From Topic Boundaries to Omission: New
Research on Interpretation
Target Texts Produced by Interpreter 1: Interpretation 1 (I-1) and Transliteration 1 (T-1)
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 1 (I-1)
Interpretation 1 (I-1) was, with respect to our limited analysis, more similar to Interpretation 3 than to Interpretaion 3. I-1 showed a definite pattern of the extralinguistic pause referred to as handclasp at 15 of the 20 identified topic boundaries, the same amount as identified for Interpreter 3. For two other topic boundaries, Interpreter 1 held the last sign, producing a filled pause. For one topic boundary, Interpreter 1 seemed to produce the “got it?” feature (see discussion related to Figure 6.4), which is a specific type of a filled pause. For the remaining two topic boundaries, we were unable to identify either a handclasp or a hold or any other boundary marker. However, as stated elsewhere, we did not analyze the data for other possible representations of topic boundaries; this possibility needs to be explored more completely in future research.
A clear example of Interpreter 1’s handclasp strategy occurs at the end of line 45 (“that what you tell yourself is very likely to become your reality”), which we had identified as a boundary (see Figure 6.2).
One interesting finding is that I-1 also has the handclasp at nine places in the text that we had not originally identified. Some of these instances were quite brief but still clearly produced. The presenter is offering specific examples of comfort zones in lines 104–109 (see Figure 6.3). The handclasp after line 106 is very brief. This type of briefer handclasp appears to be this interpreter’s way to mark subtopics.
3. Boundary markers are glossed as signs because we believe they carry an important message to the audience.