Interpreting Provocative Discourse from English into Arabic and Vice Versa in some Selected Football Press Conferences

Introduction

             It is important to differentiate between two types of football press conferences: usual press conferences before and after matches and press conferences held for special purpose such as signing a new contract with a new coach or player or for clarifying specific issues to the media. Coaches and journalists are always basic partners of football conferences. There is always a moderator who manages the flow of questions and answers. Some coaches become nervous when they lose matches. Accordingly, they may be sensitive to some questions. On the other hand, some journalists blame coaches when they lose matches by accusing them that they could not control the game or criticizing the coach’s selection of his players. Interpreters are expected to communicate between coaches and journalists. It is problematic when interpreters are required to render provocative discourse. So, interpreters usually use Reduction Strategies to deal with such discourse. Provocative discourse is a difficult mission for any interpreter; Football conferences usually witness provocative discussions specially after losing matches. The study investigates some selected videos of provocative situations between Al Ahli club coach and journalists. Also, the study examines the reduction strategies used by the consecutive interpreter within different football conferences.

Research Questions

The study aspires to find answers to the following questions:

1. What are the reduction strategies used by football interpreters to interpret provocative discourse in English and Arabic in football press conferences?
2. How are reduction strategies implemented by football interpreters to interpret provocative discourse?

Review of Literature

     The study focuses on the interpretation of Provocative discourse in football press conferences. Collins Dictionary defines provocation as: “If you describe a person's action as provocation or a provocation, you mean that it is a reason for someone else to react angrily, violently, or emotionally.”. As a result, provocation pushes people to lose their temper or act without considering the results. In such situations, the mission of interpretation is considered a real challenge and requires special treatment by the interpreter. Pöchhacker (2004) deems that Interpreting is basically a verbal translation. It is the process of rendering ideas and words spoken of one language and transferring them to another language. Although it looks simple, but it is a complicated task as It requires deep grasping of source and target language, and of the both cultures.

Sports Interpreting

               Sports interpreting is a broad term which covers both consecutive and simultaneous. The process of interpretation is usually applied through a mode that is performed within the football press conferences. Sports interpreting became a common job especially at football clubs in many countries like Egypt where foreign coaches and players are usually hired. Many clubs believe that Sports interpreting does not require a high level of professionalism. As a result, sometimes some coaches’ assistants interpret during the conferences before and after matches, and this could cause many problems due to the wrong application of reduction strategies in interpretation when they deal with provocative discourse. Football interpreters usually interpret all the utterances to the coaches and to the journalists unless the deal with provocative discourse. Sports interpreting appeared from few decades, clubs and national teams started to realize the importance of football interpretation with the appearance of football conferences. Football interpretation includes different types of interpretation such as simultaneous and consecutive interpretation; interpretation services are provided by professional interpreters who may be professional interpreters or sometimes clubs depend on football trainers who have linguistic competence to perform the interpretation process.

Consecutive Interpretation versus Simultaneous Interpretation

             Consecutive interpreting differs from simultaneous interpreting. Consecutive Interpreters find more time gap between the delivery of the speaker’s message and the starting of the interpretation, but in either consecutive or simultaneous interpretation, the interpreter needs to actively listen to the speakers, meticulously understand the speech and reconstitute it appropriately into the target language. Jones (2002) postulates that a consecutive interpreter focuses on the totality of speakers’ comments, speaks consecutively to the original speaker.                                                                                                                              

    Many scholars highlight the difference between consecutive interpretation and simultaneous interpretation. Tommola & Hyönä (1990) explain that simultaneous or consecutive interpreting is a highly complicated discourse interchange where language is transferred, and production operations are performed virtually in parallel and when the interpretation is performed simultaneously, it is delivered under high time pressure. On the other hand, Weber (1989:162) points out that consecutive interpreting is more accurate and faithful than simultaneous interpreting, because consecutive interpretation allows interpreters to have more time for listening to and analyzing the speakers’ utterances before beginning to produce their interpretation. On the contrary, in simultaneous interpretation, interpreters do not have the lag after the speaker. Accordingly, interpreters usually begin their interpretation in on the basis of a shorter and faster source-speech segment. While Pöchhacker (2004) states that consecutive interpretation provides the interpreter the chance to begin to interpret episodes of messages after the speaker has finished producing the source utterance.

    Gerver (1971) denotes that the simultaneous interpreters are supposed to act like a double information processing device, they need to be capable of monitoring, storing, retrieving and translating the "input" of one language, while speaking into the target language at the same time, and watching and occasionally correcting their own output. Gerver et al (1989:724) point out that the interpreter should own five specific criteria to be able to interpreting, these criteria are as follows:

1. Wide knowledge of active and passive languages and cultures.
2. Capability of grasping and convey the essential meanings rapidly.
3. Capability of projecting information confidently, side by side to a good voice.
4. The willingness to grasp new information as well as having Wide general knowledge and interests, and a willingness to acquire new knowledge.
5. Capability of working as a team member.

Strategies of overcoming Problems of the Interpreting process

   Chang (2005:7) defines Interpreting strategies as any goal-oriented, potentially apprehensive employment of tactics used to overcome the processing problems which interpreters face during the process of interpretation. These tactics include interpreters’ responses to the different problems which occur within the stages of comprehension, translation, or production, such as anticipating, restructuring, or generalizing. Gile (1995:.23) puts a comprehensive list of interpretation strategies. Gile divides them into three main categories: comprehension tactics, preventive tactics and reformulation tactics. He clarifies the three categories as follows:

1. Comprehension tactics are used when interpreters face comprehension problems. He determines four basic comprehension strstegies: delaying response, reconstructing the segment with the help of the context, using the boothmate’s help and consulting documents in the booth.
2. Preventive tactics are used when interpreters tend to reduce the risks of failure when the interpreter expects regular problems usually happen because of time or processing capacity pressure. For example, notes taking, changing the ear–voice span and segmentation.
3. Reformulation tactics are used to remove the consequences of short term memory. Interpreters also tend to use other reformulation tactics such as paraphrasing and transcoding.

     On the other hand, Gile (1990) presents some guidelines which control the performance of Interpreters. For example, delivery speed, style, competence of the interpreter, pronunciation, noise, degree of closeness to the speaker, and prior awareness of the subject. Also, the ear voice span or the time lag which happens when there is a lag between the speaker’s words and the interpreter’s interpretation.

Consecutive Interpretation Strategies

     Ribas (2012) shows that to be a professional interpreter, it is necessary to develop strategies or tactics of solving some problems. These strategies are essential to deal with the source language and produce appropriate equivalent interpretation to the target audience. While Faerach and Kasper (1983) point out that consecutive interpreters use some specific strategies to achieve the communication process. Along the same vein, Gile (1995) sees that the interpretation process should be preceded by applying effort models of interpretation to determine the obstacles of interpreting such as: memory effort, production effort, listening and analyzing effort, and coordination effort. Gile asserts that interpreters usually suffer from common problems such as cognitive processing intercultural, and interlingual communication.

Research Methodology

   The current research focuses on the usage of Reduction Strategies in Consecutive Interpretation through the interpreter’s usage of Faerch and Kasper (1983) theory of Reduction strategies. The research investigates the application of the reduction strategies by interpreters when they deal with provocative discourse which is considered a real challenge for interpreters.

Consecutive Interpretation and Reduction Strategies

     This section highlights the Reduction Strategies as the study investigates the usage of Reduction Strategies when football interpreters render provocative discourse.

    Nida and Taber (2003, P. 168) assert that: “reductions are not as numerous as the expansions, nor are they so frequent. And as a result, they are not so important structurally. However, it is just as important to employ the proper reductions as it is to introduce the proper expansions, for both expansions and reductions are based on the same fundamental principles of reproducing the closest natural equivalent."

Faerach & Kasper (1983) show that Reduction strategy is a strategy to change of goal, but it keeps the obtained message, or without interrupting the message. The common reduction strategies are:  message abandonment, skipping, filtering, and incomplete sentences.

1. Message Abandonment

   Tarone (1981) asserts that message abandonment is a strategy that leaves the message unfinished due to language difficulties. Accordingly, interpreters usually use message abandonment in situations when the interpreter abandons the speaker’s whole utterance and jumps to the next utterance or he tries to interpret but he cannot continue.

1. Skipping

   Skipping is a strategy which depends on the interpreter’s avoiding of a single word or a thread of words. In this case, interpreters try to simplify the lexical items; they attempt to render the meaning with excluding some specific lexical items. Faerch & Kasper (1983) point out that skipping can achieve appropriateness in different contexts. 

1. Filtering

    Filtering is considered as a summarization strategy used specially with lengthy utterances. Interpreters usually reduce the length of an utterance to render the target expression without attempting to distort the semantic content; interpreters usually select the important lexical items and ignore what is considered not important.

1. d. Incomplete Sentence

    Interpreters usually use the incomplete sentence strategy they omit large units of the utterance in the target language. Interpreters usually perform their interpretation but they stop at the mid-sentence.  So, interpreters use this strategy when they interpret the whole source utterance without completing it.

Data of the Study

    Data of the study is collected from different Youtube videos of football press conferences from Ahli club football conferences. The selected videos are chosen based on the provocative questions and answers between journalists and the South African Ahli Coach Petso Mosemane in order to analyze the reduction strategies used by the Ahli interpreter Amr Moheb. The interpreter interprets the journalists’ Arabic questions into English and the coach’s answers into Arabic.

Findings and Discussion

    The researcher detected ten provocative situations between the Ahli coach Mosemane and the journalists within different press conferences, some of them are provocative questions and the rest are provocative answers. The interpreter faced difficulties during these provocative situations. Accordingly, the interpreter Amr Moheb resorted to use some reduction strategies to interpret some questions and answers in both directions. The data were investigated and analyzed according to Faerch and Kasper (1983) theory. The ten provocative situations are presented in the next tables and the tables contain the time of the provocative situations in each video, the source text, the literal meaning of the source text, the target text, and finally the reduction strategy used by the interpreter:

    In situation 1 the journalist provokes the coach by asking the interpreter: هل هو استهتر بالخصم النهاردة ولا اللعيبة مكانتش بالكفاءة اللازمة which literally means: Did he underestimate his rival? Or the players were not efficient enough today?  The journalist implies that the coach is arrogant and he does not respect the other team or the players are not skilled enough to win the match. Any interpreter usually finds this situation problematic because if he interprets the whole utterance to the coach, this will provoke the coach and may push him to fight with the journalist. The interpreter remained silent and he refrained from interpreting the question because he could not find a mitigating interpretation for the journalist’s utterance. So, the interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: Message Abandonment.  In Message Abandonment, interpreters tend to avoid interpreting the whole utterance and continue as if nothing was said. The interpreter resorted to use the Message Abandonment strategy because he realized that this utterance cannot be filtered nor partially interpreted.

    In situation 2 the coach provokes a journalist by asking him if he thinks that this press conference is held only for his questions. The journalist kept asking the coach many questions and this provoked the coach because he felt that this journalist wastes the conference time so he replied by asking a provocative question “Is the press conference about you?”   The coach implies that the journalist is talkative and he does not respect the other journalists’’ right to ask questions also. Any interpreter usually finds such questions difficult to be interpreted because if he interprets the whole utterance to the journalist he will feel insulted.  The interpreter tried to mitigate the utterance by using different lexical items and pretended that the coach could not understand the question again by interpreting the utterance into: “معلش حضرتك قولى السؤال ايه بالضبط” which literally means: Excuse me! Tell me again what the question was. So, the interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: Filtering.  In Filtering, interpreters tend to avoiding of a single word or a thread of words. In this case, interpreters try to simplify the lexical items. The interpreter resorted to use the Skipping is a strategy which depends on the interpreter’s avoiding of a single word or a thread of words.

   In situation 3 the coach provokes a journalist by saying: “Ask the question! Are you coaching now, are you the coach?” The coach requests him to finish his speaking and ask the question and asking him if he thinks that  he is a football coach! The coach Mosemane nervously repeated his question if the journalist thinks himself a coach. The coach implies that the journalist speaks as a coach and he speaks ignorantly about coaching techniques. Any interpreter usually finds such questions difficult to be interpreted because if he interprets the whole utterance to the journalist he will feel insulted.  The interpreter tried to mitigate the utterance by summarizing the whole utterance and mention only the first part and ignore the rest and precede the utterance by the word please to be polite and mitigate the provocative effect of the utterance, the interpreter requests the journalist to ask his question by interpreting the utterance into: “معلش من فضل حضرتك اتفضل اسال” which is literally translated into: Please ask the question!. The interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: Incomplete Sentence.  In the strategy of incomplete sentence, interpreters tend to omit large units of the utterance in the target language. Interpreters usually perform their interpretation but they stop at the mid-sentence.  So, interpreters use this strategy when they interpret the whole source utterance without completing it.

    In situation 4 the coach provokes a journalist by telling him that he speaks for two minutes without asking question! Mosemani implies that the journalist is talkative and he wastes the time of the press conference. The journalist kept speaking without asking any questions and this provoed the coach because he felt that this journalist wastes the conference time so he replied by saying this provocative utterance “Two minutes we wait for you!”   The coach implies that the journalist is talkative and he does not respect the other journalists’’ right to ask questions also. Any interpreter usually finds such utterance difficult to be interpreted because if he interprets the same utterance’s meaning bluntly, the journalist he will feel insulted.  The interpreter tried to mitigate the utterance by using different lexical items by interpreting the utterance into: “معلش عشان حضرتك بتكلم ف حاجات كتير هو قالها قبل كده” which is literally translated into: I am sorry, but he has already discussed this before. So, the interpreter tells the journalist the same content by using more polite utterance. SO, the interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: skipping.  In skipping, interpreters tend to avoiding of a single word or a thread of words. In this case, interpreters try to simplify the lexical items. The interpreter resorted to use the skipping is a strategy which depends on the interpreter’s avoiding of a single word or a thread of words.

    In situation 5 the coach provokes a journalist by asking him if the coach can answer the question! The journalist kept speaking after asking his question ad he did not give the floor to the coach to answer the coach and this provoked the coach who interrupted the journalist by the utterance “You asked a question, can the coach speak?”   The coach implies that the journalist is impolite and he should give the floor to the coach to answer. Any interpreter usually finds such utterance difficult to be interpreted because if he interprets the same utterance’s meaning bluntly, the journalist he will feel insulted.  The interpreter tried to mitigate the utterance by using different lexical items by interpreting the utterance into: “حضرتك سألت السؤال, السؤال مش مترتب معلش” which is literally translated into: You have asked the question, your question is not well organized. So, the interpreter tells the journalist the same content telling the journalist that his question is not clear. SO, the interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: skipping.  In skipping, interpreters tend to avoiding of a single word or a thread of words. In this case, interpreters try to simplify the lexical items. The interpreter resorted to use the skipping is a strategy which depends on the interpreter’s avoiding of a single word or a thread of words. 

     In situation 6 the coach provokes a journalist by ordering him to stop shaking his head! The coach implies that the journalist pretends that he understands what is said but in fact he does not understand anything.   The journalist kept shaking his head when the coach was speaking so that he responded by saying: “Do not shake your head!”  . Any interpreter usually finds such utterance difficult to be interpreted because if he interprets the utterance to the journalist he will feel insulted.  The interpreter ignored interpreting the utterance and asked the journalist to not take this matter personally by saying: “مش موضوع شخصى” which is literally translated into:it is not personal. So, the interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: Message Abandonment.  In Message Abandonment, interpreters tend to avoid interpreting the whole utterance and continue as if nothing was said and add a total different utterance.

    In situation 7 the coach were provoked because a journalist criticized the Ahli team goal keeper Mohamed Shennawi, the coach defended his goal keeper and implies that this criticism is unacceptable by saying:  “If I am Shennawi, you can never be my friend”.  Any interpreter usually finds this situation problematic because if he interprets the whole utterance to the journalist, this will provoke him and may push him to fight with the coach. The interpreter remained silent and he refrains from interpreting the utterance because he could not find a mitigating interpretation for the coach’s utterance. So, the interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: Message Abandonment.  In Message Abandonment, interpreters tend to avoid interpreting the whole utterance and continue as if nothing was said.

    In situation 8 the coach were provoked by a journalist who kept speaking without giving the floor to the coach to speak, the journalist kept asking the coach many questions and this provoked the coach because he felt that this journalist wastes the conference time so he replied by saying: “Can you respect the press conference!”   The coach implies that the journalist is selfish and he does not respect the other journalists’ right to ask questions also. Any interpreter usually finds such utterances problematic to be interpreted because if he interprets the utterance to the journalist he will feel insulted and may push him to fight with the coach. The interpreter remained silent and he refrained from interpreting the utterance because he could not find a mitigating interpretation for the coach’s utterance. So, the interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: Message Abandonment.  In Message Abandonment, interpreters tend to avoid interpreting the whole utterance and continue as if nothing was said.

    In situation 9 the coach were provoked by a journalist who kept speaking for a long time. Accordingly, the coach requested the journalist to calm down as if he was nervous. The journalist kept asking the coach many questions and this provoked the coach because he felt that this journalist wastes the conference time so he replied by saying: “Calm down, please!”  Any interpreter usually finds such utterances problematic to be interpreted because if he interprets the utterance to the journalist he will feel insulted and may push him to fight with the coach. The interpreter remained silent and he refrained from interpreting the utterance because he could not find a mitigating interpretation for the coach’s utterance. So, the interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: Message Abandonment.  In Message Abandonment, interpreters tend to avoid interpreting the whole utterance and continue as if nothing was said.

     In situation 10 the coach was very provoked by a journalist who fiercely criticized him at the press conference. As a result, the coach wanted to insult the journalist by saying: “Be a respectable guy!”   The coach implies that the journalist is unrespectable which is considered a direct insult. Any interpreter usually finds such utterances problematic to be interpreted because if he interprets the utterance to the journalist he will feel insulted and may push him to fight with the coach. The interpreter remained silent and he refrained from interpreting the utterance because he could not find a mitigating interpretation for the coach’s utterance. So, the interpreter resorted to depend on one of the reduction strategies: Message Abandonment.  In Message Abandonment, interpreters tend to avoid interpreting the whole utterance and continue as if nothing was said.

Statistics of the Strategies

The statistics reveal that the interpreter depended on the strategy of Message Abandonment in 60 % of the provocative situations, while the strategy of Filtering is used in 40 % the provocative situations. Finally, the strategies of Skipping and Incomplete Sentence were not used in any provocative situation.

Conclusion

Reduction is usually used in translation when the interpreter transfers several words from the source language to fewer words in the target language. The study investigates the reduction strategies used by a professional interpreter in some selected different provocative situations happened in football press conferences. Provocative discourse is considered problematic for interpreters; they face the difficulty of the situation of trying to render the meaning into the target language without offending the listeners. Interpreters tend to solve the problem of interpreting Provocative discourse via using one of the reduction strategies.  The study concludes that interpreters usually tend to use the Message Abandonment strategy more frequently when they find that the source text includes a direct insult. Interpreters tend to use the filtering strategy more frequently when the source text is harsh but does not include direct insult. Interpreters mainly apply the strategies of Message Abandonment and filtering in interpreting proactive discourse more often when interpreting from English into Arabic and vice versa. Accordingly, the study reveals that when dealing with provocative discourse, the direction of interpretation from English into Arabic or from Arabic into English does not affect the interpreter’s choice of the appropriate reduction strategy. Finally, the study points out that interpreter usually do not tend to depend on the strategies of Incomplete Sentence and Skipping when they deal with provocative discourse.