MODULE 2 Fidelity in Interpretation

In the previous Module we discussed quality in interpreting as the perception that the
Receivers in an audience may have of the interpreters performance. We also said that:
Packaging is the major component of the act of communication that is used to
measure quality in interpreting.
Delegates usually assess the quality of an interpreters performance based on the
tone of voice and a self-assured delivery.
On the contrary, interpreters with a somewhat hesitant voice are often mistrusted by
delegates, regardless of:
o the precision in the content, and
o the informational clarity of their target language speech.
Following the above, the concept of fidelity is basically related to content precision and
informational clarity. That is the reason why fidelity is probably the most basic and widely
discussed component of interpreting quality in general.
The most obvious problem with fidelity stems from the well-known fact that languages are
not isomorphic: in other words, there is no one-to-one correspondence between them as
regards lexical elements (words) or linguistic structures associated with rules of
grammar, stylistic rules, etc. (i.e. multiple-meaning words, false cognates, etc.).
In particular, there is no automatic equivalence between words in the source and target
languages, and apparently similar structures may have different uses and different
connotations that depend on the given framework (or context).
As already discussed in the previous Module, the word Message (content) is defined not as
the statement produced, i.e. the verbal materialization of a communicative intention, but as
the information that the Sender wants to get across to the Receiver and
around which the verbal statement will be constructed.
In fact, given exactly the same Message:
presented under exactly identical conditions
at the same point in time,
individuals tend to utter different sentences to express it.
Lets consider the following example:

50 km

Suppose that you are sitting in a car next to the driver. At a certain point in time you see the
road sign. What would you say to the driver to tell him what the sign says?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Fifty kilometres to Madrid

Still fifty kilometres to go
Well be in Madrid in fifty kilometres
Fifty kilometres longer
Well be there in fifty kilometres
Madrid! - fifty kilometres from here

The fact that the Message as defined here is formulated with different packages (or in
different ways) has a corollary:
If different sentences can correspond to the same Message, and
if this is applicable in both the source-language and the target-language, then
in interpretation, different sentences in the target-language may reflect the same
Message as the one initially generated in the source- language.
This reasoning is based on the essential point that the statement is built around a Message
for the purpose of transmitting it. However, this statement may rightly be challenged, as
fidelity is generally taken to apply not only to the Message, but also to its packaging. That
is, fidelity applies not only to the Message, but also to its author, through the way he or she
expresses it.
In other words, in the above example, sentences differ from each other and from the
drawing in their Information Content. A sentence may contain:

Information gains: Information given in one sentence which is not found in another or
in the drawing, such as the use of the future tense and a whole sentence in examples 3)
and 5) above.
The use of the future tense in the examples above may be considered an information
gain, or the existence of at least one more person besides the speaker who is the
receiver of the statement shown by the use of We.
Consider the following example of Information gains:

Overcoming the situation means effort.

1) Salir de la situacin implica esfuerzo.
2) Salir de la situacin implica que deberemos hacer un gran esfuerzo.
The second option is a much better rendering that the interpreter will certainly use if he
has time to deliver a longer sentence. If the speaker delivers his speech at a fast speed,
the first option will be preferred for the sake of saving words (and words in this case,
mean time).

Information loses: It is the opposite end of Information gains, i.e. information not given
in the sentence under consideration although it is present in the sentence it is being
compared to or in the drawing, such as the explicit mention of Madrid.
Consider items 2), 4) and 5) above. In these cases further data is needed to understand
the full meaning of the sentence under consideration.
to Madrid
in Madrid
Now consider the following examples:
Somos una empresa de servicios financieros que brinda soluciones a las PYMES en
su operatoria habitual, tanto para sus necesidades de financiamiento como de
inversin.
1) We are a financial services firm that provides financing and investment solutions
to SMBs.
2) We are a financial services firm that provides solutions to SMBs for their daily
operations to cover their financing and investment needs.

The first question the observer may ask is whether the road sign Message is actually
conveyed in all the sentences, despite the large difference between them. Taking into
account the situation (being in the car heading toward Madrid) and the context (the
information explicitly given by these sentences), the answer can only be that for the driver
to whom the speaker is addressing the sentence, the Message is conveyed fully in all
sentences, as he presumably knows where he is heading.
It should be stressed that this answer is based on a particular communication situation, in
which the Sender and the Receiver share some knowledge. If this were not the case, the
Message might not be fully conveyed as it could be interpreted as referring to another
destination or possibly to a destinationless situation in which a car is driven in circles for
testing or some other purpose.
The second question is why information is added to the Message in a large proportion of
the sentences (thus rendering a better option). A partial answer is given below:
Framing Information

One reason for this addition of information becomes clear when we consider two possible
situations in which the speaker would convey the road sign message to the driver:

In one scenario, the driver may have asked the speaker, How many more kilometres to
Madrid? The answer might be just the single word Fifty, which would convey the
full Message.

In another scenario, the initiative would come from the speaker, who notices the road
sign, without any question from the driver. In this case, the speaker would have to say
something else, since the single word Fifty would not mean anything to the driver. In
other words, the speaker would have to provide a frame for the Message so that the
Receiver could understand what is being referred to.

Very simple sentences generally contain Framing Information (FI), which serves as a guide
and facilitator to help the Receiver (listener) interpret correctly and more easily the part of
the utterance conveying the Message proper. In the above example:
the references to Madrid and to kilometres are Framing Information, although
the speaker may not have been conscious of this when adding it.
Also, the road sign itself contains Framing Information, insofar as it does
indicate Madrid as well as the distance unit in km.
Linguistically Induced Information
Framing Information is selected, consciously or not, by the Sender (speaker or interpreter),
to help the Receiver (listener or audience) grasp the Message from the words.
There also exists another type of information, which is not part of the Message and not
introduced by the Sender of his or her own free will. This can be seen in sentences 3) and
5) of the example, both of which indicate that the arrival in Madrid is a future event (Well
be) rather than a present or past event.
The Sender had no personal or communicational need to specify this information, which
was presumably induced by linguistic rules. In English, the personal pronoun which
provides this information was made mandatory at the same time as the future of the verb by
the particular linguistic construction used. In Spanish the personal pronoun may be omitted.
Well be in Madrid in fifty kilometres. (an information gain and a clear indication
of a future event)
Llegaremos a Madrid en cincuenta kilmetros.

Personal Information
Finally, some information outside the Message itself is neither chosen for framing purposes
by the Sender or Speaker nor induced by linguistic rules, but is associated with personal
habits or with the personal style of the Sender.
Similarly, a regional or foreign accent, certain errors in grammar, or certain stylistic or
lexical choices can carry information about a speakers personal background (native
tongue, level of education, social class, etc.), or about the person being talked to (child,
uneducated person, colleague, etc.).
From the above, we can conclude that:
1. The same Message, transmitted under identical conditions by different Senders, tends to
be expressed differently by each individual.
2. In fact, the same Message, expressed under identical conditions by the same Sender at
two different points in time, also tends to be expressed differently.
3. In most utterances, the Message (Primary Information) is accompanied by
Secondary Information, which may be of three types:

Framing Information (FI), which is selected by the Sender for the purpose of
facilitating comprehension of the Message by the Receiver.

Linguistically Induced Information (LII), which is not selected by the Sender but is
made mandatory or induced by the rules of the language used.

Personal Information (PI), which is neither selected by the Sender nor induced by
linguistic constrains, but is associated with idiosyncratic characteristics of the
Sender.

Principles of Fidelity
In general terms, given a speech to interpret, the Interpreter, who is not familiar with the
precise field of expertise, may not know which is the Message (Primary Information) and
which is the Secondary Information. As a result,
there is a tendency to interpret all the information, so as not to miss any relevant
component.
this may also be due to the fact that Interpreters do not really focus on the
distinction between Primary and Secondary Information unless the speech poses
difficult problems and forces them to make choices.
In determining principles of fidelity for interpretation, it seems appropriate to start not with
the finished linguistic product, but with the setting of communication.
5

In this respect, it is important to recall that, as explained in the previous Module, in

informative communication such as is found in conference interpretation, the Sender
formulates the discourse as the carrier of a Message for the purpose of achieving an aim
such as informing, explaining and/or persuading.
For the Sender, communication is successful if his aims and intentions are achieved.
Generally, the Interpreter represents the Sender and the Senders interests and, therefore,
does a good job if the interpretation contributes to the success of the Senders aims and
intentions.
On the other hand, there seems to be a consensus that Interpreters cannot rewrite or
reformulate the speech in a completely different way which they believe will achieve the
Senders objective more efficiently than the Senders words.
That is, the Interpreter must contribute toward successful communication while following
what is essentially the same route as the one of the Sender chose in the source-language
to lead the Receiver along. In other words, the Interpreter should maintain the same
linguistic register in the target-language as the one chosen by the Sender in the source
language.
There is therefore a minimum fidelity principle as regards reformulation of information. In
these cases the interpreter should prefer Quality vs. Quantity.
The minimum fidelity principle should necessarily cover the Message.
There is also an absolute fidelity principle as regards reformulation of information. In these
cases the interpreter should aim at both Quality plus Quantity.
The absolute fidelity principle means that the Message or Primary Information
should always be re-expressed in the target-language in addition to Secondary
Information.
The discussion in the preceding paragraphs justifies some changes in the information
content and linguistic structure of speeches and defines hierarchical rules that can help
make the right decisions while interpreting.

In informational speeches, whenever reformulation of the original Secondary

Information is counterproductive with respect to the intended impact of the Message
(inform, explain and/or persuade) due to high density of the speech or speed of delivery
by the speaker, it is the latter (Message) which takes precedence over the principle of
fidelity to Secondary Information. This means that the Interpreter should reformulate
the Message in the target-language even if the absolute fidelity to Secondary
Information cannot be achieved. (Quality vs. Quantity)

Reformulation priority in Secondary Information:

First: Framing Information, which is at least chosen deliberately by the Sender, i.e.
general or technical speech; diplomatic or political speech.
6

Second: Personal Information, which does represent Senders personality i.e.

informal/formal delivery; educated/non-educated language; dense/colloquial speech.
Third: Linguistically Induced Information should be reformulated in the target
language taking into account linguistic and semantic peculiarities.

Interpreters are allowed to introduce whatever Linguistically Induced Information is

necessary in the target-language for their prose to be linguistically acceptable and to
optimise its impact(Use of passive voice, use of personal pronouns, position of the verb
in the sentence).

Framing information, however, should be introduced with caution, otherwise it may

change the Senders style.
As for Interpreter-generated Personal Information, since it is the product of the
Interpreters personal style rather than the Senders, it should be avoided whenever
possible.

The following rules of thumb for the Interpretation of informational speeches may be
useful.
Priorities in reformulating informational speeches in the target-language as they appear in
the source-language.
Message
Framing Information
Personal Information
Linguistically Induced Information

*****
***
**
*

In interpretation, stylistic and informational changes of the package may be acceptable.

The reason is that in oral discourse the speaker does not have the time to review and correct
his speech and there may be certain elements that may be escaping the speakers control to
make his speech fully understandable and linguistically correct.
The speaker may therefore be better served if the interpreter focuses more on the Message
as the Interpreter feels the speaker would word it if he or she had full control of the
linguistic choices.
For instance:
Sentences that speakers do not complete because of speech-production difficulties
should be completed in the target language, and,
Sentences that the speaker repeats because he or she has lost the train of thought do
not have to be repeated.
In special circumstances, however, if Interpreters feel they serve listeners rather
than speakers (when interpreting for a lawyer in a courtroom, or when the client is
the listener and his or her interests clash with those of the speaker, or when certain
moral issues are at stake), the Interpreter may be asked to reformulate whatever
piece of verbal or non-verbal communication that may be of interest for his client.
7

If the Interpreter feels that a particular choice of words or linguistic structures have
been made deliberately for impact, this choice should be followed whenever
possible. This is frequently the case with word repetitions, humorous distortions of
words or grammar.

Secondary Information An Obstacle and a Help

Secondary Information is one of the most frequent sources of fidelity problems. For
example:
In a medical conference, a speaker may refer to somebody as Mr. X, giving the
interpreter working into Spanish, Linguistically Induced Information relating to the
gender of X but failing to indicate whether he should be referred to as Doctor X,
Profesor Xor Licenciado X. Failure on the part of the interpreter to refer to X
by the proper title may affect communication.

In English the singular may imply the plural and vice versa and it is sometimes
difficult to know whether the speaker is referring to one person or object or more
than one.

The gender concordance between adjectives and nouns may pose problems too. In
any case, the Interpreter has to make a decision and take a chance on the possibility
of an erroneous decision.

Decision-making and risk-taking are essential parts of an Interpreters job.

As explained above, the most difficult problems with respect to fidelity and the resolution
of ambiguity arise when target-language rules differ from those used in the sourcelanguage.
Experience shows that the frequency of such problems depends largely on the specific
language pair involved. For instance, in the interpretation of informational speeches
between English and Spanish, such problems are basically:

the forms of addressing people,

the use of the passive voice,
the position of verbs at the end of the sentence.

The question therefore arises as to whether it is possible for interpretation, with its
practically instantaneous and virtually correction-free production process, to be reasonably
effective in producing faithful and linguistically acceptable target-language speech.
Two basic facilitating factors can be identified in the conference interpretation environment
to produce a faithful and linguitically acceptable speech:

In international conferences, speakers and listeners are assembled in the same place
at the same time, and speakers know they are talking to target-language listeners as
well as to delegates who understand their own language. Generally, they also know
more about their target-language listeners and therefore, Framing Information is
more likely to be suitable for target-language listeners.

Diagrams and slides shown during the speech, as well as the body language of the
speaker, provide cues beyond those included in the linguistic part of the interpreters
speech and help them achieve more effective communication.

In international conferences, the Receivers (the delegates) process the speakers

words by ear. The well known evanescence of the spoken word is associated not
only with semantic rather than verbal memory of speech, but most probably also
with less word-bound processing of speech.

Listeners seem to devote their attention to a form of processing more concerned

with general propositions (that is, with the logical content of the speech) than with
linguistic structures, possibly because of the speed of delivery (about 100 to 200
words per minute), which may limit the amount of processing that can be done on
the speech they hear. Whenever they do concentrate on nuances, it is precisely
because such nuances are an important part of the Message, i.e. in diplomatic or
political speeches.

Therefore, it is probable that listeners tend to focus on Primary Information, and the effect
of changes introduced by the interpreter in Secondary Information becomes less of a
problem.
Also, when reading rapidly, readers probably tend to concentrate on Primary Information,
but the reading process is not as linear as the listening process: readers may focus on a
particular word for longer time or reread a text segment after going through it a first time,
and their perception of the Message may be more word-bound than in speech processing
because of this non-linearity, likely resulting in a greater amount of Secondary Information.
A metaphor may help us explain in simple terms why package freedom is justified in
interpreting: using language is not similar to drawing a detailed map in which each object
is represented in one particular way and each point and line correspond to given objects;
rather, it is like using a set of road signs to point toward a destination. It is up to the
Receiver to reach that particular destination by interpreting the signs.
Each language and its associated culture can be likened to a set of available road signs.
When producing speech, Senders use the signs available in the source language and
place them along the roads on a particular route.
Interpreters use signs available in the target language and place them along the
same roads. Their main task is to lead the Receivers to the same destination as the
Senders.

As far as possible, they should place their signs in a way similar to the Senders use
of their own.
By definition, the signs in the two languages are different: there may be different
types, different shapes and different sizes, which imply different natural uses.
In interpretation the Senders mind is on the destination, and the specific use of
signs is of lesser importance, especially in view of the fact that the Sender does not
have full control of the way the road signs are selected and used in the sourcelanguage speech.

As for the difference between oral and written communication, when writing a text,
Senders have time to select the signs and place them carefully along the route, changing
them until they are satisfied.

When making speeches, the Senders focus on the destination and tend to grab
whatever signs are available at the time they believe they are necessary.

When reading a translation, Receivers have time to stop and look at the signs along
the way and note a particular selection or arrangement of signs.

In interpretation, they travel at high speed and have less time to do so. For
Interpreters it is more important to be able to drive rapidly to their destination,
following Speakers at their own speed, while also selecting and placing their own
signs at the same time, which is not an easy task.

To sum up we can conclude that:

1. Given the same elementary informational Message in non-verbal form (a road sign),
individuals tend to give it different verbal expressions. Moreover, when asked to
reformulate the same Message after even a short time, they tend to give it a different
second verbal expression.
2. These differences are at least partially uncontrolled, that is, they do not result from the
Senders deliberate choices.
3. Differences in the wording of the Message also result in differences in the information
the statements carry. Besides the Message, the following types of Secondary
Information can be found:

Framing Information, which is selected by the Sender, consciously or

unconsciously, in order to frame the Message to the Receiver.

Linguistically Induced Information, which is a by-product of linguistic rules in the

language used.

10

Personal Information, which is a by-product of the Senders verbal habits, personal

history and personality, but does not result directly from mandatory linguistic
choices or from his or her will to frame the Message.

4. When listening to a speech, Interpreters do not necessarily identify the Message and all
the Framing Information, Linguistically Induced Information and Personal
Information. When producing their own target text, they are often aware of Framing
Information and Linguistically Induced Information they introduce.
5. When interpreting, the Message should always be faithfully reformulated in the target
language. As for Secondary Information, it should only be reformulated in the target
language without any changes if this does not interfere too severally with the impact of
the target speech on the Receiver. Otherwise, changes are called for, with the following
order of priorities:

Linguistically Induced Information, in which changes are generally introduced in

order to produce a linguistically acceptable target speech;

Personal Information;

Framing Information, which should be changed only if inadequate for the targetlanguage Receiver.

11