Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 24:2 (2022) ► pp.163–191
Interpreters’ explicitating styles
A corpus study of material from the European Parliament
Published online: 2 June 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00081.gum
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00081.gum
Abstract
This article investigates explicitation as an indicator of individual interpreters’ style in the outputs of professional interpreters working for the European Parliament. The material used for the study is a sub-corpus of target texts by 12 interpreters extracted from a larger bi-directional parallel corpus of plenary contributions with the aid of voice recognition software. Interpretations from English into Polish and vice versa have been annotated manually for various explicitating shifts, ranging from cohesion-related additions and specifications to more extensive pragmatically oriented amplifications. Our initial hypothesis holds that interpreters working for the Polish Language Unit, who regularly cooperate and as a result acquire similar linguistic habits, are expected to display limited variety in their explicitating styles. The results do not confirm this assumption. The interpreters in our sample differ substantially in their explicitating styles, especially regarding frequency and consistency. This finding precludes any convergence due to their status as members of the same community of practice.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Individual style of linguistic expression and translation/interpreting
- 3.Interpreters’ style
- 3.1Empirical approaches to interpreters’ style
- 3.2Relating explicitation to interpreters’ style
- 4.Language units in the EP as communities of practice
- 5.Material and method
- 6.Results and discussion
- 6.1Quantitative analysis
- 6.2Qualitative analysis
- 7.Conclusions
- Notes
References
References (46)
Baker, M. (2000). Towards a methodology for investigating style of a literary translator. Target 12 (2), 241–266.
Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2016). Face threats in interpreting. A pragmatic study of plenary discourse in the European Parliament. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
(2017). The interpreter’s visibility in the European Parliament. Interpreting 19 (2), 159–185.
(2020). How much noise can you make through an interpreter? A case study on racist discourse in the European Parliament. Interpreting 22 (2), 238–261.
(2021). Interpreting nonmainstream ideology (Euroscepticism) in the European Parliament. Perspectives online first 17 June 2021.
Bartłomiejczyk, M., Gumul, E. & Koržinek, D. (2022). EP-Poland: Building a bilingual parallel corpus for interpreting research. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 22 (1), 110–126.
Bartłomiejczyk, M. & Rojczyk, A. (under review). How native-like do conference interpreters sound in L2? A phonetic analysis of retour interpretations into English in the European Parliament.
Baxter, R. N. (2019). Style versus strategy in simultaneous interpreting: Different approaches and their effects. Quaderns. Revista de Traducció 261, 287–305.
Dayter, D. (2021). Variation in non-fluencies in a corpus of simultaneous interpreting vs. non-interpreted English. Perspectives 29 (4), 489–506.
Defrancq, B. (2018). The European Parliament as a discourse community: Its role in comparable analyses of data drawn from parallel interpreting corpora. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 231, 115–132.
Defrancq, B., Plevoets, K. & Magnifico, C. (2015). Connective markers in interpreting and translation: where do they come from. In J. Romero Trillo (Ed.), Corpus pragmatics in translation and contrastive studies, 31. Dordrecht: Springer, 195–222.
Duflou, V. (2007). Norm research in conference interpreting: Some methodological aspects. In P. A. Schmitt & H. E. Jüngst (Eds.), Translationsqualität. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 91–99.
(2016). Be(com)ing a conference interpreter: An ethnography of EU interpreters as a professional community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Eder, M., Rybicki, J. & Kestemont, M. (2016). Stylometry with R: A package for computational text analysis. The R Journal 8 (1), 107–121.
Englund Dimitrova, B. (2005). Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fu, R. & Chen, J. (2019). Negotiating interpersonal relations in Chinese–English diplomatic interpreting. Explicitation of modality as a case in point. Interpreting 21 (1), 12–35.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2021). Editorial. The CIRIN Bulletin 621, 1–4. <[URL]> (accessed 6 August 2021).
Gumul, E. (2017). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting: A study into explicitating behaviour of trainee interpreters. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
(2021a). Explicitation and cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Product- and process-oriented analysis of trainee interpreters’ outputs. Interpreting 23 (1), 45–75.
(2021b). Interpreters who explicitate talk more: On the relationship between explicitating styles and retrospective styles in simultaneous interpreting. Perspectives online first 28 December 2021.
Henriksen, L. (2007). The song in the booth. Formulaic interpreting and oral textualisation. Interpreting 9 (1), 1–20.
Herbert, J. (1952/1968). The interpreter’s handbook: How to become a conference interpreter. Geneva: Libraire de l’Université.
Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. (2012). Interpreting universals and interpreting style. PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.
(2022). An intermodal approach to cohesion in constrained and unconstrained language. Target 34 (1), 130–162.
Kruger, H. & van Rooy, B. (2016). Constrained language: A multidimensional analysis of translated English and a non-native indigenised variety of English. English World-Wide 37 (1), 26–57.
Morselli, N. (2018). Interpreting universals: A study of explicitness in the intermodal EPTIC corpus. inTRAlinea Special Issue: New findings in corpus-based interpreting studies. [URL] (accessed 9 July 2019).
Munday, J. (2008). Style and ideology in translation: Latin American writing in English. London/New York: Routledge.
Murtisari, E. T. (2013). A relevance-based framework for explicitation and implicitation in translation. An alternative typology. Trans-kom 6 (2), 315–344.
Perego, E. (2003). Evidence of explicitation in subtitling: Towards a categorisation. Across Languages and Cultures 4 (1), 63–88.
Rybicki, J. (2012). The great mystery of (almost) invisible translator: Stylometry in translation. In M. Oakes & M. Ji (Eds.), Quantitative methods in corpus-based translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 231–248.
Schneider, U. & Eitelmann, M. (Eds.) (2020). Linguistic inquiries into Donald Trump’s language: From ‘fake news’ to ‘tremendous success’. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Shlesinger, M. (1989). Simultaneous interpretation as a factor effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Snyder, D., Garcia-Romero, D., Sell, G., Povey, D. & Khudanpur, S. (2018). X-Vectors: Robust DNN embeddings for speaker recognition. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 5329–5333.
Straniero Sergio, F. (2012). Using corpus evidence to discover style in interpreters’ performances. In F. Straniero Sergio & C. Falbo (Eds.), Breaking ground in corpus-based interpreting studies. Bern: Peter Lang, 211–230.
Tang, F. (2018). Explicitation in consecutive interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Besien, F. & Meuleman, C. (2008). Style differences among simultaneous interpreters. The Translator 14 (1), 135–155.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Huang, Dan Feng, Dennis Tay & Andrew K. F. Cheung
Shen, Lin & Haidee Kotze
Krüger, Ralph & Morven Beaton-Thome
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.