8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
1/83
1
Tasks, Constraints and Priorities inCharismatic Sermon Interpreting
Benjamin Z. Foo
BA (Hons)
Submitted in partial fulfilment of therequirements for the degree of
MA in Conference Interpreting Techniques
Supervisor: Juliet Vine
Submitted in August 2011
Word Count: 14,880
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
2/83
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor, Juliet Vine, for her unfailing enthusiasm andconstant encouragement. This thesis would not have been complete without hervaluable input. Other than supervising my thesis, she also gave feedback at myinterpreting classes from which I have benefited greatly. I am also grateful to AlexaAlfer for her guidance as the MA Thesis Module Leader and her efforts at facilitatingthe dissertation writing process.
My MA CIT course leaders, Christine Adams and Zo Hewetson, who are rolemodels I will always look up to in my professional career as an interpreter, gave methe vocational knowledge I needed to undertake this study. My Chinese teachers, FuBing and Rosabel Chung, have similarly played a vital role in my training. I willalways be indebted to them.
I would also like to pay tribute to all church interpreters who no doubt have been amajor force in the development of the sermon interpreting culture. Their impressiveand deeply moving interpretation, which I have been fortunate enough to be exposedto over the years, has been a major source of inspiration for me.
Finally, I would like to thank my MA CIT colleagues for their support and for neverfailing to infect me with their enthusiasm for interpreting - even during the mostgruelling parts of the course.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
3/83
3
ABSTRACT
This study aims to investigate sermon interpreting in the Charismatic tradition, an
area of interpreting which has hitherto not been studied extensively. To that end, the
researcher proposes identifying the tasks, constraints and priorities in charismatic
sermon interpreting (CSI) as a first step towards understanding it. This approach taps
into existing frameworks provided by Gile, Halliday and Yan Fu and combines them
to offer insights into the fundamentals of CSI. It is hoped that this approach could
also serve the purpose of future projects researching other interpreting genres,
especially those which have not been fully discussed in academic discourse.
While the analysis of tasks and constraints is primarily based on theoretical
frameworks and the researchers personal experience, the priorities are the result of
empirical evidence gleaned from the data. Therefore, the priorities in this study are
of a descriptive nature, not a prescriptive one, as the objective is to pin down what
really happens in the field by studying an authentic work of an experienced CSI
interpreter.
Owing to the limited availability of authentic data as well as the scope of this
study, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about the priorities. However,
the quality of the data used should yield meaningful insights which would benefit
follow-up studies, and this study should serve its purpose as an important first step
towards achieving a comprehensive understanding of CSI operations.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
4/83
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2Abstract 3Table of Contents 4Table of Figures 6
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study 71.2 Aims of the Study 8
1.2.1 Tasks in CSI 91.2.2 Constraints in CSI 91.2.3 Priorities in CSI 9
1.3 Significance of the Study 10
1.4 Overview of the Study 11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 122.2 Types and Modes of Interpreting 12
2.2.1 Consecutive Interpreting (CI) 142.2.2 Simultaneous Interpreting (SI) 152.2.3 Liaison Interpreting 162.2.4 Conference Interpreting 17
2.3 Giles Effort Models 192.3.1 Effort Model for SI 19
2.3.2 Effort Model for CI 212.4 Field, Tenor and Mode 222.5 Xin Da Ya 242.6 Performance of Charismatic Christianity 272.7 Charismatic Sermon Interpreting (CSI) 282.8 Chapter Summary 29
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY3.1 Introduction 303.2 Choice of Data 303.3 Transcription and Processing of Data 31
3.4 Identification of Tasks 323.5 Identification of Constraints 323.6 Identification of Priorities 33
3.6.1 Fidelity, Comprehensibility and Elegance 333.6.2 Analysis of Fidelity 343.6.3 Analysis of Comprehensibility 37
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
5/83
5
3.6.4 Analysis of Elegance 403.7 Assumptions 423.8 Chapter Summary 44
CHAPTER FOUR: CSI TASKS 4.1 Introduction 454.2 CSI Tasks 45
4.2.1 CSI Phase One 454.2.2 CSI Phase Two 47
4.3 Fewer Tasks = Easier Job? 484.4 Chapter Summary 48
CHAPTER FIVE: CSI CONSTRAINTS 5.1 Introduction 495.2 Field of CSI 495.3 Tenor of CSI 515.4 Mode of CSI 535.5 Constraints in CSI 54
5.5.1 Subordination 545.5.2 Time Constraint and Obligatory Emotional Charge 555.5.3 Processing Requirements 56
5.6 Chapter Summary 56
CHAPTER SIX: CSI PRIORITIES 6.1 Introduction 576.2 Hierarchy of Priorities 576.3 First Priority: Elegance in Delivery 596.4 Second Priority: Comprehensibility 596.5 Third Priority: Fidelity 606.6 Fourth Priority: Textual Elegance 636.7 Chapter Summary 65
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION 7.1 Introduction 667.2 Tasks, Constraints and Priorities 66
7.2.1 Tasks 677.2.2 Constraints 677.2.3 Priorities 67
7.2.3.1 Interplay of the Priorities 707.3 Concluding Remarks 71
Bibliography 72Appendix 75
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
6/83
6
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 5.1 Key Points of The Journey of a Dream 50
Figure 6.1 Summary of Findings in Transcript 57
Figure 7.1 Summary of Tasks, Constraints and Priorities 66
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
7/83
7
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
By all accounts, Pentecostalism and related Charismatic movementsrepresent one of the fastest-growing segments of global Christianity.According to the World Christian Database, at least a quarter of the worldstwo billion Christians are thought to be members of these lively, highly personal faiths . Despite the rapid growth of the renewalist movement in thelast few decades, there are few quantitative studies on the religious, political
and civic views of individuals involved in these groups. (The Pew Research Center, 2006)
The above excerpt describes the recent growth of Pentecostalism and
Charismatic movements which are collectively termed renewalist in the report
published by the Pew Research Center. The rapid emergence of Charismatic
Christianity has also been similarly noted by Coleman who observes that it is
flourishing in the contemporary world. (2000, p. 49) As a church-going Christian
who was brought up as a Presbyterian but has been attending renewalist churches for
the past six years in Asia, I have seen first-hand how the Charismatic movement has
taken root in the modern Christian community, especially among younger believers.
However, despite its enormous appeal and influence, studies done on Charismatic
Christianity continue to be limited, not just in terms of religious, political and civic
views as mentioned in the Pew Research Center report but also in the field of
interpreting.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
8/83
8
The general processes of conference interpreting have been discussed
extensively. For instance, scholars such as Jones (1998) have written entire books on
the subject and Gile is noted for his Effort Models (1995) which explain the processes
of simultaneous interpreting (SI) and consecutive interpreting (CI). However, in the
course of my research, I found that sermon interpreting is seldom discussed in
scholastic discourse. I find this a pity. Having watched sermon interpreters working
in Charismatic settings countless times, it is clear to me that such interpreting is an
established form of interpretation with a unique context.In Charismatic sermon interpreting (CSI), the interpreter interprets
immediately after every short utterance (usually not more than one or two short
sentences) from the preacher, and the preacher speaks immediately after the
interpreters utterance is completed. This results in a ceaseless flow of turn-taking
between the speaker and interpreter in quick succession which is often punctuated
with emotive delivery. Such an interpreting situation clearly differs from SI and CI as
described by Gile.
Therefore, this study is an attempt at filling a gap in interpreting research and
it stems from the researchers belief that CSI, by virtue of its unique context, would
offer new insights into the art of interpreting.
1.2 Aims of the Study
My aim is to learn more about CSI and I propose to do this by identifying the tasks,
constraints and priorities of CSI interpreters . I hope to achieve this by studying an
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
9/83
9
audio recording of a sermon delivered in front of a live audience by a Charismatic
pastor (all speakers, including the pastor, are henceforth referred to as he when the
use of a pronoun is required) and interpreted into Mandarin Chinese (henceforth
simply referred to as Chinese) by a sermon interpreter (all interpreters are
henceforth referred to as she when the use of a pronoun is required).
1.2.1 Tasks in CSI
By drawing inspiration from Giles Effort Models, I shall identify the tasks CSIinterpreters perform.
1.2.2 Constraints in CSI
My second objective is to identify the constraints Charismatic sermon interpreters
face by focusing on the context of their work in terms of the field, tenor and mode
(Halliday and Hasan, 1989).
1.2.3 Priorities in CSI
To investigate the CSI interpreters priorities, I shall first identify the core
requirements of interpretation, i.e. the key qualities of a good interpretation, by
adapting Yan Fus xin da ya (Munday, 2008, p. 28) for the purpose of this study . I
will then examine the interpreters textual and extralinguistic output to assess if it
falls short of any of the requirements. My aim is to find out which, among all the core
requirements, the interpreter would choose to prioritise when she has difficulty
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
10/83
10
satisfying all of them. Such findings would help to clarify if there is a hierarchy of
requirements at work in which some are more sacrosanct than others in the CSI
context.
1.3 Significance of this Study
I hope this study will contribute to academic discourse by explaining the CSI process
in a structured manner. My approach of identifying what needs to be done (tasks),
why what needs to be done may be difficult to accomplish (constraints) and whathappens when it gets too difficult (priorities) will clarify how CSI is carried out and
in what circumstances.
In addition, I hope that my idea of systematically identifying tasks, constraints
and priorities may also be adopted as a framework to study interpreting in other
contexts which have not been fully studied.
Only one audio recording is used in this study and I am aware of the
limitations this poses. In particular, the hierarchy of priorities would only be
conclusive if a much larger sample size is used. However, given the scope of this MA
dissertation, I can only transcribe a portion of the one recording that is available so
that I can carry out the kind of in-depth, utterance-by-utterance analysis necessary for
the identification of priorities. Moreover, every effort has been made to ensure that
the data used provide good real-life, authentic examples of CSI so that my findings
are meaningful.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
11/83
11
Having said that, it is not the goal of this dissertation to be representative or
make conclusive judgements about CSI. The significance of this study lies in the fact
that it is a bold step to probe into the context of CSI when no such study in this area is
known to exist. This is an important step forward because far from having an
unknown or rarefied existence its notable absence from academic discourse would
have one believe, CSI is an established form of interpreting with its own norms.
1.4 Overview of the Study:
In this introductory chapter, I have explained the rationale of embarking on this study
as well as its objectives and significance.
In the following chapter, I shall explain the concepts central to this study by
referring to existing literature. In Chapter Three, I explain my research design and
discuss my methodology and data in greater detail. Chapters Four, Five and Six
report respectively the analysis and identification of the tasks, constraints and
priorities in CSI. Chapter Seven concludes the study.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
12/83
12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter explains the key concepts central to this study. I will first give a broad
description of the typology of interpreting in section 2.2 before zeroing in on CSI at
the end of the chapter. Section 2.3 is devoted to the discussion of Giles Effort
Models (Gile, 1995), as I will be referring to them when identifying CSI tasks.Hallidays concepts of the field, the tenor and the mode (Halliday and Hasan, 1989),
discussed in section 2.4, are useful for clarifying the context of CSI which in turn
helps to identify interpreting constraints. Yan Fus concepts of xin da ya (Hsu,
1901/2004), which will be used in the identification of priorities, are discussed in
section 2.5. Sections 2.6 and 2.7 discuss Charismatic Christianity and CSI
respectively.
2.2 Types and Modes of Interpreting
During my training as an interpreter, I came across various types of interpreting
such as medical interpreting, community interpreting, court interpreting, liaison
interpreting and conference interpreting. However, it was never clear to me how these
interpreting types could be systematically categorised. For example, I understood
that medical interpreters often worked in hospitals but instinctively, I sensed that the
conditions they worked in mirrored those of liaison interpreters. Why was there an
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
13/83
13
overlap between the two? Could the overlap mean that medical interpreting was a
sub- type of liaison interpreting?These questions alerted me to the fact that such
working titles were convenient for practitioners but simply too ambiguous for
academic research. This was a problem for me because before I could situate a genre
as new as CSI in the field of interpreting,I had to figure out what that field looked
like in the first place.
I found clarity in Gentile, Ozolins and Vasilakakos (1996) as regards the
typology of interpreting. According to Gentile et al. (1996, p. 22), liaisoninterpreting and conference interpreting are types or genres of interpreting while CI
and SI are two basicmodes in which interpreting is performed. This means that
there are two types of interpreting, namely liaison interpreting and conference
interpreting, and both make use of CI and SI which are simply different modes or
formats of interpretation.
Going back to the question of medical interpreting, while the layperson may
have come to see medical interpreting as a form of liaison interpreting in hospitals
due to professional norms or stereotypes, in my opinion, Gentile et al.stypology
suggests that medical interpreting can take the forms of both liaison and conference
interpreting. This is because their model does not loosely define every topic
interpreters deal with as a type of interpreting. The term medical in medical
interpreting simply suggests that the interpreter is working on a topic related to
medicine but it need not be seen as a separate type of interpreting. An interpreter
working at a medical conference, for example, would be doing conference
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
14/83
14
interpreting. On the other hand, an interpreter facilitating communication between a
doctor and his or her patient would be doing liaison interpreting. Likewise, religious
interpreting could take either the form of liaison interpreting or conference
interpreting, and could be performed via either CI or SI depending on the context.
In the following sub-sections, I discuss the types and modes of interpreting in
detail with the aim of deciding where CSI should be placed in the typology.
2.2.1 Consecutive Interpreting (CI)According to Gentile et al. , CI entails waiting for the speaker to complete a speech
or a segment thereof before the interpreting begins . (1996, p. 22)This means that
any interpreting situation that involves turn-taking between a speaker and an
interpreter can be termed CI, regardless of how short or long the speakers
utterances may be. Going by this definition, CSI would fall under the category of CI.
Like Gentile et al., Jones (2002) calls CI a mode of interpreting (instead of
type) and he notes that CI requires the interpreter to listen to the totality of a
speakers comments, or at least a significant passage and then reconstitute the speech
with the help of notes tak en while listening. (2002, p. 5) Jones, and in fact, Gile
(1995), whose Effort Models are discussed in section 2.3, appear to include note-
taking as an important element in CI.
However, Jones does concede that some speakers prefer to speak only for a
few sentences before they are interpreted, in wh ich case the interpreter can perhaps
work without notes and rely solely on their memory to reproduce the whole speech.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
15/83
15
(2002, p. 5) This confirms that CSI, which neither requires nor allows notes to be
taken, can still be considered as a form of CI. However, in section 2.7, it becomes
clear that for the purpose of this study and because of how Gile (1995) defines CI in
his Effort models, a measure of distinction needs to be drawn between his concept of
CI and CSI.
2.2.2 Simultaneous Interpreting (SI)
According to Gentile et al. , SI entails starting the interpretation soon after thespeaker begins and continuing until just after the speaker has finished. (1996, p. 22)
Jones similarly defines SI as a mode of interpreting which requires the interpreter to
listen to the beginning of the speakers comments then begin interpreting while the
speech continues, carrying on throughout the speech, to finish almost at the same
time as the original and he notes that the interpreter is thus speaking simultaneously
to the original, hence the name. (2002, p. 5) Clearly, the main difference between CI
and SI lies in when the interpreter speaks. In CI, the interpreter does not speak at the
same time as the speaker. The opposite is true for SI.
SI is employed in some churches with large congregations with diverse
language needs. Hillsong Church London, for example, offers SI in Spanish,
Portuguese, Hungarian and Korean. (Hillsong Church London, n.d.) However, use of
SI in churches is very rare and lies beyond the scope of this study which investigates
CSI in the consecutive mode.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
16/83
16
2.2.3 Liaison Interpreting
I refer to Gentile et al. (1996) and Finlay (1973) for definitions of liaison interpreting.
I find that a comparison of the two sets of definitions helps to clarify what the essence
of liaison interpreting is.
According to Gentile et al. (1996), liaison interpreting has the following
characteristics:
(i) the interpreter works into and out of one language (e.g. an English-
Chinese interpreter would work into both English and Chinese andalso out of English and Chinese);
(ii) a relatively more intimate setting as compared to a more formal one in
conference settings; and
(iii) the size of the audience is much smaller than in conference settings.
Finlay notes that there is a clear distinction between ad hoc interpreting and
conference interpreting. (1973, p. 55) According to him, ad hoc interpreters are
people who are fluent in at least two languages and whose task is to ensure that
people who do not understand each others languagescan communicate. In his
definition, ad hoc interpreting is usually used in small groups of not more than five
people.
From Finlays description, it is clear that what he calls ad hoc interpreting is
really liaison interpreting. While Gentile et al. makes the distinction between liaison
interpreting and conference interpreting, Finlay distinguishes between ad hoc and
conference interpreting.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
17/83
17
The difference in terminology aside, both Gentile et al. and Finlay agree that
liaison or ad hoc interpreting is a two-way process (i.e. the interpreter does not only
interpret into one language but also works out of it), and usually happens in smaller
and more intimate settings compared to conference settings. With this understanding
in mind, it can be said that religious interpreting in some contexts are forms of liaison
interpreting. In my experience, interpretation of personal prayer requests could be one
of them.
When I was a member of a church in Fukushima, Japan, I interpreted for avisiting pastor from the US. Prayer requests were made by church members and the
pastor prayed for them on a one-to-one basis. I had to interpret the requests from
Japanese into English and then interpret the pastors prayers from English into
Japanese. In this case, only two interlocutors, i.e. the pastor and one church member,
were involved, the prayer requests were made in a relatively private and informal
setting, and the interpreter interpreted both into and out of each language.
By contrast, CSI interpreters, usually only interpret into one language, i.e. the
language of the congregation in which the pastors do not preach. The size of the
audience is also relatively larger and the setting is more formal. This suggests that
CSI is a form of conference interpreting.
2.2.4 Conference Interpreting
Gentile et al. (1996) acknowledges that the boundaries of conference interpreting and
liaison interpreting are not rigid or finite and the essential element which
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
18/83
18
distinguishes these settings is that in one case the interpreter works into one language
only and in the other works both into and out of one language. (1996, p. 22) In other
words, Gentile et al. thinks that liaison interpreters work both into and out of
languages but conference interpreters work only into one language. This is disputable.
In real-life conference interpreting, it is possible for interpreters to work both
into and out of languages. Such languages are known as active languages and are
contrasted with passive languages. Jones explains that a passive language is a
language out of which an interpreter is capable of interpreting while an activelanguage is one into which they are capable of interpreting. (2002, p. 8) Jones goes
on to explain that ones mother tongue is usually onesbest active language. This
means that an interpreter can have more than one active language and this is a
practice that is endorsed by the International Association of Conference Interpreters
(AIIC, n.d.).
However, two points that Gentile et al. make about CI in conference
interpreting contexts are still relevant. Firstly, they say that in general, there is a
pronounced element of performance ; the interpreter is performing as a speaker in
public and is the focus of the audiences attention. (1996, p.22) Secondly, they note
that consecutive interpreters in conference settings usually have a large audience.
In this regard, CSI is a form of conference interpreting. This is because a CSI
interpreter usually has to interpret in front of a fairly large audience that is the entire
congregation as well as be in the limelight by standing next to the pastor on the
podium.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
19/83
19
In short, in the typology of interpreting, CSI is a form of conference
interpreting in consecutive mode.
2.3 Giles Effort Models
Gile (1995) has a fairly elaborate discussion of SI and CI processes which he
describes in terms of Efforts.His Effort Models provide a relevant framework for
this study because one of my aims is to identify the interpreting tasks , i.e. Efforts,
which CSI interpreters have to manage in their work.
2.3.1 Effort Model for SI
According to Gile (1995), SI can be modelled as a process consisting of three Efforts,
namely Listening and Analysis (L), Speech Production (P), Short Term Memory (M),
and Coordination (C). The Effort Model for SI can hence be described as: SI = L + P
+ M + C .
L refers to the effort to listen to the speaker and analyse his speech. In other
words, L is about comprehension. P refers to the verbal output of the interpreter.
M refers to the interpreters effort to retain information in the short term. This is
necessary because there would inevitably be a lag between the time the interpreter
hears the speakers utterance and the moment it is interpreted, so the interpreter
would have to retain the information she hears while she is still interpreting
information she heard seconds ago. Lastly, C refers to the effort required to
coordinate the aforementioned efforts.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
20/83
20
In Giles words, in the case of SI, at any point in time, each Effort deals with
a different speech segment: in the simplest case, Production acts on speech segment
A, while Memory acts on segment B which came after A, and Listening and Analysis
acts on segment C which came after B.(1995, p. 170)
Gile believes that each Effort has specific processing capacity requirements
(1995, p. 171) and notes that for interpretation to be done successfully, the
interpreters total available processing capacity must be equal to or less than the total
processing capacity requirements of all the Efforts put together. Circumstances thatcould cause the capacity required to exceed the processing capacity of the interpreter,
i.e. saturation point, include fast and dense speeches which could be beyond the
interpreters ability to process.
However, not every instance of interpreting gone wrong is a case of saturation.
Gile believes that sometimes, interpretation may not proceed smoothly not because
the interpreter does not have sufficient capacity but because she is mismanaging her
processing capacity. For example, she could be devoting too much capacity to P
because she wants to use the most elegant reformulation of a speech segment instead
of settling for a simpler rendition which would have left her with sufficient capacity
to deal with L. By not having sufficient capacity for L, she risks omitting a part of the
speakers intended message which she might not have heard.
Giles observations on capacity requirements also apply to the case of CI. In
short, the processing capacity requirements cannot exceed the in terpreters available
processing capacity. In addition, the interpreter must allocate her capacity in an
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
21/83
21
optimal manner so that she can perform all the tasks the various Efforts require of her
at all times.
2.3.2 Effort Model for CI
Gile also developed the Effort Model for CI which consists of two phases termed the
listening and note-taking phase and the speech production phase.
Phase One, or the listening and note-taking phase, consists of Listening and
Analysis (L), Note-Taking (N), Short-Term Memory Operations (M) andCoordination (C). The Effort Model for Phase One of CI is hence described as:
Interpretation = L + N + M + C .
Phase Two, or the speech production phase, consists of Long-Term Memory
Operations (Rem), Note-Reading (Read) and Production (P). The Effort Model for
Phase Two of CI is hence described as: Interpretation = Rem + Read + P .
Efforts L, M, C and P in the CI model are the same as those in the SI model
explained in sub-section 2.3.1 but the Memory Effort (M) in CI is about the task of
remembering information between the point of hearing and writing down rather than
between the point of hearing and interpreting. Another slight difference is that the
Coordination Effort in CI coordinates Efforts L, N and M instead of Efforts L, P and
M. In addition, Effort P only appears in Phase Two, which is after the speaker has
ended a particular segment and the interpreter has finished taking the necessary notes.
Efforts N, Rem and Read are unique to the Effort Model for CI. Effort N
refers to note-taking which is necessary to help the interpreter recall content later on
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
22/83
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
23/83
23
the social context of a text, the environment in which meanings are being exchanged
(Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p. 12).
Among the various data Halliday uses in his analysis is an excerpt from a
religious talk delivered by the Bishop of Woolwich on radio. I choose to quote this
example to introduce Hallidays concepts because its religious nature makes it an apt
illustration of how the concepts can be applied to the study of the CSI context later on.
According to Halliday , the field of discourse refers to what is happening,
to the nature of the social action that is taking place: what is it that the participants areenga ged in, in which the language figures as some essential component. (Halliday
and Hasan, 1989, p. 12) In other words, the field of discourse is also about the topic
being discussed. Halliday describes the field of the religious talk as the maintenance
of an institutionalised system of beliefs: the nature of the Christian religion, and of
peoples attitudes towards it, at a semi-technical level. (Halliday and Hasan, 1989,
p.14)
The tenor of discourse refers to the identities, statuses and roles of the
participants as well as the nature of their participation. This includes the permanent
and temporary relationships of one kind or another (Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p. 12)
among the participants. In other words, the relationship between the participants in
terms of power and formality is also included in the discussion of the tenor. In the
case of the religious talk, Halliday describes the tenor as being authority to
audience (Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p. 14). Halliday points out that the bishop in
this case has authority in two senses. He is firstly a person with authority in the
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
24/83
24
Church and this is bestowed on him by virtue of his position as a bishop. On the other
hand, he is also an authority on religion, a theologian. (Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p.
14)
The mode of discourse , in short, refers to what part the language is
playing, what it is that the participants are expecting the language to do for them in
that situation. (Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p. 12) This includes the texts organisation,
status and function in the context as well as the channel, i.e. be it spoken, written or a
mixture of both. Halliday describes the mode of the bishops talk as that of a textthat was written in order to be read aloud, as a public act on the mass media
(Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p. 14) and he notes that it is a monologue and also a
persuasive text.
2.5 Xin Da Ya
The third objective of my study is to identify the CSI interpreters priorities. In other
words, I want to find out which among the core requirements of good interpreting
would the interpreter sacrifice or not sacrifice when she has difficulty satisfying all
the requirements. Before I can do this, however, I need to stipulate what the core
requirements of good interpreting are. To that end, I refer to Yan Fus concept of xin
da ya .
Although xin da ya and the other concepts I will be discussing in this section
usually appear in the context of translation (written), rather than interpreting (spoken),
I believe that they are relevant to my study because the focus on the act of converting
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
25/83
25
messages from one language into another applies to both translation and interpreting.
Besides, translation theories appear to offer more well-established frameworks and
ideas for me to work with while interpreting-specific research as regards the criteria
of good language conversion appear to be scant in comparison.
There are various English translations of xin da ya . For example, Munday
translates it as fidelity, fluency and elegance (2008, p. 28) whileHsu (1901/2004)
translates it as faithfulness, comprehensibility and elegance. To me, fidelity and
faithfulness are one and the same but I personally prefer fidelity as a translationof xin. For this study, I will use the translation of fidelity, comprehensibility and
elegance due to reasons explained insection 3.6.1 in the research methodology
section.
Xin da ya was a concept which originated in the writings of Yan Fu, a
renowned Chinese translator in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries (Schwartz, 1964).
Yan wrote in the preface to his translation of Evolution and Ethics that there were
three requirements that were difficult to fulfil in translation: xin da ya (Hsu,
1901/2004), i.e. fidelity, comprehensibility and elegance. Yan did not mean to set the
three qualities as the definitive standards of translation but nevertheless, xin da ya
gradually became commonly accepted as the hallmarks of good translation, especially
in Chinese academic circles.
Munday (2008) notes that some scholars have claimed th at Yans work was
influenced by Alexander Fraser Tytler. There are in fact some similarities between
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
26/83
26
Yans xin da ya and Tytlers three general laws of translation. Tytlers laws are as
follows:
(i) the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the
original work;
(ii) the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with
that of the original; and
(iii) the translation should have all the ease of the original composition.
(Munday, 2008, p. 27)Apart from Yan and Tytler, others such as Katharina Reiss and Hans J.
Vermeer have also put forward their own rules of translation. Reiss and Vermeer's
skopos theory is one oft-quoted example of translation theory. According to Munday,
skopos theory focuses above all on the purpose of the translation, which determines
the translation methods and strategies that are to be employed in order to produce a
functionally adequate result. (2008, p. 79) Therefore, even though skopos theory
emphasises that, among other things, the translated product must be internally
coherent and also coherent with the source text, the purpose of translation is placed at
the apex of its hierarchy of rules.
Among the various translation theories available, I have decided to use Yans
xin da ya for two reasons. Firstly, the three qualities fidelity, comprehensibility and
elegance sum up the basic requirements of good interpreting quite comprehensively.
An interpreters job is to convey a speakers message in another language, so to do
that, she would have to say what the speaker said (fidelity), ensure that the message is
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
27/83
27
conveyed (comprehensibility) and speak the target language well (elegance).
Secondly, xin da ya is a flexible concept which allows me to look at each of the three
requirements in turn without pre-assigning scales of importance to them. By contrast,
both Tytler and Reiss have laid out their rules in a clear hierarchical order, so to adopt
their hierarchies would be to run contrary to my objective of discovering the CSI
interpreters prior ities based on her output.
2.6 Performance of Charismatic ChristianityThe following excerpt taken from the writings of a scholar who undertook an in-
depth study into Charismatic Christianity gives a good idea of how services are set up
in the Charismatic tradition.
I found myself sitting not in the Victorian Gothic pile that I hadenvisioned but in a school hall on the edge of the city . The sermon was preached by a visiting Welshman although I admired the force andeloquence of his oration (and was surprised by its humour), I recall being evenmore struck by his keen control of the choreography and tone of theservice . Halfway through the hymn, the visiting preacher pushed the
pianist aside from his stool, took over the playing and transformed the hymninto a boogie- woogie version of itself. The hall erupted on cue.
(Coleman, 2000, p. 17)
Colemans observations in this excerpt echo what I experienced in renewalist
churches in the past six years. Among other things, he speak s of the preachers
eloquent and humorous delivery. This coincides with my impression of Charismatic
sermons. Charismatic preachers are usually articulate and they invariably strive to
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
28/83
28
ensure that they do not lose the attention of their audience by using humour and
questions that elicit responses such as Amen from the congregation.
Coleman also observes that Charismatic Christianity makes use of
powerfully charged language (2000, p. 117). Coupled with the loud and upbeat
worship music, it is no wonder that some people have said to me that attending a
Charismatic service is akin to attending a rock concert and a motivational talk all at
once. Regardless of how it may be described, the theatrical aspects in terms of the
momentum and the emotional charge of delivery are clearly very recognisablefeatures of Charismatic services, and they create an atmosphere which is distinctly
different from the relatively more subdued styles of most other denominations.
2.7 Charismatic Sermon Interpreting (CSI)
As mentioned in sub-section 2.2.2, churches sometimes use SI for particularly large
congregations with diverse language needs. However, more often than not
Christian interpreters find themselves onstage, next to the speaker. In such cases, the
speaker gives part of their message, ranging from a few words to the equivalent of a
paragraph before pausing to allow the interpreter to speak, and then continuing.
(Downie, 2009). Downie calls this form of CI Short Intervention Consecutive or
short consec.
As expla ined in section 2.6, the theatrics of Charismatic services are a
notable characteristic of such services. According to Downie (2009), interpreters are
often seen as co-preachers and are even expected to relay the same energy and
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
29/83
29
enthusiasm as the spea ker. This means that the CSI interpreter has to match the
emotional charge of her preacher.
In a nutshell, as mentioned in sub-section 2.2.4, CSI is usually a form of
conference interpreting performed in, in Downies terms, short consec mode. When
performing CSI, the interpreter has to ensure that she plays her part not just by doing
the interpretation verbally but also by playing her role as the preachers co-actor in
the delivery of a sermon which makes use of a wider range of vocal expression in
comparison to other styles of sermon delivery.
2.8 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I explored how CSI could be categorised in terms of type and mode. I
also explained key concepts such as Giles Effort Models, Hallidays field, tenor and
mode, and Yan Fu s xin da ya , i.e. fidelity, comprehensibility and elegance. The
performance of Charismatic Christianity and CSI was also discussed.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
30/83
30
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter explains the research methodology of this study. Section 3.2 introduces
the data, while section 3.3 explains how they were transcribed and processed. The
subsequent sections clarify how the tasks, constraints and priorities of CSI are
identified. Finally, section 3.7 lists the assumptions underlying this study.
3.2 Choice of Data
For the purpose of this dissertation, I have chosen to study an audio recording of a
Charismatic pastors sermon which is interpreted into Chinese (Mandarin). In the
recording, the preacher, Pastor Kong Hee, is heard preaching to a congregation of a
church in Malaysia which he was visiting. A disc containing this recording is
enclosed together with this thesis. The choice of data is appropriate for three reasons.
Firstly, Pastor Kong Hee is a Christian leader rooted in the Charismatic
Movement in Singapore (Kong, n.d.). This means that his sermons, including the one
in the recording, are delivered in a style that is representative of Charismatic
preachers.
Secondly, I have watched the interpreter interpret Pastor Kong live on
numerous occasions and it is clear to me that she has had much experience in
Charismatic sermon interpreting. Therefore, the interpreter is one who should be
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
31/83
31
reasonably au fait with sermon interpreting in the Charismatic tradition and this
makes the data meaningful for this research.
The third reason is a practical one. Authentic recordings of interpreters are
difficult to obtain, so the authenticity and availability of this audio recording made it
a natural choice for my study.
3.3 Transcription and Processing of Data
The recording is almost 50 minutes long but I have decided to transcribe and analysesix minutes in total: two minutes each from the beginning (00:00 02:00), middle
(24:00 26:00) and final (47:45 49:45) sections. There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, the data from the three sections have yielded clear and consistent
patterns. Hence, I think the six-minute long data are rich enough to represent the
recording overall. Secondly, my data analysis is essentially qualitative in nature, and
for the kind of in-depth, utterance-by-utterance analysis necessary for the
identification of CSI priorities, six minutes of the recording is an appropriate and
manageable length in view of the scope of this MA dissertation.
Nevertheless, it is true that the hierarchy of CSI priorities would only be
conclusive if there was a much larger sample size. However, as explained in section
1.3, this study is meant to be exploratory. Moreover, every effort has been made to
ensure that the data used provide good real-life, authentic examples of CSI so that my
findings are meaningful.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
32/83
32
3.4 Identification of Tasks
My first objective is to identify the CSI interpreters tasks. To that end, I will
examine the processes involved in the CSI interpret ers work and articulate them
through formulae inspired by GilesEffort Models as explained in section 2.3.
3.5 Identification of Constraints
I believe that interpreters will always strive to perform as well as they possibly can. It
is unlikely that any interpreter would wilfully deliver an interpretation that is lessthan desirable. However, there are times when certain constraints could prevent them
from delivering their best performance. To identify those constraints, I would need to
understand the context that the CSI interpreter operates in.
I aim to gain an understanding of the CSI context by using the concepts of
field, tenor and mode (Halliday and Hasan, 1989) as explained in section 2.4. I will
then proceed to investigate how such a context may pose challenges for the
interpreter. It will become clear that some of these challenges may in fact have a
positive impact on the CSI interpreters performance. However,this study is more
interested in the ones which constrain her performance. This is because such
constraints, which make it difficult for the interpreter to meet all processing capacity
requirements (Gile, 1995), would compel the interpreter to decide what she should
focus on with her limited processing capacity, i.e. what her priorities are.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
33/83
33
3.6 Identification of Priorities
My third objective is to find out which of the core interpreting requirements the
interpreter in my data would prioritise when it is not possible to meet all of them.
Before I can identify the priorities, I need to decide what the core
requirements are. As mentioned in section 2.5, I find Yan Fus xin da ya, i.e. fidelity,
comprehensibility and elegance, useful for this purpose.Sub-section 3.6.1 further
explains how I use the xin da ya concept to define the four core requirements of
interpreting, namely fidelity, comprehensibility, textual elegance and elegance indelivery .
To identify the priorities, I will analyse the transcript of the interpretation (see
appendix), investigate which of the four criteria are satisfied or not satisfied for each
utterance, and tabulate the results accordingly. The more often a requirement is met,
the higher the priority it is deemed to have. An utterance is defined as the words or
sounds uttered before pausing for the pastor or the interpreter to take his or her turn to
speak.
3.6.1 Fidelity, Comprehensibility and Elegance
As explained in section 2.5, I shall translate Yan Fus xin da ya as fidelity,
comprehensibility and elegance for the purpose of this study.
As this is an exploratory study, I shall talk about fidelity, comprehensibility
and elegance in their most basic terms. In this thesis, fidelity refers to the complete
interpretation of the semantic content of the speakers utterance while the
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
34/83
34
comprehensibility requirement is concerned with whether the meaning of the
interpreters utterance is clear to the intended audience. Elegance is examined on two
levels: firstly, whether the output of the interpreter is made up of well-formed and
idiomatic expressions in the targ et language; secondly, whether the interpreters
extralinguistic performance makes her a competent co-preache r (Downie, 2009).
I find using fidelity, comprehensibility and elegance to refer to Yan Fus
concept more appropriate for the purpose of this study than other versions such as
fidelity, fluency and elegance (Munday, 2008, p. 28). This is because the mentionof fluency in the context of interpreting brings to mind the flow of speech,
enunciation and other articulatory matters which are not within the scope of this study.
For my purpose, comprehensibility is a clearer indication of what I seek to
investigate, i.e. whether the audience can understand the interpreters utterances.
As for elegance, I am concerned not with the literary sophistication of the
interpreters output but with elegance in its simplest terms: firstly, whether the
interpreters utterances are well-formed, natural expressions in Chinese (textual
elegance) and secondly, whether the interpreter delivers her interpretation in a
manner that is appropriate to the CSI context (elegance in delivery).
3.6.2 Analysis of Fidelity
According to Nida, Since no two languages are identical there can be no absolute
correspondence between languages. Hence there can be no fully exa ct translations.
(2004, p. 153) Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of fidelity, the interpreter need
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
35/83
35
not interpret word-for-word but she must interpret the semantic content of the
speakers utterance in its entirety.
I admit this is not always an easy call but I believe that the following
principles which I have set for myself provide clear guidelines as to what is
semantically complete and what is not.
First and foremost, every semantic idea in the pastors original utterance must
be included. The interpreter may choose to use words with different meanings and
sentence structures but she has to convey every idea contained in the originalutterance. Simply put, if the pastor mentions apples and oranges, it would not
suffice for the interpreter to say only apples. Example 3.1 illustrates what I mean
by full reproduction of the semantic content.
EXAMPLE 3.1 (full reproduction of semantic content)
(24:38)
Pastor: All it does is to showcase your talent.
Interpreter:
(Literally: This only demonstrates your talent, thats all.)
In Example 3.1, the semantic ideas are all it does and showcase your
talent. The interpreters utterance includes both of the corresponding ideas, namely for all it does (or this only thats all) and
for showcase your talent (or demonstrates your talent).
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
36/83
36
In this study, I include interjections that carry meaning in my definition of
semantic ideas and they must be interpreted just like all other semantic ideas. On
the other hand, I do not consider omissions of interjections or particles that do not
carry any semantic information , such as you know in Example 3.8, a breach of
fidelity.
Example 3.2 is an instance of the interpreter interpreting an interjection which
is semantically significant.
EXAMPLE 3.2 (reprod uction of a meaningful interjection)
(24:42)
Pastor: Oh, you are a good copier.
Interpreter:
(Literally: You are just somebody who is good at copying.)
In Example 3.2, the ohis delivered with a perceptible hint of sarcasm in the
pastors tone which reveals that this is a deprecating statement about you, i.e. You
are nothing more than a good copier. This means that the oh actually has
semantic significance , as it changes you are a good copier, a relatively neutral
utterance, into a clearly negative statement about you.Although the ohis apparently missing from the interpretation, the
interpreter is able to fill the gap by adding the word just () to convey the
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
37/83
37
pastors disapproving tone. Therefore, the interpreter is still able to capture the entire
semantic content of the pastors utterance without repeating the oh outright.
Conversely, if there are omissions, additions or distortions of the semantic
content, the interpreter would be deemed to have failed the fidelity requirement.
EXAMPLE 3.3 (breach of fidelity with omission and addition)
(47:58)
Pastor: Cry to God with your heart.
Interpreter:
(Literally: Learn to call out to him loudly.)
In Example 3.3, the interpreter included learn and excluded your heart in
her interpretation. Therefore, she does not satisfy the fidelity requirement here, as the
semantic content of her interpretation does not match that of the pastors utterance.
3.6.3 Analysis of Comprehensibility
To satisfy the requirement of comprehensibility, the members of the congregation
relying on the interpretation must be able to understand the interpreters utterance .
Although it is not possible for me to interview the congregation, I do share the same
Chinese language background as most Christians who are native speakers of
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
38/83
38
Mandarin Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia, so I am in a good position to make
sound judgements as regards comprehensibility.
My analysis of comprehensibility is concerned with whether the audience is
able to understand the meaning of the interpreters utterance. Therefore, there is no
relation to the pastors utterances. In the following examples, I reproduce the pastors
utterance only for reference purposes.
EXAMPLE 3.4 (comprehensible)(00:33)
Pastor: To be above and not beneath.
Interpreter:
(Literally: To be above and not beneath.)
In Example 3.4, the interpreters utterance is comprehensible.
EXAMPLE 3.5 (awkward Chinese but still comprehensible)
(24:29)
Pastor: So you say, Oh, this pastor did this, I also want to have his dream.
Interpreter:
(Literally: Wow, you want tomake this dream , I want to have such a dream
too.)
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
39/83
39
It is not idiomatic to s ay or literally, make dreams in this context.
However, a Chinese-speaking Christian like me would have no problem in
understanding what the interpreter is trying to convey. Therefore, even though this
utterance sounds slightly awkward, the interpreter still meets the comprehensibility
requirement.
EXAMPLE 3.6 (incomprehensible)
(48:46)
Pastor: God is not calling you to a diminished life.
Interpreter:
(Approximation: God did not call you just so that you will never receive in
this life.)
This is an example which I would deem incomprehensible because it was only
after several attempts at decoding the interpreters utterance that I could arrive at the
above approximation. Incidentally, this utterance also fails the fidelity requirement
because a diminished life is not necessarily a life in which one will never receive
blessings.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
40/83
40
3.6.4 Analysis of Elegance
There are two levels of analysis for elegance; one is textual and the other is based
on performance.
On the textual level, to satisfy the requirement of elegance , the interpreters
utterances must be made up of only idiomatic and natural Chinese expressions .
There should not be any awkward expressions or phrases bearing undesirable
influence from the source language.
On the level of performance, the interpreter must be able to deliver herinterpretation, not just as an interpreter, but also as a co-actor , complete with the
emotional charge required to achieve the pastors intended effect. This is because as
mentioned in se ction 2.7, such interpreters are often seen as co- preachers and are
even expected to relay the same energy and enthusiasm as the speaker.(Downie,
2009) Unfortunately, as I do not have a video recording of the sermon, I am not able
to observe the inter preters body language. However, it is possible for me to focus on
her use of voice with the audio recording.
As my analysis shows that the interpreter made impressive use of her voice in
terms of dynamics, range and colour for every utterance, my following examples will
focus only on the textual level so that the reader will understand how I decide
whether an utterance is elegant or not.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
41/83
41
EXAMPLE 3.7 (idiomatic Chinese)
(24:55)
Pastor: When you are pregnant with a dream.
Interpreter:
(Liter ally: When you bear/carry a dream.)
Example 3.7 is an example which satisfies the elegance requirement. Instead
of giving a literal translation of pregnant which would notmake sense, theinterpreter used the word , which means to bear or to carry.
EXAMPLE 3.8 (awkward Chinese)
(00:23)
Pastor: You know, my good friend, Abraham Khoo in Taiwan, said this.
Interpreter:
(Literally: My good friend, Abraham Khoo in Taiwan, said this.)
The above example illustrates two things. First, interpreters may end up using
awkward Chinese if they are unduly influenced by the structure of English. Instead of
reordering the words to say , the
interpreter simply interpreted word-for-word, resulting in awkward-sounding Chinese.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
42/83
42
Second, although the interpreter does not satisfy the textual elegance
requirement, her audience would still be able to understand her perfectly and her
interpretation has captured the entire semantic content of the pastor s original
utterance. Therefore, it is possible to satisfy the fidelity and comprehensibility
requirements while failing the textual elegance requirement.
Finally, I would like to revisit Example 3.1. Although the interpreter s
utterance in the example is by itself a well-formed Chinese sentence, it sounds
awkward when it follows (Then I tell you,when this dream comes to pass. ). One possible formulation which could satisfy the
elegance requirement would be (Approximation: It
only demonstrates your tal ent, thats all.) It is clear from this example that the co-
text has to be considered when assessing the elegance of utterances because the
audience relying on the interpretation listens not only to individual utterances but to
the entire interpretation, so cohesion is a factor in determining if the Chinese output is
well-formed.
3.7 Assumptions
As I am neither able to conduct interviews with the pastor nor with the interpreter, I
need to make a few assumptions in my analysis. Given that I am a church-going
native speaker of Chinese who grew up in Singapore and have seen the pastor and
interpreter working in a cultural context I am familiar with on numerous occasions, I
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
43/83
43
believe that I have the necessary background knowledge to make valid assumptions
for the purpose of this analysis.
The first assumption that I make is that the interpreter in my data is a native
speaker of Chinese. Thus, any marked observation in her interpretation is not due to
her lack of proficiency in the target language.
The second assumption is that the interpreter in my data is an experienced CSI
interpreter. Thus, any marked observation in her interpretation is not due to
inexperience.The third assumption has to do with the identification of CSI priorities, i.e. the
core requirements which the interpreter satisfies more often than others. It would
appear that by attempting to identify the priorities through the interpreters output, I
am assuming that the interpreter makes conscious and deliberate efforts at
channelling her processing capacity towards fulfilling requirements that are of a
higher priority. In reality, there could be other reasons why an interpreter may fulfil
some requirements more often than others. For example, an interpreter may satisfy
the textual elegance requirement more often than she meets the fidelity requirement
because she could have an excellent command of the target language but her listening
skills and memory are poor. This would mean that she is naturally disposed to
making textual elegance her priority due to her own competencies or weaknesses and
not because she personally thinks that elegance should take priority over fidelity.
Again, as I have no access to the CSI interpreter in my data, it would be
impossible to find out why she satisfied or did not satisfy requirements in specific
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
44/83
44
instances. On the other hand, I believe that even with an interview, it is not
necessarily true that the interpreter herself would remember the details of her
performance or be aware of why she made certain decisions. In any case, bearing in
mind that this study is strictly an empirical observation of the interpreters output, the
motivations behind the prioritisations is immaterial because what I hope to do is to
describe what is occurring in the data rather than to prove the reasons for their
occurrence.
Furthermore, it is worthwhile pointing out that the data is a recording of awell-known pastor who founded the largest church in Singapore (The Christian Post,
2009) and the interpreter in the recording is one who has interpreted this pastor at
large-scale events countless times. I believe such an experienced interpreter would be
au fait with the objectives of sermon interpreting and she would strive to perform
according to accepted CSI norms.
3.8 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I have explained the research methodology of this study. I have
justified my choice of data, outlined my research design and explained my
assumptions.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
45/83
45
CHAPTER FOUR
CSI TASKS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the tasks CSI interpreters undertake in the course of their work.
The objective is to articulate these interpreting tasks through formulae adapted from
Giles Effort Models (1995) discussed in section 2.3.
4.2 CSI Tasks
As explained in sub-section 2.2.1, CSI may be considered as a form of CI because of
its turn-taking feature. Therefore, CSI tasks take place in two phases, as do Giles CI
tasks. I would describe Phase One, which takes place while the preacher speaks, as
Interpretation = L + M and Phase Two, which takes place while the interpreter
speaks, as Interpretation = (Rem) + P .
4.2.1 CSI Phase One
In CSI Phase One, the interpreter has to listen to and analyse the preachers utterance
(L) before she can understand it and commit the message to her short-term memory
(M).
Compared to Giles description of CI in Phase One, i.e.Interpretation = L + N
+ M + C, one clear difference in my description of CSI in Phase One is that N (Note-
Taking) and C (Coordination) do not exist.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
46/83
46
Effort N is not included in my equation because note-taking and note-reading
are neither required nor possible in CSI for practical and stylistic reasons. As I
explained in Chapter One, CSI involves a literally ceaseless flow of turn-taking.
Therefore, an interpreter taking and r eading notes would be liable to miss the beat
and fail to interpret immediately after the preachers brief utterance. Stylistically, the
congregation would find it odd to have a sermon interpreter taking notes when
standing next to her preacher in the pulpit, as notebooks and pens are rarely, if ever,
used in CSI or any form of sermon interpreting I have seen. Some may also argue thatgiven the short utterances the interpreters deal with, their short-term memory should
be sufficient for the purpose of interpreting. Therefore, Effort N does not exist in CSI.
Although Effort C is included in Giles description of CI Phase One and SI, it
is absent from CI Phase Two where the interpreter is free to perform at his or her
own pace. This is because unlike the first phase and simultaneous interpretation, the
interpreter does not have to share processing capacity between tasks while close to
saturation neither does there seem to be a need to introduce the Coordination
Effort. (1995, p. 180) Similarly, I do not think there is a need to introduce Effort C
in CSI Phase One either. Although Effort M (short-term memory) arguably occurs a
little after Effort L (listening and analysis), as the interpreter would have to listen and
understand something before committing it to memory, the amount of effort required
to coordinate the two tasks is minimal compared to the coordination efforts in Giles
CI Phase One and SI models. In fact, the effort required to coordinate L and M in CSI
Phase One is likely to be even smaller than in Giles CI Phase Two because the
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
47/83
47
interpreter performing CI with notes does have to make a conscious effort to ensure
that she can concurrently decode her notes (Read) and maintain a smooth flow of
output (P) while drawing on her long-term memory bank (Rem).
4.2.2 CSI Phase Two
While the preacher is the one speaking in CSI Phase One, the interpreter takes her
turn to speak in CSI Phase Two. In the majority of the situations, this production of
output (Effort P) is all that the interpreter needs to do in CSI Phase Two. However, asDownie (2009) notes, the speaker may give part of his message consisting of a few
words or may decide to speak for as long as a paragraph before he stops to let the
interpreter take over. In my experience attending Charismatic services with
interpreting, it is rare that the speaker would speak for an extended period beyond one
or two sentences. However, I do recall that it has happened and in such circumstances,
the interpreter will be expected to draw on her long-term memory resources to
perform her tasks in CSI Phase Two. This is why I have included Effort Rem in the
formula for this phase. Rem is in brackets because it only features in very rare
situations, and hence is not a default task in CSI.
Once again, as is the case with CSI Phase One, there is no need to include
Effort C even if Effort Rem is in the equation because the coordination required
would be minimal by Giles standards.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
48/83
48
4.3 Fewer Tasks = Easier Job?
Although my description of CSI tasks appears t o be simpler than Giles version of CI
and SI tasks, it does not mean that CSI is necessarily easier. For one, CSI interpreters
have absolutely no control over their pace. Even in SI, the speakers delivery will not
be disrupted even if the interpreter pauses for an extra second to think of a suitable
translation but in CSI, the interpreter must start interpreting immediately after the
preacher finishes his utterance and if she fumbles or hesitates, the pastors flow of
delivery will be severely impaired. Therefore, performing the interpreting tasks, nomatter how few, under such relentless time pressure cannot be easy. Chapter Five
explains in greater detail the constraints which CSI interpreters have to face.
4.4 Chapter Summary
This chapter has identified and discussed the interpreting tasks in CSI, and has thus
achieved the first objective of this study.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
49/83
49
CHAPTER FIVE
CSI CONSTRAINTS
5.1 Introduction
The second objective of my study is to identify the constraints the context of CSI
places on interpreters. To this end, I shall use Hallidays framework comprising the
field, the tenor and the mode to frame the CSI context.
5.2 Field of CSI
In the recording I have chosen to study, t he sermon entitled The Journey of a
Dreamis delivered by Pastor Kong Hee who preaches about how Christians should
receive their dreams from God and pursue them with faith based on biblical teachings.
Therefore, the field of the sermon is similar to that of the bishops talk quoted in
section 2.4, i.e. the maintenance of an institutionalised system of beliefs
(Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p.14).
Also similar to what Halliday observed in the bishops talk, Pastor Kongs
message is one that is of a persuasive nature. This is due to the fact that of the seven
key points made in the sermon (see Figure 5.1), the first six are in the imperative.
Thus, it is evident that the pastor is attempting to influence his audiences behaviour .
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
50/83
50
Figure 5.1: Key points of The Journey of a Dream
On the other hand, P astor Kongs sermon differs from the bishops radio talk
in that it was delivered in front of a live audience. Therefore, in the recording, one
can hear the pastor eliciting responses such as Amen and Hallelujah from the
congregation to ensure that his live audience was engaged. Such communicative
strategies are characteristic of Charismatic services I have attended.
Apart from the Charismatic preachers message and engagement with the
audience, the contemporary nature of the service also shapes the unique context of
Charismatic Christianity. As mentioned in section 2.6, the mood of Charismatic
services is generally more upbeat and emotive than solemn, and the music used is
more contemporary compared to traditional hymns. In the recording, Pastor Kong, as
do most Charismatic preachers I have seen, maintains a light-hearted and
(i) Point One: Get a dream from God.
(ii) Point Two: Ask God for a strategy to accomplish the dream.
(iii) Point Three: Wait for the Holy Spirit to come.
(iv) Point Four: Receive the Word from God. (The pastor said rhema
instead of word. According to BibleStudyTools.com, rhema
also means word.)
(v) Point Five: Surrender your will to God.
(vi)
Point Six: Do not be discouraged when the dream seems to be lost.(vii) Point Seven: Your dream will keep on growing once you have it.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
51/83
51
conversational style of delivery. Similar to what usually happens at Charismatic
services I attend, the conclusion of the sermon is accompanied by the band playing
light contemporary worship music sotto voce .
For the CSI interpreter in my data, the field would hence be the persuasive
and engaging interpretation of the pastors biblical message into the language of the
congregation in a contemporary church setting .
5.3 Tenor of CSIAs mentioned in section 2.4, Halliday describes the tenor of the bishops radio talk as
being authority to audience . (Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p. 14). This also applies
to Charismatic sermons because the preachers would have authority as theologians.
More often than not, they are also church leaders, so they would have authority in
terms of position as well, as was the case with the bishop. Pastor Kong, for example,
is the senior pastor of City Harvest Church in Singapore (Kong, n.d.).
The CSI interpreter would also be an authority by virtue of her position as the
de facto co-preacher whom the preacher has to rely on to have his message heard and
whom the congregation has to depend on to understand the sermon. This authority is
in part derived from her linguistic ability, which is a prerequisite for her role, and
partly because of the preacher and congregations dependency on her. However, her
authority would not exceed that of the originator of the message, i.e. the pastor.
Furthermore, in my experience, although CSI interpreters would generally need to
have biblical knowledge before they can be entrusted with the task of sermon
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
52/83
52
interpreting, they are not expected to have as much theological training as preachers
and are not necessarily church leaders themselves. Therefore, the interpreters
authority is different from and less than the preachers.
Taking the subject of the interpreters authority further, it should be noted that
although the CSI interpreter enjoys a certain amount of authority, as she is the
indispensable medium of communication between the preacher and the congregation,
she is also accountable to both: she needs to convey the preachers message correctly
in her translated version and she also has to ensure that the congregation understandsthe pastors message. Therefore, even though the interpreter may have a share of the
limelight as the co- preacher, her role is ultimately a subordinate one and she is only
given as much authority as is required to serve the preacher and the congregation.
Lastly, the congregation also plays an important part in the tenor of
Charismatic sermons. This is evident from how Pastor Kong continually tries to
engage the audience with animated use of his tone and frequent elicitations of
responses from the congregation. Charismatic preachers also often make liberal use
of big gestures and space on the stage to make their delivery more interesting.
Likewise, the interpreter is expected to perform her part accordingly. All this shows
that the c ongregations attention is not taken for granted but something which the
preacher and interpreter have to constantly woo. This acute awareness of the need to
actively engage the audience and the constant efforts at doing so characterise the
highly communicative style of Charismatic services.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
53/83
53
In view of the above features, the tenor of CSI could be described as the
interpreter serving as a linguistic medium transmitting information dictated by the
preacher to the congregation whose attention the preacher and interpreter constantly
seek .
5.4 Mode of CSI
While seasoned Charismatic preachers often appear to be naturally spontaneous when
speaking to their audience, their impactful and inspiring delivery is more likely to bethe result of careful preparation than a complete improvisation. It would take a
separate study to investigate the delivery of Charismatic sermons thoroughly but as
an observer, I have noticed that Charismatic preachers often have well-timed gestures,
and they rarely show signs of hesitation and disfluency throughout sermons lasting at
least about half an hour. Such a degree of fluency is unlikely to be achieved without
any preparation at all. However, it is not possible for me to judge if all Charismatic
preachers have their speeches written down as the Bishop of Woolwich did.
Therefore, instead of written to be read aloud (Halliday and Hasan, 1989, p.14),
the mode of Charismatic sermons could be more broadly phrased as prepared to be
performed.
A distinguishing feature of renewalist services I have attended, including the
Charismatic ones, is the emotional charge. For example, to maintain the uplifting
spirit of their sermons and capture the attention of their audience, Charismatic
preachers tend to elicit responses from the congregation, project their voice more and
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
54/83
54
speak at a more rapid pace which helps to sustain the energetic pulse underpinning
their services. Therefore, CSI interpreters would have to maintain the same
momentum when called on to perform their duties. This could explain why the turn-
taking between the preacher and interpreter has to be done so rapidly so that the
infectious drive to act is not lost as the preacher appeals to his audience to adopt or
maintain lifestyles in accordance with the teachings of the Bible.
To summarise, the mode of the CSI interpreter could be described as
dynamic conference interpretation (in consecutive mode) of a sermon prepared and performed by a preacher and aimed at persuading the audience.
5.5 Constraints in CSI
Having examined the field, tenor and mode, I shall now proceed to discuss how the
context of CSI may pose challenges for the interpreter and how these challenges may
prevent the interpreter from giving her most immaculate performance.
5.5.1 Subordination
Firstly, the subordination of the interpreter to the preacher is a factor that could
constrain the interpreters performance.
For instance, the field and tenor of CSI find the interpreter in a position which
is disadvantageous in terms of speaking rights because she has to be committed to
repeating what the preacher says and has no room to improvise content; this could be
a problem when she does not entirely understand what the preacher is saying. Other
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
55/83
55
than the fact that her output is dictated by the preacher, she is also constrained by the
fact that she is, more often than not, less of an authority in theology than the preacher
is. Thus, she may not know the examples or even anecdotes which the preacher may
bring up. In short, there is always a possibility that she may encounter something
unfamiliar. It is therefore of paramount importance that she listens (Effort L) and
remembers (Effort M) what the preacher says.
This constraint could be less of an obstacle if the interpreter is able to prepare
beforehand by obt aining a copy of the preachers speech, although it is unlikely thatthe interpreter would ever be able to eliminate the constraint of subordination by truly
knowing the preachers speech better than the preacher himself.
5.5.2 Time Constraint and Obligatory Emotional Charge
With regard to the mode, the interpreter has to overcome the time constraint of
having to keep up with the pace of the speaker (as explained in section 4.3) while
maintaining the emotional charge. This is because unlike Giles CI with note-taking,
CSI is such that the interpreter has to literally speak immediately after each utterance
made by the preacher who would himself be speaking to an up-tempo beat. On the
other hand, the positive side to this could be that the CSI interpreter may herself be
inspired by the emotional charge in the preachersfast-paced delivery and this could
provide the drive for her to deliver a more spontaneous and impactful interpretation,
thus enhancing her production (Effort P).
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
56/83
56
5.5.3 Processing Requirements
The tasks which the interpreter has to deal with in Phase One, i.e. Effort L and Effort
M, have to be performed very quickly because of the rapid pace of delivery.
Furthermore, given the brevity of the utterances, it is possible that the
preacher may sometimes give very little context in individual utterances. The
interpreter may then have to analyse more carefully to anticipate what the preacher
may say next in Effort L so that her reformulation would make sense. If she allocates
too much processing capacity and time to this listening and analysing effort, shemight fumble with her output in Effort P because she would not be able to react in
time to think of a good translation which is comprehensible and idiomatic all at once.
5.6 Chapter Summary
This chapter has examined the field, tenor and mode of CSI and offered insights into
the constraints placed on CSI interpreters.
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
57/83
57
CHAPTER SIX
CSI PRIORITIES
6.1 Introduction
The third objective of my study is to identify the priorities in CSI. In this chapter, I
present the results of my analysis and state the hierarchy of priorities.
6.2 Hierarchy of PrioritiesSection Total no. of
utterances(%)
No. ofutterancesthat meetfidelity
requirement(%)
No. ofutterancesthat meet
comprehensi-bility
requirement(%)
No. ofutterancesthat meet
textualelegance
requirement(%)
No. ofutterancesthat meetelegance
requirementin delivery
(%)00:00 02:00
30 (100) 27 (90) 30 (100) 20 (66.7) 30 (100)
24:00 26:00
35 (100) 31 (88.6) 35 (100) 31 (88.6) 35 (100)
47:45 49:45
43 (100) 38 (88.4) 41 (95.3) 36 (83.7) 43 (100)
Averagerate of
meetingrequirement
89% 98.43% 77.67% 100%
Figure 6.1: Summary of findings in transcript
Figure 6.1 presents a summary of my findings from analysing the transcript in
the appendix. In the first two minutes of the recording, out of a total of 30 utterances,
27 satisfied the fidelity requirement, all 30 satisfied the comprehensibility
requirement and 20 satisfied the textual elegance requirement. In the 24th to 26th
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
58/83
58
minutes, out of a total of 35 utterances, 31 satisfied the fidelity requirement, all 35
utterances satisfied the comprehensibility requirement and 31 utterances satisfied the
textual elegance requirement. In the last two minutes of the recording, out of a total
of 43 utterances, 38 satisfied the fidelity requirement, 41 satisfied the
comprehensibility requirement and 36 satisfied the textual elegance requirement. In
all three sections, the elegance requirement was satisfied in every instance in terms of
delivery.
Figure 6.1 also shows that on average, the fidelity requirement was satisfiedin 89 per cent of all utterances, the comprehensibility requirement was satisfied in
98.43 per cent of all utterances, the textual elegance requirement was satisfied in
77.67 per cent of all utterances and the requirement of elegance in delivery was
satisfied in 100 per cent of all utterances. Across all three sections, the
comprehensibility requirement was consistently satisfied at a higher rate than the
fidelity and textual elegance requirements. In two of the three sections, the fidelity
requirement was satisfied at a higher rate than the textual elegance requirement.
In this study, the requirement that is satisfied more frequently is deemed to
have higher priority. Therefore, as shown in Figure 6.1, the hierarchy of priorities in
CSI should be, in descending order, elegance in delivery, comprehensibility,
fidelity and textual elegance .
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
59/83
59
6.3 First Priority: Elegance in Delivery
The interpreter in the recording satisfied my requirement of elegance in delivery in
every instance. Through the recording, I could hear that she was projecting her voice,
and she constantly made good use of tone and emphasis to convey the pastors
message. Her communicative prowess shone through her confident delivery, as every
utterance was filled with conviction, and she even improvised interjections such as
in the second section of the transcript to convey the slightly mocking tone of
the pastor s utterance.
The interpreter never failed to start her interpretation right after the pastor
finished his utterance, so the seamless flow of turn-taking typical of CSI was
maintained. In short, owing to the competent delivery of the interpreter, the overall
momentum of the Charismatic sermon was preserved throughout and the pastors
enthusiasm was transmitted to the congregation.
Given that the interpreter maintained a 100 per cent achievement rate of
elegance in delivery, it is clear that this should be the top CSI priority in my data.
6.4 Second Priority: Comprehensibility
Coming a close second with an average satisfaction rate of 98.43 per cent is the
requirement of comprehensibility. As a Christian with a Chinese language
background presumably similar to that of most congregation members addressed in
the recording, I found that the interpreter was highly comprehensible in her output
8/12/2019 Benajmin Foo on Sermon Interpreting.doc
60/83
60
despite the constraints she had to operate within, as only two out of a total of 108
utterances were deemed incomprehensible.
It should be pointed out that I was able to make sense of those two utterances
eventually but given that this was an interpreting situation with a live audience, as
opposed to a written piece of translation which offers readers time to ponder over the
text, I had to deem them incomprehensible because I could not understand the
interpretation the first time I heard it.
6.5 Third Priority: Fidelity
The fidelity requirement ranks third in priority. I personally found the average
achievement rate of 89 per cent surprisingly low for two reasons. Firstly, the source
utterances were not long and should theoretically be easy to commit to memory.
Secondly, since the interpreter was subordinate to the pastor in terms of tenor
relations, I thought she would have stuck more clos ely to the content of the pastors
utterances, especially since he was preaching the Word of God. While it is not
possible to prove what prevented the interpreter from achieving a higher fidelity rate
in this study, I can suggest some plausible reasons.
Firstly, as explained in sub-section 5.5.2, CSI interpreters are subject to severe
time constraints. As a result, the interpreter in the recording might have found it
difficult to perform Tasks L and M adequately within such a short time frame, and
this could have led to mishearing and memorisation