Mirror neurons and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/RP.2019.005Keywords
anticipation, mirror neurons, simultaneous interpretingAbstract
Anticipation is a frequent phenomenon in simultaneous interpreting [SI]. Some authors argue (Gile, 1995; Chernov 1994, 2004) that it is compulsory due to the structural differences in syntactical order between the pair of languages the interpreter is working with. Other researchers (Chernov 1979, 1981; Jones 1998) refer to it as a strategy in simultaneous interpreting. In our view, anticipation cannot be considered a strategy (Kohn & Kalina, 1996) that the interpreter switches on or off in SI. Our claim is that it cannot be switched off. Anticipation is the basis of reformulation itself. If the interpreter cannot predict the sense before the utterance has finished, it would be very difficult to reorganise or reformulate an utterance and render speech, words, syntax and sense. Translation studies have broadened their scope including methodology in their research, and recently look to areas such as cognitive science or psycholinguistics (Ferreira, A. & Schwieter, J.W., 2015). This interdisciplinary approach can shed some light over the processes present during translation or interpreting. One of these interdisciplinary approaches is neuroscience and the recent discoveries about the functions of the mirror neurons (Rizzolatti et al. 1996). Mirror neurons can help explain why there is a constant and natural anticipation process in human communication. Although these cells belong to the visuomotor system, some researchers acknowledge their share in cultural transmission, language acquisition and learning through observation. Chernov (1979, 1981) advanced his theory of probability prediction model based on the presence of redundancy in natural language. But anticipation is present in normal and casual language as well (Li & Hombert 2002) and that is perhaps the reason why it can help predicting intentions in a given communicative situation, just as Chernov postulated. Simultaneous interpreting is a very special communicative setting and language in a conference setting can hardly be considered casual or natural. It is mostly written language, with some exceptions, transmitted orally. This hampers the natural process of anticipation present in casual language or in natural communicative situations, which is why it has to be trained through the learning of material and documentation (Kalina, 1992, 2000; Gillies, 2013; Shrieve, 2006). This learning, on the other hand, also activates the mirror neuron system in the interpreter and leaves traces or neural patterns (Rizzolatti et al. 2002) that help again in the anticipation process.
References
Alves F., 2015, Translation Process Research at the Interface. Paradigmatic, Theoretical, and Methodological Issues in Dialogue with Cognitive Science, Expertise Studies, and Psycholinguistics, [in:] Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, A. Ferreira, J. W. Schwieter (eds.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, pp. 17–40.
Bartłomiejczyk M., 2008, Anticipation: A Controversial Interpreting Strategy, [in:] Translation and Meaning Part 8, M. Thelen, B. Lewandowska- -Tomaszczyk (eds.), Maastricht, pp. 117–126.
Besien F. van, 1999, Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting, “Meta”, Vol. 44(2), pp. 250–259.
Becchio C., Manera V., Sartori L., Cavallo A., Castiello U., 2012, Grasping intentions: From thought experiments to empirical evidence, “Front Hum Neurosci”, Vol. 6, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3340947/ (access: 8.01.2019).
Binkofski F. et al., 1999, A Fronto-Parietal Circuit for Object Manipulation in Man: Evidence from an fMRI-Study, [in:] Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, Amsterdam–Philadelphia, pp. 37–59.
Chernov G. V., 1979, Semantic Aspects of Psycholinguistic Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, “Language and Speech”, Vol. 22(3), pp. 277–295.
Chernov G. V., 1981, “Semantic Redundancy as a Key to Reliable Comprehension of a Verbal Message (Objective and Subjective Factors)”, [in:] Comprehendre le Langage: Actes du Colloque International et Multidisciplinaire sur la Comprehension du Langage, Didier Collection “Linguistique” no 12, Paris, pp. 31–37.
Decety J., 2001, “Is there such a Thing as Functional Equivalence between Imagined, Observed, and Executed Action?”, [in:] The imitative Mind. Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases, A. N. Meltzoff, W. Prinz (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge–New York–Melbourne–Madrid–Cape Town–Singapore–Sao Paulo, pp. 291–310.
Ericsson K. A., 2000, Expertise in Interpreting, “Interpreting”, Vol. 5(2), pp. 187–220.
Ferreira A., Schwieter J. W. (eds.), 2015, Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.
Gile D., 2015, “The Contributions of Cognitive Psychology and Psycholinguistics To Conference Interpreting. A Critical Analysis”, [in:] Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, A. Ferreira, J. W. Schwieter (eds.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, pp. 41–64.
Gillies A., 2013, Conference Interpreting. A Student’s Practice Book, New York.
Hild A., 2015, “Discourse Comprehension in Simultaneous Interpreting. The role of Expertise and Information Redundancy”, [in:] Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, A. Ferreira, J. W. Schwieter (eds.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, pp. 67–100.
Jones R., 1998, Conference Interpreting Explained, St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester.
Kohn K. & Kalina S., 1996, The Strategic Dimension of Interpreting, “Meta”, Vol. 41(1), pp. 118–138.
LeDoux J., 1998, The Emotional Brain, [in:] Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, V. Gallese, M.I. Stamenov (eds.), Amsterdam– Philadelphia, pp. 333–340.
Li C.N. & Hombert J. M., 2002, On the Evolutionary Origin of Language, [in:] Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, V. Gallese, M. I. Stamenov (eds.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, pp. 175–205.
Lintou K., 2015, Anticipation, [in:] Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, F. Pochhacker (ed.), London, pp. 15–16.
Manera V. et al., 2013, Time will show: Real Time Prediction during Interpersonal Action Perception, “PLOS ONE”, Vol. 1: e54949, pp. 1–6.
Meltzoff N. & Prinz W. (eds.), 2001, The imitative Mind. Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases, Cambridge–New York–Melbourne–Madrid–Cape Town–Singapo –Sao Paulo.
Morrison I., 2002, Mirror Neurons and Cultural Transmission, [in:] Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, V. Gallese, M. I. Stamenov (eds.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, pp. 333–340.
Rizzolatti G. et al., 2001, From Mirror Neurons to Imitation: Facts and Speculations, [in:] The imitative Mind. Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases, A. N. Meltzoff, W. Prinz (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge – New York – Melbourne – Madrid – Cape Town – Singapore – Sao Paulo, pp. 247–290.
Rizzolatti G. et al., 2002, The Mirror System in Humans, [in:] Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, V. Gallese, M. I. Stamenov (eds.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, pp. 37–59.
Sebanz N., Knoblich G. (2009), Prediction in Joint Action: What, When, and Where, “Topics in Cognitive Science”, Vol. 1(2), pp. 353–367.
Stamenov M. I. & Gallese V. (eds.), 2002, Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, Amsterdam–Philadelphia.
Womble S., & Wermter S., 2002, Mirror Neurons and Feedback Learning, [in:] Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, V. Gallese, M. I. Stamenov (eds.), Amsterdam–Philadelphia, pp. 353–362.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 1401
Number of citations: 0