You are on page 1of 65

MSc in Translating and Interpreting 2011

Τhe treatment of conjunctions as cohesive devices in simultaneous interpreting for the European Parliament

By Thomais Sakali H00024033 Supervisor: Dr. Marion Winters Presented for the award of MSc. Heriot-Watt University


This dissertation sets out to examine cohesion in simultaneous interpreting. Cohesion as analysed by Halliday & Hasan (1976) is a set of semantic relations that make texts “hang together” by linking an individual sentence with what has gone before. Conjunction is a cohesive device signalling how a proposition connects to previous discourse. Simultaneous interpreting is the practice whereby spoken texts are simultaneously and orally translated. Previous research involving novice interpreters by Shlesinger (1995) uncovered a trend of omissions in certain types of conjunction. As asserted, certain conjunctions were perceived by interpreters as “semantically redundant” and were frequently omitted. In this dissertation the treatment of conjunctions is examined in international conference interpreting (European Parliament). A corpus of 30 English speeches and their Greek interpretations is compiled and inter-sentential conjunctions are counted and analysed. A marked trend of omission is observed to affect additive, temporal and continuative conjunctions, while causal and adversative conjunctions are less affected. In addition, individual conjunctive items (and, indeed, for example, but, actually, finally, now, well) present higher percentages of omission than others. A variety of reasons for the omissions alongside the perceived redundancy of some conjucntions are discussed. These include differences between languages such as the lack of one-toone solutions for English conjunctions in Greek, professional strategies and cognitive limitations linked to the interpreting process.


My sincerest thanks go to the dissertation supervisor Dr. Marion Winters whose encouragement is one of the reasons for which this dissertation was completed.

....................................... 10 2......... 23 4........................................................................................4 The usefulness of cohesion ...........................3........................................3.......................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... Introduction ........ 13 3.............. 11 2...........................................................................................................................................5 Interpreting practice ........................................................ 6 2...............................................1 The additive type .....................................................2 The theory of cohesion by Halliday & Hasan (1976) ............ 1 Cohesion ..1 Introduction ....5 The continuative type ..............2 Data collection.............................. Interpreting ............................................ 21 4......................................................................................Table of Contents 1.............2 Definition ............................................................................................................................................... 7 2........................ 3 2................................................ 3 2................................... 23 4..........................2 Other studies on cohesion in interpreting ................................................................... 15 3.........................................................................................................................................................................3.............................................2 The adversative type ......................................3..... 2.......................... 23 .........................3.........................................................6 Interpreting for the European Parliament .........4 The process of interpreting: the efforts model ...................................................................3 Previous research on cohesion in interpreting....... 14 3........1 Introduction ......................................... Methodologies ........ 16 3.................3...................3...............................................................................................................4 The temporal type .............. 20 3....... 14 3................................ 3 2......................... 15 3...............3 The causal type ..... 8 2. 14 3................................................................................... 12 2.....................................................................................1 Shlesinger (1995) .... 19 3........3 Conjunction .

......................... 56 ................................... 43 1................................................................... 28 5............................................................ 33 5.......................... 31 5...................................................2 Well ...........4 Causal conjunctions...........7. 37 5.................... 28 5.............................................................. 38 5..................................................... Analysis .................................................................5................................................................. 32 5............................................................7 Additions ....................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix 1: Corpus outline ............................2...................2 Actually .......................................................... 41 5......2 Limitations and avenues for further research .................................................................................................................3 For example ...............2...... 47 References ..........................1 First…Second etc..................................................................................................... Conclusions .......................... 24 4.......................................... and finally.......................1 Explicitation of causal links ..............2.................... 36 5............................................................... 26 5.......3 The corpus ...........................................................................................................................4 Conjunctions............................................1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1 But ................ 29 5.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 5................2 Additive Conjunctions...4................ 34 5.................................................... 45 6............................3 Adversative conjunctions ...................................... 39 5...6 Continuative conjunctions ................................................5 Temporal conjunctions ...............2 Indeed .......................... 28 5...................... 55 Appendix 2: Links to audiovisual material ................................1 Now ......................1 Results .....................................................6................... 42 5..................................................1 And ...............................................................3.............................. 40 5...............................6........................ 45 6...............................3................................................................

List of tables Table 1: Modes of delivery in the corpus Table 2: Speeds of delivery in the corpus Table 3: Additive conjunctions Table 4: Adversative conjunctions Table 5: Causal conjunctions Table 6: Temporal conjunctions Table 7: Continuative conjunctions Table 8: Additions of conjunctive items Table 9: Omissions of each conjunctive relation .

One of the findings was that interpreters privilege specific types of conjunction over others.) pointed to further research in professional settings. This research uncovered shifts and omissions in all cohesive devices in interpreting. Firstly. A secondary explanation was that certain conjunctive relations were more easily derived from their surrounding sentences. Shlesinger (ibid.1. Simultaneous interpreting refers to the professional practice whereby spoken discourse is simultaneously and orally translated in international conferences. Introduction The aim of this dissertation is to investigate cohesion in simultaneous interpreting. certain conjunctions are indeed affected by omissions more than others and which are the more affected. known as international conference interpreting (Pöchhacker 1994). an attempt is made to find out whether in a given corpus of a given genre. This dissertation sets out to investigate professional behaviour towards cohesion and adopts the above finding as a research question. Previous research on cohesion in simultaneous interpreting by Shlesinger (1995) used Halliday & Hasan’s (ibid.) model of cohesion to investigate the behaviour of trainees from English into Hebrew. However. Since an effective use of cohesive devices is known to enhance the listenability or readability of texts. it is useful to investigate the reasons for which omissions occur always with reference to the 1 . Secondly. a tendency was observed to reproduce those conjunctions which seemed to contribute to the informative content of texts. analysed in a seminal study by Halliday & Hasan (1976). and to omit those perceived as semantically redundant. it is not surprising that this subject has received attention in translation and interpreting studies. The term cohesion encompasses a set of semantic relations found on the surface of texts. The group of conjunctions examined was not comprehensive due to the experimental design of the study which included only one original text and many interpreters’ outputs.

with the hope of providing a more comprehensive insight into the issues raised by the research question.explanations provided by Shlesinger (ibid. The above research question will be addressed through a set of specific objectives. All the different categories of conjunctive relation will be analysed. In the second chapter. Next. the second objective will be to find all conjunctions that link a full sentence to another or to a bigger chunk of discourse in the original speeches. The second and third chapter will review the literature. interpreting is defined. The first corresponds to this introduction. Additions of conjunctions by the interpreters will also be observed. this dissertation looks at many texts for each of which only one interpreter’s output is available. The structure of this study includes five main chapters. then studies on cohesion are reviewed with a special focus on Shlesinger (1995). 2 . Conclusions and limitations will be discussed in the last sixth chapter. and mainly interpreters’ tendency to omit conjunctions according to the informational value they attribute to them. While Shlesinger (1995) looked at one text and many interpreters’ outputs. a complete description of the theory of cohesion within the field of functional linguistics will be provided. Objectives include first the compilation of a parallel corpus of speeches and interpretations using the published audiovisual and transcribed material from the European Parliament’s Plenary Sessions. In the third chapter. The fourth chapter introduces the corpus and the methodologies while in the fifth chapter the results of the analysis are reported and discussed. A separate section will describe the interpreting process with reference to the efforts model of interpreting (Gile 1995). So. focusing mainly on conjunction as a cohesive device. an overview of strategies and techniques used in interpreting will be provided. Using Halliday & Hasan’s (ibid. the language pair English into Greek in the professional setting of the European Parliament will be studied. and observe the solutions interpreters have given for each.) framework. The European Parliament as a workplace will also be examined in a separate section.).

it is text-based linguistics that is needed. It regards the sentence as the higher unit of language that can be studied. Finally. interpersonal and textual meaning. Interpersonal meaning expresses relations between the participants of the communication process.2. Textual meaning relates to the form of the text and Halliday calls it "enabling" meaning (Eggins 2004:298) because it brings the two other kinds of meaning together. According to the functional approach. functional linguistics.2 The theory of cohesion by Halliday & Hasan (1976) Traditional linguistics describes language in abstract terms up. then of the theory of cohesion. Textual meaning is what makes language operational in context: it is what turns language into text. 1997:168) 2. Random lexicogrammatical forms would not suffice to achieve communication. focusing on conjunction as a form of cohesion. text linguistics and discourse studies in general. a discussion on cohesion and coherence as well as the usefulness of cohesion in translation and interpreting is included.1 Introduction The present chapter deals with the theory of cohesion of Halliday & Hasan (1976) as part of functional linguistics. 2. in language three kinds of meaning are found simultaneously: experiential. ruling out issues related to meaning (de Beaugrande 1997). Instead. the text is formed from systematic arrangements. Βy contrast. 3 . and define texts as “units of language in use” (Halliday and Hasan 1976:1)." (Taylor Torsello et al. After a brief explanation of the field of functional linguistics. Cohesion "Since what an interpreter works with is a text. Experiential meaning expresses experiences and extralinguistic events. conjunction as a cohesive device with its categories will be fully explained. describe language as meaning and communication in context.

These are Reference. a text is a very different unit. Cohesive ties fall into four broad categories also called cohesive devices. Conjunction and Lexical Cohesion. While within the sentence-unit grammatical structure ensures continuity. Reference. The relation between them is called a cohesive tie. These relations make texts "hang together" (Halliday & Hasan 1976) as opposed to a mere juxtaposition of unrelated sentences and connect each sentence to what has gone before. Cohesive devices can also be categorized by their means of expression. demonstrative and possessive pronouns. ensuring continuity. But since grammatical structure itself ensures continuity. Cohesive relations are connections between sentences or longer stretches of language. a text. that take the form of presuppositions: an element’s meaning depends on another that was mentioned previously. A brief description of each of the categories is provided below: a. 4 . not structural but semantic: it hangs together by virtue of the semantic relations of cohesion. Reference is a form of grammatical cohesion.Cohesion is an important part of the textual strand and plays the role of catalyst in discourse. This system of relations is independent of grammatical structure. And although this account of cohesive relations is modeled on the English language. Personal.1 Cohesion is an important aspect of texture. This does not mean that cohesion does not exist within the sentential structure. from previous or following sentences. the effect of a cohesive relation within the sentence is not as significant. Referential cohesive relations are expressed by elements that co-refer with other elements. the property of "being a text". text analysis for cohesion by Halliday & Hasan (1976) focuses on cohesive ties spreading across sentences. For that reason. So a stretch of language displaying cohesion will be recognised by language users as a unified whole. on the surface of texts. Essentially it is a set of relations observed amongst the lexicogrammatical elements. Some are expressed through grammatical means and other through lexical means. it can be applied to other languages. comparative 1 Textual meaning is also expressed through thematic and information structure and discourse structure. but an explanation of these exceeds the scope of this dissertation. Substitution/Ellipsis.

Collocation is the occurrence of two frequently co-occurring words in different sentences (e. Ellipsis is substitution "by zero". When lexical items in some kind of semantic relation are found in different sentences.:89). I've never lectured in a finer. This is a fine hall you have there. A general observation should be made here. Cataphoric relations are also cohesive: they bind two parts of discourse together in a text. The lad's going to fall if he doesn't take care). such etc.) that suggest that an element is missing. Lexical Cohesion. they can also be cataphoric. Substitution is concerned with a group of items (one. by referring forwards. As a result. Substitution and ellipsis are expressed through grammatical means. Cohesive relations are presuppositions and cohesive items are anaphoric of some previous element or part of discourse. e.g. they avoided the worst of the storm. e.g.adjectives etc. Reiteration refers either to straightforward repetition or to the use of synonyms. pipe and smoke occurring in different sentences). Conjunction.g. conjunction does not directly refer the listener to specific elements to be supplied.g. a cohesive tie is established between those sentences.). The captain had steered a course close in to the shore. (Halliday & Hasan ibid. I must get a sharper one. but points to a set of relations. Nevertheless. There is a boy climbing that tree. E. reiteration and collocation.:46) b. (e. expressed both by grammatical and lexical elements (and. but its meaning presupposes the existence of previous discourse. Contrary to the rest of the cohesive categories. Substitution and Ellipsis. but. d. My axe is too blunt.g. c.g. e. (Halliday & Hasan ibid. The term conjunction as it is used here. does not refer to the purely grammatical category of conjunction. in addition etc. The listener or reader will supply the element from previous discourse segments. Lexical cohesion has two main components.:89). (Halliday & Hasan ibid. You know that mouse you saw? Well that hole there must be its. 5 . all express "identity of reference" and thus can be cohesive. hyponyms etc.

So. the conjunctive cohesive relation is expressed both through grammatical and lexical means. it snowed. Conjunctive relations usually occur between two adjacent sentences. they express meanings that presuppose at least some previous discourse (Halliday & Hasan ibid. Although conjunctions do not refer to specific items in previous discourse. Cohesive effect exists when conjunctions relate parts of discourse that are not connected through grammatical structure. Not all connectors are cohesive.:228) Conjunctive relations can be either external or internal. External relations relate facts of the real world while internal ones relate linguistic events. which differ in function.:239) Internal conjunctive relations have an element of interpersonal meaning. (b) Next he was incapable of inserting the key into the lock. which creates 6 . The speaker makes his presence known by implying that what is being said is his own interpretation of facts (Halliday & Hasan ibid. Below. in example (a) two propositions are connected through various structural relations. or arguments. (b) They fought a battle. it snowed. In the following examples.2. Many conjunctions have in-sentence structural equivalents. As Hatim & Mason (1990:207) put it.:240). conjunction is a device "systematically connecting what follows with what has gone before" (Halliday & Hasan ibid. Conjunction is a means of cohesion.:226). In example (b) the same two propositions are connected through the temporal conjunction afterwards: (a) After they had fought a battle. but they can also occur between a sentence and a longer stretch of previous discourse. internal relations “hold between propositions in the text world”. Afterwards. (Halliday & Hasan ibid.3 Conjunction As mentioned above. the temporal conjunction next is external in (a) but internal in (b): (a) Next he inserted the key into the lock. Halliday and Hasan (ibid.:227).

it connects extra linguistic events to which the speaker refers. adversative.1 The additive type The simple additive conjunctive relation includes and.text. women and children) while the cohesive and can link two completely different sentences making them parts of the same text (Halliday & Hasan ibid: 235).either. causal and temporal. These three elements are different in the context of the sentence but when used as conjunctions they have a similar meaning and are used to add one part of discourse to another. As noted above. both when speaking of events. while a fifth category includes items called continuatives that do not belong to any specific relation. but it can be also used cohesively when it prefaces a sentence. such as And. has a different function. In the following sections each conjunctive category is addressed separately. the distinction between external and internal use is not always clear-cut. or and nor. not all instances of connectors are cohesive.. but can also propose internally in the discourse "another possible explanation in the place of the one just given" (Halliday and Hasan ibid: 246). When used internally it can take the form of a "seam in the discourse" meaning "there is something more to be said" (Halliday & Hasan ibid: 245). it is a normal use of the English language (Halliday & Hasan ibid: 234). Nevertheless. The cohesive and is also differentiated by an element of emphasis that it contains (Halliday & Hasan ibid: 238). Nor typifies the negative additive and can take more explicit correlative forms. The additive and is found very often within the sentence.. fulfilling a coordination function. It often links up a group of similar things (men. The coordinating and. 7 . found within the sentence. Although placing an and after a full stop is often considered a mistake. Four main relations are introduced under conjunction: additive. 2.3. and when speaking of the proper communication process.. When used externally. Or can refer to different alternatives in the extra linguistic world.

Halliday and Hasan ibid. though etc. However is emphatic while though is cohesive only when it occurs in a separate sentence. in other words Exemplificatory: for example. Finally. not only that but etc. Halliday & Hasan (ibid: 247-248) also include comparative relations of similarity and contradistinction (where contradistinction borders with the adversative type).2 The adversative type The simple adversative relation is expressed by the conjunction yet and its basic meaning is "contrary to expectation" (Halliday & Hasan ibid. for instance. thus Afterthought: by the way 2. such as furthermore. on the other hand Expository: that is. certain additives are especially emphatic. by contrast. he denies ever having seen her or spoken to her. this category includes expository (that is) and exemplificatory (for example) elements and a small category of items that are used to add a new sentence in the form of an afterthought (by the way). not only that but Comparative: in the same way. But has an additive component. The mainly additive conjunction and can also be adversative.:246 Within the category of additive relations. however.:250).Moving to more complex additive relations. also. it contains an and as it were (that is why it is possible to say and yet but never and but). There are other items expressing more complex relations such as but. I mean. or. For example: 8 . For example: My client says he does not know this witness. similarly. also.3. An overview of items that can express the additive relation follows: Simple: and. nor Complex-Emphatic: furthermore. whereby the speaker adds further support to a claim. Further. These can have a rhetorical effect.

So. and emphatic: however. but emphatic: however. It means "as against what has been said until now". contrasts the absence of a response by the interlocutor with expectations created by the current state of the communication (the information given etc. Halliday & Hasan (ibid. meaning “contrary to expectations generated by external events”.). but and however mean 'as against'. meaning “contrary to expectations stemming from the communication process”. as a matter of fact or actually. on the other hand avowal: in fact. in fact expresses a contradiction of expectations and by contrast dismisses a statement. though.How queer everything is today! And yesterday things went on just as usual! Halliday and Hasan (ibid.:252) distinguish between the meanings 'despite' and 'as against'. An overview of the adversative conjunctive relations follows: Proper (despite): simple: yet. nevertheless Contrastive (as against): simple: but. or internal uses. Within the adversative category. on the contrary. I mean Dismissive: in either case. at any rate 9 . A purely internal adversative relation takes the form of an avowal and is expressed by items such as: in fact. let's move on to something else". can have external uses. They call the latter "contrastive". All items discussed above. Finally. While yet means 'despite'. This includes items such as at any rate and often introduces a topic boundary. there is the dismissive adversative relation. For example.:252). the statement But you make no remark?. It means "leaving that aside. A similar relation is the corrective type including expressions such as by contrast meaning that the previous statement is immediately contradicted. actually Corrective: instead.

Although in strict logic terms these two relations are different ("a therefore b" is not exactly the same as "if a. An overview of the causal conjunctive relations is provided below: 10 . Some paraphrases. hence and therefore and expressions such as it follows that. because of that.3. Otherwise is again the negative version. we may conclude that etc. However.:260). Although the natural sequence of this relation is cause first and then result. the phrase under other circumstances. The simple conditional relation is expressed by then. the speaker already expresses subjective judgements.. Causal relations can also be used externally or internally. then b") they are used interchangeably as means of cohesion. Otherwise can also mean "apart from this" or "leaving that aside" and in that sense it borders with the temporal internal relation ('we have already covered this point and we will move to the next').3 The causal type The causal type includes relations of result. such as. It is represented generally by the item so (simple causal relation). can also be taken here as conjunctions of this type. but there are other more emphatic items such as in that case etc. reason and purpose. as a result are more specific in expressing result. The items of the causal type very often occur combined with and.:259).. the opposite is also possible using the item for. Other items such as consequently. reason etc." (Halliday & Hasan ibid. although the distinction is fuzzier than in other relations. Halliday & Hasan also consider the internal equivalent of the conditional type. precisely. Halliday & Hasan (ibid. have a strong internal behaviour. Within the causal type of conjunctive relation conditional relations are also included. meaning "under other circumstances" (Halliday & Hasan ibid.257) consider that the items thus. Otherwise can be considered as the negative form of the conditional type. calling it the respective type (in that respect etc. since by putting forward causes and results.) and giving it the meaning "if we have now reached this point in the discourse then. this is a less frequent form of cohesion pertaining above all to the written discourse. meaning 'in other respects'.2.

because Conditional: simple: then emphatic: in that case. just before). the sequential elements discussed above have internal uses. Thus.g.General simple: so. under those circumstances. therefore emphatic: consequently. Conclusive items (finally. they refer forwards. Similar expressions are next.3. There are also more specific relations of sequence meaning immediately (e. purpose): for this reason. Sequential items (then. both in their simple (next) and their correlative cataphoric form (firstly…secondly…). otherwise Respective: in this respect. temporal conjunctions can express simultaneity or previous time again in a simple (simultaneously. after an interval (e. at once). thus. For instance. before) or more specific way (meanwhile. otherwise 2. But there are of course internal temporal relations. afterwards etc. one expects some form of correlation later in the text such as next or second. In their external use they express sequence of extra-linguistic events and in their internal use they express sequence of events in the communication process. next) signal sequence of events and can be found in a correlative form (first…second…third).4 The temporal type The simple temporal relation indicates sequence in time. and is represented primarily by the item then. Other than sequence. The correlative forms have a cataphoric effect. signalling the sequence of stages in the process of discourse or enumerating the points in an argument. because of this Specific (reason. The 11 . soon) etc. All temporal relations discussed until now are external. for this purpose Reversed: for. as a result. at last) are used to conclude a series of external events or processes. at this point and five minutes earlier. when one sees first. External and internal uses of temporal conjunctives are easily distinguishable. result.g.

hitherto Resumptive: anyway.): on a previous occasion. to sum up etc. to come back to the point. finally. to resume. to sum up. Finally. in conclusion Here and now: here. to refer to the continuation of the discourse. are also included in the temporal relation. previously Complex (sequence. next. at the same time.3.): then. simultaneity etc. here used to point to a particular point in space). but also in conclusion. When used externally these items are not cohesive but deictic (e. Sequential: Simple: then. Of course: This item can express the belief that the listener should already know something expressed by a previous sentence. to resume. From the six items examined by Halliday & Hasan (ibid.internal conclusive relation signals the end of the process of discourse and includes both items such as finally and lastly. 12 . firstly…secondly…thirdly Conclusive: at last. next Correlative: first of all.:268). the continuative type borders with the internal temporal one. Another internal aspect of the temporal relation reinstates the current stage of the communication with items such up to this point and here. They are used only internally.g. five minutes later etc. first…second…next. It can also mean the speaker’s acceptance of 2 Note that anyway is also a resumptive temporal conjunction. In this respect. 3 When deictic now means “at this point in time” and is not cohesive. to come back to the point 2. surely and after all). items that express resumption of the main point after a digression such as anyway.5 The continuative type The items of this category do not signal any kind of logical relation. The other three are explained below: Now: When cohesive and not deictic3 now introduces "a new stage in the communication" or "a new point in the argument" (Halliday and Hasan ibid. simultaneity etc. An overview of temporal conjunctions follows: Simple (sequence.). three were not found in the corpus with a cohesive function (anyway2.

a fact. However cohesion in many ways supports coherence and more importantly fulfills a function of guidance towards readers and listeners. thus enhancing listenability (Shlesinger 1995).4 The usefulness of cohesion Cohesion and coherence are often seen as connected but it is a generally accepted fact that cohesion in itself cannot guarantee coherence (Shiffrin 1987:9. Often it is used precisely to generate cohesion with the immediately preceding question. Baker 1992. Conjunctions in particular are regarded as procedural clues or processing instructions (Setton 1999:201) that tell the listener how to process a text. if used effectively these processing instructions can make a valuable contribution making a speech or written text more accessible to its audience. It has been often recognized that conjunctions are devoid of propositional meaning (Green 1990. Cohesive devices are "clues" that guide the listener by signalling underlying connections between parts of discourse (Schiffrin 1987:9). Nevertheless. In monologue. Hatim & Mason 1990 and 1997. 13 . Dooley & Levinsohn 2001:33. Setton 1999. indicating that what follows is the answer. Most importantly. The latter is often dependent on less visible interrelations between ideas and also the context and Halliday & Hasan (1976) acknowledge this fact. Chernov 2004) and that they are not an obligation in language (de Beaugrande & Dressler 1981:54). Well: This item is typically used at the beginning of an answer to a question. and are a source of efficiency and more economic processing (de Beaugrande & Dressler 1981:54). well "introduces an explanatory comment" (Halliday and Hasan ibid.:269). Brown & Yule 1983:196). This is another way to say that conjunctions do not directly encode experiential and interpersonal meaning. Shlesinger 1995). Because of its usefulness. cohesion has drawn the attention of many scholars in translation and interpreting studies (Newmark 1987. It can express that the speaker is processing the answer. it can be used rhetorically to imply that everyone in the audience should also accept the fact in question. 2.

2 Definition Pöchhacker’s (2004) provides the following definition of interpreting: "Interpreting is a form of Translation in which a first and final rendition in another language is produced on the basis of a one-time presentation of an utterance in a source language. While the latter involves note-taking and consecutive rendition of speech. as opposed to consecutive. the object of study is first defined. The working mode under examination is simultaneous mode." (Pöchhacker 2004:11) Further specifications of the object of study may also be made following Pöchhacker's (ibid. 3. An important research 14 .3. Interpreting 3. control consoles and microphones) (Setton 1999:1). In this section. the former involves simultaneous rendition from sound-proof booths and using electro-acoustic transmission equipment (headsets. the interpreting process and practice as well as the European Parliament as a workplace are examined. Interpreting is a multi-faceted object of study and has been approached from the point of view of many different disciplines (linguistics.:17-19) typology. cognitive and social sciences) leading to the diverse scientific field of Interpreting Studies. This dissertation is concerned with international conference interpreting as opposed to dialogue interpreting practiced in the community (mainly in courts and healthcare settings). neural. A special focus was put on conjunction as a cohesive device.1 Introduction In the previous section the theory of cohesion was described. Then relevant literature on cohesion in interpreting is reviewed. Finally.

Shlesinger (ibid. 3.tradition within the field engages in discourse analysis of interpreted texts and includes studies on cohesion. Several cohesive ties from each category (reference. For the experiment thirteen students interpreted from English into Hebrew.) devised an experiment to investigate shifts in cohesion. Afterwards. substitution. Shlesinger (1995) will be explained in detail.1 Shlesinger (1995) As noted in the introduction Shlesinger (ibid. Blum-Kulka (1986) had already proposed the explicitation of cohesive ties as a universal 15 . and interpreters cannot control the pace (cf. ellipsis etc. the unshared knowledge constraint means that the interpreter lacks certain knowledge that speakers may assume from their audience. Three constraints of the interpreting process are defined beforehand: Time. Hatim and Mason 1997:53). Linearity and Unshared knowledge. Even fewer are the studies focusing particularly on conjunction as a cohesive device. The linearity constraint means that the interpreter lacks the bigger picture of the text including necessary information for its processing.3. Amongst other findings. sentence-final cohesive ties were often omitted. and a source of the hypothesis under examination.3 Previous research on cohesion in interpreting On the whole. other relevant studies will be addressed more briefly. Firstly. For example substitution was turned into repetition. Thirdly. Shifts were found to occur in all categories of cohesion. the time constraint reflects the fact that the interpreters’ speech is built on the original. it was reported that more cohesive devices are omitted towards the beginning of the speech possibly because at that point the interpreter is less attuned to the context. in an on-line process.) also found that certain cohesive devices were expressed in a more explicit way. In this section. 3. because it served as a starting point for this dissertation. In addition. studies purely on cohesion (excluding coherence or other components) in simultaneous interpreting are not many.) were chosen at random from the source text and were compared to the target texts.

16 . 5 Resumptive conjunctions are a subcategory of the temporal relation. okay4. Pöchhacker (1994) reports a replication of Shlesinger’s (1995) experiment by Mizuno (1999) from English into Japanese. so their relevance for the present dissertation is limited. indeed. also. research on cohesion in interpreting studies is of a fragmentary nature. their pragmatic function or as an index of universal characteristics of interpreted texts. Cohesive devices have been studied together or separately for their cohesive effect. It presents a variety of language-pairs and methodologies. Certain studies have focused specifically on cohesive devices other than conjunction. because. So the causal and additive relations are maybe more easily inferable from their immediately surrounding discourse.feature of translated texts. Based on a limited group of conjunctive items (anyway. focusing on reference and ellipsis. at that time. including certain types of conjunction. Shlesinger (ibid. In addition she discerns that certain conjunctive relations are more “easily retrievable from the immediate context” than others. emphatic and temporal conjunctions are often omitted as redundant. omitting seemingly redundant ones. so) she reports that additive and causal conjunctions are often retained while resumptive5. See also Chapter 2. and thus more accessible to interpreters.3.) extends this hypothesis to interpreting. Beaton's (2007) doctoral thesis on simultaneous interpreting for the European Parliament studies lexical repetition for 4 Okay in Shlesinger’s (1995) corpus was used as a resumptive conjunction. signaling resumption of the main topic.) points out that some conjunctions can appear less important than others to interpreters. Also. Shlesinger discusses the tendency displayed by interpreters to focus on more informative elements. 3. They signal resumption after a digression (Halliday & Hasan 1976:265).2 Other studies on cohesion in interpreting Generally. Based on her findings and previous research Shlesinger (ibid.

he reported shifts in cohesion. Hale (1999) deals with certain continuative conjunctions (well. Gallina (ibid. without the heavy constraints associated with simultaneous interpreting . One adversative (but). Gallina (1992) studied cohesive devices only in source texts (EP speeches) stressing the importance of the functional concept of cohesion for simultaneous interpreters. now) in a study on the omission of discourse markers by consecutive court interpreters from English into Spanish. the context and object of study (consecutive interpreting) in Hale (1999) are very different from those of the present dissertation. Confirming Shlesinger (1995). because) conjunctions were used in the study and these were retained in most cases. She also proposes the absence of “equivalents” in Spanish as another reason for their omission. the omission of these items by court interpreters .although working in consecutive mode. However. After investigating the kinds of cohesion found in English and Italian EP speeches. She reports almost complete omission of both well and now. 17 . suggesting that professionals and trainees may treat cohesive devices in similar ways. Certainly. one additive (also) and two causal ( a relevant finding. Cohesive devices are also part of the discussion on the universal characteristics of interpreting. They were used to study the “equalizing universal” according to which 6 There is also a study by Karim Sha’bani (2008) on English-Persian simultaneous interpreting. Especially causal and temporal items were scarce in English. she reports a limited use of conjunctions.ideology while Monacelli (2006) studies personal reference to find a de-personalising distancing effect in interpreting. Hale (1999) comments that these seemingly redundant items can “disappear in the mental filtering process”.) stresses the importance of this cohesive device for the development of arguments by MEPs.6 Müller (1997) conducted an experimental study with trainees and one professional interpreter (English into Czech and Slovak). This study was not reached due to problems connected to inter-library cooperation. In court questions these items had various functions such as to control the flow of information and of the narrative (now) or to express disagreement (well). No difference between the trainees and the professional interpreter were found.

this could possibly entail the omission of certain cohesive conjunctions linked to the one or the other extreme of the continuum. should be born in mind.simultaneous interpreting has a leveling effect on both orality and literacy. Torsello et al. in an MA thesis by Shlesinger (Pym 2007). or the leveling effect of interpreting on orality and literacy. Pym (2007) supports the view that this second part of the hypothesis should be dismissed. Blum-Kulka observes that translators tend to make cohesive links more explicit in targets in comparison to the source. (1997) reports a study by Sidiropoulou (1995) that found a trend of explicitation of causal links in English-Greek translation of news articles. Cohesive links are discussed by Blum-Kulka (1989) as part of the explicitation hypothesis for translated texts. Later it was proposed as an interpreting universal by Shlesinger (1995) mainly for the cohesive category of substitution. was only partly supported by the findings. On the contrary impromptu speeches rely more on the context and are less bound together by explicit cohesive relations. However. However. namely that interpreting turns oral texts more literate. Because of the above mentioned “stylistic preferences” of each language regarding the way it uses cohesive devices. a general tendency to explicitate is observed and explicitation of cohesive ties is postulated as a translation universal. the hypothesized equalizing universal as a whole. On the language-pair under examination (English-Greek). no information is given by Pym (2007) regarding which types of cohesive ties were examined in the study. In dense prepared speeches cohesive clues are more frequent because these speeches are more complete and self-contained. Translators retained all causal links (including cohesive conjunctions) in 18 . The use of cohesive devices was indicative of orality and literacy. Certain cohesive conjunctions are associated to prepared or oral language. Interpreting was found to turn literal texts more oral. Although this is sometimes attributable to "stylistic preferences" of the languages involved. If interpreting has a leveling effect on these features of speeches. claiming that interpreting as an oral task always gravitates towards a more oral style. The opposite effect. it can be difficult to discern whether explicitation is due to the process of interpreting or to language-specific factors.

numbers.4 The process of interpreting: the efforts model Gile’s (1995:159-178) efforts model describes interpreting as the sum of three competing cognitive processes. The proposed explanation was that Greek audiences are more skeptical towards the author’s claims. The lack of automation means that they take up a part of the interpreter’s limited processing capacity. since they are complex and involve inferencing. A fourth effort is employed to coordinate the work of the remaining three (coordination effort). Simultaneous interpreting is essentially represented by the following equation: Total Processing Capacity = Listening + Production + Memory + Coordination The total processing capacity of a practitioner must cover all four efforts in a simultaneous way. Difficulties of the original speech cited by Gile (ibid. Processing overload is often linked to the difficulties of the original speech and sometimes to inefficient management of different efforts by the interpreter.:153) mainly include high speed of delivery and read mode of delivery (as against impromptu) (cf Vuorikoski 2004). (1997). In case their sum exceeds available processing capacity. saturation may occur. The listening and comprehension of discourse (comprehension effort) overlaps with speech production (production effort) and with short-term memory processing (memory effort). Read speeches tend to display dense formulation and high information density including lists of elements. names and technical terms. The obvious delicacy of the interpreting task can lead to reductions in interpreting quality even when it comes to experienced professionals (Gile 1995:159). this finding may be of interest to Greek interpreters. 19 .the target and explicitated implicit ones. so translators chose to logically connect them with what had gone before. These processes cannot become automated. According to Torsello et al. 3. referred to as "efforts".

professional simultaneous EU interpreter and trainer Jones (1998:106) has explicitly expressed that interpreters should omit “useless filler words” including actually and well except when used with their “primary sense” (e. Interpreters also learn to abstract only essential information from a segment of speech and convey it in a simple way (Van Dam 1989). interpreters learn to control their ear-voice span. He also notes that these should only be used to “fill-in the silence” created by “desperately slow speakers”. In order to prevent failure caused by cognitive contraints. Van Dam 1989). Depending on the duress of the situation or the fluctuations of their available processing capacity.5 Interpreting practice The severe constraints captured by the efforts model of simultaneous interpreting require the mastering of a series of techniques. and even then with caution. This term refers to the "distance" (Van Dam 1989) or time lag between the interpreter and the speaker that must remain optimal so as to avoid overloading short-term memory or jeopardise following segments of speech. In order to do this. These strategies of omission and compression reflect the primacy of meaning over form that has been proposed as a norm in conference interpreting (Shlesinger 2000).g. simplify. Gile 1995. interpreters try to convey all information (information recovery law) only to the extent that this does not jeopardise following segments (law of minimizing interference). well as an adjective). First of all. The term norm is used here to describe rules that in specific socio-professional contexts govern the process and production of interpreting (Duflou 2007). These coping strategies and tactics are acquired through training and professional practice. generalise or omit information (Jones 1998. Interpreters will apply all the necessary techniques in order to obey to these laws. trying to reformulate or abstract information first. interpreters will make a wider or more limited use of the omission technique. interpreters must know how to anticipate both the message and the syntax of speeches. In particular when it comes to conjunctions. Gile (1995:201) notes that certain laws define the selection of techniques used in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreters may reformulate. All this means that certain continuative 20 .3.

with a few exceptions. Rule 146 on languages. including all the speaker’s interventions. long working hours). dense prepared speeches.6 Interpreting for the European Parliament The European Union supports linguistic equality and adopts every member state’s language as an official language. including Greek. 21 . Interpreters work into their mother tongue. The present corpus of speeches is entirely drawn from the Plenary sessions of the parliament. Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. Verbatim reports of the debates are also published online and are gradually updated with all the necessary translations. Shlesinger (2000) stresses the fact that it is not always clear which compressions or omissions are due to pure cognitive limitations (processing overload) or to conscious or internalised use of technique (norm). This session receives full interpreting coverage (as opposed to smaller group sessions where interpreting in all languages may not always be provided). in discussions speakers alternate and present their views on a subject and each discussion can be seen as a form of hypertext (Garzone 2000). “order of business” etc. All members of the European Parliament (MEPs) reserve the right to speak in Parliament in any official language and speeches must be simultaneously interpreted into all other official languages7 . 3. possibly because of the duress under which those interpreters work (strict speaking times. It currently has 23 official languages.conjunctions (well) are likely to be omitted in the present corpus. “question time”. justice and so on. The “debate” kind is an important one and addresses all the major subjects of policy. Their omission can be seen as part of the norms prevailing in international conference interpreting. finance. This said. In Plenary Sessions many different kinds of discussion take place such as “debate”. an audiovisual record of the conferences is published online along with audio archives from all interpreting booths8. “Plenary” is one type of meeting taking place in the Parliament. While an effort is made to guarantee direct interpreting from one language to another. In order to make debates open to the public. Rule 182 on the audiovisual record of proceedings. all combinations 7 8 Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. In general.

This constitutes interpreting via a third language. Indeed high speed and prepared written speeches were found to be the greatest difficulties faced by EP interpreters (Vuorikoski 2004). to be hired. The European Union is the largest employer of interpreters in the world. Vuorikoski 2004:79). called a pivot language.(506 in total) cannot be accommodated at all times. Also according to Vuorikoski (2004:86) interpreters may work for seven hours per day with a minimum break of one and a half hours. 22 . In addition. The Directorate General for Interpretation is the service responsible for managing human resources and all issues relating to interpreting in the EU. Only the EP currently employs 430 staff interpreters and cooperates with another 2500 EU-accredited freelance interpreters. interpreters have to go through a rigorous examination and prove their skills. The European Parliament's Directorate-General for Interpretation and Conferences is the service responsible for allocating human resources to conferences. a fact that often leads to an increase in speaking pace or information density. All EU interpreters have received formal training and/or have extensive professional experience on contract. Speaking times are strictly observed (up to five minutes but often one minute per speaker). These working hours can be considered long. and relay interpreting may be used. imposing duress on interpreters (cf. given the intellectual effort required by the interpreting task.

that is transcripts of all the speeches in the source language. In addition. During the survey many English speeches were transcribed directly from the audiovisual version. All important aspects of the data selected and the method of analysis are explained in this third chapter. Using the two sections combined. Because the inclusion of many different speakers and styles was desired. in another section of the website users can find verbatim reports of the debates. 4.4. Methodologies 4. One can search for speeches by plenary session. having a reasonably clear idea of the different speakers and styles. first a survey was done through the "search by speaker" tool in order to identify trends of speaking styles amongst British MEPs. Nevertheless. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses of conjunctions were combined in order to give the most appropriate answer to the research question. an interface enables users to watch plenary sessions amongst other sittings. these reports were always used in conjunction with the audiovisual 23 . Towards the end of this process. while translations in the other official languages are added gradually.2 Data collection On the website of the Parliament. in the EP Live section.1 Introduction A parallel corpus of speeches and interpretations was compiled using data available on the website of the European Parliament. transcripts of English speeches were also drawn directly from the verbatim reports to facilitate the time-consuming process of transcription that is associated with the compilation of interpreting corpora. and listen either to the original speech or to its interpretation in the language of their preference. transcriptions of English original speeches and their Greek interpretations were drawn to make up the corpus of speeches studied in this dissertation. speaker or keyword. date.

intonational emphases.3 The corpus The corpus for this study is made up of 30 original speeches given by British MEPs in the Plenary sessions of the European Parliament from 2009 to 2011. However. 9 Speech No 22 (Appendix 1 and 2). An important point to be made is that the interface does not allow to distinguish between direct and relay interpreting. Greek interpretations of the speeches were all transcribed directly from the audiovisual material. It serves the situation where a specific language combination cannot be accommodated by any one member of the interpreter staff present in the conference.material. Entering into contact with the Directorate General for Interpretation helped establish that interpretations for this language-pair can be guaranteed to be direct to a conveniently high degree. British speakers are most probably interpreted into Greek directly. Thus. Data resulting from relay could invalidate the results of this study as it aims to investigate cohesion in a specific language pair. a very high percentage (96%) of Greek interpreters in the Parliament has English amongst their working languages. hesitations and repairs were not made overt in transcripts as they exceed the scope of the present study. A certain degree of homogeneity is guaranteed by the fact that EP conferences display consistently the same procedures. The vast majority of the corpus is taken from the “debate” kind of discussion. 4. All omitted items were reintroduced for the purposes of this dissertation. and their respective interpretations into Greek. pauses. to ensure the two matched. In that case several interpreters are combined to achieve the end result. As Shlesinger (2008) has warned transcripts produced for other purposes than research. are often corrected and several words are omitted. Punctuation in transcripts was approximated on the basis of intonation following Shlesinger (1995). In fact. a practice often used in international conferences. A unique exception is one speech taken from the discussion called “order of business” on the procedures and formalities of the Parliament9. topics and text types (Bendazzoli & Sandrelli 2005). 24 . Relay is simultaneous interpreting that is not done directly from the source speech but from another interpretation.

the intention was to construct a smaller picture of the material available. each speaker has different habits in terms of mode of delivery (impromptu. However. In other words.The speeches selection aimed to cover a variety of speakers. since foreign accents could theoretically affect the use of cohesive devices. Only native British MEPs were included in the study. Mode of delivery and speed are the two factors that mostly affect interpreting quality (Vuorikoski 2004). but also constitute an additional difficulty for the interpreter. Generally. read) as well as speed. it must be said that the method of selection has the shortcoming of being intuitive to some extent. The total length of the corpus in words is 7. an effort was made for the corpus to be representative of the overall material (British MEP speeches) in terms of all the different variables (style. speed). Since a speaker's style can affect the selection of conjunctions used (Dooley & Levinsohn 2001:12) it was deemed appropriate to cover many different styles so as to capture different conjunctions in this genre. Mode of delivery Read Impromptu Mixed Table 1: Modes of delivery in the corpus In corpus 31% 10% 59% Speed in words per minute High (>170 wpm) Slow (<130 wpm) Medium (130-170 wpm) Table 2: Speeds of delivery in the corpus In corpus 35% 7% 58% 25 . with the length of the shortest speech being 122 words and the length of the longest being 465 words. delivery. For this reason the corpus was annotated for speed and type of delivery and these features were taken into account in the analysis. Varying British accents were included.605 and the average text length is 253 words. The percentages of the different speeds and deliveries in the corpus (source speeches) are shown in table 1 and 2 below. However.

So. adversative etc. The first stage of the analysis was qualitative because it required an assessment of the cohesive effect of the conjunctions. also taking into account the scope of this study. since continuity is also ensured by grammatical structure. and which kinds of conjunctive relations (additive. As mentioned above. The sample of conjunctions gathered was sufficient. 10 EPIC is a research project developed by the University of Bologna. only those conjunctions that ensured cohesion among sentences or longer stretches of text were counted. 11 Halliday & Hasan (1976:233) acknowledge this fact. The first step taken was to find all inter-sentential cohesive conjunctions in the source texts. Conjunctions within the sentence (presupposing another part of the same sentence) were not taken into account. EP speeches and interpretations in three languages (Italian. sentence limits were defined on the basis of intonation. Halliday & Hasan (1976) note that cohesive devices within the sentence do not have a strong cohesive effect. and selecting only conjunctions relating two different sentences is a rather artificial distinction11. The main shortcoming is that it rules out certain conjunctions within the sentence which potentially had a cohesive effect for the text.) receive the least attention. 26 . of the parts of discourse they presupposed. the presence of grammatical structure is a matter of degree. Nevertheless. For spoken texts they propose the solution of starting a new sentence whenever there is no structural connection with previous segments of discourse. 4. However. Also. this difficult decision was made to avoid too many subjective judgments as to the limits of the sentences or the cohesiveness of the conjunctions. of their function and meaning in the text. and English) are transcribed and used in the compilation of various comparable and parallel corpora.The categories of delivery and speed for the annotation were taken from the search interface of the EPIC corpora10.4 Conjunctions In line with the research question. assessing the reasons of omission. this dissertation tries to identify whether certain cohesive conjunctions are omitted more than others. Spanish. this dissertation looks at added conjunctions. This decision was made on the basis of the theoretical framework.

allowed finding out whether interpreters had added conjunctions and to which relation these belonged. Other difficulties of the original. After identifying the items that were omitted in more than 30 % of their instances further observation was carried out in order to identify possible causes. the perception of conjunctions by interpreters as significant or insignificant according to their contribution to the informational content of texts was assessed and discussed. 27 . cognitive limitations (indicated by other omissions or distortions) and linguistic differences were also taken into account. additive into causal) or the whole sentence containing them was omitted. A second examination of the targets. Lastly. Also in certain cases conjunctions were converted into another kind of relation (e. they were counted separately. It is useful to note that when two conjunctions occurred next to each other. Again only the conjunctions that were added between two separate sentences of the original were counted. a joint examination of sources and targets allowed to quantify retainments and omissions of the conjunctions in question. Speed and mode of delivery of the original texts to which the omitted conjunctions belonged were taken into account.In a second step.g.

“emphatic” is a subcategory of all three additives.5. Nevertheless. Indeed is an item not referred to by Halliday & Hasan (ibid. A general discussion of the figures is followed by examples of the most frequently omitted conjunctive items. Possible reasons for the omissions are discussed. 28 .) framework. ensuring continuity. similarly) were found in the corpus12. Analysis 5. conversion in another category of conjunctive relation and omission of the whole sentence containing the conjunction. The items and and also make up the majority of additives found in the corpus. omission. Very few other items (for example. in Halliday & Hasan’s (ibid. because of its perceived function to emphatically add a new point in the argument. For each category. summarizes the treatment of the additive conjunctions: 12 The items for example and for instance are grouped together as one item. causals and adversatives and it is not clear where Shesinger places it. 5.) but that has a cohesive effect and Shlesinger (1995) classifies it as "emphatic". instances are categorised according to the interpreting solution given: retainment. Here it was decided to classify this item amongst the additives. Table 3 below. Additions of conjunctive items are discussed at the end.1 Introduction In this fifth chapter each category of conjunction in Halliday & Hasan's (1976) theory is discussed in turn.2 Additive Conjunctions Additive conjunctions are used to add one part of discourse to another. furthermore.

proportionally. As can be seen and is the most frequent additive conjunction in the corpus.1 And And was in most cases used internally. For example: 29 . instances found in the present corpus seem to lend further support to this assertion since half of them were omitted. also was omitted in 10% less cases than and. signalling that another proposition was being added. Shlesinger (1995) found that this item is often omitted as insignificant.2. were too rare to draw comparisons between retainments and omissions. and in two cases it was converted into another category of conjunctive relation (causal and adversative respectively). 5. Overall results suggest that the additive relation can undergo important changes. A similar treatment seemed to be the case for the item for example. Its omission can be seen as a drop in the level of cohesion leading to texts that hang together less closely. The need to signal the emphasis is maybe why also was retained more often. Turning to indeed.Item Retained And(39) 20 Also(18) 12 Indeed(6) 2 For example(4) 1 Furthermore(1) 0 Similarly(1) 0 Total(70) 35 Table 3: Additive conjunctions Omitted 15 5 3 3 1 1 29 Converted 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 Sent. than and. A possible explanation is that according to Halliday & Hasan (1976). thirty-five (50%) were retained. twenty-nine (41%) were omitted and six (9%) were converted into a different kind of conjunctive relation or were used to introduce sentences that were omitted all together. Ιndeed. It was omitted in 38% of the cases. also is emphatic. omitted 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 From a total of seventy inter-sentential additive links. when this was used as an inter-sentential link. Shlesinger's suggestion that the additive relation is often retained is based on her examination of the conjunction also. Few as they may be. Furthermore and similarly.

. as a cohesive device. [You at the beginning of this session said.. a shame.. The omission of and can be dictated to various degrees by the constraints of the interpreting process. could add clarity to the explanation.. κρίμα... 30 .. and especially the time and linearity constraints proposed by Shlesinger (1995).. Εσείς στην αρχή αυτής της συνεδρίας είπατε. Also.. the and relation is often implicit (Hatim & Mason 1990:208). according to Gile (1995).. in comparison to the English language. the inherent constraints of the task. Κρίμα.. Stylistic preferences of the Greek language.. However. Αυτά τα δύο πράγματα δεν μπορούμε να τα διαχωρίσουμε. no correlation was observed between speed of input or mode of delivery and the omission of and. [These two things we cannot separate them. but such a comparison between Greek and English is not as yet investigated in depth.. For this reason. However.] It is possible that interpreters omit and by conscious decision since it is a relation that can be easily deduced by listeners. Overall.. [It's a shame.. can make interpreters abstract and convey only essential information in speeches.] (b) And indeed it's a shame. and was omitted equally under all circumstances.] (c) And I do so because you yourself President at the outset of this meeting described. When a speaker utters a new sentence.. It has been recognized that the appropriate level of explicitness in conjunctions varies across languages (Hatim & Mason 1990:207).. Rather. listeners easily assume that this sentence is added to the previous discourse.(a) And there I cannot accept the Commissioner's point of view that we should keep the two matters separate.. and cannot be considered entirely superfluous. towards the use of and at the beginning of the sentence.

Όλοι γνωρίζουμε τη συμμετοχή των μελισσών στην επικονίαση.2. while trying not to miss forthcoming segments of speech. Indeed without them there is no food production. Both example (b) in the previous sub-section and (d) in this sub-section show its omission. Χωρίς την επικονίαση δεν υπάρχει παραγωγή τροφίμων. This might suggest that the interpreter was trying to save time. a vital subject for food production. [We all know the bees’ participation in pollination.] It seems that there is not in Greek an expression strictly "equivalent" to indeed and this is maybe a reason for its omission. Baker (1992:192) 13 There was classified as a temporal conjunction meaning “at this point in the discourse”. a segment expressing contrast with the Commissioner’s opinion. Although this item is normally translated as όντως or πραγματι (it is true that…) it is not clear if these solutions are used with the same frequency and if they would be appropriate to translate indeed in the instances examined. ζωτικό θέμα για την παραγωγή τροφίμων.2 Indeed This item has an internal use: it emphatically adds a new point. 14 The item so substitutes for a clause from a previous sentence. Also (c) deserves mention. in the same way as the item here (Halliday & Hasan 1976:264. where along with and another cohesive tie is omitted: the substitution I do so14 referring to the previous sentence. are omitted. In example (a). see also chapter 2). The term equivalent is used here to refer to "a readily accessible one-to-one" solution (Shlesinger 2000:8) with similar use in the target language. Without pollination there is no food production. limiting his listening or comprehension of the source speech. In both cases a link between sentences is lost: (d) We are all aware that the importance of bees to pollination is absolutely crucial to agriculture and food production. 31 .interpreters will try render as much of the message as possible. leading to further reductions in cohesion. 5. or that another kind of saturation of his processing capacity took place. This can lead to omissions not only of and but also of other elements. along with another conjunction (there13).

the repetition of the word "shame" is possibly used to add some of the lost emphasis. used to show that the sentence is an exemplification of the previous one: (e) The European research council for example has done much to support individual scientists. However. 5. it is true that indeed was not decisive for the transmission of the main information. All omissions of for example took place when this was not found in an initial position in the sentence.notes that the frequency and use of conjunctions varies considerably from language to language. When retained by interpreters. linguistic differences must be taken into account for this item. Interpreters have possibly perceived this item as redundant and concentrated on more informative elements. On the whole.2. [The European council has done many things to support scientists. which is an equivalent of another emphatic additive conjunction with slightly different meaning: not only that but. as suggested by Shlesinger (1995). So the position at the beginning or later in the sentence might be important for this particular item. In addition. Note that in example (b). a fact that maybe contributed to its omission. some observations may be made. especially when Shlesinger (1995) observes frequent omissions of sentence-final cohesive ties in interpreting. indeed was transferred as μάλιστα.] Although few occurrences of this item were found. Το ευρωπαϊκό συμβούλιο έχει κάνει πάρα πολλά πράγματα για την υποστήριξη επιστημόνων. This repetition did not cost the interpreter the time or effort that the translation of indeed in an appropriate way would have cost them.3 For example Example (e) shows the omission of for example. it was retained when found at the very beginning of the sentence. 32 .

The omission of but and actually are dealt with in the two following subsections. maybe because its omission could entail drastic changes to the logical structure of the argument. The rest of the items occurred rarely in the corpus. This category of conjunctive relation is not examined by Shlesinger (1995). since eleven out of forty instances were omitted (27%). Item Retained But(16) 9 However(7) 6 Actually(6) 2 Nevertheless(3) 2 Yet(2) 2 Instead(2) 1 This said(2) 1 All the same(1) 1 And(1) 1 Total(40) 25 Table 4: Adversative conjunctions Omitted 5 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 11 Converted 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 Missing sent. Four items were converted in a different category while one introduced a sentence which was omitted all together.3 Adversative conjunctions Adversative conjunctions express contradiction to expectations created by previous segments of discourse. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Overall results show a less important trend of omissions in adversative conjunctions. but the three most frequent items were but. While however was omitted only in 13% of cases. Many different items were found in the corpus. The more consistent retainment of however might be due to its emphatic character. it can be suggested that this relation is perceived as important by interpreters. Actually was omitted in half of its instances and converted into a causal conjunction once.5. 33 . Note that the last item of the table is and. thus creating a link between the sentence they are found in and those previous segments. but was omitted in 31% of cases. However. but here in its adversative sense (Chapter 2). however and actually.

actually had a distinctive cohesive effect that wasn’t always easy to recognise and classify as such. Halliday & Hasan (1976) classify this item as adversative of the avowal type.3. along with items such as in fact. In this respect.1 But The analysis focuses on items omitted in more than 30% of their instances. In the following example the contradiction linking the two sentences is made implicit in the target: (a) We import 60% of our sea food needs…But in Europe we had the perfect environment for fish farming… Εισάγουμε παραπάνω από το 60% των αναγκών μας…Στην Ευρώπη έχουμε ένα εξαιρετικό περιβάλλον για ιχθυοκαλλιέργεια… [We import over 60% of our needs…In Europe we have an exceptional environment for fish farming…] 5. In the following example. especially because the presupposed discourse was not always to be found in the speech examined. But was close to the limit (31%). It refers internally to the discourse rather than to external events. a speaker on toy safety is making the claim that. This said. The causes of omission were investigated and it was found that but was omitted under all speeds and types of delivery.2 Actually Actually was omitted three out of six times and was converted into a causal link once. but has an additive component: it contains an and. nevertheless). previous speakers or even a general belief that is pervasive in the debates on a particular subject. This is why and and but are never combined together. contrary to expectations set by previous sentences. it was used to introduce sentences in the form of revelations. contrary to expectations 34 .3.5. but is a very common adversative item and its omission runs contrary to the overall treatment of this category in the corpus. As Halliday & Hasan (1976) note. as a matter of fact etc. In the corpus examined. It is possible that its more subtle adversative sense is perceived as less important than that of other adversatives. but in the hypertext of the overall debate. especially some emphatics (however.

the situation of the farm gain is very different. He states: (b) It's not actually going to be about marking. In (c). a speaker comments upon the falling value of the produce of British farmers. In other cases actually had a more local cohesive effect. πρόβειου. sheep meat.] The speaker proposes other solutions (such as the exchange of information with Chinese. actually acquires the meaning “as it is made clear from my speech and contrary to what you might be led to believe from other speeches”.. contrary to expectations generated by the fact that “prices are rising” (previous sentence). So. [It's not only about marking.generated by the discussion. Ωστόσο οι κατάσταση από περιοχή σε περιοχή είναι διαφορετική.. the situation differs from region to region. Στη Βρετανία. goat. His whole speech is built on this contradiction. χοίριου κρέατος έχουν δει να πέφτουν οι τιμές τους… [Prices are indeed rising. pig meat and eggs have actually seen a drop in the value of their produce… Οι τιμές όντως αυξάνονται. British farmers producing beef. In the second sentence actually reiterates it and sums it up: (c) Whilst food prices are undoubtedly rising.. Indeed. In Britain. The contradiction is expressed already in the first sentence structurally by whilst.. οι παραγωγοί αιγείου. pig meat producers have seen a drop in their prices…] 35 . and other manufacturers). the meaning of actually in EP speeches was often very dense: it reiterated and summed up the main argument. sheep. However. the issue of marking the toys is not the most effective way to make toys safe. Το θέμα δεν είναι μόνο η σήμανση.

Indeed. because the interpreter has not yet adjusted to the context. in Britain they are falling”. it is difficult not to be filtered out in the interpreting process.Actually did not seem to be affected by speed or type of delivery. The reproduction of the argument’s elements. 5. but the item was substituted by only. In (b) the adversative effect of actually was not expressed in Greek. this extract is found at the very beginning of the speech. A possible solution could be the temporal τελικά. At the same time. especially given the heavy constraints. This item is an element very specific to the English language. The speaker says “while prices are rising. This item literally means finally but approximates the meaning of in fact and could possibly express the adversative component of actually in this context. In (c). an alteration of the basic meaning of the utterances is also observed. This alteration suggests that competing cognitive efforts were not in balance at the time and it is not surprising that the interpreter did not dispose time or processing capacity to render actually. So and therefore were the most frequent causal items. Jones (1998:106) includes it in his collection of useless “filler words” that should be omitted in interpreting. effect and purpose. something that was confirmed by the present corpus.4 Causal conjunctions The causal conjunctive relations can express cause. because it contributes poorly to informative content. actually is an item that could be considered redundant by interpreters. Gallina (1992) reported limited use of this relation in English EP speeches. As such. 36 . farm gain is falling”. In this second example. and the interpreter says “while prices are rising elsewhere. the linearity constraint limited the interpreter’s perception of the main argument. It reinstates a contradiction that is pervasive in a speech. Shlesinger (1995) reports that more cohesive devices are omitted towards the beginning of texts. the contradiction is reproduced the first time with “however” (corresponding to the English whilst) but it is not reinstated in the following sentence. including the conjunction. and one way or another will be made clear. was hindered. Finally and generally speaking.

Item Retained So (11) 7 Therefore (4) 3 Because (3) 1 That's why (2) 1 Then (1) 1 Otherwise (1) 1 Total (22) 14 Table 5: Causal conjunctions Omitted 3 1 1 1 0 0 6 Converted 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Missing sent. Table 5 shows retained. and first of all. the items firstly. this relation is maybe perceived as an important contribution to the informative content of texts.5 Temporal conjunctions Temporal conjunctions connect sentences with the relation of time sequence or with other kinds of time related links. Ultimately is put separately because it was used with an external sense (referring to the end of a process of events rather than in the end of the discourse). are counted together as one item and the items finally and lastly are also grouped together as one item.The rest of the items found (because. ultimately and there15. in the same way as the item here (Halliday and Hasan 1976:264). 15 There was classified as a temporal conjunction meaning “at this point in the discourse”. omitted or otherwise shifted causals. Note that in Table 6. second etc. Therefore was retained in all cases except one (25% omitted). No major omissions were observed in this category. 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Overall. In line with Gallina (1992). So was omitted in 27% of cases. or it is more easily discerned from the surrounding sentences. that's why) displayed fairly low occurrences.) and conclusive items (finally. very few temporal links were found in the corpus including some sequential (first. The present analysis seems to support this claim. 37 . See also chapter 2. secondly etc. Also a pattern was observed with regard to additions of causal conjunctions. As Shlesinger (1995) points out. dealt with in the last section of the analysis. 27 % of the causal conjunctive items were omitted. lastly) as well as then. 5.

(a) First of all let me congratulate Mr. instances in this category lend further support to this assertion. Most frequently omitted were the sequential and conclusive items.5.. Taken together they were omitted in 50% of the cases and were converted into additives in another 33% of the cases. and finally These two temporals were used internally: they referred to the communication process rather than to external events. Milana…] 38 . Few as they may be. Milana… Συγχαίρω τον κύριο Μιλάνα. Sequential items (example a) signaled stages in speeches (first of all) or enumerated points in arguments.. lastly(2) 0 Ultimately (1) 1 There (1) 0 Total (12) 4 Table 6: Temporal conjunctions Omitted 3 1 2 0 1 7 Converted 2 1 0 0 0 3 Missing sent. Interpreters tend to perceive them as redundant focusing on more informative segments. [I congratulate Mr. 5.Item Retained First…second…(6) 1 Then (3) 2 Finally. Although total occurrences of conclusive items were very low. their omission at all cases might indicate that they are regarded as insignificant by interpreters. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overall 58% of the items were omitted and 25% were converted into other categories (additive and causal). Conclusive items (example b) such as finally and lastly were used to signal the end of the process of discourse. Shlesinger (1995) observes that temporal relations are not interpreted closely.1 First…Second etc.

. now... They are internal in that they express relations between utterances rather than between the extra-linguistic events referred to by the utterances in question. However they have a cohesive effect. While of course was retained in most cases.] No important shifts co-occurred with the omission of these items. Indeed. Η κρίση τον Απρίλιο και το Μάιο. it is possible that their omission was optional. Also their omission is not directly justified by high speed or read mode of delivery. Item Retained Now (10) 1 Of course (6) 4 Well (5) 0 Total (21) 5 Table 7: Continuative conjunctions Omitted 7 2 5 14 Converted 0 0 0 0 Sent. This is higher than in any other category. the crisis in April-May last year made it absolutely clear. 39 . now and well were very often omitted. well and of course were the main continuatives found. these items do not contribute in a decisive way to the information transmitted. Consequently.(b) Lastly President.6 Continuative conjunctions Continuative items do not belong to any of the above categories. It seems that the focus on informational elements (Shlesinger 1995) and on saving processing capacity was given priority against the reproduction of some temporal conjunctions. [The crisis in April and May last year showed. του περασμένου έτους έδειξε. 66 % of the instances of this category were omitted.. Omitted 1 0 0 1 Overall. Table 7 shows retained and omitted items for this category. In the corpus examined. Both in examples (a) and (b).. Their value lies in guiding the reader through the text.. 5. interpreters have abstracted the main information leaving out the temporal item..

6. Greek is not different in this respect. court interpreting. time-saving and information recovery are laws (Gile 1995:201-204) and experienced voices from within the professional EU interpreting environment such Jones (1998:106) have expressed the necessity to omit superfluous “filler words” such as well. In the professional setting of the European Parliament. In the following 40 . this finding is maybe more expected. Hale (1999) also reports the omission of now and well in consecutive. This item is used to "open a new point in the argument" (Halliday & Hasan 1976:268) or to mark a new stage in the communication. Finally. In simultaneous interpreting. Here. It differs in that it has a more direct one-to-one solution in Greek (the item φυσικά). Of course is again different in that it can occur in written language more often than the other two items. The omission of these seemingly superfluous items could be seen as part of a professional's training and as part of the norm of compression.Relations expressed by this category are possibly considered semantically redundant by interpreters. Although there are possible solutions such as τώρα (for now) and λοιπόν (for well) their frequency and use are somewhat different. into Spanish.1 Now Now was the most frequent continuative item. their omission can be seen as a further support to the equalizing universal proposed by Shlesinger (Pym 2007). It was omitted in 70% of the cases and was retained in one case. 5. that interpreters omit extreme signs of orality and literacy gravitating towards the centre of the oral-literate continuum. That is. speaking times are strictly observed and the working mode is simultaneous rather than consecutive. This also explains why of course was retained. Another reason for the omission of the items now and well is that these don’t have readily retrievable equivalents in other languages and this fact is acknowledged by Hale (1999) for the Spanish language. prevailing in conference interpreting in general and in the community of interpreters working for the European Union in particular. since now and well are mainly associated with oral language.

given that the interpreter was maybe saving processing capacity for the numbers.2 Well Well was omitted at all times. or in monologue to introduce an explanatory comment. 5. έθεσε το κόστος της ρυθμίσεως σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο κατά μέσο όρο στα 3..] This passage has high information density due to the frequent figures.. Note that in example (c) the speaker expresses disagreement with previous speakers on the environmentalist agenda. Now opens a new point: (a) Now in 2006 commission of Verheugen put the cost of the EU regulation at an average of 3. This item is used in conversation prefacing responses to questions. In the present corpus. So the omission of now is all the more justified here. There. The one instance of now that was retained belonged to the text with the lowest speed in the whole corpus (117 words per minute).5 % of GDP. According to Gile (1995) information density is an important factor leading to saturation. But from the 7 omissions of now in the corpus. it was possibly reproduced to “fill in the silence” (Jones 1998:106). ο κύριος Verheugen. In addition.5 % of GDP… Το 2006 ο Επίτροπος. 41 . it was used to introduce a response to issues raised in the debate (example c). Hale (1999) reports the use of well to express disagreement.6.5 % του ΑΕΠ… [In 2006 commissioner mister Verheugen put the cost of regulation at European level at an average at 3. only 3 are surrounded by numbers. In the two remaining cases. in three out of five times. the speaker’s argument is a criticism to the cost of the EU regulation for Britain.example. the speed and the mode of delivery do not seem to justify its omission. prefacing a response that was also an explanation (example b). it was used after a rhetorical question.

is very specific to the English language. Γιατί... Well you know the question I'd like to ask on this subject is why is Greenland called Greenland? Is it perhaps because Greenland was once green when the world was hotter? Πρόσφατα άκουσα ένα σοσιαλιστή συνάδελφο ο οποίος μιλούσε για τους πάγους που λιώνουν στη Γροιλανδία. This difficulty combined with the fact that well was of low importance for the message... Table 8 provides an overview of the Greek added items with numbers of occurrences in brackets and possible equivalents in English. Το ερώτημα είναι.. The reasons for its omission should be sought in linguistic differences and in the apparent redundancy of this item in terms of informational content. It is true that there is not a readily retrievable equivalent of this word in Greek. 42 . Nor did the passages where well was found display very high speeds or difficult modes of delivery. [Why? As other speakers also said. [I just heard a socialist colleague who talked about the ice melting in Greenland.. Well..] In no case omissions in the surrounding sentences suggested that the interpreter was under processing overload. 5.(b) Why is this? Well as we've heard from other speakers. The question is... like actually.7 Additions Additions of conjunctive items were also observed in order to discern possible patterns that contrast or follow the patterns of omissions. the ice melting in Greenland.. led to its omission.] (c) I just heard a socialist colleague over there talking about Greenland and you know. Όπως είπαν και άλλοι ομιλητές.

For this reason we need to oppose the approval of this directive. 5. The addition of and twice can be seen as a form of compensation for its omission. The additions of causals in many cases took the form of an explicitation of implicit links. όμως(2) Από την άλλη μεριά(1) Ενώ(1) Total(17) Table 8: Additions of conjunctive items Possible equivalent So(5) Because. See also Chapter 2. γι’αυτό(3) Και(2) Μάλιστα(1) Φυσικά(2) Αλλά. additions show that this item is used with relative freedom by interpreters (Setton 1999:208). This directive must be resisted. The biggest trend by far in additions concerns causal links and is treated in the following section. […the burden for the British transportation business will be fatal. the most retained among the continuatives. for this reason(3) And(2) Not only that but(1)16 Of course(2) But(2) On the other hand(1) When(1) Total(17) Overall. For example: (a) …the burden on the British industry could be fatal. The bigger trends include additions of causal and adversative conjunctions.] 16 This is an emphatic additive conjunction (Halliday & Hasan 1976:246). …το βάρος στο βρετανικό κλάδο μεταφορών θα είναι ολέθριο. This is certainly lower than the sixty-two overall omissions. the categories that also displayed the lowest percentage of omissions. seventeen cohesive conjunctions were added. Although much lower than its omissions in number.7. was also added twice. έτσι(5) Γιατί. Φυσικά (of course). λοιπόν. Γι'αυτό θα πρέπει να αντιταχθούμε στην έγκριση της οδηγίας.1 Explicitation of causal links 47% (eight items) of all additions introduced causal relations.Item Άρα. 43 .

Given the low frequency of omission of causal links, their explicitation may be related to the importance interpreters attribute to the causal relation. However this phenomenon could be linked to language-pair specific factors. Research in English-Greek translation of news articles has uncovered a particular tendency of Greek translators to explicitate or add causal links (Sidiropoulou 1995). Torsello et al. (1997) consider this finding relevant to English-Greek interpreting. It maybe that Greek interpreters intuitively apply this principle in their work. In order to discern the degree to which these phenomena are language-pair specific or results of the interpreting process, further investigation with other languages and maybe on larger corpora, would be necessary.


1. Conclusions

6.1 Results The analysis of the corpus of EP plenary sessions speeches allowed a detailed study of the different inter-sentential conjunctions found. An examination of each category showed a higher trend of omission in some conjunctive relations than others. Table 9 shows the percentage of omission of each relation. Relation Additive Adversative Causal Temporal Continuative Omitted 41% 27% 27% 58% 66%

Table 9: Omissions of each conjunctive relation Omissions in the adversative and causal categories were markedly lower than in the remaining three categories. On the other hand temporal and continuative relations were particularly affected. Additions were in line with the above tendencies since more causal and adversative conjunctions were added. The validity of these trends would need confirmation from research on larger corpora (this corpus only contained 30 speeches). In addition, it must be recalled that this study did not take into account intra-sentential conjunctions. Consequently claims can be made only with care. However, these results can be taken as a general indication of how each relation is likely to be affected from omissions in professional simultaneous interpreting, awaiting confirmation by more exhaustive research. Shlesinger (1995) had suggested that the additive relation is most frequently retained. But her examination of additive elements was confined to the item also. In the present corpus another very frequent additive, and, was omitted by interpreters on a regular basis. Other items (indeed, for example) were also affected by omissions. The reasons can vary and 45

linguistic differences cannot be overlooked. However, all three items were not decisive for the propositional meaning of the utterances involved. The laws of information recovery and of minimizing interference between segments of speech could have led interpreters to omit these items as superfluous. The adversative and causal categories were the least affected. It is possible that these two conjunctive relations are perceived as significant, because their omission could entail drastic changes in the logic of an argument. But was omitted moderately possibly because its adversative sense is more subtle compared to other items (however, nevertheless). An exception in this category is the item actually. It was affected by omission for two main reasons: linguistic differences and redundancy of meaning. Turning to causals, not only these items were retained but a trend of explicitation of causal links was found in the form of added cohesion. This fact could be either the result of the importance interpreters attribute to these links, or a language-pair specific feature, also found in English-Greek translation of news articles (Sidiropoulou 1995). On the other hand, certain temporal and continuative items were most frequently omitted. These include sequential and conclusive elements (first, second etc. and finally) and certain discourse markers (now, well). These two categories displayed the highest percentages of omission. Given that omissions were not in most cases justified by the difficulties of the original speech (speed, mode of delivery, information density), and also because of their low value in terms factual meaning, these items were probably regarded as redundant (cf. Hale 1999). Continuatives in particular were the most affected category (omitted 66%). There is evidence that the omission of these items is a taught technique in conference interpreting, as part of the prevailing norm of compression (Shlesinger 2000). Linguistic differences that lead to the absence of one-to-one solutions should also be born in mind. Finally, the omission of now and well can be seen as a further support for the hypothesis that interpreting tends to eliminate extreme oral (as well as extreme literate) features of texts (Shlesinger 1989 explained in Pym 2007).


2 Limitations and avenues for further research It has been reiterated throughout the study that intra-sentential conjunctions were not taken into account. mainly the linearity and time constraint. But. opening new stages in communication (now) or new responses in the debate (well) were frequently omitted. second etc. actually. Shlesinger’s (1995) suggestion that certain conjunctive types are omitted as redundant in simultaneous interpreting was lent further support in this professional context. This fact might suggest that interpreters perceive this “internal commentary” as redundant. items serving as signs.Omissions of conjunctive items possibly entail a drop in the level of cohesion. now.). They signaled relations between utterances rather than between events. introducing a reversal of previous segments of discourse was moderately omitted. The constraints linked to the interpreting process. and under cognitive constraints devote their attention to more factual elements. In addition. Secondly. Some other findings by Shlesinger were also reinforced. Turning to the reasons. For this reason. well). that cohesive ties at the beginning of texts can be omitted because at that time interpreters are less attuned to the speakers’ intentions. that in certain cases (for example) the position of a conjunction towards the end of the sentence can affect its reproduction. firstly. These could have had a cohesive effect. It is interesting to note that with the exception of but. often as part of a professional strategy. On the whole. omissions reflected the focus on informative elements under cognitive and linguistic limitations. 6. linguistic differences cannot be viewed as a minor cause since they seemed to affect many items discussed (indeed. enumerating the points in an argument (first. In addition. omitted items were possibly perceived as insignificant for the transmission of the main message. all omitted conjunctions were used internally. The relations of simple addition (and) and exemplification (for example) can become looser. it would serve as a confirmation of the above results if the same research were conducted taking 47 . signalling the end of the discourse (finally). Finally. The adversative and summing up effect of actually was also omitted. led to a focus on more informative elements.

Turning to input variables. further research on the effects of these variables on conjunctions would be a possibility. 48 . For this reason. However. However. an alternative way of addressing the data would be to entirely disregard intonation and divide texts in as many sentences as possible.into account these intra-sentential links. As noted in the methodology. Halliday & Hasan (1976:233) make reference to this solution which is also proposed by Baker (1992:192). sentence limits were set on the basis of intonation to avoid choosing arbitrary sentence limits. the diversity of the present corpus did not allow establishing this in a certain way. no concrete correlation was observed between speed or mode of delivery and omissions of conjunctions.

(1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. Heriot Watt University Bendazzoli. 1 Dooley. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing de Beaugrande. Shoshana (1986) ‘Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation’. Gillian & Yule. ch. (2004) Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. Ghelly V. (2001) Analyzing Discourse. In: Teun A. ed. Discourse Studies Vol. and Levinsohn. Annalisa (2005) ‘An Approach to Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies: Developing EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus)’. Robert (1997) ‘The Story of Discourse Analysis’.Challenges of Multidimensional Translation : Conference Proceedings Blum-Kulka. Doctoral Dissertation. Van Dijk. MuTra 2005 . Robert A. Claudio & Sandrelli.22 Brown. London: Routledge. R. George (1983) Discourse Analysis. A Coursebook on Translation. de Beaugrande. London and New York: Routledge. ed. Venuti. de and Dressler. London: Longman. Beaton. In: L. Stephen H.References Books and Journals Baker. Morven (2007) ‘Interpreted Ideologies in Institutional Discourse: The Case of the European Parliament’. (2000) The Translation Studies Reader. Mona (1992) In Other Words. EUHigh-Level Scientific Conference Series. Dallas: SIL International 49 . (1997) Discourse As Structure and Process. W. A Manual of Basic Concepts. Cambridge University Press Chernov. A Multidisciplinary Introduction.

M. Forensic Linguistics 6(1). Basil and Mason.K. And Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). pp. Veerle (2007) ‘Norm research in conference interpreting: How can the study of documentary sources contribute to a better understanding of norms?’ EU-High-Level Scientific Conference Series. Sandra (1992) ‘Cohesion and the systemic-functional approach to text: applications to political speeches and significance for simultaneous interpretation’. 62-71. 10.Duflou. Ian (1997) The Translator as Communicator.openstarts. The interpreters’ Newsletter.A.A. Available at: http://www. Ian (1990) Discourse and the Translator. (1994) Introduction to Functional Grammar. Benjamins Translation Library Hale. Giuliana (2000). University of Birmingham Press Halliday.2011] Garzone. MuTra 2007 – LSP Translation Scenarios: Conference Proceedings Eggins. Sandra (1999) ‘Interpreters' treatment of discourse markers in courtroom questions’.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/2188/1/08. pp.pdf [Accessed 15. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 1. London: Routledge 50 . Cohesion in English. Textual Analysis and Interpreting Research. London: Edward Arnold Hatim. Suzanne (2004) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. 69-88 Gile.06. Daniel (1995). Revised Edition. London: Longman Hatim.K.units. London and New York: Longman Halliday. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Gallina. Basic Consepts and Models for Interpreter and Translators Training. M. Second edition. Basil and Mason.

D.Tannen.Hamilton ed. 3 (1). A.08. The Translator 1(2):193-214 Shlesinger. What is Discourse Analysis?’.2011] Schiffrin.Munday ed. Maria (1995) ‘Causal shifts in new reporting: English vs Greek press’. Benjamins Translation Library. New York: Routledge. Jääskeläinen 2949 Pöchhacker. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Robin (1999) Simultaneous Interpretation. The handbook of discourse analysis. Tirkkonen-Condit and R. Heidi (2001) ‘Introduction. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. (2000) Tapping and 51 .M. Franz (2004) Introducing Interpreting Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Sidiropoulou. 2001. Roderick (1998) Conference Interpreting Explained. Franz (2009) ‘Issues in Interpreting Studies’. Available at: http://usuaris. New York: Routledge Pöchhacker. Folia Translatologica 5. Pöchhacker. 83-98 [Only Abstract] Shlesinger. Schiffrin. Ivo (1997) ‘Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting’. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing Müller. Deborah and Tannen. A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press. Deborah (1987) Discourse Markers.Jones. in J. Mees eds. (2007) Interpreting Studies and Beyond: A Tribute to Miriam Shlesinger. 2009. In: D. Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. In.E. Miriam (2000) ‘Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How can we know what really happens?’ In S. H. Antony (2007) ‘On Shlesinger's proposed equalizing universal for interpreting’. F.tinet. Pym. 175190. Deborah and Ehernberger Hamilton.pdf [Accessed 02. Cambridge University Pres Setton. L. Miriam (1995) ‘Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting’.Schiffrin. Jakobsen and I.

(1997) ‘Linguistics.2011] 52 . (1997) Conference Interpreting. (2008) Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: a tribute to Daniel Gile. In: G.php?id=9744 [Accessed 15. 237-253 Taylor Torsello Carol et al. H. An intermodal. Gerzymisch-Arbogast ed. Taylor ed. In: Laura Gran & John Dodds ed. 166-185 Van Dam. Miriam (2008) ‘Towards a definition of Interpretese.uta. D. Current Trends in Research. Discourse Analysis and Interpretation’ In: Y. Udine: Capanottto Edit. Ine M. 3-15 Shlesinger.Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Hansen. Ch.06. (1989) “Strategies of Simultaneous Interpretation”. Available at: http://acta. A. Doctoral dissertation. Gambier. (1989) The Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation. University of Tampere. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Gile. corpusbased study’. Chesterman. Anna-Riitta (2004) ‘A Voice of its Citizens or a Modern Tower of Babel? The Quality of Interpreting as a Function of Political Rhetoric in the European Parliament’. 167-176 Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

2011] Europa – Institutions and bodies [Accessed [Accessed 15.Verbatim reports of Procedure Available at: http://www.europa.Websites EP Live – Video http://www.06.06.06.europarl.europarl.htm [Accessed 15.2011] Europa .eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-parliament/index_en.europa.2011] European Parliament – Never lost in translation http://www.06.06.European Parliament http://europa.2011] 53 &language=EN [Accessed [Accessed 15.2011] European Parliament – Multilingualism – Interpreting] European Parliament .eu/wps-europarl-internet/frd/vod/research-bydate?language=en [Accessed 15.europa.

it/corpora/query./Ta rget%20Texts&name=int-es-en [Accessed 15.php?mode=simple& [Accessed 15.06.2011] 54] EPIC corpus search interface (username and password required) http://sslmitdevonline.EU Careers http://www.sslmit.06.C.

Appendix 1: Corpus outline Speech 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 MEP Ford Harbour Harbour Stevenson Dodds Batten Tannock Darthmouth Batten Kirkhope Cashman Tannock Moraes Nuttal Bradbourn Agnew Brons Nicholson Dodds Ludford Tannock Bradbourn Vaughan Foster Davies Callanan Martin Tannock Bradbourn Dartmouth Words 257 229 399 395 209 201 216 204 465 355 275 216 401 200 153 190 179 201 184 195 195 141 202 442 190 453 326 205 205 122 Mode of delivery Read Mixed Impromptu Mixed Mixed Mixed Read Mixed Mixed Read Mixed Read Mixed Impromptu Read Read Read Read Mixed Mixed Read Impromptu Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Read Read Mixed Speed (words per minute) Medium 158 wpm Medium 159 wpm Slow 126 wpm Medium 159 wpm Medium 152 wpm Medium 140 wpm High 174 wpm Medium 132 wpm Medium 148 wpm High 172 wpm Medium 156 wpm High 170 wpm Medium 160 wpm Medium 166 wpm High 175 wpm Medium 157 wpm Medium 164 wpm Medium 153 wpm Medium 147 wpm Medium 156 wpm High 175 wpm High 185 wmp Medium 158 wpm Medium 149 wpm High 184 wpm High 204 wpm High 180 wpm High 175 wpm High 175 wpm Slow 117 wpm 55 .

http://www. cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=9 4.europarl.europarl.europarl.Appendix 2: Links to audiovisual material 1. scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0 56 . cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5 5.europa. scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=3 7. http://www.europarl. scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2 cussionId=0&page=1&category=1&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5 cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=17 3.europa.europarl.

europarl.europa.europarl. http://www. http://www. http://www. cussionId=0&page=2&category=2&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2 scussionId=0&page=1&category=1&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5 =0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5 13. scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=1 cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=10 scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=3 9.europarl.europa. cussionId=0&page=1&category=1&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=9 cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0 57 .europa.europarl.europa. http://www. http://www. cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=12 cussionId=0&page=2&category=2&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=3 21.europarl. scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2 scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5 17.europarl. http://www.europarl.europa. scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=8 18.europarl.europarl. cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0 22. http://www. http://www.europa. cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5 scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=5 58 .

eu/wps-europarlinternet/frd/vod/player?language=en&menusearchfrom=bymep&pageby=unit&idmep=1403&dis cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0 cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2 29. http://www. http://www. cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0 cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=2 scussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=6 59 .europa.europa.europarl.europarl.europarl.24.europa.europarl. http://www. http://www.europarl. cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=0 26.europa.europa. cussionId=0&page=0&category=0&format=wmv&askedDiscussionNumber=7 30.europarl.