236
TYPES OF OMISSION AND ADDITION IN SIMULTANEOUS
INTERPRETATION
Mukhriddin Umaraliyev Komoliddin o‘g‘li
1st year Master Student, Simultaneous Interpretation, Uzbekistan State World
Languages University
Omission in simultaneous interpretation, known as an incomplete rendition of
the information present in the source language, has long been a contentious issue.
Altman (1994), Barik (1994), Gile (1995; 1999) as well as Setton (1999) have
perceived omission in simultaneous interpreting either as a mistake or as a technique
that interpreters may use only in extremely difficult conditions, when experiencing
cognitive overload. Furthermore, Viaggio (2002), Visson (2005) and Pym (2008) draw
attention to the pragmatic approach to omission, treating it as a conscious decision
made by the interpreter rather than a mistake resulting from miscomprehension. The
main purpose of the study is to check whether both interpreting trainees and
professional interpreters are sensitive to the pragmatic aspect of omissions. We ask
whether they tend to use deliberate omission in a real interpreting task in order to
eliminate message redundancy or whether they stick to the original. Exclusion has
moreover been treated by a few analysts as a procedure that an translator may resort
to as it were when constrained by a few outside trouble. Gile (1995: 173) talks about
“high rate of delivery”, “high thickness of the information content” as well as “strong
accents” and “incorrect linguistic use and lexical usage” as cases of circumstances
which will jeopardize the interpreter’s ability to donate a total version. On the off
chance that mediators cannot disentangle what has been said by the speaker, they
will be constrained to condense the speech and omit certain data. Typically, in any
case, not considered to be a think act by the translator, who might have judged a few
parts of discourse as redundant, but as a need coming about from the boundlessness
of the speech and the overpowering mental over-burden that the mediator in this way
experiences. Expansion is the addition of data not spoken to within the comparing
source articulation (see Cokely 1992), i.e. the target transcript (TT) of the
translated/interpreted expression contains sections that have no comparing source
transcript (ST) section. To include elements to an deciphered message means that
the translator must think inventively over the endeavors of tuning in, analyzing,
reformulating, memorizing, and creating the target message, subsequently setting a
tall request on the restricted cognitive capacity accessible and in this way on
translating endeavors (Gile 1995).
Sorts of increments In interpretation and deciphering, the ponder of increments
has basically centered on explicitation
– coined by Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1995)
as “the handle of presenting data into the target dialect which is display as it were
verifiably within the source dialect, but which can be derived from the setting or the
situation” – so that the term expansion is utilized only to assign “information that's
verbalized within the target content [which] is truant from the source content and not
deemed to be understood in it” (Krüger 2013: 288), i.e. included things which are i)
not inferable from the ST and ii) not portion of th
e source dialect audience’s common
237
information (Schreiber 1993: 229 in Krüger 2013: 288). (See too Wadensjö’s (1998)
distinction between ‘expanded renditions’ (elaborations on thoughts communicated
or inferred within the source expressions) and ‘nonrenditions’ (augmentations at the
interpreter’s claim activity).) Various reasons have been proposed as to why
interpreters produce additions. Although Barik (1994) considers additions errors, he
observes that better qualified simultaneous signed language interpreters add more
than less qualified ones.
Braun (2017) observes the same for remote interpreting. This indicates that
additions are strategic. By contrast, Gumul (2017) concludes that additions in SI are
mostly subconscious, arising from the limitations imposed on interpreters in terms of
time constraints and limited access to thesource utterance. Although focusing only
on explicitation, Baumgarten et al. (2008) propose that the interpreting mode,
interpreter experience and linguistic/cultural factors determine the degree of
additions.Jacobsen (2003) classifies additions in terms of their semantic or pragmatic
impact as negligible (repetitions, fillers, false starts), minimal (repetitions, certain
fillers, paralinguistic additions, explicitation of obvious implicit or nonverbal
information, added synonyms) or significant (emphasizing or down-toning additions,
new information additions).
Negligible impact additions are recognized as coping strategies (Dose 2010;
Gile 1995), whereas minimal impact additions indicate attitude and interaction with
addressees (non-neutrality), as well as function as either coping or gatekeeping
mechanisms (Klaudy 2009; Stone 2009).Significant impact additions imply that
interpreters go beyond their normative (conduit) role (Wadens
jö 1998).In this article,
additions are explored using a text-based parallel corpus comprising approximately
four hours of English news broadcasts simultaneously interpreted into Uzbek.
Therefore, gloss transcripts were created in MS Word and converted to plain text for
analysis in AntConc (Anthony 2018). Due to the high level of annotation required to
represent NMFs, source and target transcripts were constructed as separate time-
aligned documents.
REFERENCES:
1.
Altman, Janet. 1994. “Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous
interpretation: A pilot study”
2. In S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer (eds) Bridging the gap: Empirical
research in simultaneous interpretation.
3. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 25-38. Barik, Henri C. 1994.
“A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation
encountered in simultaneous interpretation”.
4. In S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer (eds) Bridging the gap: Empirical
research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
