'|). |, | || t l 1 A ,, ^ / --0.. '4 ",Í^/\11fu ln J-! ^t a-f-,t-er> ' Í\JUL!- 7L-IA{( ( 'l \ I (1; '{l\\ "\ ,'r-{rt"l)( \ / /l .} J\-' ,"é *l$ o

SCRIBE OR ACTOR?A SURVEY PAPER ON PERSONALTTY PROFILES OF

TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS

ByIngrid Kurz, Elvira Basel, Doris Chiba, Wcrncr Patels and Judith Wolíliamrn

Institut für Übersctzcr- und Dolmctschcrausbiltlung, Univcrsity of Vicnna

l. Introduction

Despite the growing numbcr of publications on a varicty of Íhccts oí.

translation and interpreting studies, very little material exists on the personality

of translators and interpreters. A seminar class led by Prof. Ingrid Kurz at the

Institute of Translation and Interpreting at the University of Vienna, Austria, set

itself the task of identifying the personality traits considered typical oftranslators and interpreters by practitioners and researchers in the field as well as

by beginners and advanced students at the Vienna Institute.

This paper deals with existing literature in the field as well as a survey

conducted among two groups of students. Both the theoretical and empirioalparts of the paper are based on the communication value orientation model byPierre Casse (1981: 127 ff). Personality traits considered necessary for or typicaloftranslators and/or interpreters by various authors were identified and related to

Casse's value orientations. Subsequently, Casse's self-assessment exercise was

administered to beginners and advanced students at the Vienna Institute.

2. Communication value orientations accordins to Casse

Thecommunicationvalue orientation model by Piene Casse (1981: 121 tr)distinguishes four groups of "communication value orientations": action-

oriented, process-oriented, people-oriented, and idea-oriented.

I' Kurz, E' I]usel, I'). Chi|sa, W, I,uttl,t utul J, WolÍ|i.ttnnt

Figurc l: Communication valuc orienta(ions uccordinc to eusse

IVHAT

CETTINO THINOS OONEAQHIEVINO

DOINO

WHY<

HOw

(tilrl

c x('l

lil ls

()n(t

itllil()il(:

ilUrlliurirssi

ol s

zl0 r

w()l

rcslcxl'lusk

intr

lhcirrtr

,l

CONCEPTSTHEoR|É8

TNNOV TION

sTH^T€GlEsOROANIZATION

FACTS

coMr.UNIc^Í|ol{FÉL^Í|oNa

lSuTn*WHO

Adapted from: Casse, Pierre. 1981, Training fttr the Cross-eulturttlMind: A Handbook frtr Cross-Cullurul Trainers and Consultants.Washington: Sietar.

- The action-oiented style is dominant in people who "liko action, doing,achieving, getting things done, improving, solving problems,'.

- The process-oiented style dominates in people who "like facts, organizing,structuring, setting up strategies, tactics".

- The people-oiented style is typical of individuals who "like to focus onsocial processes, interactions, communication, teamwork, social systems,motivation".

- The idea-oiented style is considered typical of people who "like concepts,theories, exchange of ideas, innovation, creativity, novelty".

According to casse, everybody possesses all four value orientations to someextent, but has a dominant orientation or one he/she feels most comfortablewith.

The value orientation model was chosen for this paper because it deals withintercultural communication. David and Margareta Bowen (D. Bowen 1994: l7g)used the same model and casse's self-assessment exercise to determine theweight ofthese value orientations on large groups of candidates to the enranceexamination of the Division of Interpretation and Translation at Georgetownuniversity, but do'not report any findings. The self-assessment exercise is easyto administer and score. However, the first-person statements used may leadrespondents unconsciously to assess themselves rather than the "tvDical"

bytlÍ.

wocritirr

tlÍ'

c()t

lnI

imÍilrEX

pr(tn

vu

)lng,

'ino

ton)ms,

)pts,

able

vith78)the

lnce)wn)asy

lcadral "

Scribe or Actor?

translator or interpreter. Furthermore, as the language of Casse's self-assessmentexercise is English, it cannot be excluded that some statements may have beenmisinterpreted by the beginners group in the present study.

casse's questionnaire, which was used to analyze communication valueorientation, consists of forty pairs of first-person statements which describeattitudes and personality traits. Respondents are asked to select in each pair theone they feel to be typical of their own personality' The Statements aÍenumbered consecutively I through 80; each statement is assigned to one of thefour value orientations (action, process, people, idea), with 20 statementsassigned to each orientation. To score the self-assessment exercise. the numberof selected statements for each style is recorded, with ail four styles adding up to40 and a maximum score of 20 for any one value orientation. A balanced resultwould therefore be a score of 10 for each value orientation.

For the purpose of this study, the instruction was changed so thatrespondents were required to select in each pair of statements the one they wouldexpect to hcar from a translator resp. an interpreter. one half of the sample wasasked to evaluate translators first, the other half began with the assessment ofintelprcters. In addition, respondents were requested to give information as totheir age and gendor and how long they had been students of translation and/orinterprctation.

3. Literature rcview

Litcratr.rrc on the subject is scarce; thcre are, howevor, some articles, mostlyby practising translators ancl interpretcrs, clcaling with the personality structuresof nrembcrs oÍ'thesc professions. As early as 1949, Paulovsky (1949: 39 fl)workcd out guidclincs for aptitude tests, in which he included roughly 100 (!)critcria lbr thc intcllcctual, moral, and practical qualities of candidates. At thattimc, no clistinction was made between personality styles of translators and thoseof interprcters.

In the early cighries, a large-scale stress stucly was carried out amongconl'ercncc intcrpreters by cooper et al. (1982). The outcome showed thatintcrprcters tend to be slightly Type A oriented, a pattern of behaviour thatirnplics the following pcrsonality factors; "oxtrcmos of competitiveness, strivinglbr achicvcnrent, aggrcssivcncss, haste, impatience, rcstlessncss, hyperalertness,explosivencss oí'spocclr, tcnsencss ot facial musclcs, and íbeIings of being un<lcrpressure Öf time ancl uncler thc challengc of responsibility" (coopcr ct al. l9g2:102), I-lowever, intcrpreters' Type A clrientation eliel not rcach a particularlyvulnerable risk levcl. sinco thc survcy concenlmled on strcss rathcr than on

I. Kurz., E. lhtsel, I). Chibu, W. l\tte:lr- arrrl .1. ttlitlJfnutrttr

pcrsonality stylcs, rt cannot bc direrctly conrparecr with c^ssc,s valucoricntations.

3.1 Comparisons with Cassc

In tlrc f<lllowing, an attcmpl is nucle to .olnparo a sclcction oí' puhlicaticlnson personality traits of translators and intcrpretors with Cassc's valuc oricntationmodcl.

3, I. I llerbert

Hcrbert (1952:5) risrs two basic quaritir:s, aparr ri..r' a gr:od rrrcnrory,requircd ol'interpretcrs:,"a capacity for hcing passivory rcccptivc', ancr ,,quick-wittcdncss". Hc notcs that although thosc two qualitics "arc rrot cxccptionallyrarc, (...) thcir combination is vcry uncolnnon".

In terIns oÍ Casse's cornmunication stylcs, this woulc| point tcl a paoplt-orientation (receptive) and an action orientation (quick-wittcrtnlss) in intcrpreters.

3.1.2 Henschelmann

In an essay on thc training of translators, Henscrrerm ann (r974:72) dcscribestranslating in the following way;

"a task between understanding, searching and producing which requiresabsolutc concentration on the source text, conscientiousness,perception and empathy, linguistic sensitivity, thoroughness an<lresponsibility in detail, an enquiring mind, persistence aniendurance.It is sometimes coupled with stress and frustration and creates self._consciousness rather than elitarian feeling.,,

This would point to a people oientation (understanding, perception,empathy) and a process orientation (thoroughness, responsibility in detail) fortranslators.

Henschelmann's description is not the result of an empirical study but theoutcome of her professional judgement.

tL_.

I

i.

Scribe or Actor?

3.1.3 Keiser

A few years later, Keiser (1979: 17) describes personal qualities ofinterpreters in a paper on the selection and training of interpreters. From hisexperience as a professional interpreter and professor at the University ofGeneva, he includes the following personality requirements in his list:

(...) the faculty of analysis and synthesis, together with the ability tointuit meaning; the capacity to adapt immediately to subject matter,speakers, public, and conference situations; the ability to concentrate;good short- and long-term memory; a gift for public speaking and apleasant voice; intellectual curiosity and intellectual probity; tact anddiplomacy; above average physical endurance and good nerves.

All Íbur of Casse's value orientations can be found in Keiser's description ofinterpreters, with a clear prepondorance of people orientation (adapt immediatelyto speakers, public, and conÍbrence situations; a gift for public speaking and aplcasant voice; tact iurd diplomacy). Action orientation is represented in "to

a<lapt immediately to subject mattor", process orientation in "the faculty ofanalysis and synthesis", idea orientarion in "intellectual curiosity".

3.l .4 Henderson ( 1980)

A pcrsonality survcy was carriccl out by Henderson (1980) to compare thcpcrsonality traits oÍ. a samplc o|. interpreters with those clf a sample oftrurrs|ators. All oí' the trans|atr:rs urd intorpreters participating in the survcyworkctJ lbr intcrnational organizations, most of them as permanent stalT, TheÍindings therelbrc rcl'lcct (o a largc dcgrec the situation oÍ. staff translators rux|

interprctcrs and not so nruch of frcc-lanccrs.Btuscd on rcspor]scs to a qucstion asking íbr a description ol' thc '.typical''

translator, llcn<icrson (1980:220) clcscribos the "typical" translator as follows:

(...) a pcrf.ectionist, sclÍ..sut.l.icicnt and l.airly adaptablc introvert,obviously intcrested in Ianguage and a rangc oÍ.other subjects, withlinitecl antbition, liking routine, socially isolate<l an<l sul'íbring fromartistic frustration, who is nt thc sanrc lime a sclf'-doubting, ecccntricpcclant !

"fhc .'typical,' translator would thercÍbrc score ra(hcr low on action ()rientdtiol|(pcrl'ectirrnist, lirnitccl ambition, liking routino) nnd cvcn lowcr on peopleorienkiliut (introvcrt, socinlly isolatcd), 'l'hc chnractcristics "intercstcd in (...) a

I. Kurz,, E. Ilctstl, D. Chiba, W. patcls and J. WolJliuurutr

rangeof othersub.iects''and'.suÍferingfrtlmartistic frustation,.scenl to point trlan idea orientation.

As regards thc "typical" interpretcr, Hendcrson (1990: 223'l sumnrarizcs rhcresponses to the rclevant qucstion as fbllows:

A self-reliant, articulate extrovcrt, quiok and intclligenr, ajack-of-ail,trades and something of an actor, superficial, arrogant, riking varictyand at times anxious and frustrated (...)

Action orientation (quick) and people orientation (extrovcrt, actor) iuc botlrapparent. Idea orientation could be dcduced from 'Jack-oí..all-traclcs'' anc| ',likingvariety".

3.L5 Henderson(1987)

In a more comprehensive personality survey, Hendcrson (19g7: 67administered cattell's sixteen Personality Factor euestionnaire to a sampletranslators and interpreters. He identifies the resulting personality profilctranslators as follows:

reserved, intelligent, affected by feeling, practical, humble, sober,conscientious, shy, apprehensive, conservative, self_sufficient.controlled, introverted, anxious, having tough poise, subdued.

Related to cassc's model, translators would score low on people orientation(reserved, shy, introverted) and high on process orientation (practical, sober,conscientious, controlled).

As regards interpreters, Henderson presents the following profile:

outgoing, intelligent, assertive, happy_go_lucky, venturesome, self_assured, experimenting, group-dependent, tense, extraverted, anxious,having tough poise, independent.

on casse's scale, this would point to a strong people orientation (outgoing,group-dependent, extraverted) and to an action oientation (assertive, happy_go_lucky, venturesome).

3.I.6 Szuki

' Another personality survey of translators and interpreters was carried out bySzuki (1988) at the university of Keio. His sample consisred only of so-called

f0ofof

rt to

i the

botltiking

,'-y] |Í)

ple <tl

iilc ol-

'il1(ltl()ll

sol)L: f ,

rltgolllg'rpt)y.go-

d out byso-cllle{l

Scribe or Actor?

wcll.lrtJaptc<l tranSlators and interpreters, based on woÍk experience, tnerr

t stinrirtion of the job and employers' judgements'

Szuki's Íindrngs suggest that translators are patient, cheerful, humorous ard

rrr:livc.'fhey .. in"t""-Ji"^'"t,,' i"t*cultural contact on the job and in daily

lilb,nnrlhaveanintt'"'t-inlookingafterothers(whichrequiresalotofpatience)rrrrrl voluntarY work'

l(clatcdtoCasse'sfourvalueorientations'translatorshavelprocessttricttttltkltt (patient)''j-; sírong people o.ientation (intercultural contact'

ltltlking irÍier others) .'" e,,i,-, *t,,,o)ion ,, present (active), while idea

ttritttlaliotthardly exists,;;ő;" Jescribes.idea-oriented people as ego-centered'

wlroroas Szuki's n"di";;;;;""tl*"tt include a strong interest for looking after

""tl'n,.,'nr"t'"rs, aocording to szuki' are progressive' oxtrovert and have high

rrclticvoncnt lnotrves' At the same tlme' they are interested in verbal

r,rortttttunicalion as well as mass communication antl journalism' in social

issrrcs, plrysioal labor and in deepening insight into peoplc'

ln lc'ns nt. corr",r'uutu" ori.nto,ions, interpreiers therefore possess acllon

r tt,i ( rtr trtion(high achiwement motives) and strong people orientation (extroven'

sociitl issttcs, ctc.)' Idea orientation is suggested by "progressive"",l.lrc alrove ""*ó;;;;._ú",*."n

!^i'ring litárature- on the personality

1rr,tt|.ilcs <lÍ' translatoJ. unJ in,",p."ters and Casse's value orientations are

suruttrariz,ccl in 'fable i and Table- 2 below' As regarcls translators' an overall

Irr-:ndttrwardsprocess'"tu'totio'canbeobserved'Authorsclisagreeonpeoplettrirtrlttlittnin t,nn'tatc.)i'' Wh"'"u' Henschelmann irnd Szuki considcr it present'

llorulcrson lirund the ,rpp".ri"ir""a in both his studies. lntcrpreters alre attributed

r, (, t i l, n ( ) r i,(|, l taljon arrd sÍrong p e cl p I e o ri entat 0 |l,

'l'rr lt lr: |:'l'ritnrlators' pcrsonality prolile

lÍonclcrson (l9!]I Szukillcnse hclmann Henclerson ( ptQ)-

Acl i()ll a a

o o aa|)coDIc

l(lt:il

'l'rrblc 2l lnterprctors' personality profilc

Henderson (19!Q) ttcnduson (1987) SzukiI lcrbcrt Keiscr

A 0l l ()Íl o a a a a

I ttr lccs s a

a ao aoItcrrtrIc o aaItlcrt

a

Wol/iuntnrl0 I. Kurz, E. Bascl, D. Chibu, W. I'etttls ruul J.

3.2 F-ortin

After this gcneral review o|provious Íindings and vicws hclt| by cxpcricnccdpractitioners, teachers and researchers, an attcmpt will bc mtrdc to analyzc howbcginner students eif trans|ation and intcrprctíltion soe thc two prtlí.cssionalgroups. The analysis is basocl on a diploma the sis which invcstigateclsociodemographic data of treginner studcnts at the Vienna Institutc (Fortinl992). Although tlre study did not primarily í.ocus on personality traits o|.

translators and interpretcrs, these can be dct|uccd íiorn qucstions rcgarcling theskitls students considered esscntial in tho cxcrcise o[ tho two profcssions.

The evaluation of thc answcrs to thosc qucstions suggcsts that (rilnslators ilBconsidcred by beginner students to havc ctcticttr orientatirsn, tts thcy nccd quickreactions and tlre ability to grasp mcaning irnmediatcl y' Process oricúaÍiott,cvaluated on the basis of how important a scientil'ic approach to problcms wasconsidered, was accorded low importanoc. In contrast, peopl.c oricntcttktn wasstrongly reprcscnted. In terms of idea orientution, asscsscd on thc basis olreactions to the statemcnt "I chose this course o1 study bccause it concentratcson practical skills rather than theoretical knowledge", aspiring translators scorcdslightly below average on a six-point scalc.

Quick reactions and the ability to grasp meaning immediately wcrcconsidered even more important for interprcters than for translators, suggestingan even higher action orientation. Process orientation was accorded as low animportance as for translators. Interpreters scorcd even higher than translators interms of people orientation However, they scored very low on idea orientation.This tendency is further corroborated by Fortin's finding that aspiring translatorsarcorded much greater significance to the ability to abstract than did aspiringinterpreters (Fortin 1992: 59).

using the same legend as in Tables I and 2, Fortin's findings are represontcdin Table 3 below. As above, interpreters receive high scores on actionorientation ud people orientation. However, the personality profile oftranslators does not coincide with previous findings.

Table 3; Beginning students' views of translators and interpreters (Fortin 1992)

Translators InterpretersAction o aaProcess oPeople o aaIdea

blank space: no prediction madeorientation not presentorientation presentstrong presence of orientation

oaa

Scribe or Actor?

4. Questions and hypotheses

The study of the literature reviewed revealed a preponderance of process udpeople orientation among translators and of action and people orientation among

interpreters, This leads to the following question:

Will the results of the survey confirm the findings in the literature?

Assuming that the views of students of translation and interpretation maychange in the course of their studies, as they are exposed to theory and practical

training, another question may be raised:

Will beginners and advanced students differ in their views of the "typical"translator and interpreter?

On the assumption that Casse's value orientations and questionnaire have anyvalidity in this respect and on the basis of the above questions, the followinghypotheses may be established:

(1) Theresultsofthesurveywill reÍlecttheviewsexpressedintheliterature.(2) Beginncrs and advanced students may differ in their views of the "typical"

translator and interpretcr, with the latter's view conesponding more closelyto the litcrature.

ll

5.5.1

Dcscription of samplcsBtginners

Thc sarnplc of beginner studonts consisted of participants in an introductoryclass requirod of all students, aiming at communicating basic thcoretical arxl

prolbssional knowlcclge on translation and intcrpreting. This class was chosen onthc assumption that participants would be at the very beginning of their studiesand have littlc prior knowledge ol'translation and interprcting, i.e. they would be

largely unflwaro o[ studics carricd out hitherto on tho porsonality traits oftranslators and intcrprctcrs.

Of the 57 c;ucstionnaires returned by this group, 26 were eliminated forseveral rcásons' Six o|'thcsc questionnaircs wcro not takcn into considcrationbccause thc rcspondcnts wcrc in thcir 4th or higher scmcster of study; it was

assunrcd that they woultl alrcady havc bcen confrontcd with information arxl

expcriences that rrright iní]ucncc thcir vicws of translntors and intcrpretors. onerespondent ljtilctl to inclicatc tltc nurnbcr tlÍ. scmcstcrs hc/shc lrlrc| bccn stu<'lying.

I

I

i

l

i

12 L Kurz, I!. Iluscl, I.). Chilta, W. Patelti unt! J. Wril"lli.anun

l9 qucstionnaircs had not bccn complctccl; orrrissions rangccl ltclnr oncunanswercd pair oÍ stiltcnrcnts to wholo pages missing.

of thc rcmaining 3l rcsponclcnts, 27 werc fcnralc a.rrcl thrcc wcro malci oncrespondcnt lailcd to indicatc gcndcr. Thc average Írgo was 19.63 years; oneresponclent dicl not inclicate age. The averago numbcr of scmcsters was 1.26. oncrespondcnt did not indicate a number of scmestcrs, but was assurncd to bc nearthc bcginnirrg of hcr studies sn the basis of her age (20).

5.2 Advanced studcnts

The samplc o[advanced students consisted of participants in a meclium-lovclconsecutive interprotation class, an advanccd class in sirnultancous intcrprctationand an advanced translation class.

of thc 42 questionnaircs rcturncd by this group, throc worc not takcn intoaccount for evaluation bccausc they were incomplctc. ot' the remaining 39respondents, 32 wcre fcmalc and 6 were male; onc responclent lailc<t to indicategender. The average age was 24.2r years; again, no data were available lbr oncrespondent. The average numbor of semesters was 8.89; one respondent failcd to.rgive relevant information, while another indicatcd that she had completedgraduate studies in translation.

6. Results of the survey6.1 Translators

Table 4 and Figure 2 compare beginners' ánd advanced students' assessmontof translators. Both sample groups scored translators highest at processorientation. Beginners assessed translators' process orientation at 1r.452;advanced students gave them 13.077. The difference between the two groups wassignificant (p = 0.05).

The assessment of all other orientations yielded no significant difference. Asregards action orientation, beginners and advanced students both scoredtranslators below 10, with beginners giving them 9.25g and advanced studentsgiving them 8.231.

Beginners' and advanced students' assessment of people oientation intranslators did not differ significantly, at 9.29 and 9.359 resp.

In terms of idea orientation, translators received a score of l0 from besinnersand a score of9.333 from advanced students.

Scribe or Actor?

Table 4: Translators as assessed by beginners and advanced students

Figure 2: Translators as assessed by beginners and advanced students

l4

IJ

I one

c; onei; oncr. OncrC neaf

ti-levc:l

ctation

:n intoing 39

ndicatclilr oncrilcd to

nplctcd

issfilent

I)rol ass

| 1.452;

0ps wils

:ncc. Ari

scorcd

students

úion itt

cgr nne l's

ri

:

i

6.2 Interpretcrs

As can bc sccn liom Table 5 and Figure 3, both sample groups s,cored people

orierlttttiott in intcrpreÍcrs above l0, with beginners giving thcrn l0.968 atxl

udvancccj studcnts giving them I L795. The diffcrcncc was not signifioant.

A signit]cant clifí.crcnce (p = 0'0l) was obtained for actitln orientation, where

bcginners gavo intcrprctcrs 9.839, whilo advanccd studcnts acconled them

||,692, the sceoncl highcst scorc accorded to interpreters in th€ survoy'

The rating of intcrprcters foÍ prclcess orientation was low. Advanced studcnts

gavo them 7. 128, thc lowest result in thc entire survey, whilo bcginners Save

thcnr 9.5l6, thc dií.l'-ercncc bcing significant (p = 0.0l).As regartls idea rlrientatlort, intcrprcters rcccivec| a scorc ell' 9.ó77 frorn

beginners and a scorc o|'9.359 Íronr advanced studcnts.

Beginners Advanced

Mean St.dev. Mean St.dev. Difference

Action 9.258 2.30 8.231 n Á| n.s.

.Process t1.452 3.69 t3.o't'l 2.66 s. (p = 0.05)

People 9.29 3.48 9.359 z.9l n.s.

Idea t0 2.21 9.333 2.28 n.s.

0

Table 5; Interprctcrs as asscssccl try hcginners and nclvanced studcnts

Bcginncrs AdvanccclMcan S t.rlc v. Mcan St.dcv. Dil'fcrcncc

Action 9.83 9 l.ll) | | .692 2.7 2 s. (P = 0.01Process 9.5l ó 3.09 7,t28 2.99 s. (n = 0.01)Peoplc r0.968 3.04 I l 795 3.41 n. s.Idca 9.677 2.29 9.35 9 2.67 n.s.

t4 I. Kurz, E. Ilat;t:1, D. Cltitru, W, Irtt!ctls tutet J. Wott'liitnuqr

Figurc 3: Interpretcrs as assesscd by boginncrs ancl advanced stuclcnts

l2

t0

8

6

4

1

0

Action P€opl€

6.3 Dffirences between translators cvtdbeginners

ldeB

interpreters as parceived by

f r 'l

it{lvrri

llllr'll

lllrtll(

t!ll,lll

I

Ix'lu

| ,rl rlr

l'tut

.ll::lr L'it

/.1

('xlr

llltilillllsllrl( llirllolrr,ltt

ttt it

sl u(

(lu t

lltliSiIII

lll('rrrrl

l)lil

As shown in Table 6, beginners' assessment of process orientation <tiffercdsignificantly (p = 0.05) for translators and interpreters (r r.452 ancl 9.516 resp.).

The difference was also significant (p = 0.05) as regards people orientation(translators: 9.29; interpreters: 10.968).

Beginners' assessment of idea and action orientation did not differsignificantly for the two professional groups.

Table 6: Beginners' assessment of translators and interpreters

Translators InterbretersMean St.dev. Mean St.dev. Difference

Action 9.258 2.30 9.83 9 2.16 n. s.Process l |.452 3.69 9.516 3.09 s, (o = 0.05'Peoole 9.29 3.48 r0.968 3.04 s. (p = 0.05)Idea 10 2.2r 9.677 2.29 n.s

Scribe or Actor?

6.4 Differences between translators and interpreters as perceived by advattcedstudents

As can be seen from Table 7, there was a significant difference (p = 0.01) inadvancedstudents'assessment of process orientation in translators (13.077) ardinterpreters (7.128).

The difference was also significant (p = 0.01) as regards people oientation(translators: 9.359; interpreters: 1 1.795).

Unlike the sample group of beginners, advanced students also accordedsignificantly different scores (p = 0.01) to the two professional groups for actiono rientation (translators: 8.23 I ; interpreters : I 1.692).

Thc only value orientation where advanced students saw no differencebetween translators and intelpreters was idea orientation (9.333 and 9.359 resp.).

1 . Discussion of results7 .I Comparison of results to the literature

T'hc rcsults of the survey may bc said to be very much in line with thc viewsexprcssed by thc authors rcviewecl, who see translators as predominanlly processand people oriented, and interprcters as people and action oriented. This is bomcout by the rcsults obtained from b<lth sample groups, beginners and advancedstudents' Thcy, too, consider people and action orientaÍion to be the mostcharactcristic fcatures crí interpreters, a finding a|so clbtainetl in Fortin's stutly.Both samples in this study see (ranslators as mainly process anrJ people oiented,whilc beginners in Fortin's study scored translators high on actktn and peopleorientation and failccl to see their pro cess orientation.

However, a more dctailed analysis of the results for translators shows that thestudcnts in tho two samples place even grcater weight on process orientationthan tho authors rcvicwed. Both beginners and advanccd students attributed thehighest scorc for process. As rcgards action $nd idea, the stuclents in the twosamplos givc low to mcdium scorcs. Thc authors makc hardly any refcrence tothese two valuc oricntations, an obvious sign thut they do not considcr themirnportant. With rcspcct to pcople orientation, Szuki is thc only author whoplaccs grcater wcight on this oricntntion.

15

lbt

ll crctl

sp.).

kttictrt

dií1cr

Table 7: Advanced students' assessment of translators and interpreters

Translators InterpretersMean St.dev. Mean St.dev. Difference

Action 8.23 |a A1z,+ | | | .692 2,7 2 s. (o = 0.01

Process t3.0'7't 2.66 7.128 2.99 s. (p = 0.01

Peorrle 9.3 59 2.91 r.795 3.41 s. (o = 0.01)Idea 9.333 2.28 9.3 59 2.67 n.s.

ncc

n.s0.05

ló t, Kurr,, L, l]a',sel, D. Chitla, W, I,tltrjl; tttul J' Wtl(Ji'tltttttt

As filr intcrprcters, tr'rc autrrors rcvicwecr givc prccronrinancc to peopre uxJactton oricnt.tirtn, witrt basicalry no mcntion <tf prticess ur4 iriuo. Ttris cont.u.tswith thc vicws cxprcssed by bcginn"r ,toa"nt, in tfri. ,tulfl' *no u,,.ibu,"almost tho samo wcight to'prrr7r,r ^nl'lr1uo

as 10 dctio, etricntation.of thc

:ii.'iJ:JT}""o;Í"''". is r|rc only uo. t., n..u,.l ntcr'iuru u, ,..ung wciglrt to

preclominantl , ,,,,,;;,,::::s.. Both samplcs oí. student.s scc intcrprctcrs a.s

7.2 Dilfe rcnces bctween beginners and advant:cc! stutlent.r

It was assumcd that thorc nrigltt bc cliÍl.crences in the vicws exprcssct| bybeginncrs and a<Jviurcc<r studcnts Jn.r ,no, iir" vicws .r. trrc ratter woura showgrcatcr corrcspondcncc with thc literaturc rcvicwecl.with rcgart to translators (see Tahrc +j, ,rri* hypothcsis has been

'iugcryconÍ.inned by tlre survey' There is only onc significant cliÍTcrcnoe bctwccn thetwo samples of students: the advanced studenscore than thc beginners, group, which tics i.j Ti:flff""ffi"l j}-Í'"J fiíff:;reviewed. one cxplanation courd be that the acrvanced students have bccn exposedto a number of courses in transration theory, textual anarysis, textual criticism,etc. so that they have come better to undersíand th" p,o,,,,;;;"*.;;;""slation;thus, they considcr a process orientation essentiar for transrators. Anotherdifference, which is, however, not significant, concems people orientation. TheI:i":"d ""lenrs

rank ir second, *h";;ih;-beginners see it as rhe third mosrrmportant value orientation. one possible expranation * i" irr", as part ortheir studies, the advanced studenis have developed an understanding for thepeople element in translators'lives (having io n"gotiut" with clients, talking toexperts to obtain information, etc.) insteaiof seeing them as f"opl"'r".rua.a inan ivory tower' sulTounded only uí u""[. .'. .'

As far as interpreters (see t'atie 5) are'concerned, two significant differencesmay be identified between beginners'ana aavancea students.-For o"",ti"g, ,h"advanced students attribute -g,"u,".

i.po.ián"" to action. A reasonableexplanation would be that the rur,". tru"" been sensitized towards anundersrandingof rhe actual int".p.ting pi"""r, *a its action"l";";1r. In facr,their assessment comes closer to tt "

ui"*" round in the riterature.The second significant^ difference ,"g*d"" pror"ss orientatioa which theadvanced students consider far ress i-pof*t tnun the beginners do. Again, theexplanation might be that, b"cuuse "i ii.r. training, advanced studentsdistinguish more clearly between ,t,"-.'ilJi, required of translators aÍIdinterpreters. process is associated with translati on, actionwith interpretation.

fl

lllt

tl

lr

;;

rl

tl

ll

tl

l"ll

'llr

t\

t)

Scribe or Actor?

Figure 4: Aclvanced students' assessment of translators and interpreters

I7

arrd

rsts

ute

the

.toas

bylow

gclythe

,(:cJ.t

horsosecl

rstl) !

lion;Ithcr'l'hc

)t oslrt ol'' thc

rg to:cl in

inco:i

, thc

nables alll

fhct,

r the

r, (he

rclcnls

iuxl

ll.

8. Conclusions

The two hypotheses (see 4.) have been largely confirmed by the findings of

the survey. uiing casset questionnaire, this empirical study has shown that the

typical tránslatoiis ,""n u. predominantly process and people oriented, whereas

the typical interpreter ts considered to be people and action oriented; however'

othei orientations should not be neglected, as both translators and interpreters

have been shown to have fairly balanced communication values'

Pmfle

Admittedly, it may be argued that the survey and large parts of the literature

rcvicwod reflect but stcreotypc views of translators and interpreters. To attempt a

more complex pcrsonality iroÍile stu<ly would have gone beyond the scopc of

this papei. Wc ar" als.i o*,ue o1' the fact that any modol of personality

ori.niotlun, involvcs the risk of simplification. As M. Bowen (1994: 189)

rightlypointsout,woshoultl'.bcwareeifoversimplifications,''as''[the]introverttran,lator would havc a har'd time dealing with clients and thc extrovort

intcrprotcr is ccrtain to Íjnd social contacts at wclrk rather rcstrictcd'''

icrtainly, it wclultl be intcresting to compare the views. and findings

prcscntccl in ttrls papcr with thc actual persona|ity proÍilos of a sample of

practising translaiors ancl interpreters. Therefore' we suggcst that Casse's

iurrtion*i." be aclministerecl to a sample of represcntatives of these tw<r

prof'essions in orclcr to seo how their scores compare with the vicws held by the

iwo samplos of stuclents ancl the authors reviewed'

9, Acknowlctlgcmcnts

"I.he autlrtlrs tlf this papcr woulcl likc to thank Ms. FÜrthaucr, Mr. Kaiscr arxl

Mr, Piichhackcr, thc tcilchers who allowcrj the survoy to bc canicd out during

Actr cn

i

i

I 8 I. Kurz,, E. Ilase I, D. Chilta, W. l,rilt:ls utrd J. Wolltruttttt

their classes, as wcll as nll ilrc stu<lcnts who participutctr in trrc survey. A sincercthank you also gocs to Ms' Waldherr or ihc lnstitutc o| Psyclroíogy cl|. tltoUniversity of Vicnna lbr hcr hclp wirh thc statistical evaluation.

Bibliography

Bowen, David (1994): "Teaching and rearning styres", in c. Doilerup & A.Lindegaard (eds.), Tcaching Translation and Inte rytretittlq 2,Amsterdam/philadelphia, Benjamins, pp. 175_ l g l.

Bowen, Margarota (1994): "Ingrcdients to success as a ranguage spccialist,,, inDeanna L. Hammond (ed'\, Professional Issuei 7c,í rinstators en!Interpreters' American Translators' Association sehotarly MonographScries, Vol. VIL Amsrcrclam/philactclphia, Bcnjanrins, pp. t S t - t VZ.casse, Piene (1981): Training fer the cross-curturar Mind: A irandbook JitrC ros s - C uI t u ral T rai ne r s and Co ns ulÍantl, Washin gton, Sietar.

Cooper, Cary L.; Davies, Ráchel & Tung, Rosalic t-' (iqaz): ,,InterprctilrgStress: Sources of job stress among conÍbrcnce interprcters,,,Multilingua I -2, pp. 97 _toj .

Fortin, Robert (1992): Stuclienanf(ngerlnnen c]er Übersetzerlnnen- undDolmetscherlnnenausbildung: Soziodemographische Daten untlStudienwahl, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Univeisity of Vienna.

Henderson, John A. (1980): "Siblings observed", Babet 35/i, pp.2l7-225.Henderson, John A. (1987): personarity and the Linguist, Bradford, Bradfonl

University press.Hensche'mann, Káthe (|974): ''Die Ausbildung des Übersetzers',, in V. Kapp

(ed.), Übersetzer und Dolmetscher, Heidelberg, QueIle & Meyer,pp.72-86.

Herbert, Jean (1952): The Interpreter's Handbook: How to Becomc a conferenceInterprete r, Geneva, Librairie de l'Université.

Keiser, walter (1979): "selection and training of conference interpreters,,, in D.Gerver & H.W. Sinaiko (eds.), Language Interpretation adCommunicatlon, New york, plenum fress, pj. n_24.

Paulovsky, Louis H. (1949): ''Prinzipien der akadernischen Übersetzer- undDiplomdolmetschausbildung", in p. Reiner (ed.), schrifienreiheModerne Sprachen, Wien, Verband der östeneichischenNeuphilologen.

szuki, Atsuko (r988): "Aptitudes of transrators and interp reters,,, MetaXXX[yl, pp: 108_114.