Culture in Communication
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
254 FRANK ERNST MÜLLER
However, note that the high intensification is accompanied by a linguistic
indicator of overexplicitness, the use of the expletive ‘ou pas’ (‘or not’) in 60
(which is not rendered by the DI, cf. 62). Lack of sequential development and
the overexplicitness noted in the speech of the primary interlocutor point to a
particular use of intensifiers in interpreted conversation. Intensifiers heighten
the discernibility of what is important in speech content. Note that in both
cases, the intensification/cumulation grades up and makes evaluations of
aspects of intercultural behaviour (and intercultural politeness) more discern-
ible. In this way, i.e. by heightening the discernibility of things which they
want to ‘get across’ at all costs, primary interlocutors can orient to the indirect
and relayed character of the conversation, where utterances must first pass
through the ‘hedge’ of translation before reaching the recipient. Interpreted
conversation may thus also induce effects of ‘heightening intermediate val-
ues’. In fact, these effects are compatible with the hyperbolic tendency of
juvenile slang and both may contribute to the generation of the saliency and
frequency of intensifiers noted in the present data.
2.2. The translation of evaluative modalities
The DI orients to the subcultural membership of primary interlocutors and to
distinctive features of their speech varieties not just by translating back and
forth in both directions, but in a number of more subtle ways, notably in
lexical and stylistic choices. This orientation becomes apparent in detailed
observation of the translation of intensification.
Linguistic features of intensity are difficult to describe, due to their
complexity — their effects may comprise and globally affect several units at
once — and their gradient, i.e. their imprecise nature (cf. Labov 1972).
11
For
these reasons, they are often not easily and directly transferable from one
language to another and may be difficult to translate as a result.
When grading, and highgrade superlative terms in particular, occur in
translated interactions, the DI can only rarely make use of a ‘closest natural
equivalent’ (Nida), i.e. a straightforward lexical correspondence in the other
language. This is, however, the case in the first of the two high gradings in
fragment (3). The topic talked about — a topic both of inter- and infra-cultural
interest — is soccer and the world championship in France. (‘Lens’ is a town
in France and F4 explains his preference for the Lens soccer team).
255
D
IALOGUE-INTERPRETING
(3) (Participants as before)
195 F4:sinon euh (2.0) oui ils ont un super publique Lens
196 c’est pour ça il y a une superbe ambience et une
197 équipe qui se batte pas souvent euh c’est le principal
198 DI: also hauptsächlich mag er Lens weil die=n super pu=
199 =ikum habm und=s is immer ne bombenstimmung
200 da
– – –
198 DI: well mainly he likes Lens because they have a super audience there
199 and everybody is in high spirits
200
In the first case, ‘super publique’ (195), the interpreter can retain the linguistic
intensification procedure and carry it over into his rendition in the other
language, where it has a highly similar stylistic value, cf. ‘super Publikum’,
198/9. By keeping the same linguistic procedure, the interpreter appropriately
recipient-designs his translation. In the second case he achieves the same
effect by changing the procedure and avoiding a lexical ‘false friend’ —
‘superbe ambiance’ (196). Although using a parallel procedure
12
and translat-
ing superbe ambiance with ‘superbe Stimmung’ would result in a grammati-
cally admissible German translation, it would be stylistically and subculturally
misplaced.
13
Thus by selecting German Bombenstimmung, which is a drastic,
idiomatic intensifying expression, the DI, relaying the talk of male working
class youths, appropriately avoids the ‘effeminate’ appreciative mode which
might be characteristic of educated middle or upper class speakers.
It is in lexical choices and their manifest ‘recipient design’ that we can see
decisions of the DI being based on and referring to cultural or subcultural
membership most clearly. Note that in (3) the DI omits the last part of F4’s
turn (‘et une équipe qui se batte pas souvent’ etc, 197). Rather than a
‘gatekeeping’ operation, we may suppose that the DI does not translate here
because he is not familiar with a lexical detail which is crucial for understand-
ing this part of the turn, namely that the meaning of ‘se battre’ in French
standard is ‘to fight’. In the present context, however, it carries the technical,
soccer-specific meaning of ‘to lose a match’. It is evident that detailed lexical
knowledge of this kind indicates a degree of (sub) cultural familiarity or
unfamiliarity of a DI.
The DI also adapts his renditions not only at the lexical level, but also at
other linguistic levels, e.g. morphonology: note the DI’s use of reductions,
contractions and other ‘casual speech’-forms
14
in his German translations, for
256 FRANK ERNST MÜLLER
instance in (3), reduced forms of indefinite articles (‘n super Publikum’,198;
‘ne Bombenstimmung’, 199), of pronouns and the copula (‘s is’, 199). Adapta-
tion also occurs at the syntactic level. Note, in (1), the syntactic ‘laxity’ of the
DI in omitting the subject-verb inversion in the second of the two subordi-
nated phrases. (A syntactically correct version in spoken German would be
‘und da immer ne Bombenstimmung is’).
Thus morphonological and syntactic adjustments, as well as lexical selec-
tions, contribute to the clearly informal variety of spoken German used by the
DI in his renditions. It is evident that these and other forms of casual speech
cannot be considered to be proper translations of the French original.
15
Rather,
they are creative mediating ‘inventions’ of the DI, who resorts to an existing
and corresponding spoken variety of the other language. This variety is not
reconstructed by the interpreter point by point, but in a more holistic way,
respecting the configuration and consistency of a whole set of parameters co-
occuring within a linguistic variety.
We do not have to go very far to find such a variety: the linguistic variety
the DI uses in his German renditions closely matches that of his primary
German interlocutors, here A4. Note, e.g. at the morphonological level, the
numerous reduced forms of the German participant in fragment (4). Reduc-
tions of A4 go beyond casual speech forms to include dialect forms (cf. e.g.
‘a=weng’, in 116 (= standard German: ein wenig/a little); ‘heut’ , in 120
(=heute/ today).
(4) (Participants as before)
114 F4:t’aimes bien les matchs ou: (0.5) boff
115 DI: ob dir die Spiele von der WM bisher gefallen
116 A4:ja bloß die Deutschen ham=a=weng (.) schwach
117 gespielt
118 DI: il dit généralement oui mais il n’est pas trè:s (.) pas
119 très content (.) de ce que les Allemands ils ont joué
120 A4:aber heut’ wird’s besser heut’ gewinnen=se zwei null
121 DI: mais aujourd’hui ce sera mieux ils gagneront deux zéro
122 F4:((laughs))
123 DI:contre l’Espagne
124 A4:und im finale butzen=se Brasilien drei zwei
125 DI: ((laughs)) et au finale ils écraseront le Brésil trois à deux
126 F4:ah en finale (laughs)
127 DI:ouais en finale
257
D
IALOGUE-INTERPRETING
128 F4:(.) *oui euh*
129 A4:((laughs)) **do:ch** ((laughs))
– – –
114 F4:t’aimes bien les matchs ou: (0.5) boff
115 DI: if you liked the games of the world championship up to now
116 A4:ja bloß die Deutschen ham=a=weng (.) schwach
117 gespielt
118 DI: hes says yes in general but he is not very (.) not
119 very happy about the way the Germans played
120 A4:aber heut’ wird’s besser heut’ gewinnen=se zwei null
121 DI: but today it will be better today they will win two zero
122 F4:((laughs))
123 DI:against Spain
124 A4:und im Finale butzen=se Brasilien drei zwei
125 DI: ((laughs)) and in the finals (‘au finale’) they will annihilate
Brazil three to two
126 F4:((laughs)) ah in the finals (‘en finale’) ((laughs))
127 DI:ouais en finale
128 F4:(.) *oui euh*
129 A4:((laughs)) **doch** ((laughs))
If we look again at the grading expressions and the way they are handled in
translation by the DI, the above hypothesis — that grading is linguistic
material which is difficult to translate — is corroborated in transcript (4). The
first grading in (4), cf. ‘a=weng (.) schwach gespielt’, 116, is a mitigated
downgrading and belongs to the large class already mentioned: it cannot be
given a direct corresponding translation in the other language.
16
Bilingual
comparison shows that the DI cannot remain within the lexico-syntactic
framework of the French original, but has to reorganize it and give it a new
linguistic shape. As the transcript shows, cf. 118f in (4a) below, the DI is
hesitating about this point and is clearly searching for a suitable formulation in
French:
(4a) Detail from (4)
116 A4:ja bloß die Deutschen ham=a=weng (.) schwach
117 gespielt
118 DI: il dit généralement oui mais il n’est pas trè:s (.) pas
119 très content (.) de ce que les Allemands ils ont joué
Example (4a) also illustrates a recurring feature of the DI’s formulations when
258 FRANK ERNST MÜLLER
translating evaluations. It is true that, looking at the data overall, the DI does
not act consistently when transforming first person into third person utter-
ances. However, when it comes to translating evaluations, he takes special
care to attribute the evaluation explicitly to its responsible ‘author’, the
primary interlocutor.
A4’s intensifying metaphoric term, cf. (4b), 124, ‘butzen’, is a regional or
dialectal one. Literally it means “they will clean them up”, or “polish them
off” and again the term does not tolerate a lexically parallel translation in the
other language. It is rendered by a hyperbolic term, ‘ils écraseront le Brésil’,
in 125, taken from standard French and adequately chosen.
(4b) Detail from (4)
124 A4:und im Finale butzen=se Brasilien drei zwei
125 DI: ((laughs)) et au finale ils écraseront le Brésil trois à deux
As is well known, metaphors from the military world are very frequent in the
terminology of soccer ‘aficionados’. Replacing the dialectal German term in
the way he does allows the DI to retain the linguistic structure of the original
formulation in his rendition.
Transcript (4) also shows phenomena which only rarely occur in the
present data and thus serve to illustrate the prevailing state of affairs to which
they are an exception.
First: The DI, cf. ‘contre l’Espagne’, 123, momentarily switches partici-
pation status and contributes a turn in which he documents his expert knowl-
edge about the matter under discussion. He speaks here in his own right and as
a ‘normal’ participant in the interaction rather than as a specialized agent,
involved in and ‘condemned’ to restoring or preparing other participants’
turns at talk.
17
Second: Transcript (4) contains a short episode in which interaction is not
entirely prefigured and bound up in the organizational framework of turn-by-
turn interpreted conversation and in which the primary interlocutors commu-
nicate (in 128/9), albeit briefly, without an intervening translation. In more
detail: A4, starting at 120, formulates a ‘wild’ hypothesis: The German team
will win against Spain and even get through to the final. F4, in 126, formulates
a recognition of this as a joke (‘ah, en finale’). (The recognition formulation is
analyzed and treated by the DI as a repair of his previous ‘au finale’, cf. his
‘ouais en finale, 127). In 128 F4 starts, hesitatingly and in a low voice, to
formulate a doubt about the hypothesis. As the doubt, recognizable as such by
259
D
IALOGUE-INTERPRETING
(language independent) prosodic marks, emerges, it is contradicted jokingly
and in German by A4 (**doch**), reaffirming the original ‘wild’ hypothesis.
This episode remains, as already mentioned, an exception to the routinely
followed mode of interpreted conversation as maintained by the participants.
Some consequences of this rigid organizational framework will be discussed
in the next section.
In conclusion, the main point of this section has been to present and
discuss observations concerning the specific ‘speech exchange system’ (Sacks,
Schegloff, Jefferson 1974) of interpreted conversation in the particular case at
hand and has shown the (sub-) culturally fine-tuned nature of the activity of the
DI, who selects terms and other stylistic options so that they may figure as
integral parts of the sub-cultural speech variety of the recipients for whom they
are designed. There is thus not just one type of mediation which leads from one
language to another. Mediation proceeds from one situated use of language
and, in the present case, from one juvenile language variety to a corresponding
variety of the other language.
3. Interactive troubles in interpreted conversation — ‘Lousy
conversation’
Even though the DI in our constellation is well versed in juvenile language use
and remains close to the speech of the primary interlocutors in his renditions,
most of the recorded conversations appear strained, clumsy and unfluent.
They are interspersed with silences and are a long way from the flow which
we would find in unmediated ‘natural’ conversation. The following transcripts
illustrate recurring difficulties in these conversations, notably minimal pro-
gression and fragmentation into small units which remain isolated and fail to
give rise to continued and coherent developments.
(5) (Participants: F1, DI, A1)
03 F1:est-ce que t’aime bien euh ce lycée?
04 DI: also sie fragt ob dir die Schule hier gefällt
05 A1:ja die Schule gefällt mir sehr gut
06 DI: i dit qu’i aime bien
07 F1:est-ce qu’il travaille autant (.) ici que là-bas?
08 DI: ob du genauso viel arbeitest wie zuhause in Würzburg
260 FRANK ERNST MÜLLER
09 A1:äh ja (1.0) ich arbeite genauso viel wie in Würzburg
10 DI: Il dit que c’est vrai qu’il travaille autant que chez lui en
11 Allemagne
12 (2.0)
13 F1:comment il a trouvé la France?
14 DI: wie dir Frankreich gefallen hat
15 A1:ja Frankreich is=sehr gut ich werd wieder nach Frankreich
16 kommen
17 DI: Il dit qu’il a bien aimé il reviendra certainment en France
18 (4.0)
19 F1:ce qu’il aime bien faire là-bas en Allemagne
20 DI: was du in deutschland so gerne so machst im allgemeinen
(interaction continues in the question-answer mode)
– – –
03 F1:est-ce que t’aime bien euh ce lycée?
04 DI: well she asks whether you like our school
05 A1:ja die schule gefällt mir sehr gut
06 DI: he says that he likes it very much
07 F1:est-ce qu’il travaille autant (.) ici que là-bas?
08 DI: if you work as much (.) here as at home
09 A1:äh ja (1.0) ich arbeite genauso viel wie in Würzburg
10 DI: he says that it’s true that he works here as much as at home in
11 Germany
12 (2.0)
13 F1:comment il a trouvé la France?
14 DI: how you liked France
15 A1:ja Frankreich is=sehr gut ich werd wieder nach Frankreich
16 kommen
17 DI: he says he liked it very much and will come back to France
18 (4.0)
19 F1:ce qu’il aime bien faire là-bas en Allemagne
20 DI: was was du in deutschland so gerne so machst im allgemeinen
(interaction continues in the question-answer mode)
(6) (Participants: F2; DI; A2)
48 F2:alors comment trouves-tu la l’Allema/la France?
49 DI: wie du Frankreich findest
261
D
IALOGUE-INTERPRETING
50 A2:((laughs)) ja is schön hier es is schön hier
51 DI: euh il dit que c’est très beau ici
53 F2:aimes-tu le projet qu’on est en train de faire?
54 DI: äh wie dir das das projekt gefällt das wir hier bauen das modul
55 A2:s interessant ((laughs))
56 DI: il dit que c’est très intéréssant
57 F2:les filles te plaisent ici?
58 DI: ob dir die mädels hier gefallen
59 A2:((laughs)) ja
60 DI: oui
61 (2.5)
62 F2:que préfères-tu le lycée de Courghain ou l’Ile de Jeanty ou
63 tu dors?
64 DI: was dir besser gefällt die schule hier also Lycée du Courghain oder
65 wo wir schlafen l’Ile Jeanty
(interaction continues in the question-answer mode)
– – –
48 F2:alors comment trouves-tu la l’Allema/la France
49 DI: how you like France
50 A2:((laughs)) ja is schön hier es is schön hier
51 DI: well he says it’s very nice here
53 F2:aimes-tu le projet qu’on est en train de faire?
54 DI: how you like the project we’re constructing the module
55 A2:s interessant ((laughs))
56 DI: he says it’s very interesting
57 F2:les filles te plaisent ici?
58 DI: if you like the girls here
59 A2:((laughs)) ja
60 DI: yes
61 (2.5)
62 F2:que préfères-tu le Lycée de Courghain ou l’Ile de Jeanty ou
63 tu dors
64 DI: do you prefer the Lycée du Courghain or the Ile Jeanty where we
sleep
(interaction continues in the question-answer mode)
262 FRANK ERNST MÜLLER
(7) (Participants F3, DI, A3)
113 F3:qu’est qu’il fait comme sport?
114 DI: was du zuhause für sport machst
115 A3:fussball spielen dischdennis ab=un=zu
116 DI: eh il joue au foot et parfois il joue au ping-pong
117 F3:et (.) il n’a pas encore loupé un match de la Coupe du Monde?
118 DI: hm?
119 F3:il n’a pas encore loupé un match de la Coupe du Monde (.) les
120 matchs de foot
121 DI: ob du die fussballspiele von der WM jetzt schon gesehen hast
123 A3:net alle des Deutschlandspiel hab=ich gsehn und (.) des andere
deutschlandspiel werd ich mir auch angukn was jetz kommt
124 DI: il dit qu’il n’a pas vu tous et
125 F3:ouais
126 DI: attend l’interpréte (.) et sauf
127 le jeu d’ouverture de l’Allemagne et celui de ce soir contre
128 l’Espagne
(interaction continues in the question-answer mode)
– – –
113 F3:qu’est qu’il fait comme sport?
114 DI: what kind of sports do you do
115 A3:fussball spielen dischdennis ab=un=zu
116 DI: well he plays soccer and sometimes ping pong
117 F3:et (.) il n’a pas encore loupé un match de la Coupe du Monde
118 DI: hm?
119 F3:il n’a pas encore loupé un match de la Coupe du Monde (.) les
120 matchs de foot
121 DI: if you have seen the matches of the world championship
123 A3:net alle des deutschlandspiel hab=ich gsehn und (.) des andere
deutschlandspiel werd ich mir auch angukn was jetz kommt
124 DI: he says he has not seen all of them and
125 F3: y es
126 DI: wait for the interpreter
127 except for Germany’s opening match of and the one tonight
128 against Spain
(interaction continues in the question-answer mode)
A linguistic observation first: standing close together with the informal fea-
tures of primary interlocutors’ speech varieties that have been commented on
in the previous section, we paradoxically find features of formality: note in
263
D
IALOGUE-INTERPRETING
particular the standard language correctness in the question forms of the
French speakers — generally inversion or est-ce que. (In one of the rare
instances of a decidedly informal question mode, cf. F3 in (7), 117, this
prompts a repair-turn of the DI, cf. 118).
As the transcripts illustrate, the turn of a primary interlocutor, which is
usually brief and reduced to a format that is easy to translate subsequently, is
followed in most cases by an equally brief translating turn of the interpreter.
Brevity of turn is of practical translatory interest to the DI, particularly when
he interprets his task in a narrow, ‘literal’ sense, i.e. that of rendering original
formulations carefully and in great detail. This is obviously the case of the DI
in our constellation, who routinely intervenes and is routinely accorded a
‘slot’ to intervene in by the primary speakers, at very short ‘portioned’
intervals: turn-taking occurs mostly at the first possible completion point —
and transitional relevance point — of utterances; this point usually comprises
only one syntactic construction.
18
However the potential advantage of brevity
— precise, ‘literal’ renditions of the DI — has a corresponding disadvantage:
brevity of turns fragments the progress and continuation of a conversation into
short units which are separated from each other by intervening translation.
19
We thus have short units which are treated with ‘long’ translation machinery
in both linguistic directions.
The examples quoted above also illustrate the scarcity of ‘back channel’
or other forms of within-turn cooperation in the present data. Obviously, the
primary recipient cannot — as in ‘natural’ conversation — directly cooperate
in the development of the primary speaker’s emerging turn. If at all, back
channel phenomena occur at monolingual turn transitions between the DI and
one of the primary interlocutors. They also seem to be dispreferred by the
present DI: Note, in (7), 126, reproduced here as (7a), the intervention of the
DI.
(7a)
123 A3:net alle des deutschlandspiel hab=ich gsehn und (.) des andere
Deutschlandspiel werd ich mir auch angukn was jetz kommt
124 DI: il dit qu’il n’a pas vu tous et
125 F3:ouais
126 DI: attend l’interprète (.) et sauf
127 le jeu d’ouverture de l’Allemagne et celui de ce soir contre
128 l’Espagne
The DI rejects (‘attends l’interprète’/ ‘wait for the interpreter’,126) an attempt
to back channel of F3. F3’s attempt is inserted at a point where the DI’s