During the late mid-1990s the honoree of this Festschrift and I were engaged, under the “Tempus programme”, in what has proved to be a very fruitful cooperation with regard to creating and developing university-based professional Translator/Interpreter training centres in Poznań and Sosnowiec.
The results, resplendent and long-lasting, encouraged me to commemorate this period with a contribution in which the two areas of the Professor’s established interests are combined, Cognitive Psychology and Translation.
*
In the 1990s cognitive psychology was declared, on the international scale, a particularly useful supporting science in translation research because it analy-ses “perceiving, thinking, remembering, problem-solving, understanding lan-guage use, learning and other mental phenomena” (WILSS, 1996: 38). Numerous translation scholars, having abandoned the investigations of the product of translation, incorporated data collection methods (i.e. think aloud protocols) and the findings of cognitive psychology with regard to description of action and behaviour into their research and attempted to relate them to aspects of the pro-cess of translation. Thus, in 1995, Paul KUSSMAUL, in his book Training the Translator focused on analysing the concept and manifestations of (not quite clearly defined) creativity in translation process. A year later, Wolfram WILSS
(1996) introduced the concept of translation intelligence in an attempt to deter-mine various degrees of efficiency of translator behaviour.
WILSS’ study was intended to redirect thinking about translation and focus on the psycholinguistic and psychological issues with a view to modernise and improve methods of training. He understood translation as “a form of linguistic 177
12 — On Language...
performance requiring subtle skills of S[ource]T[ext]/T[arget]T[ext] synchroni-sation on all translationally relevant levels” where translators “are entirely de-pendent on their own mental resources” (1996: 9). His 1996 term ‘translation’
is now widely understood as Translation in the generic sense (always spelled with a capital T), inclusive also of the various forms of interpreting, since more recent research shows certain degrees of similarity in a number of relevant mental processes involved in both.
WILSS’ main motivation was to show the complexity of translating to those who thought of it as of mere code switching and to promote the concept of translation as cognitive behaviour. In his argumentation he introduced a “by-product” perspective, i.e., he proposed that translation is a specific mani-festation of intelligence, or intelligences (echo of Gardner’s research?), with various aspects coming into play and may be “thought of as a capacity for steering translator performance in a principled manner” (1996: 37). He also speculated that intelligent translation behaviour means that the translator “oper-ates according to [his] own problem-solving procedures and perspectives”
(1996: 38—39). Underlying translation intelligent behaviour are knowledge and skills. His discussion of the diverse perspectives in translation research resulted in the conclusion that “translator performance involves highly differentiated forms of intelligence” (1996: 40). The “nature, the range and the limitations of translation intelligence” may be discovered through observation of translator performance “from planning a translation task to its actual achievement” (1996:
41). He also briefly mentioned creativity, writing that it is “a manifestation of intelligent personality [which] may imply both adherence to and the breaking of rules [and that] different translation settings may require different manifesta-tions and different degrees of creativity”. WILSS used quotations from J.P.
Guilford, the initiator of intelligence and creativity research, to draw attention to related concepts, such as personality, temperament and intuition (i.e., “the ability not to construct solutions to problems in a rational manner, but rather to produce them spontaneously [holistically] according to situational demands”) (1996: 50—54). In all these deliberations, if we move beyond the linguistic, we enter the behavioral sphere of translator’s performance.
Most cognitive psychologists have recognised the fact that there exists ten-sion between intelligence and creativity, even if there is no agreement as to the exact type of the relation. Intelligence may be treated as a subset of creativity, creativity is treated by others as a subset of intelligence. There is one group of proponents of the overlapping sets view (in some ways the concepts are similar but in other ways they are different) and another of the coincident sets view (creativity as an expression of intelligence). Several scholars believe that cre-ativity and intelligence are disjoint sets. One of the outcomes of their analyses of the relation are experiment results which show that highly intelligent people exhibit somewhat different personality features than highly creative people. In
their own assessment, highly creative people describe themselves as “affected, aggressive, demanding, dominant, dependent, forceful, impatient, initiative, out-spoken sarcastic, strong, suggestible” while the highly intelligent ones assume that they are “mild, optimistic, pleasant, quiet, unselfish” (BARRON, 1963: 222).
In the 1972 WALLACH and KOGAN experiment there were as many as four groups distinguished, each characterised not only by low/high Intelligence/Cre-ativity ratio but also by different personality characteristics. In most research in creativity and intelligence, personality, whether temporary or situational, fea-tures high on the agenda (STERNBERG and RUZGIS, 1994).
Aspects of personality are equally important from the perspective of an ex-perienced professional, the intelligent translator. In the comparison between the intelligent (high IQ) and the creative people the former turn out as adaptive (in definitions of intelligence adaptability is an asset while in creativity it is not).
The latter, among other things, are less worried about being misunderstood but value emotional stability high. For the creative ones the stimulus is mainly a point of departure for self-expression, while for the intelligent high IQ people the stimulus is the signal for the task to be accomplished. From this and other antecedent interdisciplinary considerations it may follow that intelligent practi-tioners will use their intelligence to suppress those personality traits which may get in the way of their optimal performance and there is no reason to exclude the translating profession from this generalisation. For those reluctant to draw parallel conclusions, adherence to rules and norms of the domain and profes-sion is preached in most training courses.
There seems to be yet one more controversial concept which needs to be in-troduced in the context of translation intelligence, that of emotional intelli-gence.
MAYER et al. (2000) claim that emotional intelligence involves the capacity to perceive emotions, assimilate emotion-related feelings; to understand the meaning and the information of those emotions; to manage [AP] them and to solve problems on the basis of them.
While affect is, undoubtedly, inherent in all forms of human behaviour and professional conduct, nowhere is this concept as vital as in one genre of con-temporary Translation practice, i.e., in Community Interpreting.
All capacities of emotional intelligence mentioned by Mayer may character-ise Community Interpreting situations, particularly the more dramatic ones.
When the ‘case history’ of an asylum seeker who has been tortured is being elicited, the interpreter may find it harrowing to have to listen and relay details of suffering and atrocities. [Non-native — A.P.]
speakers are likely to be distressed and, consequently, may express themselves incoherently and unclearly. There is always the risk that these factors will have an adverse effect on the highly accurate
inter-Community interpreter’s intelligence 179
12*
preting that is so absolutely necessary in this context (COLINand M OR-RIS, 1996: 62).
Of a number of existing definitions and descriptions of Community Inter-preting the one with the characteristics of fundamental importance for the pres-ent purposes has been formulated by the practitioner and author Sandra HALE: Community Interpreting takes the interpreter[s] into the most private spheres of human life... where the most intimate and significant issues of everyday individuals are discussed: a doctor’s surgery, a social worker’s or a lawyer’s office, a gaol, a police station or courtroom...[,]
settings where they are made privy to confidential information that would never have been available to them except in their capacity as an interpreter. ... The magnitude of the community interpreters’ responsi-bility can only be understood when realizing that their work is crucial for the lives of innumerable people... [and the] demands are high (2007: 25ff).
Emotional demands, too, in view of the settings.
Under such circumstances the first obligation of the interpreter, both to his client and to himself, will obviously be “to act wisely in human relations”
(THORNDIKE, 1920) which, translated into more contemporary concepts, means employing emotional as well as the traditional and translation intelligence. Em-pathy has always been an essential commodity in translation. EmEm-pathy, however, should not turn into advocacy under the ethics of Community Interpreting, therefore, an experienced professional will only allow emotions to direct his thoughts in a way conducive, rather than detrimental, to his target, i.e., to per-formance which will help the powerless client acquire the power to present his cause in an effective manner.
Community Interpreting requires of its practitioner a great deal of emotional intelligence, manifested not so much, as the uninitiated might assume, through developing a positive bias or even open advocacy towards their clients who hap-pen to be victims of private, individual or institutionalised, mass violence, but through controlling and managing the emotions.
Interpreters, especially since they are constantly talking in the first per-son, are more susceptible to taking on the emotions of witness. [...] Dr Theo du Plessis of the Department of Linguistics of the Orange Free State [...] recalls being particularly affected by stories of the killing of children: [...] ‘once or twice I’ve broken down and cried after hearing parents talk about what happened to their children’ [...] It [...] is the most disturbing job imaginable [...] listening to stories about death,
tor-ture, poisoning and burnt bodies. [...] Most of the stories [are — A.P.]
listened to through the mouths and ears of the interpreters (WIEGAND, 2000: 211).
If the emotional character of the asylum seekers or witness testimonies in front of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia nega-tively affects the performance of the interpreter, that may cause further damage to the case. The task of the highly professional interpreter is to control his own emotions and not those of the witnesses.
His duty to himself is to unwind in-between the hearings to such an extent that he can continue to perform objectively, without letting the emotions affect the performability. A perfect example of effective control of emotions has been quoted in WIEGAND:
Survivors too were at hand to tell their stories. As they spoke [...] the dispassionate voice of the interpreter amplified the cold horror of their testimony (2000: 211).
It is the professional ‘wisdom’ and the emotional intelligence which tell the experienced interpreter when to adapt and what not to disturb in order to trans-fer the message in a way that will support the victims’ case. Otherwise, it is best for the interpreter to withdraw from the job.
Accuracy is one of the three main aspects of interpreter’s performance ac-cording to most codes of ethics. Although codes of behaviour may seem a mat-ter of common sense there is an area in Community Inmat-terpreting, where they should support the codes of ethics, primarily with regard to accuracy. “The dis-passionate voice of the interpreter” mentioned in Wiegand’s above example may have done more good to the case than any kind of uncontrolled, if sympathetic, burst of emotions. Control is the key issue here when it comes to the well-being of the client. The well-being of the interpreter is another important area where properly understood emotional intelligence may help solve all aspects of profes-sional translation problems. Emotional intelligence should thus be included in Wilss’ concept translation intelligence and, where possible, played up in pre-service training of Community Interpreters.
As has been indicated above, translator’s intelligence is the sum total of spe-cific features and skills. Ability to show creativity in problem solving and deci-sion making, flexibility, adaptability, knowledge, sensitivity, wisdom, controlled reliance on intuition as well as full control over the emotions should be devel-oped during the training period and perfected with time and experience. In the case of professional Community Interpreters these features should combine in an optimal way to serve the client best.
Community interpreter’s intelligence 181
REFERENCES
BARRON F. (1963): Creativity and Psychological Health. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostran.
COLINJ. and MORRISR. (1996): Interpreters and The Legal Process. Winchester: Water-side Press.
HALE S.B. (2007): Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
KUSSMAUL P. (1995): Training the Translator. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
MAYERJ., CARUSO D. and SALOVEY P. (2000 a). “Models of emotional intelligence”. In:
STERNBERG R.J. (ed.): Handbook of Human Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 396—420.
MAYER J., CARUSO D. and SALOVEY P. (2000 b): “Emotional intelligence meets tradi-tional standards for an intelligence”. Intelligence 27 (4): 267—298.
MCVICKERH.J. (1975): Human Intelligence. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
ROBERTSR., CARRS., ABRAHAM D. and DUFOUR, A. (eds.) (2000): The Critical Link 2:
Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
STERNBERG R.J. (1999): Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
STERNBERG R.J. (2000): Handbook of Human Intelligence. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
STERNBERG R.J. and RUZGIS P. (eds.) (1994): Personality and Intelligence. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
THORNDIKEE.J. (1920): “Intelligence and its uses”. Harper’s Magazine 140: 227—235.
VALERO-GARCES, C. (2005): “Emotional and psychological effects on interpreters in public services”. Translation Journal. Vol. 9, No 3. Also avaiable online:
http://www.accurapid.com/journal/33ips.htm (20.04.2009).
WALLACH M. and KOGAN N. (1972): “Creativity and intelligence in children”. In:
MCVICKER H.J. (ed.): Human Intelligence. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 165—181.
WIEGAND C. (2000): “Role of the interpreter in the healing of a nation: An emotional view”. In: ROBERTSR. et al. (eds.): The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Com-munity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 207—218.
WILSSW. (1996): Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam and Phila-delphia: John Benjamins.