Mirror neurons and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting

Abstract

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.