CCI process models

The earliest account of the processes of CCI and SI has been proposed by Herbert (1952) who has identified the three stages of ‘understanding’, ‘transference’ and ‘speaking’ (ibid: 10). However, as Pöchhacker (2004: 97) argues, Herbert’s account is too general since it only touches on language-related issues and practical interpreting techniques and suggestions without venturing much into the mental aspects underlying the process. More detailed models have later been proposed by several other researchers. Among these are Seleskovitch’s theory of sense, Gile’s Effort models and Weber’s model which are the subject of the present discussion in the following sub-sections. The list of models chosen here is by no means comprehensive, but is only selected as a representative sample since there are other researchers who have suggested more or less similar models or stages of the process either in passing (cf. e.g. Henderson 1976: 108; Dam 1993: 297) or with detailed discussions (cf. Jones 1998). It is representative in that each one of these models approaches the issue from a different perspective or point of emphasis. The list is thus intended to reflect this variety.

3.2.1.1 Theory of sense

A more cognitive-oriented model than Herbert’s has been proposed by Seleskovitch (e.g. 1986a: 375). The theory of sense, as the model is known, identifies three stages in the translation process: the ‘apprehension’ of a SL message delivered by means of the words and structure of the SL, ‘deverbalization’ of the sense of the SL message in the interpreter’s mind, and ‘expression’ of that sense in the TL. Seleskovitch (ibid) argues that the distinctive feature of the model is its universality across language-pairs and discourse types, thus moving emphasis away from language, grammar or style to the interpreter’s mind. See Seleskovitch and Lederer (1995) and Chapter 4 for a detailed account of this model.

3.2.1.2 Effort Models

Gile (e.g. 1997) has proposed the ‘Effort Models’ originally for the SI process and has later extended them to CCI. Gile identifies two stages: ‘a listening phase’, during which the interpreter listens to the SL message and takes notes, and ‘a reformulation phase’, during which the interpreter delivers the SL speech in the TL with the help of notes and memory (ibid: 202). The listening and analysis phase is represented as follows:

Listening = L + M + N + C

where L refers to the listening and analysis, M to STM, N to note-taking and C to the coordination efforts. The listening and analysis effort involves comprehension-related operations including the analysis of sounds forming the SL speech, the identification of words and any decisions made about the meaning of the SL sentences. The STM component occurs between the reception of the SL information and the time this information is jotted down, the moment the interpreter decides not to note it down, or the moment this information fades away from the STM. The note-taking effort consists of decisions as to which information to note and how to note it (as complete words or abbreviations, in the TL or SL, as symbols or drawings, etc.) and the execution of these decisions. The coordination effort refers to the set of operations intended to create harmony between the other decisions involved and their implementation (ibid).

The reformulation phase is represented as follows:

Reformulation = Rem + Read + P

where Rem refers to the operations involved in recalling information from memory, Read to reading information from notes, and P to the implementation of the speech plan (ibid).

The sum total of the efforts involved in the process should not at any stage exceed the interpreter’s processing capacity limits; otherwise, problems are bound to occur. Gile thus argues that the Effort Models have the power to explain the occurrence of failures, errors or omissions not related to interpreters’ weakness in the SL/TL proficiency, world knowledge or interpreting skills, but to a heavy cognitive load resulting from processing capacity deficit and/or mismanagement (ibid: 197/205ff).

3.2.1.3 Weber’s model

Weber (1989b: 163) argues that there are five stages involved in the CCI process: the hearing, listening, analysis, memorisation and/or note-taking and interpreting phases. The first phase is the most automatic one as it cannot be consciously interrupted, but it is not enough to make the interpreter understand the meaning of the original speech.

The listening phase, however, is fully conscious and requires the CCIr’s constant and utmost concentration not on the form or words of the original, but its meaning and should thus eliminate from the next phase any unnecessary elements to the full TL rendition.

The analysis stage overlaps with the listening phase. In this stage, the interpreter understands the original speech in its details and consciously chooses what to relay to the TL audience and in what way.

The memorising and/or note-taking stage involves the interpreter’s conscious choice of parts of the original to be memorised and others to be taken down. This conscious decision varies from one interpreter to the other and relies on such variables as the subject matter, stress, language combination, training, personal preference or experience.

The last phase is the interpreter’s actual TL rendition of the SL message. This phase becomes more automatic and requires a lesser amount of effort if the interpreter has invested more effort in the preceding stages.