An Analysis of Danica Seleskovitch’s “Fundamentals of the Interpretive Theory of Translation”
During her keynote speech titled Fundamentals of the Interpretive Theory of Translation, French conference interpreter and translation scholar Danica Seleskovitch presents her view that the process of interpreting is the same in all language pairs (Seleskovitch). She argues that this theory must be true because once an interpreter comprehends the meaning behind a speaker’s utterance(s) in any given language, there is no longer a need for them to translate the words, but rather the ideas. This belief is the theoretical basis of Seleskovitch’s notion of sens (sense). In her experience interpreting, Seleskovitch concentrated on the meanings behind the words of speakers and realized that they should not be entirely characterized by the spoken language. In other words, she aimed her focus at the orator’s intentions as opposed to linguistic utterances. Understanding this interpretive process of deverbalizing meaning from words as described by Seleskovitch is what can create effective interpreters.
Through her interpreter training, Seleskovitch noted that whatever language pair was involved in the interpreting process, the end goal was always the same: understanding and expressing sense (Seleskovitch). This is important because meaning surfaces from linguistic structures, yet linguistic structures themselves are not meaning. It seems that, according to Seleskovitch, such “mental representation” can be extracted from any language. However, this theory begs the question: Can any type of meaning, or sens, be expressed in any language? For instance, are there certain concepts that are bound by language? Subsequently, she defines sense as containing “extra-linguistic information” beyond language meaning (Seleskovitch). Background and contextual information acquired by interpreters leave little room for ambiguity, thus serving as evidence that human cognition utilizes this additional knowledge in order to better understand texts and speeches. Through the use of non-verbal material, interpreters undergo a cognitive process that involves far more than language comprehension. Since Seleskovitch says that sense is non-verbal memory, it seems that our minds incorporate a much greater deal of non-formalized knowledge beyond our understanding of language(s). The act of interpreting reveals this extra-linguistic information in a way that can not be shown by linguistics or psychology, but only through detailed interpreting studies.
Contemporary linguistic theories tend to account not for the way people authentically employ language but instead try to develop a view on what language is. In contrast to historical takes on language comprehension, Seleskovitch’s interpretive theory clashes with linguistic theories of translation, specifically in two areas (Seleskovitch). First, linguistic theories of translation do not consider that normal speech brings far more than the meanings connected to them (i.e., sens). Nonverbal communication and contextual information are additional factors that are considered by trained interpreters when relaying meaning from authentic speeches. The second reason for conflict between linguistic and interpretive theories of translation is that as speech progresses, language and mental representations begin to detach, an idea with which linguistic theories do not agree. When a proficient interpreter listens to a speech, they hold on to the meanings, not the speaker’s words. Ultimately, Seleskovitch describes speech interpreting as a mental activity with a nature that is twofold (Seleskovitch). On the level of both individuals and groups of people, language is stored in long-term memory involving sounds, ideas, and grammatical structures that allow us to communicate with one another. However, language is also an activity that represents mental concepts through acoustic and visual signs. She concludes that without language we will neither be able to communicate with one another on the most basic level, nor be able to express our most complex, philosophical thoughts.
Seleskovitch fulfills her interpretive theory by arguing that the expression of sense is language specific because, once deverbalized, it can be identified in any language according to that language’s stylistics (Seleskovitch). This idea clearly demonstrates the interconnected relationship between language and sense. An interpreter is able to deverbalize concepts from one language and express them into another with respect to its specific grammatical behaviors. In short, Seleskovtich’s theory asserts that a language involves spoken and written words, or signs, that are used to represent mental concepts. These two elements of language are distinct entities, but work in conjunction to ensure effective communication between parties through the act of interpreting. More than a mere relay of words, as had been historically described by linguistic theories of translation, Seleskovitch outlines the cognition involved in interpreting by redefining the nature of language itself. Thus, interpreters are required to perform consistent practice of this complex cognitive process in order to become successful. As both a scientific and professional field, Seleskovitch concludes that interpreting is a unique experience insofar as it provides insight into the inner workings of the human mind.
References
Seleskovitch, Danica. Fundamentals of the Interpretive Theory of Translation. Sugar Grove, Ill. 1992.
