The Interpretive Theory Of Translation In The Context Of Modern Interpreting Studies

Deviating from the Anglo-American Analytic Philosophy, the Interpretive Theory of Translation is underpinned by the Embodied Philosophy. Both enlightened and inspired by psychology and cognitive science, the Paris School, represented by Danica Seleskovitch and Marianne Lederer, pioneered the study of psychological process of interpreting, a popular subject of modern interpreting studies.The Interpretive Theory of Translation sees interpreting proper as a means of communication which focuses on the transmission of messages. It holds that the perception and comprehension, deverbalization, reproduction of the intended meaning of the original speaker constitute the whole cognitive process of interpreting with deverbalization as the critical intermediate stage of information processing. Based on this understanding, Seleskovtich proposed a triangular model of interpreting process and the hypothesis of deverbalization. However, Seleskovitch and her desciples neither came up with a detailed explanation of how messages lose their linguistic package and get stored and retrieved, and what the carriers of deverbalized message are, nor did they elaborate on the way how linguistic information is processed. Inspired by the Language of Thought hypothesis proposed by modern psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology, the dissertation holds that human thinking precedes and is bigger than its linguistic presentation, and that it is carried by both verbal forms and non-verbal symbols, and the mental processing of linguistic information in interpreting entails 3 pairs of six different cognitive operations, namely, serial processing and parallel distributed processing, top-down processing and bottom-up processing, coupled with automatic processing and controlled processing.Theoretically underpinned by the Interpretive Theory of Translation, the Interpreter Training Model of ESIT is formulated in the social and linguistic context of Europe decades ago. The model stipulates that interpreting students are only allowed to practise SI into language A rather than language B, and that foreign language enhancement courses are not supposed to be the essential constituents of interpreter training programmes. As a matter of fact, this training model, if properly complied with, could ensure the high quality of conferenfce interpreter training. However, in response to the fast changing interpreting market situations in Europe and the Far East over the past two decades, the once training taboo of SI into language B and a language enhancement course for interpreting students is now being broken.As practisearchers, Seleskovitch and Lederer show their immediate concern over interpreting practice and pedagogy, and this well accounts for the great popularity that their research work enjoys among the interpreting community. However, both Seleskovitch and Lederer make personal theorization by heavily relying on intuitive speculation rather than real scientific research which is favored by the somewhat heterogeneous scientific community of a new generation of researchminded practisearchers with more sophisticated research methodology and expertise, thus failing to make significant breakthroughs in updating their Interpretive Theory of Translation since its inception in the 1960's and 1970's.The Interpretive Theory of Translation, a pioneer in the study of the dynamic process of conference interpreting, is the cornerstone for interpreting practice and pedagogy, and has excerted significant and far-reaching impact upon the formation of interpreting community and the academization of interpreter training. It also throws light on the research in machine translation. However, Seleskovitch and her desciples have marginalized speech texts by refusing to adopt the linguistic approach in their interpreting research, and their failure to probe into the root causes of unsuccessful interpreting by focusing merely on successful scenarios has reduced its theoretical value and affected its reception. What is more, Seleskovitch and her research community failed to explain to what extent interpreters are supposed to "interpret" the original speech. Their refusal to recognize the exsistence of untranslatability, and to adopt the foreignization stategy of interpreting is likely to arouse disputes in the interpreting community.