Document généré le 12 oct.

2023 12:56

Meta
Journal des traducteurs
Translators' Journal

The Native Language Factor in Simultaneous Interpretation in

an Arabic/English Context
Saleh Al-Salman et Raja’i Al-Khanji

Volume 47, numéro 4, décembre 2002 Résumé de l'article

La présente étude cherche à confirmer ou à réfuter l’idée selon laquelle les
URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/008040ar interprètes sont plus compétents lorsqu’ils interprètent un discours oral d’une
DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/008040ar langue étrangère vers leur langue maternelle. Les données de l’étude sont
constituées de deux volets : (1) un questionnaire qui montre les réponses d’un
Aller au sommaire du numéro certain nombre d’interprètes professionnels ayant participé à des conférences
nationales, régionales ou internationales ; (2) une analyse de la véritable
prestation de quelques interprètes dans le cadre de l’exercice de leurs tâches
d’interprétation dans les deux langues. Celle-ci a été faite selon quelques
Éditeur(s)
principaux critères comme l’adéquation linguistique, la compétence
Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal stratégique et les stratégies de la communication. Enfin, un cadre théorique
base sur le modèle de variabilité (Labov 1969) a été utilisé pour valider les
ISSN données.

0026-0452 (imprimé)
1492-1421 (numérique)

Découvrir la revue

Citer cet article

Al-Salman, S. & Al-Khanji, R. (2002). The Native Language Factor in
Simultaneous Interpretation in an Arabic/English Context. Meta, 47(4), 607–626.
https://doi.org/10.7202/008040ar

Tous droits réservés © Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 2002 Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des
services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique
d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.
https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/

Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.

Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de
l’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à
Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche.
https://www.erudit.org/fr/
 The Native Language Factor in Simultaneous
Interpretation in an Arabic/English Context

saleh al-salman and raja ’ i al-khanji

University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

RÉSUMÉ
La présente étude cherche à confirmer ou à réfuter l’idée selon laquelle les interprètes
sont plus compétents lorsqu’ils interprètent un discours oral d’une langue étrangère
vers leur langue maternelle. Les données de l’étude sont constituées de deux volets :
(1) un questionnaire qui montre les réponses d’un certain nombre d’interprètes profes-
sionnels ayant participé à des conférences nationales, régionales ou internationales ;
(2) une analyse de la véritable prestation de quelques interprètes dans le cadre de l’exer-
cice de leurs tâches d’interprétation dans les deux langues. Celle-ci a été faite selon
quelques principaux critères comme l’adéquation linguistique, la compétence stratégique
et les stratégies de la communication. Enfin, un cadre théorique base sur le modèle de
variabilité (Labov 1969) a été utilisé pour valider les données.

ABSTRACT
The present research sought evidence to either support or refute the claim that simulta-
neous interpreters are more efficient when decoding/interpreting oral discourse from a
foreign language into their mother tongue. The data for the study were collected by
means of (1) a questionnaire which elicited the responses of a number of professional
interpreters who participated in national, regional, and international conferences, and
(2) an analysis of the actual performance of some professional interpreters in actual
interpretation tasks conducted in both languages. Their performance was analyzed ac-
cording to some major criteria of linguistic adequacy, strategic competence, and com-
munication strategies. A theoretical framework based on the variability model (Labov
1969) was employed to validate the data.

MOTS-CLÉS/KEYWORDS
linguistic adequacy, strategic competence, communication strategy, variability, language
dominance

1. Introduction
Interpretation (also called consecutive or simultaneous interpretation/ translation),
like all other forms of communication, is a multi-faceted activity: it involves a sender,
a channel, and a recipient. It is a form of communication between people with differ-
ent linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Qian 1994: 214). The source text sender
transmits a message through the source language to the interpreter, who in turn re-
sends it through the target language to the target audience. Thus an interpreter can
be viewed as a transitional point of contact between the sender and the receiver or
between two languages. This task puts him in direct contact with the senders and
receivers of the message at the same time to convey messages in the fastest and most
efficient and effective manner. He is, moreover, expected to assess the intention of
the speaker and transform what is being spoken at all levels of communication,

Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 607 11/21/02, 2:28 PM

 608 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

including intentions and implicature. An interpreter’s specific task is, therefore, to

help individuals or groups, not only to understand what each other says, but also to
know each other. The interpreter thus “holds a key position, if not the key position in
the field of communication” (Herbert 1978: 5). Other expectations require that in-
terpreters think fast, have strong short term memory, and be able to work under
physical and mental pressure for long periods of time (Qzar, 1997).
Those of us who have had the experience of being involved in professional inter-
pretation, at least once, have realized that the process of interpretation is a challeng-
ing task—a task that requires various types of both linguistic and non-linguistic
skills: mastery of the active language, solid background of general knowledge, some
personal qualities like the faculty of analysis and synthesis, the ability to intuit mean-
ing, the capacity to adapt immediately to change in subject matter and different
speakers and situations. Other qualities include the need to have good short and long
term memory, the ability to concentrate, a gift for public speaking, and physical en-
durance and good nerves.
This study seeks to test the validity of the claim that simultaneous interpreters
are better off when decoding/interpreting oral discourse from a foreign language
into their mother tongue. Schweda-Nicholson (1992) has observed that numerous
theoreticians agree that, within the interpretation profession, it is standard practice
for simultaneous interpreters to work into their native language. What led us, as
researchers, to question this practice, especially in the case of Arabic-English-Arabic
interpretation, was our informal observation of conflicting evidence regarding the
role of language dominance among Arabic-English bilinguals involved in interpreta-
tion. We have noticed that even when Arabic is the native/dominant language of
certain interpreters, their speed of processing and the quality of their interpretation
in either Arabic or English do not support the practice observed by Schweda-
Nicholson. In other words, control for native language dominance has not always
yielded better results. We have noticed that interpretation from English into Arabic
presents special problems for interpreters, despite the commonly held assumption
that mastery of one’s native language implies that one knows its spirit, its traditions,
its source, etc., especially in terms of decoding messages. However, one should keep
in mind that encoding (production) in a dominant language such as Arabic may not
be as easy as decoding in it (comprehension). Lambert (1978: 134) was among the
few researchers who reported that several bilingual American graduate students
showed dominance in their second language over their native, mother language. His
subjects were in several cases revealing a relative dominance of French or Italian over
English on different tests (p. 31).

2. Hypotheses, Objectives, and Limitations

The present piece of research is meant to look for evidence to either support or
refute the claim that simultaneous interpreters do their work more comfortably and
more effectively when translating into their native/dominant language.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 608 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 simultaneous interpretation in an arabic/english context 609

3. Data Collection
3.1 Sample
A sample of ten professional Arabic-English-Arabic interpreters was chosen for this
study. For our purposes, a professional interpreter was identified as one who holds a
minimum of a B.A. degree in any field of knowledge and has had a minimum of five
years of experience as an interpreter. The following table gives more information
about the subjects, whose names will not be revealed so as to assure anonymity.

Table 1
Distribution of respondents in the sample
Respondent Sex Degree held Experience (in years) Specialization
1 M BA 10 English Language
2 M MA 12 Arabic Language
3 F MA 5 Translation
4 F MA 7 Translation
5 M Ph.D. 15 Linguistics/Translation
6 F MA 6 Translation
7 M BA 7 English
8 M MA 15 English
9 F MA 12 English
10 M BA 8 Arabic

3.2 Sources of Data

The corpus of data needed for this study was obtained through (1) a questionnaire
and (2) audio-recordings of simultaneous translation.

3.2.1. Questionnaire on Language Use

The authors prepared a 15-item questionnaire that asked the subjects to indicate
which language (Arabic or English) each prefers to interpret into when considering a
set of positive and negative aspects of simultaneous interpretation. The questionnaire
(see Appendix, p. 29) was specially devised for this particular study. Listed below are
the abbreviations of each of the 15 items that will be used in discussions of data
analysis:
1. [Time Lag]
2. [Switching]
3. [Oral Fluency]
4. [Omissions]: More omission (i.e., loss of information) occurs when I interpret into …
5. [Anticipation]
6. [Less Tension]
7. [Speed of Talk]
8. [Ease of Coping]

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 609 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 610 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

9. [Memory]
10. [Resistance to Tension]
11. [Grammar]
12. [Note-Taking]
13. [Mistakes]
14. [Nonstandard Usage]
15. [Syntax]
The collected data were analyzed by a two-member team of professional inter-
preters, namely the authors. The questionnaire responses were tabulated and ana-
lyzed and will be discussed below. Using criteria discussed in Section 4 (below), the
authors developed scales of linguistic adequacy and strategic competence in order to
compare the subjects’ responses.

3.2.2. Recordings of Simultaneous Interpretation

The recorded data were collected from actual interpretation sessions in the two lan-
guages for no less than 30 minutes in each. The available data comprised material
obtained from live interpretation sessions of official meetings or conferences. The
subjects covered a variety of areas including: economic, political, educational and
religious topics. The tasks covered the two modes of translation: Arabic-English and
English-Arabic.
Using criteria discussed in Section 4 (below), the interpreters’ actual perfor-
mances in the recorded data were analyzed and evaluated. There were ten sessions of
one hour each, (i.e., a total of ten hours). Thus each of the ten subjects had to do a
one-hour session divided between the two modes of translation.
The recorded data were collected from different people than those who did the
questionnaire. In analyzing the data, the authors did not transcribe it all. The proce-
dure they followed was to listen to the recorded material, take notes, and then tran-
scribe selected passages to illustrate their analysis.

4. Theoretical Background for Analysis of Data

In this research we wanted to examine both how well the two adequacy criteria of
“linguistic adequacy” and “strategic competence,” discussed in Sections 4.1. and 4.2.
(below), are utilized in the actual performance of interpreters. Also, how well com-
munication strategies, discussed in Section 4.3 (below), are incorporated in the inter-
pretation process.

4.1. Linguistic Adequacy

In their discussion of the performance of interpreters, Saville and Hargraves
(1999:95) discuss some necessary criteria for proper interpretation. For purposes of
our analysis, we have formulated the following criteria for analyzing and discussing
our subjects’ responses to our questionnaire and their relative success in simulta-
neous interpretation:
Linguistic adequacy criteria for successful interpretation
a. Semantics: accuracy of rendering meaning
b. Grammar: syntax, morphology, vocabulary

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 610 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 simultaneous interpretation in an arabic/english context 611

c. Discourse: rhetorical organization, coherence, and cohesion

d. Pragmatics: sensitivity to illocution
e. Style: formal/informal

4.2 Strategic Competence

In addition to mastery of such matters as semantics, grammar, and style, successful
interpreters must develop strategies for dealing with the information conveyed in the
passages as they listen to speakers and formulate the content of their translation. For
our analyses, we have formulated the following criteria for analyzing and discussing
our subjects’ performance in simultaneous interpretation.

4.2.1. Strategic competence criteria for successful interpretation

a. Interaction Skills: performance criteria
1. non-verbal features of interpretation
2. integration of reception and production through:
a. knowledge of subject matter
b. schemata/set forms
c. interpretation skills
d. experience
b. Prediction Strategies, including
1. anticipation
2. presupposition
3. etc.
c. Making-up/Compensatory Strategies, including:
1. paraphrase
2. summarizing
3. etc.

4.3. Communication Strategies

When an interpreter encounters problems in keeping up with a speaker, s/he may
have recourse to one of several communication strategies. In order to analyze the
taped simultaneous interpretations, the researchers drew upon existing taxonomies,
notably these of Tarone 1981, Bialystok 1984, and Khanji 1996, and selected eight
strategies that have been noted in interpretation into both Arabic and English.

4.3.1. Communication strategies employed by simultaneous translators

1. Skipping: Omission of unnecessary repetitions, redundant expressions or unimportant
utterances which would have no place in a written version of the text.
2. Anticipation: preparation of the output in the target language into the grammatical
semantic schemata of the output language.
3. Summarizing: rendering of the content in a shorter version.
4. Approximation: provision of a near equivalent term or a synonym with less precise
meaning instead of the target expression.
5. Code-Switching: dialect shift from standard to informal colloquial style.
6. Literal interpretation: The use of an L2 literal equivalent of an L1 word regardless of
contextual adequacy.
7. Incomplete sentences: use of fragmented utterances when interpretation is cut short in
mid sentences, leaving unfinished messages.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 611 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 612 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

8. Message abandonment: periods of silence and long pauses in which certain messages
are not interpreted at all due to difficulties facing the interpreter.

5. Results
5.1. Analysis of Items in Questionnaire on Language Use
5.1.1 Analysis of Positive and Negative Factors in Language Use
Table 2 below lists the 15-variables in the questionnaire on language use, tabulates
the frequency with which each language was used in responding to the 15 questions,
indicates whether the variable provided the interpreters with an advantage (positive
situation) or disadvantage (negative situation) for each language, and indicates
whether the question carried positive or negative implications.

Table 2
Advantages and disadvantages in choice of language

Language Choice Ar. Eng. Advantage Disadvantage/ Question Type:*

/Positive Negative (P)ositive/
Variables (N)egative
1 Adequate time lag 2 8 English Arabic P
2 Switch mechanism 3 7 English Arabic P
3 Oral fluency 1 9 English Arabic P
4 More (negative) omission 8 2 English Arabic N
5 Anticipation 2 8 English Arabic P
6 Less tension 3 7 English Arabic P
7 Fast talk 2 8 English Arabic P
8 Better coping 1 9 English Arabic P
9 Better memory 4 6 English Arabic P
10 Resisting tension 2 8 English Arabic P
11 Grammar conscious 5 5 Ar./Eng. Ar./Eng. N
12 Easier note-taking 3 7 English Arabic P
13 Irritating mistakes 5 5 Ar./Eng. Ar./Eng. N
14 Using non-standard 8 2 English Arabic N
15 More syntactic demands 7 3 English Arabic N

* Question type: the questions have been designed in a way for the answer to reflect a positive/negative
choice of language. That is, a higher figure in the language choice box (Ar. vs. Eng.) does not necessarily
carry a positive value.

An arbitrary count of respondents’ choices in responding to the questions may

be misleading. For example, item number 4 of the questionnaire, which reads: “More
omission (i.e., loss of information) occurs when I interpret into…” is associated with
“poor” choice of the language as the target language for interpretation. In this case,
the language choice will reflect a disadvantage on the part of the user. Of the 15

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 612 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 simultaneous interpretation in an arabic/english context 613

questions comprising the “variables” in Table 1 above, 10 questions (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9, 10, 12) were indicative of “positive” results of language choice, against five items
(4, 11, 13, 14, 15) reflecting “negative” results of language choice.

5.1.2 Analysis of Responses by Individual Respondents

Table 3 below tabulates the frequency with which each respondent chose each lan-
guage in response to variables in Table 1 that are shown to have “positive” or “nega-
tive” advantages, and indicates, with a ratio, which language provides an advantage
for each of the respondents. In Table, 2 we see that 10 of the 15 choices were classi-
fied as “positive” and the other 5 were “negative”; in Table 3 we have focused on the
positive variables in determining which language was most advantageous for each
respondent.

Table 3
Respondents’ “positive” vs. “negative” responses on choice of language
Respondent Arabic English Lg. Preference/Advantage
Positive Negative Positive Negative
1 1 5 9 0 Eng. 9:1
2 9 1 1 4 Ar. 9:1
3 1 3 9 2 Eng. 9:1
4 0 5 10 0 Eng. 10:0
5 5 1 5 4 Ar./Eng. 5:5
6 0 4 10 1 Eng. 10:0
7 3 2 7 3 Eng. 7:3
8 1 3 9 2 Eng. 9:1
9 0 5 10 0 Eng. 10:0
10 3 4 7 1 Eng. 7:3
Total 23 33 77 17
56 94

As the table shows, the choice of Arabic positively was recorded by one respon-
dent only (No. 2). Meanwhile, 8 respondents chose English for that matter, and one
respondent (No. 5) showed a balanced use of the two languages in the process of
interpretation.
The table also shows that the total number of responses in which the subjects
opted for Arabic as the preferred language of their choice was 56 for all 10 respon-
dents. Twenty-three of them were classified as “positive” and 33 as “negative.” On the
other hand, the responses which opted for English reached a total of 94, distributed
as follows: 77 were marked as “positive” and 17 as “negative.”

5.1.3 Analysis by Adequacy Criteria

Table 4 indicates whether each item in the questionnaire represents a criterion of
linguistic or strategic adequacy as described in Section 4.1. The 15 items of the ques-

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 613 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 614 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

tionnaire fall into two divisions: 8 items reflect linguistic adequacy on the part of the
interpreter’s skills, and 7 items reflect strategic competence.

Table 4
Analysis of linguistic and strategic criteria in language use
Item No. Statement of Item Adequacy Criteria Lg. Choice Assessment:
(P)ositive/(N)egative
1 Adequate time lag Strategic P
2 Switch mechanism Strategic P
3 Oral fluency Linguistic P
4 More (negative) omission Linguistic N
5 Anticipation Strategic P
6 Less tension Strategic P
7 Fast talk Linguistic P
8 Better coping Strategic P
9 Better memory Strategic P
10 Resisting tension Strategic P
11 Grammar conscious Linguistic N
12 Easier note-taking Linguistic P
13 Irritating mistakes Linguistic N
14 Using non-standard Linguistic N
15 More syntactic demands Linguistic N

The results obtained from Tables 2, 3 and 4 above show clearly that the greatest
majority of respondents were more comfortable when interpreting from Arabic into
English. The statistical data reflect a clear tendency among English-Arabic-English
interpreters to opt for Arabic-into-English tasks rather than the opposite.
The previous findings run counter to the hypothesis that simultaneous inter-
preters are better off when decoding/interpreting oral discourse from a foreign lan-
guage into their mother tongue. Thus, the claim that it is a standard practice for
simultaneous interpreters to work into their native language has been rightly chal-
lenged.

5.1.4. Analysis of Respondents’ Language Choice

on the Basis of Adequacy Criteria
As we indicated earlier, it is not always easy to draw a line between the two criteria of
linguistic adequacy and strategic competence since the two are interrelated and the
control of one depends very much on the mastery of the other. Nonetheless, we listed
seven items in the questionnaire, namely items 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 as pertaining to
strategic competence, with the other eight items, namely 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
pertaining to linguistic adequacy.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 614 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 simultaneous interpretation in an arabic/english context 615

5.1.4.1. Linguistic Adequacy

As indicated in 4.1., this category entails a set of variables including the semantic,
grammatical, discoursal, pragmatic, and stylistic. For purposes of this particular
study, we subjected the elicited data to all five variables, but we place more emphasis
on the semantic component as it has more bearing on meaning than the other four.
There are degrees of accuracy in rendering meaning, however, which vary according
to some additional criteria of grammaticality, together with some discoursal, prag-
matic, and stylistic criteria. Table 5 tabulates the frequency with which the respon-
dents indicated that they preferred to interpret into Arabic or English when each of
the 8 items in Table 4 representing linguistic adequacy was involved.

Table 5
Language choice for linguistic competence items
Item No. Language Choice
Arabic English
3 1 9
*4 8 2
7 2 8
11 5 5
12 3 7
13 5 5
*14 8 2
*15 7 3
* The language choice is here indicative of a negative value.

5.1.4.2. Strategic Competence

The strategic competence criteria comprised the interaction skills of performance
criteria such as: integrating reception and production and the non-verbal features of
interaction. Table 5 tabulates the frequency with which the respondents indicated
that they preferred to interpret into Arabic or English when each of the 7 items in
Table 4 representing strategic competence was involved.
Table 6
Language choice for strategic competence items
Item No. Language Choice
Arabic English
1 2 8
2 3 7
5 2 8
6 3 7
8 1 9
9 4 6
10 2 8

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 615 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 616 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

The questionnaire results showed that the strategic competence criteria for the
ten positive values associated with language choice, Arabic or English, were in favor
of English as follows:
The results obtained from Tables 5 and 6 above show an obvious tendency
towards choosing English. Items 3, 7, 12, indicate that English was chosen positively
by the interpreters as the language which provides them with a better linguistic facil-
ity in the process of interpretation. And whereas items number 11 and 13 showed a
balanced performance as far as language choice is concerned, items 4, 14, and 15
showed that the extra use of Arabic is being associated with a negative value which
hampers the process of interpretation.

5.1.4.3. Comparison of Data in Tables 4-6

The questionnaire incorporated 8 questions which fed into the linguistic adequacy
criteria (see Table 4). Three of the eight items (3, 7, 12) showed a positive assessment
of language choice, the other three items (4, 14, 15) showed a negative assessment of
language choice, and items 11 and 13 showed a balanced performance. Items (3, 7,
12) which reflected a positive choice of the language favored English with a 9:1, 8:2,
7:3 ratio. Items number 11 and 13 showed a balanced language choice of 5:5 ratio.
The analysis then suggests that more oral fluency, fewer omissions, easier note-
taking, more use of standard, more syntactic accuracy, and fewer irritating mistakes
were detected. In other words, the interpreters showed a positive tendency towards
interpreting from Arabic into English and not vice versa, with English being the tar-
get language.
As shown in Table 4, seven of the 15 questionnaire items were oriented towards
detecting the strategic competence among interpreters. And as Table 6 shows, the
seven items (1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10) scored a ratio of 8:2, 7:3, 8:2, 7:3, 9:1, 6:4, 8:2) for
English: Arabic, respectively. This shows clearly that the general trend favored inter-
preting from Arabic into English, with English being the target language. Apparently,
issues pertaining to time lag, switch mechanism, anticipation, less tension, better
coping, and better memory were more adequately handled when interpreting from
Arabic into English.

5.2. Analysis of Simultaneous Interpretation

Whenever an interpreter embarks on interpreting either into a native or foreign lan-
guage, he may encounter many of the difficulties that evoke adjustments in speech.
These adjustments may result in successful or unsuccessful interpretation into the
target language. Paraphrasing, summarizing, synonymy, approximation, anticipa-
tion… are examples of those adjustments.
In recent years, there has been a growing interest among researchers in the
analysis of communication strategies employed by either interpreters or foreign lan-
guage learners as they seek to convey messages through the target language. Tarone
(1981: 285) defines communication strategies as “a speaker’s attempt to communi-
cate meaningful content in the face of some apparent deficiencies […] .” Ellis (1984)
suggested that the notion of communication strategy could be a useful one for evalu-
ating communicative performance. We will, therefore, make use of this notion in
order to describe the quality of the simultaneous interpretation data collected, which

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 616 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 simultaneous interpretation in an arabic/english context 617

is based on English-Arabic and Arabic-English oral performances of ten Arab bilin-

gual interpreters. The 10-hour audio-recordings were analyzed by the researchers in
order to detect and identify the communication strategies employed in both Arabic
and English by each interpreter. Our analysis comes very close to monitoring the
interpretation process rather than simply studying the product. The aim of the
analysis, therefore, is to determine problematic areas facing the interpreters in the
target language in order to identify the strategies utilized, and consequently to see if
the interpreters were successful or not in overcoming interpretation difficulties. After
identifying the strategies, we will contrast them in terms of successful (achievement)
and unsuccessful (reduction), strategies. Below is a discussion and definitions of the
strategy types that were found in the study.

5.2.1. Communication Strategies

In order to identify a communication strategy, we had to mark and then label rel-
evant parts of the data that demonstrated a noticeable communication problem and
observe how the interpreter dealt with it in his/her attempt to seek alternative ways
to overcome the problem and communicate meaning to the audience. The modified
taxonomic format of strategies developed for the analysis in the present study draws
upon some of the existing taxonomies, notably those of Tarone 1981, Bialystok 1984,
and Khanji 1996, among others (see section 4.3 above). The eight most frequently
used strategies in both Arabic and English interpretation were:
1. Skipping: An interpreter uses this strategy by leaving out unnecessary repetitions,
redundant expressions or unimportant utterances which would have no place if the
original text were written.
2. Anticipation: Using this strategy, an interpreter anticipates what will come next and
prepares appropriate output in the target language. It is a strategy in which the inter-
preter manages to transform the organization of information by immediately entering
it into the grammatical and semantic schemata of the output language, in some cases
before the speaker has uttered the anticipated word or phrase. These “anticipations” are
something like set phrases which carry much of the informational content of the mes-
sage.
3. Summarizing: This strategy is one that an interpreter may use in coping with long
sentences by reducing them to a minimum while preserving the content of the message.
In doing so, interpreters manage to achieve an economic means of expression.
4. Approximation: An interpreter uses this strategy to provide a near equivalent term or a
synonym with less precise meaning in an attempt to interpret a target expression.
5. Code-switching: This strategy refers to style shift from standard to informal colloquial
Arabic. Interpreters resort to this strategy when they cannot cope with time pressure
when the speaker talks fast and gets ahead of the interpreter.
6. Literal interpretation: With this strategy the interpreter simply uses an L2 literal
equivalent of an L1 word irrespective of contextual adequacy.
7. Incomplete sentence strategy: This strategy results in fragmented utterances when in-
terpretation is cut short in mid-sentence, leaving unfinished messages. This strategy
occurs when the interpreter takes too much time trying to find equivalent expressions
but fails to do so before additional input must be interpreted.
8. Message abandonment: When an interpreter uses this strategy, periods of silence and
long pauses occur in which certain messages are not interpreted at all because of diffi-
culties facing the interpreter.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 617 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 618 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

Table 7 gives an analysis of how the above strategies were used by interpreters in
the present study. The occurrence of each strategy more than 10 times in the target
output language by all interpreters was considered of a high frequency, whereas the
occurrence of the strategy 5 or fewer times was considered of a low frequency. For
instance, message abandonment was the most frequently used strategy when inter-
preting into Arabic since it occurred more than 10 times and consequently it has a
high frequency of occurrence.
The 8 strategies listed in Table 7 below are classified according to their effective-
ness in achieving positive equivalent informational transfer. For example, the first
strategy reflects the highest degree of transfer whereas strategy number 8 falls short
of achieving the goal or misses it altogether.

Table 7
Frequency of Communication Strategies in English/Arabic Interpretation
No. Type of Strategy Interpretation Interpretation
into Arabic into English
1. Skipping low high
2. Anticipation high low
3. Summarizing low high
4. Approximation high high
5. Code-switching high low
6. Literal interpretation high low
7. Incomplete sentences high none
8. Message abandonment high low

As Table 7 shows, “skipping” has been classified as the most favorable strategy
since it reflects the interpreter’s ability to make relevant omissions which leave out
unnecessary repetitions, redundant expressions and the like. On the other hand,
“message abandonment” (No. 8) suggests periods of silence and long pauses which
result in important omissions in the interpretation of the SL content.

5.2.2. Direction of Interpretation

5.2.2.1. English to Arabic
A. Achievement strategies
Anticipation and approximation strategies were used when interpreting into Arabic.
These two strategies are the only instances of an achievement-type strategy employed
in Arabic interpretation. Achievement strategies, according to Khanji et al. (2000),
are strategies in which speakers make an effort to retrieve the target expressions, and
thus achieve a solution to a communicative problem they face. Therefore, Arab inter-
preters managed to successfully anticipate various messages in advance by immedi-
ately organizing information in the output language. They succeeded in anticipating
particularly culture-specific expressions by actually saying them before speakers had
uttered the corresponding expressions. They were also able to predict the appearance
of expressions that frequently occur together in speech before they unfold.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 618 11/21/02, 2:29 PM

 simultaneous interpretation in an arabic/english context 619

Approximation was another achievement strategy used in Arabic interpretation.

We will provide some instances of this strategy in the following section when we
analyze interpretation into English. Interpreters resorted to approximation by re-
placing structures or expressions by others with which they shared some semantic
features. The implications of using these two achievement strategies will be analyzed
later in our discussion of language variation.
B. Reduction Strategies
The most widely used strategies that have a higher frequency of occurrence when
translating from English to Arabic were: message abandonment, literal interpreta-
tion, incomplete sentences, and code-switching. This observation clearly indicates
that interpreters working into Arabic employed more reductionist-type of strategies
on the average. Reduction strategies, according to Khanji et al. (2000), are “attempts
to avoid a communicative problem without being able to develop an alternative
plan,” and in this case the original communicative goal of interpretation is not
achieved.
The following examples clearly show both distortion and lack of interpretation
in three types of reduction strategies.
1. Message abandonment: The example below shows no speech strategy. The inter-
preter here started to interpret but quickly gave up to render the message in
Arabic and this consequently caused interpretation breakdown.
“On this day in the desert of this great rift valley, the people of Jordan stepped out of
the shadows of strife.”

2. Literal interpretation: The examples below show that the interpreters have treated
the English words as if they have already been borrowed into Arabic with mini-
mal phonological and morphological adjustment.
• the hard stony soil

• the tools of peace must be picked up

• you have made a great choice

• to establish a future of tranquility and peace to your children:

3. Incomplete sentences:
• signatures on a document did not mean that they automatically produce changes of
such magnitude.

As for code-switching, interpreters resorted to this strategy, which is a type of a

short-cut or an easy way out to use the informal form of Arabic instead of the
demanding standard Arabic. Interpreters employed this strategy by summarizing
messages they failed to interpret earlier in the standard form of the language. Sum-
marizing in informal Arabic, as we have pointed out, seems to have freed the inter-

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 619 11/21/02, 2:30 PM

 620 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

preters from the linguistic constraints and the conscious monitoring of standard
Arabic which can be quite demanding, as we will later explain when discussing the
significance of use of this strategy in relation to oral language proficiency.
It is observed, therefore, from such examples of strategy use that there was a
breakdown of performance in communicating the messages to audience due to
apparent insufficient linguistic sources in Arabic interpretation.

5.2.2.2. Arabic to English

A different picture emerges when we look at strategy types employed when interpret-
ing into English. First of all, the reduction strategies found in Arabic interpretation
did not appear in English interpretation, and their occurrence here was frequently
low. There were no instances of incomplete sentence strategy employed by any inter-
preter, whereas the same interpreters resorted to this and other reduction strategies
quite often when interpreting from English into Arabic as we have already pointed
out. Secondly, achievement strategies such as approximation, skipping and summa-
rizing were found to have a high frequency in English interpretation. For instance,
the following Arabic expressions were approximated, though in a less precise way, in
English.
• establish prayer (instead of “perform”)
• encourage people to marry (instead of “urge”)
• to make the Moslem afraid (instead of “deter” or “curb”)
• indecent boys (instead of “illegitimate”)
As for skipping, interpreters here omitted some redundant items and concen-
trated on more important ones only when they felt that omissions may not have
affected interpretation. It was clear that omissions that occurred in skipping, were
not due to great information load, time pressure or inability to process information
quickly. It was perhaps due to the redundant use of lexical Arabic items or synonyms,
a linguistic feature of Arabic style.
Summarizing was employed more in English interpretation than in Arabic. It
seems that in order to cope successfully with long Arabic sentences, the interpreter
employed such a strategy which ultimately led to achieving an economic means of
expression while preserving the content of a message.
To conclude this section, we are inclined to interpret the quality of interpreta-
tion in terms of strategy difference. There is evidence to show that interpreters work-
ing into English employed more achievement strategies than reduction strategies.
English interpretation, in general, did not cause much trouble for interpreters ex-
pressing themselves competently and gracefully. Speed, i.e., automaticity of perfor-
mance in English interpretation was not marked by overt hesitational features in
their communicative behavior. That is, their oral production did not lack speed or
facility in retrieving words that met the requirements of the task (rapid-word re-
trieval) as often as was the case in their Arabic interpretation.
Strategy difference, therefore, provides another piece of evidence that interpreta-
tion from English to Arabic is more problematic according to the data analyzed in
this study.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 620 11/21/02, 2:30 PM

 simultaneous interpretation in an arabic/english context 621

6. Summary and Discussion

6.1. Summary of analysis of questionnaire on adequacy criteria
The results obtained from the sections on adequacy criteria (5.1.3–5.1.4.2, Tables 4-
6) were in favor of interpreting from Arabic into English. The statistical data con-
cluded from the 15-item questionnaire (8 reflecting linguistic adequacy and 7
reflecting strategic competence) were equally supportive of the Arabic-into-English
choice of most subjects comprising the sample. Of course, all five variables of linguistic
adequacy were considered (see section 5.1.4.1.). Similarly, the strategic competence
criteria of integrating reception and production together with the non-verbal features
of instruction (section 5.1.4.2.) showed an obvious tendency towards interpreting
from Arabic into English.
It is important to point out, however, that the two adequacy criteria stated above
are inseparable. Consequently the inadequate mastery of the two types of compe-
tence was shown among the majority of the interpreters when interpreting from
English into Arabic, for those interpreters failed to have a good control in these two
types of criteria.

6.2. Summary of analysis of actual interpretations

The results of this section may be summed up in the following:
• Very few interpreters showed a balance of their two languages in the process of inter-
pretation, but the majority of interpreters reacted more positively (in their responses)
towards English.
• Not all of the “achievements” are equal nor are all the “reductions.” The four achieve-
ment strategies identified in section 5.2.1. above were ranked as follows: skipping, an-
ticipation, summarizing, and approximation. The reduction strategies showed that
“code-switching” was the least damaging, followed by literal interpretation, incomplete
sentence strategy, and then message abandonment as the most harmful.
• Most interpreters involved in English-Arabic interpretation resorted to more use of
reduction-type rather than achievement–type strategies.
• The standard Arabic used by almost all interpreters showed poor performance due to
various factors such as familiarity with the subject matter, speaker’s speed, skill, etc.
This was shown clearly when they frequently resorted to employing a strategy of sum-
marizing informally in colloquial Arabic rather than in the elevated highly polished
standard Arabic. Obviously the three varieties of Arabic, namely colloquial, “standard,”
and classical Arabic are not the same or quite similar phenomena. Colloquial Arabic is
what native speakers begin developing as they acquire language, and it serves as the
medium for most spoken interaction throughout life. Standard Arabic (English, etc.) is
learned rather than acquired. Consequently, oral production of colloquial language is
in a sense “more automatic” and more natural than oral production of a “standard”
variety.
Interestingly, most of the code shifts occur when the speaker was reading from a
written text. Written texts tend to use more sophisticated vocabulary, more complex
syntax, and more complex semantic and pragmatic implicatures than even rather
formal oral discussions, including those conducted in “standard’ language in formal
settings.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 621 11/21/02, 2:30 PM

 622 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

Educated people may be able to use more “standard” (or “high register”) lan-
guage in professional discussions orally than the average person on the street, but
they will also include some of the “clutter” that is omitted when a good interpreter
invokes the strategy of skipping. One function of this clutter is to provide the speaker
with a bit of “thinking time” as s/he formulates what is to follow. In this connection,
our instances of skipping occurred with extemporaneous oral delivery rather than
with the reading of a tightly organized written text. For example, if we, the authors,
carry on a conversation about, for instance, linguistic theory, we will probably choose
to use colloquial communication strategies, but if we are having the “same” conver-
sation with a visiting lecturer (whether in Arabic or English), we will shift to the
communication strategies that one associates with the use of “standard” language.
Classical Arabic is yet something else. It is basically not a “spoken language.” Two
imams will not carry on an everyday conversation with classical Arabic syntax and
vocabulary. The best they could do is sprinkle classical words and phrases through-
out a colloquial or “standard” discourse analogous to what we have described above
in our reference to the two of us. Most of the code shifts from classical to colloquial
occurred with readings of written texts with syntax and vocabulary that are even
more complex than what one would find in the above-mentioned discussion of lin-
guistics with a visiting scholar in a “standard” variety of language.
Interpretation from English into Arabic was manageable by some interpreters
when interpreting religious texts. Their performance was, consequently, better when
the subject matter was familiar, an indication that their good control of the language,
style, and content was determined by the nature of the interpretation task as well
(i.e., the subject matter).
Based on these results, two observations emerge: First, the interpreters’ oral lan-
guage system in Arabic showed some type of variability especially when interpreters
were able to employ both reduction and achievement strategies. Resorting to these
two kinds of strategies was determined by the nature of the interpretation task,
which seems to have influenced the choice of either successful or unsuccessful strat-
egies. Second, the poor control of language use in the dominant language as well as
the good control of it was evident in various contexts. That is, the variable system of
their dominant language showed changes when the linguistic environment changed.
For instance, familiar subject matter such as that found in religious texts produced
high quality of interpretation in the dominant language (a good language control),
but this was not the case in political or economic subject matters (poor language
control).

6.3. Labov’s Variability Model

We assume that the Arab interpreters cannot be said to have a homogeneous compe-
tence, which applies a Chomskyan paradigm for formulating a theory about the nature
of language as a hypothetical entity. In other words, the Arab interpreters do not
necessarily possess sociolinguistic knowledge as perfect as their colloquial native
Arabic, since the study findings clearly showed some deficiencies in their linguistic
and strategic competence. A varying or a heterogeneous competence (differing abili-
ties) is made up of various levels of proficiency ranging from weak to native profi-
ciency, i.e., following Labov (1969). It is made up of a continuum of styles ranging

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 622 11/21/02, 2:30 PM

 simultaneous interpretation in an arabic/english context 623

from the vernacular (colloquial), or (unattended speech) to the most careful moni-
tored speech. We have already reported how in the case of our respondents, the lan-
guage problems which affected meaning were mainly related to too much attention
paid to terminology and a focus on lexical choice in interpretation. We have already
pointed out also that some interpreters failed to render the appropriate TL lexical
equivalents in classical Arabic and that, in turn, affected meaning negatively.
Although the dominant language of the interpreters included the two forms of
Arabic, i.e., the classical and the colloquial, the two forms pose different kinds of
challenges for interpreters. The interpreters failed to express themselves properly in
classical Arabic when they paid the least attention to Arabic forms, and had to resort
to colloquial Arabic forms when they faced communicative problems in the form of
Arabic, i.e., standard Arabic, they were supposed to employ during interpretation.
Variability in the interpreters’ dominant language is, therefore, evidenced in their
language behavior that seems to have been caused by the degree of attention which
interpreters paid to language forms (i.e., written and spoken registers) when they
faced interpretation problems.
The interpreter’s dominant language is made up of two systems: first, a
metalinguistic knowledge system, which Krashen (1981) terms knowledge of the
monitor; the monitor is learned and is accessible to conscious introspection and may
be described by the interpreter in terms of consciously formulated grammatical rules
(evidenced in the prestige classical Arabic form). The second system, which Arab
interpreters (as well as other Arab speakers) resort to when they face difficulties
expressing themselves in classical Arabic, is the implicit knowledge which consists of
the unconscious competence they have as a result of acquiring, through natural
processes of social interaction since infancy, the ability to speak and understand
Arabic, and with which they have better fluency and facility in communication.
However, fluency in classical Arabic will be weak if certain conditions are not met for
the monitor to work, that is, if the interpreter has not maintained familarity with this
register. As a matter of fact, what applies to second language learners when they
monitor their second language appears to apply also to interpreters employing clas-
sical Arabic in interpretation. That is, Arab interpreters may perform well in classical
Arabic when they have time to monitor their language but are less successful when
the speaker’s delivery does not allow them to recall what they have learned about
classical Arabic. Under these conditions, which are based on Krashan’s (1981) work,
Arab interpreters may do well in interpretation when they have enough time to
monitor and when they consciously know the grammar rule in question. On the
other hand, their performance will be considered as poor when they resort to the low
form of Arabic—and they did so, as the data show—when they were pressured by the
fast talk of the speaker and could not cope, consequently resorting to the strategy of
summarizing informally by not using strictly classical Arabic. The code-switching
phenomenon, as a strategy employed by interpreters is, therefore, a reduction strategy
since their poor control of classical Arabic, the form of language they were supposed
to use in interpretation, led them to switch to colloquial Arabic, which is easier to
handle since they have a better control of it. Moreover, their knowledge of this form is
both automatic and spontaneous, and switching to it in interpretation requires much
less awareness of language use than is the case when employing classical Arabic.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 623 11/21/02, 2:30 PM

 624 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

Variability, therefore, is accounted for in the dichotomy between spoken and

standard Arabic or, in other words, between the interpreter’s language behavior when
monitoring and when not monitoring.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

As we have indicated earlier, the findings of the study, which are based on the two data
sources—the questionnaire responses and the actual interpretation recordings—
showed that the majority of respondents and interpreters seem to be more comfort-
able when interpreting from Arabic into English than vice versa. We are, therefore,
inclined to conclude that it may not always be the case that people generally perform
the same task (in speaking or in interpreting) less well in a second language than in
a first.
Our findings lead us to agree with Lederer (1978: 327), who states that “under-
standing is not the only process of the human mind that can be studied in interpre-
tation.” As she points out, “The interpreter is not only a listener, he is also a speaker.”
He is not the message, but he is the means to conveying the intended message. This
requires from the interpreter a good control of the different styles, content, register,
the art of speaking, and so on. Therefore, the interpreter is hardly given enough time
to think and has to “put across” immediately and as accurately as possible whatever a
speaker wishes to convey. He, therefore, has to acquire these two basic processes:
understanding and speaking, and to be able to transfer smoothly between them.
In light of the findings of the present study, which are contrary to the theoretical
argument discussed above regarding the claim for interpreters working better into a
dominant (native) language, we believe that more studies are needed in this direction
in order to confirm or prove the findings of this study.
As a matter of fact, few studies have confirmed the results of our study. Lambert
(1978), for example, reported that several bilinguals showed dominance in their sec-
ond language over their native, mother language. The bilinguals he studied were
American graduate students who were in several cases revealing a relative dominance
of French or Italian over English on different test batteries (p. 134).
Another point in favor of our findings is that the differences in language use in
registers found in colloquial, standard, and classical Arabic—as opposed to the rela-
tive similarity of language in different registers in English—may lead interpreters to
feel more comfortable working from Arabic into English.
Finally, the background of the interpreter vis-à-vis the subject matter of the pre-
sentation being interpreted is another important variable which could be investi-
gated more fully through further research. For example, a person trained in
linguistics may have difficulty with presentations on economics, and a political sci-
entist may not be able to handle discussions of linguistics.

NOTE
We are grateful to Dr. Donland Lance, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, University of Missouri,
USA, who read and made critical remarks on earlier drafts of this paper. We assume complete
responsibility for the shortcomings of this paper.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 624 11/21/02, 2:30 PM

 simultaneous interpretation in an arabic/english context 625

REFERENCES
Al-Khanji, R. (1996): “Two Perspectives in Analyzing Communication Strategies,” in IRAL, 34/2,
pp. 144-154.
Al-Khanji, R., El-Shiyab, S. and R. Hussein (2000): “On the Use of Compensatory Strategies in
Simultaneous Interpretation,” in META, 45/3, pp. 548-557.
Bialystok, E. (1984): “Strategies in Interlanguage Learning and Performance.” In Alan Davies,
C. Criper and A. P. R. Howatt (eds.), Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
37-48.
Ellis, R. (1984): “Communication Strategies and the Evaluation of Communicative Perfor-
mance,” in ELT Journal 38/1:39-44.
Frawley, W. and J. P. Lantolf (1985): “Second Language Discourse: A Vygotskyan Perspective,”
in Applied Linguistics, 6/11:19-44.
Herbert, J. (1978): “How Conference Interpretation Grew.” In, D. Gerver and H. Sinaiko (eds.),
Language Interpretation and Communication. New York/London: Plenum Press, pp. 5-10.
Jakendoff, R. (1972): Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Krashen, S. (1981): Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Labov, W. (1969): “The Study of Language in its Social Context,” in Studium Generale 23:30-87.
Lambert, W. (1978): “Psychological Approaches to Bilingualism, Translation and Interpretation.”
In D. Gerver and H. Sinaiko (eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication. New York/
London: Plenum Press, pp. 131-142.
Lederer, M. (1978): “Simultaneous Interpretation—Units of Meaning and other Features.” In
D. Gerver and H. Sinaiko (eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication. New York/
London: Plenum Press, pp. 323-333.
Qian, H. (1994): “Looking at Interpretation from a Communicative Perspective,” in Babel 40/4,
pp. 214-221.
Qzar, M. H. (1997): The Role of Memory as a Cognitive Psychological Faculty in Simultaneous
Interpretation. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Yarmouk University, Jordan.
Saville, M. and Hargraves (1999): “Assessing Speaking in the Revised FCE,” in ELT Journal, 53/
1, pp. 42-51.
Schweda-Nicholson, N. (1992): “Linguistic Theory and Simultaneous Interpretation: Semantic
and Pragmatic Considerations.” Babel, Vol. 38:2, pp. 90-100.
Seleskovitch, D. (1978): “Language and Cognition.” In D. Gerver and H. Sinaiko (eds.), Lan-
guage Interpretation and Communication. New York/London: Plenum Press, pp. 333-341.
Tarone, E. (1981): “Some Thoughts on the Notion of Communication Strategy.” TESOL, Vol. 15,
pp. 285-295.
Uhlenbeck, F. M. (1978): “On the Distinction between Linguistics and Pragmatics.” In D. Gerver
and H. Sinaiko (eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication. New York/London: Ple-
num Press, pp. 185-197.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962): Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 625 11/21/02, 2:30 PM

 626 Meta, XLVII, 4, 2002

APPENDIX
This study seeks to establish whether or not interpreters are better off when decoding/interpreting
oral discourse from a foreign language (i.e., English) into their native tongue (i.e., Arabic).
Please answer each of the following questions by putting a (✓) mark in the appropriate box. Thank
you.

Arabic English
1. As an interpreter I maintain adequate time lag when I
interpret into
2. My switch mechanism is at its best when I interpret into
3. I have better oral fluency in terms of quality and time when
I interpret into
4. More omission (i.e., loss of information) occurs when I
interpret into
5. Strategies of anticipation are best achieved when I interpret
into
6. I feel less tense in front of an audience when I interpret into
7. When speakers talk fast I prefer to interpret into
8. I can better cope with listening and speaking when I
interpret into
9. I can have a better short-term memory when I interpret
into
10. I can resist tension more when I interpret into
11. I feel more grammar conscious when I interpret into
12. Note-taking and recapitulating can be achieved more easily
when I interpret into
13. I feel more irritated at the mistakes I may make when I
interpret into
14. I may resort to non-standard slang when I cannot immedi-
ately find a TL equivalent when I interpret into
15. Transfer strategies are hampered by syntactic demands when
I interpret into

03.Meta 47/4.Partie 3 626 11/21/02, 2:30 PM