5.3. Interpreting without “Understanding” the Sense

“Understanding” of the sense of the message presumes that the interpreter has some knowledge of what the sign means, i.e. associates the sense with some denotatum (object or event of the real world) and also knows (maybe in pretty general terms) what stands behind this denotatum, what its nature is, how it functions, etc. Therefore, ideally the interpreter is a little bit of an expert in the subject field he works. However, in real life the situation is not always like this, especially when interpreters deal with translation of specific texts presented orally which are full of special subject field terms (technical, academic, medical, etc.). Interpreters physically cannot know everything about the world and be “narrow experts” in all subject fields they have to deal with.

However practical experience shows that successful interpretation is possible even if the interpreter has no understanding of the nature of the denotatum, i.e. does not exactly know what stands behind a certain “technical” word or phrase. Naturally, such translation can be achieved under three conditions:

1. correct perception of the language sign by the interpreter, first of all at the phonetic level;

2. having the meaning (not obligatory the sense) of the TL language sign and its SL equivalent in the operational memory (personal “mental glossary”) of the interpreter;

3. if the SL text is not overloaded with professional slang and jargon, which is understood only by a limited group of specialists. The fact that many subject field terms are practically internationalisms (often borrowed from Latin, Ancient Greek or coined according to these classical languages models) also may be in favor of the interpreter.

For example:

The increase of the Nickel concentration is known to lead to the increase of irradiation embrittlement rate. The highest content of Nickel is in the weld metal of Khmelnytsky NPP–1 and is equal to 1,88%.

The interpreter, who has a certain thesaurus of physics in his operational memory (subject matter terms are underlined in the examples) will be able to render this passage correctly even without in–depth insight into the nature of nuclear physics processes:

Відомо, що підвищення вмісту нікелю може призвести до зростання темпів радіаційного охрупчування. Найвищий вміст нікелю має зварний метал першого блоку Хмельницької АЕС, який складає 1,88%.

Another example is:

Серед частини радіобіологів укріпилася думка про нібито дуже високу радіостійкість рослин, і цьому елементу забрудненого радіонуклідами біоценозу відводиться важлива роль, здебільшого лише як ланки трофічного ланцюга на транспортному шляху до людини.

The interpreter, who has a certain thesaurus in the field of radiobiology in his operational memory, will be able to translate this passage correctly even without in–depth insight into the nature of the matter in question:

The prejudice about supposedly very high plant radio-resistance has been confirmed among some radiobiologists and the significant role is given to this part of radionuclide contaminated biocenosis mainly as a link of trophic chain in transport way to humans.

It's worth mentioning that the thesaurus of an interpreter/translator is a long–term memory, which is capable of storing a great amount of information. Some analysts of translation and interpretation believe that this information “fades away” with time, others consider that memory is capable of keeping the whole of information and forgetting is simply connected with personal lack of ability to unpack the data needed at the given moment. However, we have to admit that there are two types of information stored in the interpreter's thesaurus:

1. information, which was perceived and became understood (in such case the interpreter has a more or less deep insight into the nature of the denotata);

2. information, which was perceived and “recorded” in the memory in the form of certain TL signs and their SL equivalents without profound understanding of the nature of the corresponding denotata.

We may admit that in the first instance the lifetime of the information is longer and in the second one – shorter. However, in both instances it is quite feasible to perform an adequate interpretation, which will have the same communicative impact on the TL recipient as the original message has on the SL recipient.

Interpreting practice shows that it is very useful for interpreters to keep personal subject field electronic glossaries, each in a separate folder, in the computer and to update them regularly (perhaps after every interpretation session) so that thesaurus of the interpreter doesn't fade away and is always in line with the fast–changing world of today.

Questions for discussion:

1. Comment on the notion of perception the sense of oral messages.

2. How are sense perception and understanding a message formed?

3. What does the word combination “inner speech” on the interpreter imply?

4. Is it possible to translate without “understanding” the sense of a message?