1

Section 6: Fidelity in interpretation and

translation

Phạm Thị Hòa

Nguyễn Thị Thanh Huyền
Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Kiều

2
SECTION 6: Fidelity in interpretation
and translation
6.1. An experiment in fidelity
6.2. Principles of fidelity
6.3. Secondary information: an obstacle and a help

3
 Introduction
- Guralnik (1979), in Webster's English Dictionary, writes that
"faithfulness/fidelity" means "the quality of being accurate,
reliable, and exact."
- The issue of fidelity is probably the most basic and widely
discussed component of Translation quality.
- Fidelity in translation is passing of the message from one
language into another by producing the same effect in the other
language, (in sense and in form), in a way that the reader of the
translation would react exactly as the reader of the original text

4
 An experiment in fidelity

The experiment reported below has been carried out more

than 30 times over more than 13 years, in various countries and
with many different languages.
Phase one: verbalizing a simple idea:
- Half of the students are asked to leave the room. A
simple drawing suggesting an elementary informational Message
is presented to the remaining participants.

5
- The participants were told the following: “ You are sitting in
the car next to the driver. At a certain point in time you see a
road sign “Paris 50 km”. Please write down exactly what you
would say in your mother tongue to the driver to tell him what
the sign say.”

6
 The result is that participants sharing the same mother tongue
tend to write different sentences to express it:
1. Fifty kilometers to Paris.
2. Still fifty kilometers to go.
3. We’ll be in Paris in fifty kilometers.
4. Fifty kilometers longer.
5. We’ll be there in fifty kilometers.
6. Paris is fifty kilometers from here.
Differences between sentences:
- The basic information about the distance being fifty kilometers
is found in all six sentences.
- Sentences 2, 4, 5: Paris is not mentioned.
- Sentences 2, 3, 4, 5: indicate that the speaker is moving toward
a place located fifty kilometers from the present position.
7
- Sentence 3, 5: indicate that at least one person besides the
speakers is also moving toward the same destination.
- Sentence 2, 4 indicate that the speaker has already been moving
for some time, i.e. that he or she is not starting at the time of
speaking.
- Sentence 2, 3, 5 indicate that reaching Paris is a future event.
-  The differences between sentences show that The same
message, expressed under identical conditions by different
Senders, tends to be expressed differently by each
individual.

8
These differences may be divided into:
- Information gains: Information given in one sentence which is
not found in another or in the drawing. (the arrival in Paris
being a future event, the existence of at least one more person
besides the speaker)
- Information loses: Information not given in the sentence under
consideration although it is present in a sentence it is being
compared to or in the drawing (in sentence 2, 4, 5, Paris is not
mentioned).

9
Why is information added to the Message in the
sentences?
Model: Sentence information = Message + (FI + LII + PI)
- Framing Information (FL), which is selected by the Sender
for the purpose of facilitating comprehension of the Message
by the Receiver. (“Paris” and the distance unit “km”)
- Linguistically Induced Information (LII), which is not
selected by the Sender but is made mandatory or induced by
the rules of the language used. (the future tense in sentence 3
and 5: We’ll be)
- Personal information (PI), which is neither selected by the
Sender nor induced by linguistic constraints, but it is associated
with idiosyncratic characteristics of the Sender. (a regional or
foreign accent, certain errors in grammar, or certain stylistic
and lexical choices can carry personal information.) 10
Phase two: translating a simple utterance

The drawing is removed from the blackboard or screen.

The persons who have been waiting outside are called back
into the classroom, and all participants are asked to translate
the collected sentences into their native tongue or into the same
common language.

11
The results collected are very interesting
- Participants tend to translate each sentence separately in a
more or less word-for-word fashion.
- Of more than a thousand people (experiments between 1979
and 1993), fewer than ten have given a single translation for all
sentences.
- Some participants say the Messages in the sentences are the
same, and others consider they are not.
- Participants say the Messages are the same, but they translate
the sentences differently.
- There is a tendency to translate all the information, so as not
to miss any relevant components.
- Participants taking part in the phase one (they saw the
drawing) translate each sentence differently.

12
II. PRINCIPLES OF
FELIDITY

13
 Principles of Fidelity

 The implicit principle

All the information carried by the source-language

text should be reformulated in the target-
language text

14
 Principles of Fidelity

 Determining principle of fidelity for interpretation and

translation seems start with the set of communication:

- In informative communication such as in conference interpretation

and technical or scientific translation, the Sender formulates the discourse
as a carrier of a message for the purpose of achieving an aim such as
informing, explaining, or persuading.
Communication is successful if this aim is achieved

- In translation, Translators cannot rewrite or reformulate the speech in a

completely different way which they believe will achieve the Sender’s
objective more efficientl ythan the Sender’s words

15
 Principles of Fidelity

3.1. The Message:

A minimum fidelity : reformulation of information

“ The absolute fidelity rule: The Message or Primary
Information should always be re-expressed in the
target-language Text

16
 Principles of Fidelity
3.2. Secondary Information

3.2.1. Framing Information (FL):

 Facilitating the reception of the Message by the
Receiver.(“Paris” and the distance unit “km”)
 Reformulating FI may defeat the aim of communication by
making the information too explicit or not explicit enough for
the target language Receiver
Ex2: When translating an Australian text quoting prices in
“dollars” , it’s useful to add FI by specifying “ dollars
australians”
The FI may vary, there should be some justification for
the translator’s changing it to make successul translation

Fidelity to Sender’s interests may require eliminating

some of the original FI and adding some FI for benefit of
the target-language Receiver 17
 Secondary Information
3.2.2. Linguistically Induced Information (LII) :
- Made mandatory or induced by the rules of the language used. (the
future tense in sentence 3 and 5: We’ll be)
- Problems: translator cannot always discriminate between the Message
and LII, tends to translate the latter in order to be sure not to leave any
part of the Message untranslated, or tend to be more explicit in the TL
text
It should be:
SL text = M + FI + LII (of SL) + PI

TL text = M + FI + LII (of TL) + PI

But the problem

TL text = M + FI + LII (of SL) + LII (of TL) + PI

:

Translators tend to be more explicit in the TL text18

3.2.3Personal information (PI) :

- A regional or foreign accent, certain errors in grammar, or

certain stylistic and lexical choices can carry personal
information
- Should not be reconstructed in the target language since they
are nor relevant and may distract the Receiver’s attention
from the Message, it may generate a negative image of the
Senders

19
 3.3 CONCLUSION

In translation, to make the right decisions while

translating, we must follow the hierarchical rules :

In informative texts and speeches, whenever

reformulation of the original Secondary
Information is counterproductive with respect to
the intended impact of the Message, it is the
latter which takes precedence over the principle
of fidelity to Secondary Information.
20
 Reformulation priority in Secondary Information

Framing Information Change the Sender’s style

Personal Information Present Sender’s personal

personality

Be reformulated
Linguistically Induced Information
when there is no
adverse effect on the
communication

21
In conclusion
Useful ideas about translation:

1. The order of ideas identified as part of the Message in the

source text must be followed in the target text.

2. In translation, within a sentence, structural changes are

generally accepted .

Ex: For effective communication, long sentences maybe segmented

into shorter ones. In interpretation, more extensive stylistic and
informational changes may be acceptable.

3. If the Translator feels that a particular choice of words or

linguistic structures may have been made deliberately for
impact, this choice should be followed whenever possible 22
4. SECONDARY INFORMATION: An obstacle & a help

Question:
Whether to reformulate in the target language
Text information that might be detrimental to
communication,
Whether to introduce new Secondary
Information to help communication become more
effective
For example:
In a conference , a speaker may refer to someone as “
Monsieur X” giving the interpreter working into English
LII relating to the gender of X but failing to indicate
whether he should be referred to as ‘Dr. X” “ Pro. X”,
etc
23
4.SECONDARY INFORMATION: An obstacle & a help
Answers by Translators :
+ It’s the Translator who decides whether it is necessary to
introduce Secondary Information in the target text or not.

Eg: When translating from English into Japanese, the English

singular/plural LII is ignored because this linguistic feature
doesn’t exist in Japanese. Trying to convey it may make the
Japanese Text clumsy.

Eg: When translating a speech made in English by a female

speaker into Hebrew, Interpreters will not hesitate to introduce
the LII indicating the sex of the speaker because in Herbew,
forms of verbs in the present tense for male are different from
female.
24
4.SECONDARY INFORMATION: An obstacle & a help

Serious problems arise when information required

because of the target-language rules is not known to the
Translator and is not given in the source language text.

+ Secondary Information is often much more valuable to

the Translator than to the receiver. To the Translator, SI
can provide very useful informative elements

25
4. SECONDARY INFORMATION: An obstacle & a help

4.1 The language-specificity of LII-generated problems

The most difficult problems with respect to fidelity and the

resolution of ambiguity arise when target-language rules
require information not provided by the source-language Text.
Experience shows that the frequency of such problems depends
largely on the specific language pair involved.

For instance, in translation texts and speeches between English

And Japanese such problems are few, but LII-generated problems
are numerous in translation between Japanese and Western
languages because of the following two differences:

26
SECONDARY INFORMATION: An obstacle & a help
+ Western languages generally discriminate betweeen singular
and plural and between various points in the past, present and
future, whereas Japanese does not necessarily do so. This does
not cause difficulties generally when Translating into Japanese,
because such LII simply disappears in the target-language
product; but when translating from Japanese, problems resulting
from the lack of background information are sometimes difficult
to solve.
+ Western languages tend to indicate explicitly the subject and
object of verbs, which is not the case in Japanese. When
translating from Japanese into a Weatern language, problems
sometimes arise because the target language requires
information about the subject and/or object of the verb, and none
is available.
27
SECONDARY INFORMATION: An obstacle & a help
4.2 Interpretation vs. translation from the
Secondary Information perspective
INTERPRETATION TRANSLATION

-Speakers know more about - Authors know less about

their target-language
listeners than authors do
about their target-language
readers
- Framing Information is
more suitable for target-
language listeners.
their target-language
readers than speakers do
about their target-language
listeners.
- Framing Information is
less suitable for target-
language readers.

28
 INTERPRETATION TRANSLATION

-Listeners tend to focus -Readers tend to

on Primary Information concentrate on Primary
 Effect of changes Information.
introduced by the -Readers may focus on
interpreter in Secondary a particular word for a
Information becomes less longer time or reread a
of a problem than in text segment
written translation.  Their perception of
the Message may be
more word-bound than
in speech processing.

29
 INTERPRETATION TRANSLATION

-In extempore speeches,

the selection of Secondary - The selection of
Information is not Secondary Information
carefully thought out and is carefully thought
corrected. out and corrected.
- The interpreter has
exploited a certain degree
of freedom and made many
changes in Secondary
Information.

30
 MAIN IDEAS
1. Given the same elementary informational Message in non-
verbal form, individuals tend to give it different verbal
expression. 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 Sender’s 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;
- Linguistically Induced Information;
- Personal Information.
31
32