Excerpts from Diriker (2004)

86 De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting Another option was to analyze only those instances that suggested a “shift in the speaking subject” by presenting them as excerpts, without expanding on their position within the general ¶ow of the interaction at the conference. This option could make the analysis more bearable from the reader’s point of view, but detached excerpts could also give a very fragmented view of what interpreters did, why they did it, and how that speciªc instance of interpreting behavior related to the social and interactional context(s). As a middle way, and in what follows, I ªrst give a categorical analysis of the “shifts in the speaking subject” in Section 4.5.1 and then, in Section 4.5.2, present the ¶ow of communication in the ªnal 25 minutes of the conference, which corresponds to 16 pages of transcripts and includes 8 shifts. In addition to these two sections, all of the “shifts from the speaker’s I” and their brief analyses can be found in the Appendix of the book in their order of occurrence during the conference. I hope this format, especially the complete ¶ow of the interaction in the last 25 minutes of the conference in 4.5.2, will allow the individual reader with Turkish and English a subjective reading and assessment of the same transcripts and help those uninitiated in Turkish to follow how the shifts in the speaking subject relate to and renew the ¶ow of the interaction during the conference. Those interested in looking at the transcripts of the whole conference can refer to the complete transcripts of the ¶oor and booth recordings in the Appendix of my dissertation (Diriker 2001). 4.5 Analyzing the conference transcripts 4.5.1 “Shifts in the speaking subject” in the present corpus Let us now take a closer look into when and why “shifts in the speaking subject” took place in the present corpus.47 a. Apologies of the speakers and/or interpreters Shifts in the speaking subject” became palpable with the apologies of the speakers and interpreters. In interpreting the apologies of the speakers, the interpreters either remained in the speaker’s “I” and rendered the apologies in the ªrst person or assumed the speaker position in the delivery to report, paraphrase and/or insert remarks about the apology in the original speech. While Interpreter A tended to remain in the speaker’s “I” and render the speakers’ apologies in the ªrst person (Excerpts 33, 35), Interpreter B mostly 90 De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting which was highlighted by some of the other instances, it was not possible to say who was apologizing in the delivery — instances which again pointed to the hybridity of the speaker-positions in the delivery.49 b. Mistakes of the speakers and/or interpreters In the present corpus, “shifts in the speaking subject” in the delivery also became palpable when interpreters made mistakes or were faced with the mistakes of the speakers. Similar to the diŸerences in the way the interpreters handled the apologies of the speakers, there were also interpersonal diŸerences in the way the two interpreters rendered the mistakes of the speakers. As with apologies, in rendering the mistakes of the speakers, Interpreter A was more inclined to remain in the speaker’s “I” and/or assume the speaker-position implicitly (51, 58), while Interpreter B was more inclined to assume the speaker-position more explicitly to either paraphrase, insert explanatory remarks or personal comments about the original speech in the delivery (6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 43, 45). In addition to interpersonal diŸerences, there were also some intrapersonal variations in the response of the interpreters and, in one instance, Interpreter B, who usually took over the speaker position more explicitly, inserted a remark that carried features of a blend into the speaker’s “I” in the delivery (37). Interestingly enough, there was signiªcant similarity in the way both interpreters handled their own mistakes. Both Interpreter A and Interpreter B corrected and apologized for their mistakes in the ªrst person singular without making explicit that they were shifting from using the speaker’s “I” in the delivery (10, 34, 36, 50, see also “apologies”). To take a closer look at how the interpreters handled the mistakes of the speakers, in two instances in the present corpus, Interpreter A, who generally tended to remain in the speaker’s “I”, opted to correct the mistakes of the speakers in her delivery (51, 58). Since she made these corrections in the ªrst person, users of SI, who listened to her delivery, did not “hear” the original mistake and did not receive any explicit verbal indication that the interpreter was undertaking a correction in the delivery. However, one of the mistakes that was corrected by Interpreter A in the delivery led to repercussions on the ¶oor when some participants in the audience reacted to the “original” mistake (58). As a result, users of SI, who listened to the “corrected” version of the speaker’s speech, ended up being excluded from the ensuing interaction on the ¶oor. Possibly to compensate for the “gap” between an unproblematic delivery and the prolonged interaction on Analyzing an actual SI performance the ¶oor, Interpreter A inserted some compensatory remarks, but made it sound like the speaker’s “I” in the delivery. *** Here is the instance which occurred at the very end of the conference while the chairman was making his closing remarks (58): Booth: (Interpreter A:)…Profesör B* do¤rusu bana söyleyecek pek bir söz bHrakmadH ama ben de özellikle katHlHmcHlara te‡ekkür etmek isterim. SabιrlarH için. Dilim sürçtü, sabιrsιzlιk dedim ama sabιr demek istemi‡tim. Eh. çok sabιrlι sabιrlι bize zamanιmιzι a‡mamιz bakιmιndan tahammül gösterdiniz… My translation of the booth: (Interpreter A:)…Professor B* did not really leave me much to say but I too would like to thank the participants. For their patience. That was a slip of the tongue, I said impatience but I had meant patience. Very patiently patiently you tolerated us for exceeding our time… Floor: (Speaker:)…Well uh. Mister B* didn’t leave me uh. anything more to say uh. but I want uh. to express, to bring into expression, speciªcally my thanks to the participants uh. for their impatience, for their ((inaudible remarks on the floor)) uh. uh. impatience in general because it has taken so much time with with our work because we have overgone ((further remarks from the audience like “We have patience”)) yes, you were patient ((laughter)) we have overgone the limits of our time… [*name of the person is removed] In this instance, the organizer of the conference thanks the audience for their “impatience” instead of “patience”. Possibly because the interpreter thinks this is an obvious slip of the tongue, she renders the word into Turkish as “sabFr”, which is “patience”. While the interpreter chooses to correct the mistake in her delivery, the original mistake stirs up many amicable comments and smiles among those listening to the speaker on the ¶oor. Participants, who are sitting in the front rows shout, “Patience, we are patient”. The speaker does not understand why they say this and ªrst repeats his remark (“uh. uh. impatience in general”) and, when similar remarks continue, smiles and adds, “yes, you have patience”, still without noticing his initial mistake. While all this interaction takes place on the ¶oor, the users of SI have heard an unproblematic delivery because the interpreter corrects “impatience” to “patience” right at the start. Thus, the interaction following the initial mistake does not correlate 91 92 De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting with the delivery. Perhaps to compensate for the “gap” between the corrected delivery and the mistake-induced interaction on the ¶oor, Interpreter A inserts the remark, “That was a slip of the tongue,” and then adds, “I said impatience but I had meant patience,” to her delivery. Note that, although they are added by the interpreter, both remarks sound as if they were voiced by the speaker. While these remarks possibly indicate to the users of SI that a slip of the tongue is the reason for the interaction on the ¶oor, they also seem rather odd, in that they refer to a slip of the tongue which never occurs in the delivery. Furthermore, the second remark (“I said impatience but I had meant patience”) creates the impression that the original speaker understands and corrects his mistake on the ¶oor, even though the speaker never realizes his mistake despite many remarks from the audience. *** In contrast to Interpreter A, who seemed to blend into the speaker’s “I” when inserting her remarks about the original interaction, Interpreter B was more inclined to insert his remarks or comments about the original speaker/speech more explicitly. For instance, when speakers made mistakes, but then realized and corrected them, Interpreter B reported, paraphrased or inserted brief explanatory remarks about these corrections. Doing this meant speaking about the speaker and tended to make explicit the “shift in the speaking subject” from the interpreter speaking as the speaker to the interpreter speaking as the interpreter (7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 25).50 Furthermore, when speakers made mistakes that they either did not notice, or did not comment, or when there was a problem of communication on the ¶oor, Interpreter B did not hesitate to shift from the speaker’s “I” in the delivery to insert personal comments that indicated the presence of a mistake or problem in the original interaction (6, 43, cf. also 45 in “ambiguous or contradictory input”). *** Here is an example of how Interpreter B took over the speaker-position in the delivery to insert an explanatory remark, rather than rendering the correction of the speaker in the ªrst person singular. Compared to a rendition in the ªrst person, speaking about the correction of the speaker made the presence of a mistake on the ¶oor more explicit and ascribed that mistake to the speaker (11): 96 De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting ///Uh. I don’t know if I uh. give an answer (Participant:) ///I agree, I hadn’t thought of that particular relation between space and time. It’s very illuminating= (Speaker:)=Yes, I find it very illuminating also. That means the space uh. ªrst of all can not be considered out of the temporal, temporality…. In this instance, there is overlapping speech and rapid turn-taking on the ¶oor, with more than one speaker occupying the speaker-position at the same time. Possibly because more than one speaker needs to be represented in the delivery simultaneously, the interpreter shifts from the ªrst person and turns to reported speech by embedding the utterance of one of the speakers under the performative predicate “de-” (“say”). While speaking in the speaker’s “I” does not allow for a diŸerentiated representation of more than one speaker occupying the ¶oor at the same time, reported speech seems to enable the interpreter to signal a change of speakers in the delivery. The insertion of names or referents (such as “…says Professor B.” or “…says the speaker”) helps to indicate who is being represented in the delivery at a given moment. Thus, by shifting to reported speech from the speaker’s “I”, the interpreter seems to ensure a “discursive” order in the delivery. *** In a few other instances when overlapping remarks also contained ambiguous or contradictory remarks, Interpreter B did not limit himself to reporting or paraphrasing the original speeches, but also inserted personal remarks that disclosed his displeasure with the interruptions in the ¶ow of the interaction on the ¶oor (see, for instance, 43, 45 and 56). d. Problems with the transmission of the interpreter’s and/or speaker’s voice “Shifts in the speaking subject” also became evident when there were problems with sound transmission from the ¶oor or the booth (1, 2, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49). Such problems were quite frequent during this conference because portable microphones were not always available for some reason and, when they were available, participants still tried to speak “out loud” from where they sat. In such instances, both interpreters tended to take over the speaker-position in the delivery to announce the source of the interruptions. Although both interpreters took action, there were diŸerences in the actions they took. While Interpreter A usually resorted to brief interjections such as “Microphone please,” or “The microphone is oŸ” (1, 2, 47, 48, 49) and waited until she could hear again, Interpreter B made longer and more explicit remarks Analyzing an actual SI performance such as, “Unfortunately we cannot interpret because the speaker speaking from the ¶oor is not using a microphone,” or, “Because the comment made from the ¶oor is not made into a microphone, we cannot interpret” (21, 22, 23, 38, 40). In three instances, Interpreter B also called upon the listeners to warn the speakers to use a microphone (22, 39, 44). *** Here is one of those moments when, faced with repetitive interventions on the ¶oor without a microphone, Interpreter B called on his listeners to warn the speakers to use a microphone (44): Booth: (Interpreter B:)…Eh. noktayH tam anlamadHm. Size sonra veririm. Böyle giderse konferansιn ço¤u çevrilmeden kalacak. Isterseniz uyarιn. Eh. dü‡üncesiz, dü‡üncenin eksikli¤i… My translation of the booth: (Interpreter B:)…Uh. I didn’t understand the point completely. I’ll give it to you later. If this goes on like this, most of this conference will remain uninterpreted. Warn them if you want to. uh. thoughtless, lack of thought… Floor: (Speaker:) There is two concept of understanding. I can understand something and I can forgive ///something but of (Participant:) ///I didn’t get the point and Eichmann= =((inaudible remarks on the ¶oor)) (Speaker:) And the diŸerence between Eichmann and Heidegger uh. (Speaker:) =there is no thoughtless in uh. in uh. in in in Heidegger maybe thoughtless… In this instance, the interpreter is cut oŸ from the ¶ow of communication on the ¶oor because of overlapping remarks that are made without a microphone for the seventh time in a row (see excerpts 37–44 in the Appendix). Chaotic turntaking and inaudible interventions from the ¶oor render his task almost impossible and the interpreter responds by assuming the speaker-position in the delivery to establish direct contact with his listeners and to call them to take action (see also 22 and 39). In fact, this is not the ªrst time Interpreter B does that. He has called his audience to warn the speakers to use microphones before, but his former calls have mostly gone unnoticed. Probably because of that, there seems to be a tone of despair, if not slight anger, in his warning (“If this goes on 97 108 De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting Interpreter B took over the speaker-position to either report, paraphrase and insert explanatory remarks (4, 5, 12, 18, 26) or to comment on the original interaction (17). *** Here is an example of two consecutive instances when Interpreter B faced repetitive quotations in German (17/18): Booth: (Interpreter B:)…Burada sorum biraz kH‡kHrtHcH hale gelecek. Eh. Heidegger’in eh. eh. Almanya ve Rhein dersinde, Hölderin eh. den bir ‡iir daha var. Hölderlin diyor ki maalesef Almanca çeviremeyece¤im17 yani diyor biz yorumlanmasH mümkün olmayan bir sembolüz diyor Hölderlin…((12 seconds of speech removed))…Bunu Heidegger konusunda kendi yorumunuz, özellikle, Mitsein, yani ileti‡im sorusuyla nasHl ili‡kilendirirsiniz? Şimdi eh. Almanca olarak Hölderlin’i yeniden okudu18. Biz eh. imiz ama anlamH olmayan bir im. Çok zor bir soru… My translation of the booth: (Interpreter B:)…My question is going to become a little provocative here. Uh. there is another poem from Hölderlin in Heidegger’s course on Germany and Rhein. Hölderlin says unfortunately it’s in German, I cannot interpret it17 so he says we are a symbol without the possibility of interpretation…((12 seconds of speech removed))…How do you associate this with your interpretation of Heidegger, especially Mitsein, that is, communication? Now uh. (the speaker*) read Hölderlin again in German18. We are uh. a sign but a sign without meaning. That is a di¹cult question… [*the interpreter refers to the speaker with subject deletion] Floor: (Participant:)…here’s where here is where my question becomes a little bit provocative. Uh. I think it’s in Germanien Unser Heim in Heidegger’s course on that in which he cites another verse from Hölderlin which is one of my very favorite of all of Hölderlin’s verses where he says Ein Zeichen sind wir deutungslos 17 in other words we are a symbol without possibility of interpretation….((15 seconds of speech removed))…How would you uh. draw that particular verse into your own interpretation of Heidegger and the problem of communication, problem of Mitsein, would be my question. It’s a di¹cult question but uh.= (Speaker:)=Yes he says Ein Zeichen sind wir deutungslos und haben fast die Sprache verloren18 he contin he says in another hymn, Hölderlin, we are a sign but without signiªcation and we nearly lost the language… Analyzing an actual SI performance 109 In this instance, Interpreter B, who faces another long quotation in German, assumes the speaker-position in the delivery and explicates that there is a quotation in German which he cannot interpret (“Unfortunately it’s in German, I cannot interpret it”). While the speaker on the ¶oor seems to have been the “speaking subject” in the delivery until that moment, this brief but striking interjection places the interpreter in the speaker-position. This interjection not only seems to ªll in a potential gap in the delivery by enabling the interpreter to say something about the nature of the interaction on the ¶oor, but it also explicates the cause of the interruption in the “normal” ¶ow of the delivery (“…it’s in German…”). Furthermore, it highlights the interpreter’s personal position vis-à-vis the original remark (“Unfortunately…I cannot interpret it”). Once the ¶oor returns to English, the interpreter resumes the speaker’s “I” and places the speaker back in the speaker-position in the delivery (17). Soon after, the speaker starts citing the full verse by Hölderlin in German (“Ein Zeichen sind wir deutungslos und haben fast die Sprache verloren”). This quotation is probably too long for the interpreter to repeat. By inserting another explanatory remark (“She read Hölderlin again in German”), the interpreter seems to give an account of the original speech, which he is probably unable to render or repeat while using the speaker’s “I” (18). h. Accusations of misinterpretation from the ¶oor The most striking “shifts in the speaking subject” during this conference took place when two instances of miscommunication between one speaker and two diŸerent participants were attributed to misinterpretation (52, 53). In the present corpus, these two instances took place consecutively during the discussion on the same speech when the conference was already running late. In the ªrst of these instances, one Turkish participant asked a Turkish speaker who had delivered her paper in English, whether she actually wanted to bring in the notion of “reincarnation” with the concept of “second life” in Hannah Arendt. This question came as a major surprise to the speaker, who responded by saying that she was talking about “second birth” in Arendt and had no intention of bringing in the concept of “reincarnation”. However, when the participant insisted that the speaker had used the word “second life” in her speech, the speaker and the participant agreed that the misunderstanding could be because of “mistranslation” (52). Right after this ªrst accusation, another Turkish participant asked the same speaker — again in Turkish — whether she had implied that freedom of thought could be prohibited. This time, the speaker became completely perplexed and expressed her surprise at how the audience 110 De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting could draw such conclusions from her speech. Once again, the two parties ended up blaming the SI as the cause of the misunderstanding (53). In both of these instances, Interpreter B took over the ¶oor explicitly and inserted his comments about the accusation. Interestingly enough, these were also the only instances in the present corpus where the interpreters clearly distanced themselves from the speakers in the delivery by referring to themselves in the third person as the “the translators”. *** Here are the shortened transcripts of the ¶oor and booth recordings for these consecutive instances (52/53): Booth (52) (Interpreter B:)…Now a moment ago, uh. you talked about a second life. I think so. Perhaps you talked about reincarnation here. Yes please talk about, will you please talk about this? This is not the second life. I I said the second birth. You used the word second life. This is not true. The translators very clearly said second birth. This is misconception, misperception. A Arendts talks about two births. The ªrst one is physiological birth. That’s the ªrst birth. The second birth, the second birth is uh. is our birth into uh. into human relationship… ((5 minutes of speech removed)) (53) (Interpreter B:)…I suppose I wasn’t able to express myself very well. Because I don’t understand how you can draw these conclusions from my presentation. But I did not say, let me correct something, I did not say politics and philosophy are the same thing. Uh. I said they are the sa two sides of the same coin. These, when you, well think of a coin that turns around its edge when you throw it on the ¶oor and you see one side at a certain moment and then the other side at the other moment. Unfortunately this can’t be translated. The translation may be wrong. Of course it is always the fault of the translator. Yes! I did use expressly the word madalyonun iki yüzü which means the two sides of the coin in Turkish. Oh my God! ((Laughter in the background. Some barely audible talk in English (see the transcript of the ‘¶oor’). The conference interaction breaks for about one minute)). My translation of the floor: (52) (Participant 1:)..Yes, in your speech, a moment ago, you mentioned about second life. I think. You probably wanted to bring in reincarnation. Yes, this please, I would like to request= (Speaker:) =Uh. I did not say second life but second birth maybe there was a mis uh.= (Participant 1:)=You used the expression second life that’s what I’m referring to. You used the expression, you said second life= =((barely audible remarks from the speaker who seems to tell the English-speaking chairman that she will answer in Turkish)) Analyzing an actual SI performance (Chairman:) Yes. (Participant 1:) That’s how the translation came probably. (Speaker:) That is probably how the translation came. Uh. I wanted to say what ((Englishspeaking panelists suddenly start smiling and giggling)) Arendt calls second birth. Arendt separates birth into two. The ªrst one is our physiological birth, maybe our birth from our mothers. The second birth, this is our ªrst birth, the second birth is uh. ((to the Englishspeaking chairman who is still smiling:)) Am I saying wrong?* ((headshakes from the smiling panelists)) Okay*. Uh. uh. our second birth is uh. is our uh. birth among the humans…. ((5 minutes of speech removed)) (53) (Speaker:)…I probably uh. did not express it well enough because I don’t really understand how such conclusions can be drawn from my speech but uh. I did not say politics and philosophy are the same. First I want to correct that. I said politics and philosophy are uh. more like the uh. the two sides of a uh. of a coin. Uh. they are in constant, I am actually reminded of the image of a coin which continuously turns around itself when you throw it to the ¶oor. You see the one side at a certain moment and the other side at another moment. Uh. and= (Participant 2 – (barely audible:))=In the translation there is no such distinction. Just so that you know. (Speaker:) The translation may be wrong uh. as the owner of that text I’m telling you the real translation. ((Long laughter among those listening to the English interpretation. One English speaker in the panel says “Poor translators”. Some English-speaking panelists start talking to their Turkish colleagues and one of them tells the names of the interpreters and adds in Turkish: “Türkiye’de bulabilece¤imiz en iyi çevirmenler” (“The best translators we can ªnd in Turkey”). Another Turkish panelist replies, “Özellikle bu konuda” (“Especially on this topic”). The interaction on the ¶oor breaks for about one minute)). [* “Am I saying wrong? Okay” is said in English by the speaker] Floor (52) (Participant 1:)…Evet demin konu‡manHzda bir ikinci ya‡amdan bahsettiniz. SanHyorum. Bununla bir reenkarnasyonu herhalde devreye almak istediniz. Evet,bu lütfen rica edece¤im. (Speaker:) Eh bu eh. ikinci ya am de¤il ikinci do¤um dedim belki yanlH‡ eh.= (Participant 1:)= Ikinci ya‡am tabirini kullandHnHz da o bakHmdan konu‡uyorum. O tabiri kullandHnHz, ikinci ya‡am dediniz= =((barely audible remarks from the speaker who seems to tell the English-speaking chairman that she will answer in Turkish)) (Chairman:) Yes. 111 112 De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting (Participant 1:) Çeviri öyle geldi herhalde. (Speaker:) Çeviri herhalde öyle geldi. Eh. ‡unu söylemek ((English-speaking panelists suddenly start smiling and giggling)) ikinci do¤um dedi¤i Arendt’in Arendt do¤umu ikiye ayHrHr. Bunlardan ilki bizim biyolojik do¤umumuzdur, annemizden belki do¤umumuzdur. Ikinci do¤umumuz ise, bir birinci do¤umumuz budur, ikinci do¤umumuz ise eh. ((to the English-speaking chairman who is still smiling:)) Am I saying wrong? ((headshakes from the smiling panelists)) Okay. Eh. eh. ikinci do¤umumuz ise eh. bizim eh. insanlar arasHndaki do¤umumuzdur… ((5 minutes of speech removed)) (53) (Speaker:)…Herhalde eh. ben eh. yeterince if iyi ifade edemedim çünkü ben benim konu‡malarHmdan nasHl bu sonuç çHktH¤HnH tam olarak anlHyamHyorum eh. ama eh. politika ve felsefe aynH demedim. Ilkin, onu düzeltmek istiyorum. Felsefe ve politika eh. bir paranHn, bir bozuk paranHn iki yüzü gibi eh. dedim daha çok. Eh. bunlar sürekli, bunu daha çok ben eh. yere attH¤HnHzda sürekli etrafHnda dönen bir para imgesini hatHrlatHyor bana daha çok. Kimi zaman bir tarafHnH kimi zaman di¤er tarafHnH görüyorsunuz. Eh. ve= (Participant 2–(barely audible:))=Tercümede bu ayrιm yok. Bunu bilesiniz. (Speaker:) Eh. çeviri yanlι‡ olabilir çü eh. ben size o tekstin sahibi olarak esas çeviriyi söylüyorum. ((Long and lively laughter among those listening to the English interpretation. One English speaker in the panel says “Poor translators”. Some English-speaking panelists start talking to their Turkish colleagues. Then Turkish panelists start talking between themselves and one of them tells the names of the interpreters to her friend and adds in Turkish: “Türkiye’de bulabilece¤imiz en iyi çevirmenler” (“The best translators we can ªnd in Turkey”). Another Turkish panelist replies, “Özellikle bu konuda” (“Especially on this topic”). The interaction on the ¶oor breaks for about one minute)). In 52, one Turkish participant asks a Turkish speaker, who has just delivered her paper in English, whether she actually wanted to bring in the notion of “reincarnation” with the concept of “second life” in her speech. This question comes as a major surprise to the speaker who responds by saying that she was talking about “second birth” in Arendt and had no intention of bringing in the concept of “reincarnation”. However, when the participant insists that the speaker has used the word “second life” in her speech, the speaker and the participant agree that the misunderstanding could be because of SI (“that is probably how the translation came”). As soon as Interpreter B hears this accusation on the ¶oor, he assumes the speaker-position in the delivery and, without interpreting the accusation, relegates the speakers on the ¶oor from the position of the ones speaking to the ones spoken of. It is quite striking to note that, for the ªrst time in this corpus, the interpreter refers to himself and his colleague as “the translators” rather than in the ªrst person.51 The fact that Analyzing an actual SI performance the interpreter does this at this particular instance when he reacts to the speaker is probably telling. Perhaps he does this to avoid the risk of being confused with the original speaker in the delivery because using the third person clearly diŸerentiates the interpreter from the speaker’s “I”. As he takes over the speaker-position explicitly, the interpreter, who indeed never uses the word “second life” in his interpretation of the speaker, not only a¹rms that there was no mistake in the delivery to start with (“The translators very clearly said second birth”), but also re-directs the accusation to the primary interlocutors (“this is misconception, misperception”). These comments by the interpreter engender empathic smiles and comments among those listening to the English interpretation, including the chairperson and some other panelists. The speaker who is, in the meantime, dethroned from the speaker-position in the delivery, does not understand why the panelists suddenly start smiling and talking to each other. Thinking it might be because of something she has just said, she stops talking to the participant on the ¶oor, turns to the Englishspeaking panelists, who are smiling, and asks in English, “Am I saying wrong?”. When the chairperson smilingly shakes his head, she says, “Okay” and goes on with her speech in Turkish, though still puzzled by the situation (52). Right after this ªrst incident, another Turkish speaker takes the ¶oor to ask the same Turkish speaker another question (53). His question is vague and poorly formulated grammatically, with many incomplete sentences and incoherent use of tenses. Though vague, the participant seems to be asking a rather provocative question on whether the speaker is arguing that freedom of thought can be prohibited according to Heidegger. Completely puzzled by what she probably sees as radical interpretations of her presentation, the speaker reacts defensively, saying that she does not understand how such conclusions can be drawn from her paper. As she tries to explain that she sees politics and philosophy as two sides of a coin, the participant intervenes and says, “In the translation, there was no such distinction”. The speaker agrees with the possibility of a wrong interpretation and says, “The translation may be wrong. As the owner of the text, I’m telling you the real translation”. Hearing yet another accusation, the interpreter assumes the speaker-position in the delivery and starts defending himself. His sarcastic remark (“Of course it’s always the fault of the translator. Oh my God!”) evokes long laughter and comments among the English speakers listening to him. This remark also transforms the whole ¶ow of communication in the room because those who listen to the SI start talking among themselves. The English-speaking panelists 113 114 De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting start relating the comments of the interpreter to the Turkish panelists who respond by saying that these interpreters are the best ones in the ªeld. The speaker on the ¶oor also stops talking because none of the English-speakers in the room and certainly none of the panelists on the rostrum are listening to her any longer. Note that this intervention not only changes the ¶ow of communication, but also transforms the position of the speakers and interpreters. All of a sudden, the interpreter who is supposed to be interpreting the ¶oor, starts regulating the ¶ow of the communication, and the delivery, which is supposed to be a site where the speaker should be the “speaking-subject”, becomes a site where the speaker is spoken of. By referring to himself and his colleague as “the translators” in his intervention, Interpreter B reveals that the interpreters are very aware of the multiplicity of speaker-positions represented in the delivery and deliberately distance themselves from the speakers when they feel the need for it. Three ªnal observations regarding these instances are that, ªrst of all, the two participants who ask the questions of the speaker also happen to be my respondents in the user interviews. During the interviews, the lady who asks the question on “reincarnation” mentions being a member of a spiritual community, while the gentleman who asks the question on the “freedom of thought” calls himself a “political activist” (see Section 3.3.4). Looking at their backgrounds and current interests, the way they “interpret” the original speech does not look like a coincidence. Somehow, the member of the spiritual community does not ask the question on freedom of thought and the political activist does not enquire about reincarnation. Thus, the participants seem to understand the original speech in line with their backgrounds and interests. Yet, when the speaker rejects their interpretation, they all seek to save face by blaming the simultaneous interpretation. Furthermore, the ªnal remark of the speaker to the participant (“the translation may be wrong, as the owner of the text, I’m telling you the real translation”), clearly highlights that even at a conference on philosophy where the speaker herself explores how “agents disclose their identity through speech”, the same speaker does not hesitate to claim the sole ownership of her text and its “real” translation. Apparently, “disclosing one’s identity through speech” is seen as a prerogative of “original” speakers and not their interpreters. Last but not least, it is worth noting that about ªve minutes later, as the conference comes to an end, the English-speaking chairman thanks the interpreters by underlining the fact that they had such a di¹cult job to do that Analyzing an actual SI performance communication could have been impossible had it not been for the interpreters. Everyone applauds them. Thus, the visibility they attract in 52 and 53 does not seem to work against the interpreters in this conference. On the contrary, it looks like it might have fostered more appreciation for and acknowledgement of their task although, of course, it is not possible to really know what individual participants (especially the ªnal speaker, who was completely excluded from the delivery) thought about SI at the conference. 4.5.2 Last 25 minutes of the conference interaction The categorical analysis of the “shifts in the speaking subject” in the previous section may have given an idea of the kind of context(s) that invoke and involve the “shifts in the speaking subject” in the present corpus. However, such a categorical presentation of the shifts from the use of the speaker’s “I” in the delivery also runs the risk of isolating the speciªc instances from the general ¶ow of interaction and gives a rather fragmented view of SI behavior. To highlight how some of the shifts mentioned in the previous section are positioned within the general ¶ow of interaction, this section presents the complete transcripts of the last 25 minutes of the conference. The transcripts start from the point where a Turkish participant asks a question on “reincarnation” to a speaker who has just talked about “second birth” in Hannah Arendt’s philosophical writings and include 8 shifts from the use of the speaker’s “I” in the delivery. The transcripts of the booth recordings are presented in the pages on the left and the transcripts of the ¶oor recordings are presented in the pages on the right. The instances that point to a “shift in the speaking subject” are underlined and enumerated. The translation of the underlined part, which is in Turkish (either the ¶oor or the booth), is presented as a footnote. Readers who are interested in reading my analyses of the underlined parts indicating a “shift in the speaking subject” can refer to the Appendix. 115 Juxta- and counterposing actual SI behaviour with the meta-discourse 137 in¶uenced by the constraints of the social and interactional context around them. The interpreters pointed to the frustration they felt at the way the speeches were delivered and openly declared their dissatisfaction with the external factors that jeopardized the quality of their performance. Despite all odds, however, they still found ways of imposing their presence onto a setting not planned to accommodate their needs and demands. In short, the analysis of an actual SI event can be seen as challenging the general conviction that simultaneous interpreters work in homogeneous settings with participants from compatible backgrounds and interests. It highlights the fact that little is pre-determined about the “position” of simultaneous interpreters and indicates that this position had to be negotiated on site amidst a complex and rather fuzzy network of relations, expectations and assessments prevailing in an actual conference context. 5.1.3 Performance of interpreters: What conference transcripts suggest Analysis of the transcripts of the booth and ¶oor recordings from the same 2-day conference on “Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt: Metaphysics and Politics” suggests the following: Vulnerability of the position of simultaneous interpreters First of all, the analysis of conference transcripts points to the vulnerability of simultaneous interpreters. It reveals that the interlocutors could easily blame the interpreters when faced with misunderstandings among themselves (see 52, 53). Saving face by blaming the mediator, who was somewhat distant from the focal event and less prominently positioned than the “original” speaker, was possibly easier for the primary interlocutors than facing the disturbing reality of their own subjectivity in understanding each other. Especially in excerpt 53, it is quite striking to note that even the speaker who talked about “the disclosure of the agent’s identity and uniqueness in speech”, did not hesitate to claim being the “owner” of her text and its “correct” translation. Apparently, disclosing one’s identity in speech was meant to apply to “original speakers” and not their “interpreters”. Tension of co-existing with the speaker in the same “I” in the delivery The analysis of the conference transcripts also points to the tension inherent in co-existing with an alien “I” in the delivery. The two instances of accusation (see 52, 53) show that the seeming non-presence of the interpreters in the delivery — reinforced through their adoption of the speaker’s “I” in line with 138 De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting the norm in SI — could easily be subverted, leaving all ªngers pointing to the interpreters as the culprits in a failed communication. The interpreters could be held responsible for the mistakes, interruptions and “¶aws” in the delivery — even if these stemmed from the primary interlocutors. In a way, adopting the “I” of the speaker meant establishing a vaguely deªned and highly unpredictable communion with the speaker in the same utterance. It meant temporarily sharing the same “I” and becoming a part of another’s “words” and “deeds”. It implied being represented in an “I” that no longer pointed only to the interpreter or the speaker alone. Adopting and remaining in the speaker’s “I” in the delivery seemed to be easier when the interaction at the conference looked unproblematic and transparent, but seemed less so when it became fraught and fragmented. Multiplicity of the speaker-positions in the delivery In contrast to the meta-discursive emphasis on the presence of a single speaker-position, the analysis of the conference transcripts points to the multiplicity of the speaker-position in the delivery. In addition to adopting the “I” of the speaker and positioning the original speaker to the speaker-position in the delivery, in line with the norm in SI, interpreters were able to follow other strategies such as: assuming the speaker-position implicitly by blending their remarks into the speaker’s “I”; taking over the speaker-position explicitly by speaking in their own “I”s; or assuming it indirectly by reporting, paraphrasing or explaining the interaction on the ¶oor. The analysis has also indicated that the use of these options was not random but context-driven, pointing to a complex co-presence of the multiple speaker-positions in the delivery. Power in regulating the “speaking subject” in the delivery Despite the vulnerability and tension inherent in the interpreters’ sharing the same “I” with the speaker, the analysis points to the signiªcant commanding power of the interpreters over their delivery. In the present corpus, the interpreters did not hesitate to assume the speaker-position, relegate the original speaker from the position of the “speaking subject” to the position of the subject spoken of in the delivery, and become the focus of attention of the social and communicative context when faced with unjust accusations of misinterpretation. They also took over the “I” in the delivery warning the speakers to use microphones, asking the listeners to warn the speakers to use microphones and commenting on the challenging aspects of the interaction on the ¶oor. Similarly, the interpreters assumed the “I” in the delivery, but blended it into the speaker’s ªrst person, when they compensated for the unanticipated Juxta- and counterposing actual SI behaviour with the meta-discourse 139 consequences of the corrections they undertook to remedy the speakers’ mistakes, or when they made original speeches more coherent and complete. They also indirectly took over the speaker-position in the delivery to report, paraphrase and explain the interaction on the ¶oor when faced with the mistakes, apologies and corrections of the speakers, as well as semi-verbal interaction and overlapping speeches. While the interpreters always apologized for and/or corrected their own mistakes in the ªrst person, they chose to refer to themselves in the third person when they reacted to the speakers on the ¶oor. Thus, the interpreters used a variety of discursive tools to distance or approximate themselves with the speaker’s “I” in the delivery. All of the excerpts analyzed in this study suggest that the interpreters were the main regulators of the speaker-positions in the delivery. Despite the numerous challenges of interpreting simultaneously, the strength of the interpreters was in their control over the “delivery” and in how they actively took part in shaping the representation of the speaker. Clearly, “identifying with the speakers” and “delivering the original meanings completely, ¶uently, intelligibly” were not “intrinsic performance standards” these simultaneous interpreters applied to diŸerent inputs. Rather they were “performance instructions” whose actual turnout was constantly negotiated by the interpreters in relation to the particularities and constraints of the actual situation. Amidst the constraints imposed by the nature of the work, the interpreters were not passive mediators with restricted control but active partners in communication. Delivery as a “heteroglot” construct In contrast to the general and de-contextualized discourse on SI, which tends to view the delivery as a site reserved for a single speaker (i.e., the “original” speaker) only, the analysis indicates that the delivery would best be characterized as a “heteroglot” construct containing multiple speakers all presented and represented by the interpreter. The ªnal outcome of who came to be represented in the delivery, and how, was not determined unilaterally by who the speaker was or what s/he said, but was basically negotiated by the interpreter in relation to the source utterance, as well as in relation to various social, interactional, cognitive and psychological factors of the actual context(s). Inter- and intra-personal variations The present corpus also highlights the presence of interpersonal variations in the way the interpreters regulated the speaker-positions in their deliveries. One of the interpreters (Interpreter B) was considerably more inclined than the other (Interpreter A) to take over the speaker-position explicitly. Actually, at