09556 - Interpreting Theory

Learning outcomes

The student knows the fundamental components (definitions, concepts) of Interpreting Theory. S/he is able to understand and critically assess the different theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of interpreting and is able to conceive, manage and evaluate comprehensive interpreting projects, with respect to both interpreting theory and practice, and the code of ethics.

Course contents

The course will be subdivided into two parts of 10 lessons each.

The first part will be taught by prof. Amalia Amato and will be devoted to the theoretical and practical aspects of consecutive interpreting, with specific exercises. In particular, students will learn about complex cognitive aspects and tasks that come into play during consecutive interpreting. They will receive specific guidelines on how to develop their own note-taking system. Based on the above guidelines, students will be able to develop and consolidate their own note-taking codes, starting from simple syntagms and gradually moving to phrases and sentences and their links. Students will also learn how to take notes effectively and efficiently using a specific layout as well as signs and symbols for intra-textual references. Moreover, pragmatic aspects of speech will be dealt with and included in their note-taking systems (tone, register, intentions).

The second part will be taught by prof. Mariachiara Russo and will be devoted to the following topics: conference interpreting vs dialogue/community interpreting;  interpreter-mediated events in health, legal/court and public service settings; telephone and videoconference interpreting; media interpreting; interpreting studies within the framework of neurolinguistic and cognitive paradigms; interpreting according to the sociolinguistic and pragmatic paradigm; interpreting aptitude; quality evaluation; corpus-based interpreting studies.

Team-teaching is envisaged for some lessons.

Readings/Bibliography

Allioni Sergio (1997) Elementi di grammatica per l’interpretazione consecutiva, Trieste, Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori Università degli studi di Trieste.

Amato, Amalia (2004). “L’interpretazione consecutiva in aula: da artificio a simulazione”. In Linguistica e interpretazione. Bersani Berselli, G., Mack, G. e Zorzi, D. (eds.), 193-210. Bologna: CLUEB.

Falbo Caterina, Russo Mariachiara e Straniero Sergio, Francesco (a cura di) (1999) L'interpretazione simultanea e consecutiva. Problemi teorici e metodologie didattiche, Milano, Hoepli.

Pöchhacker Franz and Shlesinger Miriam (eds.) (2002) The Interpreting Studies Reader, London/New York, Routledge.

Pöchhacker, F. (2016) Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. (2nd ed.)

Riccardi, Alessandra (2003) Dalla traduzione all'interpretazione, Milano, LED.

Russo, Mariachiara e Gabriele Mack (a cura di) (2005) Interpretazione di trattativa. La mediazione linguistico-culturale nel contesto formativo e professionale, Milano, Hoepli.

 

Students will be provided with a reading list on the specific topic each lesson.

Teaching methods

Each theoretical and practical lesson will favour interaction and stimulate students' active participation.

The program of all theme lessons will be distributed at the beginning of the course.

Assessment methods

At the end of the course students will sit a 20-minute interview on the course subjects: history of interpreting; conference interpreting vs dialogue interpreting; health care, legal, court and public service interpreting; telephone interpreting; media interpreting; neurolinguistics and cognitive paradigms in interpreting studies; socio-linguistic and pragmatic paradigms in interpreting studies; quality assessment in interpreting; corpus based interpreting studies. During the interview students’ knowledge of the above topics will be assessed as well as students’ Italian language skills (ability to speak coherently and cohesively in Italian and to use the appropriate register and lexicon).

Assessment of the module on consecutive interpreting:

students will read and deliver a presentation (including a critical review) of one of the following papers:

Papers in Spanish, French and German are included in the list for students who haven't English in their language combination.

Abuìn Gonzàlez, M. (2009) “La toma de notas: el desarrollo de la habilidad de aprendiz a intérprete. In Hermeneus 11, 023-50. www5.uva.es/hermeneus/hermeneus/11/arti01_11.pdf

Abuín González, M. (2012) “The language of consecutive interpreters' notes: Differences across levels of expertise”. In Interpreting 14:1, 055-72. (Ruffilli/online da pc Unibo)

Allioni, Sergio (1989) “Towards a grammar of consecutive interpretation”, in The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation, L. Gran and J. Dodds (eds), Udine, Campanotto Editore, 1989. pp. 191-197 (Ruffilli)

Andres, D. (2001) „Notation: gute Zeichen - schlechte Zeichen. Empirische Untersuchung zur (Un-)Möglichkeit von Notizen, dargestellt am Sprachenpaar Französisch-Deutsch“. In Kelletat, A. F. Dolmetschen. Beiträge aus Forschung, Lehre und Praxis. FASK, Publikationen des Fachbereichs Angewandte Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz in Germersheim, Reihe A. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 243-265. (Ruffilli)

Bohay, M. & Blakely, D. P. & Tamplin, A. K. & Radvansky, G. A. (2011) “Note taking, review, memory, and comprehension”. In The American Journal of Psychology 124, 63-73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51064014_Note_Taking_Review_Memory_and_Comprehension

Carrier, Carol et al. (1984) “The Effects of Facilitative and Debilitative Achievement Anxiety on Notetaking”. In Journal of Educational Research 77:3, 133-38. (in Archivio interpreti: Carrier1984Notes)

Dam, H. V. (2004) “Interpreters' notes: On the choice of language”. In Interpreting 6:1, 3-17. (Ruffilli/online da pc Unibo)

Dam, H. V. (2007) “What makes interpreters' notes efficient? Features of (non-)efficiency in interpreters' notes for consecutive”. In Gambier, Y. & Shlesinger, M. & Stolze, R. (eds.), Doubts and directions in translation studies: selected contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 183-197. (Ruffilli)

Gile, D. (1991) “Prise de notes et attention en début d'apprentissage de l'interprétation consécutive: une expérience - démonstration de sensibilisation”. In Meta 36:2-3, 431-439. http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1991/v36/n2-3/002898ar.pdf

Goldsmith, Josh (2015) “Consecutive 2.0: How to use your tablet for consecutive interpreting”. IAPTI Presentation, 2015 Geneva. http://www.slideshare.net/JoshGoldsmith/consecutive-20-how-to-use-your-tablet-for-consecutive-interpreting-iapti-presentation-2015-52592002

Mueller, P. A. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014) „The pen is mightier than the keyboard. Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking“. In Psychological Science 25:6, 1159-1168. (Ruffilli/online da pc Unibo)

Piolat, A. et al. (2005) “Cognitive effort during note taking”. In Applied Cognitive Psychology 19:3, 291-312. http://centrepsycle-amu.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/POK2005-ApplCogPSy.pdf

Roussey, J.-Y. & Piolat, A. (2003) “Prendre des notes et apprendre. Effet du mode d'accès à l'information et de la méthode de prise de notes”. In Arob@se 7, 1-2. http://www.univ-rouen.fr/arobase/bck10.html

Szabó, C. (2006) “Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A topic revisited”. In Interpreting 08:2, 129-147. http://www.someya-net.com/01-Tsuyaku-Katohgi/Reading/LanguageChoiceInNotetaking.pdf

INSTRUCTIONS FOR STUDENTS ON HOW TO READ AND PRESENT THE PAPER

- Present the objectve/s of the author/s

(i.e.: the goal is to answer a specific question, to confirm/reject an assunption, etc.).

- Present the methodology

(i.e.. the author tried to ascertain whether taking notes reduces processing abilities and undermines listening and comprehension of interpreting students. Two groups of students attending the same course delivered one consecutive, one group with note-taking the other one without. Results were compared using proper names as indicators). 

- Present results and conclusions

(i.e.: the number of correctly rendered proper names in consecutive without notes was higher compared to consecutive with note-taking. This confirms the assunption that note-taking requires a lot of cognitive resources to the detriment of listening and comprehension). 

- Assessment of the structure of the paper

(i.e: the paper follows the conventional structure? i.e.: Introduction-Materials and Methods-Results-Discussion).

- Assessment of methodology

(i.e: the methodology is appropriate to reach the author's goal; validity and reliability of methodology, for instance: too many variables? appropriate research tools wre used? etc.).

- Assessment of the author's inferences

(i.e.: is the reesearch ratonal accurate? Every step in the study is a logical consequence fo the previous one? Conclusions are directly derived from results? Is any logical step missing?).

Teaching tools

Teaching tools include:

-moodle platform;

-computer;

-projector;

-DVD;

-paper or electronic (word or power point) documents.

Office hours

See the website of Amalia Agata Maria Amato

See the website of Fabrizio Gallai