken by the Association shall be pursued and settled within the Association itself. Any problem pertaining to the profession which arises between two or more members of the Association, including candidates and precandidates, may be referred to the Disciplinary and Disputes Committee for arbitration, except for disputes of a commercial nature.

Working Conditions (omitted) Amendment Procedure (omitted)

Appendix B

AUSIT Code of Ethics for Interpreters & Translators2

(Abbreviated Version)

General Principles Professional Conduct Interpreters and translators act at all times in accordance with the standards of conduct and decorum appropriate to the aims of AUSIT, the national professional association of interpreting and translation practitioners. Explanation: Interpreters and translators take responsibility for their work and conduct; they are committed to providing quality service in a respectful and culturally sensitive manner, dealing honestly and fairly with other parties and colleagues, and dealing honestly in all business practices. They disclose any conflict of interest or any matter that may compromise their impartiality. They observe common professional ethics of diligence and responsiveness to the needs of other participants in their work.

Confidentiality Interpreters and translators maintain confidentiality and do not disclose information acquired in the course of their work. Explanation: Interpreters and translators are bound by strict rules of confidentiality, as are the persons they work with in professional or business fields.

2

https://ausit.org/AUSIT/Documents/Code_Of_Ethics_Full.pdf.

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3

121

122

Appendix B: AUSIT Code of Ethics for Interpreters & Translators

Competence Interpreters and translators only undertake work they are competent to perform in the languages for which they are professionally qualified through training and credentials. Explanation: In order to practice, interpreters and translators need to have particular levels of expertise for particular types of work. Those who work with interpreters and translators are entitled to expect that they are working with appropriately qualified practitioners. Practitioners always represent their credentials honestly. Where formal training or accreditation is not available (e.g. in less frequently used language combinations and new and emerging languages), practitioners have an obligation to increase and maintain skills through their own professional development (see Principle 8 below) or request employers, agencies or institutions to provide it.

Impartiality Interpreters and translators observe impartiality in all professional contacts. Interpreters remain unbiased throughout the communication exchanged between the participants in any interpreted encounter. Translators do not show bias towards either the author of the source text or the intended readers of their translation. Explanation: Interpreters and translators play an important role in facilitating parties who do not share a common language to communicate effectively with each other. They aim to ensure that the full intent of the communication is conveyed. Interpreters and translators are not responsible for what the parties communicate, only for complete and accurate transfer of the message. They do not allow bias to influence their performance; likewise they do not soften, strengthen or alter the messages being conveyed.

Accuracy Interpreters and translators use their best professional judgment in remaining faithful at all times to the meaning of texts and messages. Explanation: Accuracy for the purpose of this Code means optimal and complete message transfer into the target language preserving the content and intent of the source message or text without omission or distortion. They must relay accurately and completely all that is said by all parties in a meeting-including derogatory or vulgar remarks, non-verbal clues, and anything they know to be untrue. They must not alter, add, and omit anything from the assigned work.

Appendix B: AUSIT Code of Ethics for Interpreters & Translators

123

Clarity of Role Boundaries Interpreters and translators maintain clear boundaries between their task as facilitators of communication through message transfer and any tasks that may be undertaken by other parties involved in the assignment. Explanation: The focus of interpreters and translators is on message transfer. Practitioners do not, in the course of their interpreting or translation duties, engage in other tasks such as advocacy, guidance or advice. Even where such other tasks are mandated by particular employment arrangements, practitioners insist that a clear demarcation is agreed on between interpreting and translating and other tasks. For this purpose, interpreters and translators will, where the situation requires it, provide an explanation of their role in line with the principles of this Code.

Appendix C

AVLIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Professional Conduct3

(Abbreviated Version) 1.1 1.2 1.3

Confidentiality Professional Coduct Scope of Practice 1.3.1

1.4 2.0 2.1 2.2.

2.3 2.4 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.2

3

Members will refrain from using their professional role to perform other functions that lie beyond the scope of an interpreting assignment and the parameters of their professional duties. They will not counsel, advice, or interject personal opinions.

Integrity of Service Professional Competence Qualifications to Practice Faithful of Interpretation Every Interpretation shall be faithful to and render exactly the message of the source text. A faithful interpretation should not be confused with a literal interpretation. The fidelity of an interpretation includes an adaption to make the form, the tone and the deeper meaning of the source text felt in the target language and culture. Accountability for Professional Competence Ongoing Professional Developement Non-discrimination Integrity in Professional Relationship Professional Relationship Impartiality 4.2.1 Members shall remain neutral, impartial, and objective. They will refrain from altering a message for political, religious, moral, or philosophical reasons, or any other biased or subjective consideration.

http://www.avlic.ca/ethics-and-guidlines/english.

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3

125

Appendix D

NRPSI Code of Conduct for Public Service Interpreters4

(Abbreviated Version) I. II. III.

Introduction Competence Procedure a)

b) IV.

Interpreter truly and faithfully what is said, without anything being added, omitted or changed; in exceptional circumstances a summary may be given if requested or consented to by both parties. Not enter into the discussion, give advice or express opinions or reactions to any of the parties.

Ethical and Professional Issues

Interpreters will: a) b) c) d)

4

Respect confidentiality at all times and not seek to take advantage of any information disclosed during their work. Act in an impartial and professional manner. Not discriminate against any parties, either directly or indirectly. Disclose any information which may make them unsuitable in any particular case. Not accept any form of reward, whether in cash or otherwise, for interpreting work other than payment by the employer.

http://www.nrpsi.org.uk/.

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3

127

Appendix E

ATA Code of Professional Conduct and Business Practices5

(Abbreviated Version) As a translator or interpreter, a bridge for ideas from one language to another language and one culture to another, I commit myself to the highest standards of performance, ethical behaviors, and practices. I will endeavor to translate or interpret the original message faithfully, to satisfy the needs of the end users. I acknowledge that this level of excellence requires: Mastery of the target language equivalent to that of an educated native speaker; Up-to-date knowledge of the subject material and its terminology in both languages; Access to information resources and reference materials, and knowledge of the tools of my profession; Continuing efforts to improve, broaden, and deepen my skills and knowledge; I will be truthful about my qualifications and will not accept any assignments for which I am not fully qualified. I will safeguard the interests of my clients as my own and divulge no confidential information. I will notify my clients of any unresolved difficulties. If we can not resolve a dispute, we will seek arbitration. I will use a client as a reference only if I am prepared to name a person to attest to the quality of my work. I will respect and refrain from interfering with or supplanting any business relationship between my client and my client’s client.

5

http://www.atanet.org/.

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press 2022 J. Hu, Hedges in Chinese-English Conference Interpreting, SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1442-3

129