Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 35:1 (2022) ► pp.30–64

Simultaneous interpretation of complex structures from English into Arabic

| University of Alexandria
A complex sentence is described as such by virtue of its multiple constituents which vary from clauses, subclauses to phrases. English and Arabic linguistic literature includes references to the issue of syntactic complexity, yet the approaches are different. The present study seeks to investigate how Arab simultaneous interpreters translating from English into Arabic deal with syntactically complex structures. To achieve this goal, the final debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is selected as the test-ground. The study finds that simultaneous interpreters operating from English into Arabic deal with complex structures in different ways by adopting and adjusting their strategies. The dominant strategy is linearization, which is triggered by the need to translate under time pressure. This strategy also unloads the simultaneous interpreter’s cognitive burden. Yet complete linearization is impossible, since omission and compression may interfere as in the case of embedding and ‘that’ structures. Other strategies, particularly addition and chunking, are also observable, being applied when interpreters find themselves faced with asyndetic structures and multiple embedding.
Keywords: syntactic complexity, simultaneous interpretation, linearization, Clinton, Trump
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Syntactic complexity in English
  • 3.Syntactic complexity in Arabic
  • 4.Syntactic complexity in simultaneous interpretation
  • 5.Hillary Clinton’s style
  • 6.Statement of the problem
  • 7.Methods and materials
    • 7.1Corpus
    • 7.2Methodology
  • 8.Analysis of the data
    • 8.1Embedding
      • a.Multiple embedding
      • b.Multiple embedding plus apposition
      • c.Multiple embedding plus apposition plus subordinators
    • 8.2Inverted structures
    • 8.3Asyndetic structures
    • 8.4Noun clause as subject
    • 8.5Multiple subordination
    • 8.6Dangled ‘that structure’
  • 9.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.19053.zaw
References (36)
References
Primary Sources
Almunāḓra aṯṯālṯa wālaʾḳīra bayn kalīntūn watrāmb qabl sabāq alintḳābāt alʾamrīkya [المناظرة الثالثة والأخيرة بين كلينتون وترامب قبل سباق الانتخابات الأمريكية] [URL]
šāhd almanāḓra aṯṯālṯa wālaʾḳīra kāmla bayn haylārī watrāmb [شاهد المناظرة الثالثة والأخيرة كاملة بين هيلاري وترامب]. [URL]
شاهدوا المناظرة الثالثة كاملة بين هيلاري كلينتون ودونالد ترامب [šāhdū almunāḓra aṯṯālṯa kāmla bayn haylārī] kalīntūn wadūnāld trāmb. [URL]
Secondary Sources
Al-Salman, S., & Al-Khanji, R. 2002. “The native language factor in simultaneous interpretation in an Arabic/English context”. Meta: Translators’ Journal, vol. 47, n° 4, 607–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaman, K. 1984. “Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse”. In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, ed. by (pp.) D. Tannen, 45–80. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Song, Z. and Wu, C. 2015. “Syntactic Linearity as a Strategy in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Case Study on English-Chinese Interpretation”. T&I review, 5 (단일호): 29–69.Google Scholar
Chernov, G. V. 2004. Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam- Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cribb, V. M. 2004. “Syntactic Complexity: Investigating hypotactic and paratactic styles of speech in non-native extended discourse”. Journal of Inquiry and Research, 791: 21–39.Google Scholar
Davison, A. 1980. “Linguistics and the Measurement of Syntactic Complexity. The Case of Raising”. Technical Report No. 173, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (2000). “Simultaneous interpreting as language production”. In B. Englund Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting (pp. 65–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fehri, A. F. (2013). Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words (Vol. 291). Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. and Shlesinger, M. 1997. “The Proposed Role of Suppression in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Interpreting, Vol. 2 (1/2): 119–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hassan, T. 1973. Alluġa alʿarabiyya maʿnāhā wa mabnāhā [اللغة العربيّة معناها و مبناها]. Cairo: GEBO.Google Scholar
He, H., Boyd-Graber, J. L., and Daumé III, H. 2016. “Interpretese vs. Translationese: The Uniqueness of Human Strategies in Simultaneous Interpretation. HLT-NAACL: 971–976. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K. 1965. “Grammatical structures written at three grade levels”. NCTE Research report No. 3. Champaign, IL, USA: NCTEGoogle Scholar
Ibn Hisham, A. 1999. Mughni al-labib ’an kutub al-a ’arib [المغني اللبيب عن كتب الأريب], ed. by Al-Samuli, A. Bayrūt: Dar al-Arqam.Google Scholar
Ibn Malik, A. n.d. Al-Khulāsa al-walfiyya [الخلاصة الوافية]. [URL]
Ibn Yaiesh, M. n.d. Šarḥ almufaṣal. Beirut: Alam Al-Kutub.
Iacovoni, A. (2010). “Compression in Simultaneous Interpreting: Fact or Myth? A Corpus Based Study". [URL].Google Scholar
Jones, J. 2016. “Talk ‘Like a Man’: The Linguistic Styles of Hillary Clinton, 1992–2013”. Perspectives on Politics, 14(3): 625–642. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, A. 1981. The Grammatical Terms al-musnad, al-musnad ʾilayhi and al-ʾisnād. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 145–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. The distinction between nominal and verbal sentences according to the Arab grammarians. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik, (15), 118–127.Google Scholar
Łyda, A. 2006. “Asyndetic subordination in interpreting: The case of concessive markers”. Innovations and Reproductions in Cultures and Societies. Vienna: Trans.Google Scholar
Peled, Y. 2009. Sentence types and word-order patterns in written Arabic: Medieval and modern perspectives. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read a Transcript of the Final Presidential Debate. [URL]
Ryding, K. C. 1998. Early Medieval Arabic: Studies on Al-Khalīl Ibn Ahmad. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
2005. A reference grammar of modern standard Arabic. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sībawayhi, ‘A. ‘U. 1988. Al-Kitāb Kitāb Sībawayh [الكتاب كتاب سيبويه], ed. by Hārūn, ʻAbd al-Salām Muḥammad, Introduction. Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānjī.Google Scholar
Savoy, J. 2017. “Analysis of the style and the rhetoric of the 2016 US presidential primaries”. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, fqx007.Google Scholar
Talmon, R. 1987. Musnad, musnad ilayhi and the early history of Arabic grammar: a reconsideration. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 119 (2), 208–222.Google Scholar
The personal website of Mitchell Szczepanczyk. [URL]
Tohyama, H. and Matsubara, S. 2006. “Collection of simultaneous interpreting patterns by using bilingual spoken monologue corpus”. In Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC).Google Scholar
Web-based L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer – Single Mode, developed by Haiyang Ai. [URL]
Zakariya, M. 1986. Alʾalsuniya attawlīdya wa attaḥwīlya wa qawāʿid alluġa alʿarabiya. [الألسنية التحويلية وقواعد اللغة العربية]. Lebanon: Lebanese University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ma, Hua & Jiafu Su
2023. Automatic Scoring Model of English Interpretation Based on Semantic Scoring. Mobile Information Systems 2023 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.