Aimuratova nilufar tengel kizi simultataneous interpreter: difficulties and prospects of the profession

1.3. Modern researches on Simultaneous Interpreting
Although simultaneous interpreting is a task that has evolved since its inception well almost 100 years ago, it is sometimes still defined by comparing it to consecutive interpreting .While legitimate - after all these ale the two most widely used interpreting modes - such a definition inevitably falls short of a comprehensive description of the notion of simultaneous interpreting. This is very well illustrated by the fact that the first definition, from Herbert (one of the early simultaneous interpreters and interpreter trainers), identifies three varieties of simultaneous interpreting (Herbet, 1952).,according to him, simultaneous interpretation included "whispering", whereby interpreter’s sitting next to a conference delegate whisper their interpretation to them; "telephonic simultaneous", whereby interpreters listen to the original through earphones and speak their interpretation into a microphone; and "translation at sight", whereby interpreters receive a text written in one language and read it aloud in a different language. Although it is true that all three tasks require the relatively instantaneous transfer from verbal input in one language to verbal output in another, from a processing point of view, the three are rather dissimilar - perhaps different enough to revisit Helbert's original definition.
In order to do so, it seems appropriate to begin with the comment definition of simultaneous interpreting as suggested by the Imitational Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), according to which "in simultaneous mode, the interpreter sits in a booth with a clear view of the meeting room and the speaker and listens /o and simultaneously interprets the speech into a target language" (AIIC, i.e., my emphasis). This definition is considerably more restrictive than Herbert's. For example, it requires the simultaneous interpreter to sic in a booth, and we will see why this detail is important in processing terms in the section "Simultaneous interpreting: the technology" which discusses the technical features of simultaneous interpreting. AIIC's definition further states that the interpreter listens to the original, rather than reading it, therefore putting "translation at sight" outside of its scope. The possible reasons for this limitation and the repercussions of written input on the process will be addressed in the section "Speed and density". There are other forms of simultaneous interpreting, however, that can be reconciled with the main tenets put forward in the AIIC definition. Interestingly, AIIC recognizes the existence of "whispered interpreting", defining it in similar terns as Herbert but giving it the status of a modality in its own right. Simultaneous interpreting with text, also called sight interpretation (Lambert, 2004), refers to a scenario in which interpreters receive a manuscript of an address to be delivered, allowing them to read along (or ahead) in the text while listening to the speech. Finally, there is remote interpreting, whereby some or all conference participants are at a remote location and the interpreters receive the auditory and visual signal through a videoconferencing system, i.e. over earphones and on one or several. This chapter will discuss the development of simultaneous interpreting as defined by AIIC, and will clear specify when other forms of simultaneous interpreting are discussed.
As already mentioned, when attempting to capture the essence of this novel task, early practitioners and teachers of simultaneous interpreting seemed to struggle conceptually with the link between what appeared to be both a listening and a speaking component. To fill this conceptually gap, they sometimes additionally invoked a translation component. Herbert (1952) conceived of the task as a three-component process consisting of understanding, conversion and delivery. Seleskovitch and Lederer (1984) similarly identified three principal components of simultaneous interpreting, more specifically comprehension, deverbalizattor' and expression. These notions of "conversion" or "deverbalization", unfortunately, remained underspecified and without scientific grounding.
As simultaneous interpreting became the object of more scholarly research, however, particular thanks to psychologists in the L970s, an attempt was made to explain the phenomenon by relying on existing knowledge about how language is processed. Psychologists like Barik (1973), for instance, conceived of the simultaneous interpreting task purely in terms of comprehension (reception and decoding) and production (encoding and emitting). Since then, many researchers have followed this approach and moved away from the quest for a discrete stage in the process that can be isolated and identified as the translation component of simultaneous interpreting. Instead, they have attempted to explain the complex process of simultaneous interpreting in terms of its sub-tasks (e.g. Moser-Meîcer et al., 1994; Frauenfelder and Schriefers, 1997; Seeber, 2011) or at least in terms of existing faculties (e.g. Setton 2001). Rather than invoking a translation component, we could therefore conceive of the mental representation of an utterance (see Johnson-Laird's "mental model", 1983; or van Dijk and Kintsch's "situational model", 1983) as the interface between the comprehension and the production process, as this representation is believed [o constitute the end point of the former and the starting point of the latter. According to this view, every incoming word of an utterance is integrated into a mental representation, keeping track of all participants, objects, locations and events described in it (Zwaan, 1999). This representation is constantly updated with incoming intonation, related to available world knowledge (Garrod et al., 1990), and then serves as basis for the production process, followed by grammatical and phonological encoding (Levelt, 1989). Among the challenges of simultaneous interpreting is the fact that the two processes temporally overlap and that, unlike in natural language production, the interpreter regularly has to begin the encoding process before the mental model is complete (see Chapter 4 for a discussion of the evolution of interpreting research).
As evidenced by its widespread use around the globe, simultaneous interpreting is a major success in immediate multilingual communication, but it is associated with a number of problems. One is its cost. While such cost is relative, and, as some conference interpreters like to point out, it can be lower than the price of one coffee break at a large congress, in other circumstances, for instance in dialogue interpreting where only two principals are involved, it can legitimately be considered high. The interpreting budget of European institutions is also reported to represent a substantial proportion of their total budget. The other problem is the quality of the output, especially at a time when more and more speeches are read and organizers are less and less inclined to send documents for advance preparation to the interpreters. There is increasing market pressure to lower the interpreters’ remuneration, but beneath a certain threshold, which may vary across countries and types of interpreters, they will refuse the assignments, while their services are indispensable in many cases, in particular for interaction between deaf people and hearing people. As to quality, no matter how selective training programs are, no matter how efficient the training methods, there are cognitive limitations to what humans can do, and it is impossible for most if not all interpreters to translate faithfully and idiomatically fast read speeches without an appropriate preparation. One possible answer to these two problems is the use of a lingua franca, or several, which would make it possible to do without interpreters. This is already done in some specialized fields, often with English – or perhaps Globish. Interpreters tend to claim that communication in a language other than one’s own is imperfect. But so is communication through interpreting, and it cannot be ruled out that in many cases, people communicate with each other better (and at a negligible price) in the lingua franca spoken by non natives than through interpreting. In other cases, the lingua franca is not an option, because the principals do not master an appropriate language. In the case of deaf people, by definition, they cannot use any spoken language as a lingua franca – though they could choose one sign language to serve that role when communicating with other deaf people. Another possibility is automatic interpreting. Automatic speech recognition is advancing in great strides, and the performance of dictation software is impressive. Automatic translation has also made spectacular progress. Combining both, a quasi-simultaneous written translation of speech is a distinct possibility. In all probability, for natural speech, the quality of the output will remain far below that of human simultaneous interpreting because of errors in speech recognition, errors in semantic interpretation of text and infelicities in the production of target texts or speeches, but the cost of the process can well be brought down to a negligible amount, to the extent that interlocutors may prefer to submit their main exchanges to automatic interpreting and only turn to interpreters or bilinguals to clarify residual issues. Such options may develop for specialized purposes and settings, but are less likely to be popular in settings where natural communication is important for the preservation of a certain atmosphere or human relations. No matter how fast technological development will be, human simultaneous interpreters will probably keep certain market segments, in particular in political speeches, in debates, and in the media.
Among the studies that have investigated cognition in interpreters, three main areas have been considered. First, memory has been tested using tasks of verbal short-term and working memory. The overwhelming result is that professional interpreters have larger verbal working memory and verbal short-term memory spans than various control groups (Bajo, Padilla, & Padilla, 2000; Christoffels, de Groot, & Kroll, 2006; P. Padilla, Bajo, Cañas, & Padilla, 1995; Signorelli, Haarmann, & Obler, 2011; Stavrakaki, Megari, Kosmidis, Apostolidou, & Takou, 2012; Yudes, Macizo, & Bajo, 2011, 2012; but see Köpke & Nespoulous, 2006). Related to memory, the second commonly studied area of cognition is articulatory suppression. This is the process of blocking rehearsal of information in the phonological loop of working memory by repetition of unrelated speech during a memorization task. The normal finding is that recall is hindered by articulatory suppression, however, interpreters have been found to be less affected by articulatory suppression (Bajo et al., 2000; F. Padilla, Bajo, & Macizo, 2005; P. Padilla et al., 1995; Yudes et al., 2012; but see Köpke & Nespoulous, 2006). Finally, a few studies have examined measures of lexical access among professional interpreters and found faster responses in picture naming, lexical decision, and lexical categorization (Bajo et al., 2000; De Groot & Christoffels, 2006), as well as higher verbal fluency1 (Stavrakaki et al., 2012). These three areas, which show advantages specific to interpreters, are closely linked to the processes required by simultaneous interpretation. Verbal memory is recruited to store the input language and reformulated output. Articulatory 1 It is interesting to note that lexical access is an area of cognition where bilinguals typically show worse performance than monolinguals (Michael & Gollan, 2005). Thus, it would be interesting to compare the performance of interpreters and monolinguals on tasks of lexical access to determine if interpreters have merely recovered this deficit or improved even further. 16 suppression is a mirror of the SI process as content must be stored while other material is articulated. Finally, faster retrieval of lexical items should decrease the processing load during SI. Thus, the examination of these areas as well as the result of enhanced abilities among interpreters is unsurprising. Fewer studies, however, have examined in professional interpreters the executive control functions which typically show benefits in bilinguals. It is precisely these tasks, however, which will allow us to understand if simultaneous interpreters should be considered expert bilinguals. Of the three studies which examined conflict resolution and attention control, none found an advantage for interpreters (Köpke & Nespoulous, 2006; Morales, Padilla, Gómez-Ariza, & Bajo, 2015; Yudes et al., 2011).

Outcomes on chapter I

Learning about history, future, types, strategies of the simultaneous interpreting we can compare previous foreign researchers experience with simultaneous interpreting. While the doing research, it is waited tangible results. Nowadays translation school is new-opened and studies on this theme is lacking. That’s why the research is being done in order to make an addition translation school. By investigating the lexical and grammatical contrast the very two languages we hope to provide further insight into the complex processes that make up the simultaneous interpretation skill. The data will present how it is important to investigate simultaneous interpreting in our country and find out new perspective researches in this sphere.