,"é *l$ o

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

SCRIBE OR ACTOR?
A SURVEY PAPER ON PERSONALTTY PROFILES OF
TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS

By
Ingrid 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 of
translators 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 empirioal
parts of the paper are based on the communication value orientation model by
Pierre Casse (1981: 127 ff). Personality traits considered necessary for or typical
oftranslators 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 (tilrl

c x('l
IVHAT lil ls
CETTINO THINOS OONE
AQHIEVINO ()n(t
DOINO
itllil
()il(:
<
WHY HOw ilUrl
CONCEPTS liur
sTH^T€GlEs
THEoR|É8 irssi
OROANIZATION
TNNOV TION
FACTS ol s
zl0 r

coMr.UNIc^Í|ol{ w()l
FÉL^Í|oNa
lSuTn* rcsl
WHO
cxl'
lusk
Adapted from: Casse, Pierre. 1981, Training fttr the Cross-eulturttl
intr
Mind: A Handbook frtr Cross-Cullurul Trainers and Consultants.
Washington: Sietar. lhc
irrtr

- The action-oiented style is dominant in people who "liko action, doing,

achieving, getting things done, improving, solving problems,'. ,l
- 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 on
social processes, interactions, communication, teamwork, social systems, by
motivation". tlÍ.

- The idea-oiented style is considered typical of people who "like concepts, wo

theories, exchange of ideas, innovation, creativity, novelty". cri
tirr
According to casse, everybody possesses all four value orientations to some tlÍ'

extent, but has a dominant orientation or one he/she feels most comfortable
with. c()t

The value orientation model was chosen for this paper because it deals with lnI
intercultural communication. David and Margareta Bowen (D. Bowen 1994: l7g) im
used the same model and casse's self-assessment exercise to determine the Íilr
weight ofthese value orientations on large groups of candidates to the enrance EX
examination of the Division of Interpretation and Translation at Georgetown pr(
tn
university, but do'not report any findings. The self-assessment exercise is easy
to administer and score. However, the first-person statements used may lead vu
respondents unconsciously to assess themselves rather than the "tvDical"
 Scribe or Actor?

translator or interpreter. Furthermore, as the language of Casse's self-assessment

exercise is English, it cannot be excluded that some statements may have been
misinterpreted by the beginners group in the present study.
casse's questionnaire, which was used to analyze communication value
orientation, consists of forty pairs of first-person statements which describe
attitudes and personality traits. Respondents are asked to select in each pair the
one they feel to be typical of their own personality' The Statements aÍe
numbered consecutively I through 80; each statement is assigned to one of the
four value orientations (action, process, people, idea), with 20 statements
assigned to each orientation. To score the self-assessment exercise. the number
of selected statements for each style is recorded, with ail four styles adding up to
40 and a maximum score of 20 for any one value orientation. A balanced result
would therefore be a score of 10 for each value orientation.
For the purpose of this study, the instruction was changed so that
respondents were required to select in each pair of statements the one they would
expect to hcar from a translator resp. an interpreter. one half of the sample was
asked to evaluate translators first, the other half began with the assessment of
intelprcters. In addition, respondents were requested to give information as to
their age and gendor and how long they had been students of translation and/or
interprctation.
)lng,

'ino 3. Literature rcview

ton Litcratr.rrc on the subject is scarce; thcre are, howevor, some articles, mostly
)ms, by practising translators ancl interpretcrs, clcaling with the personality structures
of nrembcrs oÍ'thesc professions. As early as 1949, Paulovsky (1949: 39 fl)
)pts,
workcd out guidclincs for aptitude tests, in which he included roughly 100 (!)
critcria lbr thc intcllcctual, moral, and practical qualities of candidates. At that
timc, no clistinction was made between personality styles of translators and those
of interprcters.
able
In the early cighries, a large-scale stress stucly was carried out among
conl'ercncc intcrpreters by cooper et al. (1982). The outcome showed that
vith intcrprcters tend to be slightly Type A oriented, a pattern of behaviour that
irnplics the following pcrsonality factors; "oxtrcmos of competitiveness, striving
78)
the lbr achicvcnrent, aggrcssivcncss, haste, impatience, rcstlessncss, hyperalertness,
lnce
explosivencss oí'spocclr, tcnsencss ot facial musclcs, and íbeIings of being un<lcr
pressure Öf time ancl uncler thc challengc of responsibility" (coopcr ct al. l9g2:
)wn
)asy
102), I-lowever, intcrpreters' Type A clrientation eliel not rcach a particularly
lcad
vulnerable risk levcl. sinco thc survcy concenlmled on strcss rathcr than on
ral "
 I. Kurz., E. lhtsel, I). Chibu, W. l\tte:lr- arrrl .1. ttlitlJfnutrttr

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

oricntations.

3.1 Comparisons with Cassc

In tlrc f<lllowing, an attcmpl is nucle to .olnparo a sclcction

oí' puhlicaticlns
on personality traits of translators and intcrpretors
with Cassc's valuc oricntation
modcl.

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 cxccptionally
rarc, (...) 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) dcscribes
translating in the following way;

"a task between understanding, searching and producing

which requires
absolutc concentration on the source text, conscientiousness,
perception and empathy, linguistic sensitivity,
thoroughness an<l
responsibility 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) for
translators.
Henschelmann's description is not the result of an
empirical study but the
outcome of her professional judgement.

tL_.
 Scribe or Actor?

3.1.3 Keiser

Afew years later, Keiser (1979: 17) describes personal qualities of

in a paper on the selection and training of interpreters. From his
interpreters
experience as a professional interpreter and professor at the University of
Geneva, he includes the following personality requirements in his list:

(...) the faculty of analysis and synthesis, together with the ability to
intuit 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 a
pleasant voice; intellectual curiosity and intellectual probity; tact and
I

i.
diplomacy; above average physical endurance and good nerves.

All Íbur of Casse's value orientations can be found in Keiser's description of

interpreters, with a clear prepondorance of people orientation (adapt immediately
to speakers, public, and conÍbrence situations; a gift for public speaking and a
plcasant voice; tact iurd diplomacy). Action orientation is represented in "to
a<laptimmediately to subject mattor", process orientation in "the faculty of
analysis and synthesis", idea orientarion in "intellectual curiosity".

3.l .4 Henderson ( 1980)

A pcrsonality survcy was carriccl out by Henderson (1980) to compare thc

pcrsonality traits oÍ. a samplc o|. interpreters with those clf a sample of
trurrs|ators. All oí' the trans|atr:rs urd intorpreters participating in the survcy
workctJ lbr intcrnational organizations, most of them as permanent stalT, The
Íindings 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, with
linitecl antbition, liking routine, socially isolate<l an<l sul'íbring from
artistic frustration, who is nt thc sanrc lime a sclf'-doubting, ecccntric
pcclant !

"fhc .'typical,' translator would thercÍbrc score ra(hcr low on action ()rientdtiol|
(pcrl'ectirrnist, lirnitccl ambition, liking routino) nnd cvcn lowcr on people
orienkiliut (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 trl

an idea orientation.
As regards thc "typical" interpretcr, Hendcrson (1990: 223'l sumnrarizcs rhc
responses 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 varicty
and at times anxious and frustrated (...)

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

3.L5 Henderson(1987)

In a more comprehensive personality survey, Hendcrson (19g7: 67 f0

administered cattell's sixteen Personality Factor
euestionnaire to a sample of
translators and interpreters. He identifies the resulting personality profilc of
translators 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 by
Szuki (1988) at the university of Keio. His sample consisred only of so-called
 Scribe or Actor?

interpreters, based on woÍk experience, tnerr

rt to wcll.lrtJaptc<l tranSlators and
judgements'
t stinrirtion of the job and employers' ard
that translators are patient, cheerful, humorous
i the Szuki's Íindrngs suggest on the job and in daily
i"t*cultural contact
.. in"t""-Ji"^'"t,,'
rrr:livc.'fhey
lilb,nnrlhaveanintt'"'t-inlookingafterothers(whichrequiresalotofpatience)
rrrrrl voluntarY work'
l(clatcdtoCasse'sfourvalueorientations'translatorshavelprocess
people o.ientation (intercultural contact'
ttricttttltkltt (patient)''j-; sírong
ltltlking irÍier others) .'" e,,i,-, *t,,,o)ion
,, present (active), while idea
people as ego-centered'
ttritttlaliotthardly exists,;;ő;"
botlt Jescribes.idea-oriented
include a strong interest for looking
after
iking wlroroas Szuki's n"di";;;;;""tl*"tt
have high
""tl'n,.,'nr"t'"rs, aocording to szuki' are progressive' oxtrovert and
At the same tlme' they are interested
in verbal
rrclticvoncnt lnotrves' in social
communication antl journalism'
r,rortttttunicalion as well as mass
deepening insight into peoplc'
issrrcs, plrysioal labor and in
,'-y] |Í) interpreiers therefore possess acllon
ln lc'ns nt. corr",r'uutu" ori.nto,ions, (extroven'
ple and strong people orientation
<tl
r ( rtr trtion(high achiwement motives)
"progressive""
tt,i

iilc is suggested by
ol-
sociitl issttcs, ctc.)' Idea orientation
,l.lrc alrove !^i'ring litárature- on
the personality
""*ó;;;;._ú",*."n
<lÍ' translatoJ. unJ in,",p."ters
and Casse's value orientations are
1rr,tt|.ilcs
suruttrariz,ccl in 'fable i and Table- 2 below' As regarcls translators' an overall
Irr-:ndttrwardsprocess'"tu'totio'canbeobserved'Authorsclisagreeonpeople it present'
Henschelmann irnd Szuki considcr
ttrirtrlttlittnin t,nn'tatc.)i'' Wh"'"u' attributed
in both his studies. lntcrpreters alre
'il1(ltl()ll llorulcrson lirund the ,rpp".ri"ir""a
taljon arrd sÍrong p e cl p I e o ri entat 0 |l,
r, (, t i l, n ( ) r i,(|, l
sol)L: f ,

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

Henclerson ( ptQ)- lÍonclcrson (l9!]I Szuki
llcnse hclmann
Acl i()ll a a
o o aa
|)coDIc
l(lt:il
rltgolllg'
rpt)y.go- 'l'rrblc 2l lnterprctors' personality profilc
ttcnduson (1987) Szuki
lcrbcrt Keiscr Henderson (19!Q)
I
a a
o a a
A 0l l ()Íl
a
ttr lccs s
ao ao
aa a
I

ItcrrtrIc o
a
d out by Itlcrt

so-cllle{l
 l0 I. Kurz, E. Bascl, D. Chibu, W. I'etttls ruul J. Wol/iuntnr

3.2 F-ortin

After this gcneral review o|provious Íindings and vicws hclt| by cxpcricnccd
practitioners, teachers and researchers, an attcmpt will bc mtrdc to analyzc how
bcginner students eif trans|ation and intcrprctíltion soe thc two prtlí.cssional
groups. The analysis is basocl on a diploma the sis which invcstigatecl
sociodemographic data of treginner studcnts at the Vienna Institutc (Fortin
l992). Although tlre study did not primarily í.ocus on personality traits o|.
translators and interpretcrs, these can be dct|uccd íiorn qucstions rcgarcling the
skitls students considered esscntial in tho cxcrcise o[ tho two profcssions.
The evaluation of thc answcrs to thosc qucstions suggcsts that (rilnslators ilB
considcred by beginner students to havc ctcticttr orientatirsn, tts thcy nccd quick
reactions and tlre ability to grasp mcaning irnmediatcl y' Process oricúaÍiott,
cvaluated on the basis of how important a scientil'ic approach to problcms was
considered, was accorded low importanoc. In contrast, peopl.c oricntcttktn was
strongly reprcscnted. In terms of idea orientution, asscsscd on thc basis ol
reactions to the statemcnt "I chose this course o1 study bccause it concentratcs
on practical skills rather than theoretical knowledge", aspiring translators scorcd
slightly below average on a six-point scalc.
Quick reactions and the ability to grasp meaning immediately wcrc
considered even more important for interprcters than for translators, suggesting
an even higher action orientation. Process orientation was accorded as low an
importance as for translators. Interpreters scorcd even higher than translators in
terms of people orientation However, they scored very low on idea orientation.
This tendency is further corroborated by Fortin's finding that aspiring translators
arcorded much greater significance to the ability to abstract than did aspiring
interpreters (Fortin 1992: 59).
using the same legend as in Tables I and 2, Fortin's findings are represontcd
in Table 3 below. As above, interpreters receive high scores on action
ud people orientation. However, the personality profile of
orientation
translators does not coincide with previous findings.

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

Translators Interpreters
Action o aa
Process o
People o aa
Idea

blank space: no prediction made

orientation not present
o orientation present
aa strong presence of orientation
 Scribe or Actor? ll

4. Questions and hypotheses

The study of the literature reviewed revealed a preponderance of process ud

people 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 may

change 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 any
validity in this respect and on the basis of the above questions, the following
hypotheses 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 closely
to the litcrature.

5. Dcscription of samplcs
5.1 Btginners

Thc sarnplc of beginner studonts consisted of participants in an introductory

class requirod of all students, aiming at communicating basic thcoretical arxl
prolbssional knowlcclge on translation and intcrpreting. This class was chosen on
thc assumption that participants would be at the very beginning of their studies
and have littlc prior knowledge ol'translation and interprcting, i.e. they would be
largely unflwaro o[ studics carricd out hitherto on tho porsonality traits of
translators and intcrprctcrs.
Of the 57 c;ucstionnaires returned by this group, 26 were eliminated for
several rcásons' Six o|'thcsc questionnaircs wcro not takcn into considcration
bccause 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. one
respondent ljtilctl to inclicatc tltc nurnbcr tlÍ. scmcstcrs hc/shc lrlrc| bccn stu<'lying.
 12 L Kurz, I!. Iluscl, I.). Chilta, W. Patelti unt! J. Wril"lli.anun

l9 qucstionnaircs had not bccn complctccl; orrrissions rangccl ltclnr onc

unanswercd pair oÍ stiltcnrcnts to wholo pages missing.
of thc rcmaining 3l rcsponclcnts, 27 werc fcnralc a.rrcl thrcc wcro malci onc
respondcnt lailcd to indicatc gcndcr. Thc average Írgo was 19.63 years; one
responclent dicl not inclicate age. The averago numbcr of scmcsters was 1.26. onc
respondcnt did not indicate a number of scmestcrs, but was assurncd to bc near
thc 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-lovcl

consecutive interprotation class, an advanccd class in sirnultancous intcrprctation
and an advanced translation class.
of thc 42 questionnaircs rcturncd by this group, throc worc not takcn into
account for evaluation bccausc they were incomplctc. ot' the remaining 39
respondents, 32 wcre fcmalc and 6 were male; onc responclent lailc<t to indicate
gender. The average age was 24.2r years; again, no data were available lbr onc
respondent. The average numbor of semesters was 8.89; one respondent failcd to.r
I
give relevant information, while another indicatcd that she had completed
graduate studies in translation.
I

6.
i

Results of the survey

6.1 Translators

Table 4 and Figure 2 compare beginners' ánd advanced students' assessmont

of translators. Both sample groups scored translators highest at process
orientation. Beginners assessed translators' process orientation at 1r.452;
advanced students gave them 13.077. The difference between the two groups was
significant (p = 0.05).
The assessment of all other orientations yielded no significant difference. As
regards action orientation, beginners and advanced students both scored
translators below 10, with beginners giving them 9.25g and advanced students
giving them 8.231.
Beginners' and advanced students' assessment of people oientation in
translators did not differ significantly, at 9.29 and 9.359 resp.
In terms of idea orientation, translators received a score of l0 from besinners
and a score of9.333 from advanced students.
 Scribe or Actor? IJ

I one Table 4: Translators as assessed by beginners and advanced students

Beginners Advanced
c; one Mean St.dev. Mean St.dev. Difference
i; onc
Action 9.258 2.30 8.231 n Á| n.s.
r. Onc t1.452 3.69 t3.o't'l 2.66 s. (p = 0.05)
.Process
rC neaf
People 9.29 3.48 9.359 z.9l n.s.
ri
Idea t0 2.21 9.333 2.28 n.s.

Figure 2: Translators as assessed by beginners and advanced students

:

i
l4

ti-levc:l
ctation

:n into
ing 39
ndicatc
lilr onc
rilcd to
nplctcd

issfilent 6.2 Interpretcrs

I)rol ass
| 1.452;
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
0ps wils
udvancccj studcnts giving them I L795. The diffcrcncc was not signifioant.
:ncc. Ari
A signit]cant clifí.crcnce (p = 0'0l) was obtained for actitln orientation, where
scorcd
bcginners gavo intcrprctcrs 9.839, whilo advanccd studcnts acconled them
||,692, the sceoncl highcst scorc accorded to interpreters in th€ survoy'
students
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
úion itt
thcnr 9.5l6, thc dií.l'-ercncc bcing significant (p = 0.0l).
cgr nne l's
As regartls idea rlrientatlort, intcrprcters rcccivec| a scorc ell' 9.ó77 frorn
beginners and a scorc o|'9.359 Íronr advanced studcnts.
 t4 I. Kurz, E. Ilat;t:1, D. Cltitru, W, Irtt!ctls tutet J. Wott'liitnuqr

Table 5; Interprctcrs as asscssccl try hcginners and nclvanced studcnts

f r 'l
Bcginncrs Advancccl
Mcan S t.rlc v. Mcan St.dcv. Dil'fcrcncc
Action 9.83 9 l.ll) || .692 2.7 2 s. (P = 0.01
it{lvrri
Process 9.5l ó 3.09 7,t28 2.99 s. (n = 0.01)
llllr'll
Peoplc r0.968 3.04 I l
795 3.41 n. s.
Idca 9.677 2.29 9.35 9 2.67 n.s.
lllrtll
(
Figurc 3: Interpretcrs as assesscd by boginncrs ancl advanced stuclcnts
t!ll,lll
l2
I

t0 Ix'lu
8 | ,rl rlr

4
l'tut
1
.ll::
lr L'it
0
Action P€opl€ ldeB

/.1
6.3 Dffirences between translators cvtd interpreters as parceived by
beginners
('xlr
As shown in Table 6, beginners' assessment of process orientation <tiffercd llltil
significantly (p = 0.05) for translators and interpreters (r r.452 ancl 9.516 resp.). illll
The difference was also significant (p = 0.05) as regards people orientation sllrl
(translators: 9.29; interpreters: 10.968). ( llir
Beginners' assessment of idea and action orientation did not differ
llol
rr,ltt
significantly for the two professional groups.
ttt it

Table 6: Beginners' assessment of translators and interpreters

sl u(
Translators Interbreters (lu t

Mean St.dev. Mean St.dev. Difference lltli

Action 9.258 2.30 9.83 9 2.16 n. s. SiIII
Process l |.452 3.69 9.516 3.09 s, (o = 0.05' lll('
Peoole 9.29 3.48 r0.968 3.04 s. (p = 0.05) rrrrl
Idea 10 2.2r 9.677 2.29 n.s l)lil
 Scribe or Actor? 15

6.4 Differences between translators and interpreters as perceived by advattced

students

As can be seen from Table 7, there was a significant difference (p = 0.01) in

advancedstudents'assessment of process orientation in translators (13.077) ard
interpreters (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 accorded
significantly different scores (p = 0.01) to the two professional groups for action
o rientation (translators: 8.23 I ; interpreters : I 1.692).
Thc only value orientation where advanced students saw no difference
between translators and intelpreters was idea orientation (9.333 and 9.359 resp.).

Table 7: Advanced students' assessment of translators and interpreters

Translators Interpreters
Mean St.dev. Mean St.dev. Difference
Action 8.23 |
a A1
z,+ | ||.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.

1 . Discussion of results
7 .I Comparison of results to the literature
lbt
T'hc rcsults of the survey may bc said to be very much in line with thc views
exprcssed by thc authors rcviewecl, who see translators as predominanlly process
and people oriented, and interprcters as people and action oriented. This is bomc
ll crctl
sp.).
out by the rcsults obtained from b<lth sample groups, beginners and advanced
students' Thcy, too, consider people and action orientaÍion to be the most
kttictrt
charactcristic 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,
dií1cr
whilc beginners in Fortin's study scored translators high on actktn and people
orientation and failccl to see their pro cess orientation.
However, a more dctailed analysis of the results for translators shows that the
studcnts in tho two samples place even grcater weight on process orientation
than tho authors rcvicwed. Both beginners and advanccd students attributed the
ncc highest scorc for process. As rcgards action $nd idea, the stuclents in the two
n.s samplos givc low to mcdium scorcs. Thc authors makc hardly any refcrence to
0.05 these two valuc oricntations, an obvious sign thut they do not considcr them
irnportant. With rcspcct to pcople orientation, Szuki is thc only author who
placcs grcater wcight on this oricntntion.
 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 uxJ
actton oricnt.tirtn, witrt basicalry fl
no mcntion <tf prticess ur4 iriuo.
with thc vicws cxprcssed Ttris cont.u.ts
by bcginn"r ,toa"nt, in
tfri. ,tulfl' *no u,,.ibu,"
almost tho samo wcight to'prrr7r,r
as 10 dctio, etricntation.of thc ll
^nl'lr1uo
is r|rc only uo. t., n..u,.l ntcr'iuru u, ,..ung wciglrt
:ii.'iJ:JT}""o;Í"''". Both samplcs oí. student.s scc intcrprctcrs to
lt
preclominantl tl
, ,,,,,;;,,::::s.. a.s

lr

7.2 Dilfe rcnces bctween beginners

and advant:cc! stutlent.r

It was assumcd that thorc nrigltt

bc cliÍl.crences in the vicws exprcssct|
beginncrs and a<Jviurcc<r studcnts by
Jn.r ,no, iir" vicws .r. trrc ratter
grcatcr corrcspondcncc woura show
with thc literaturc rcvicwecl.
with rcgart to translators (see Tahrc
+j, ,rri* hypothcsis has been
conÍ.inned by tlre survey' There
is only onc significant cliÍTcrcnoe 'iugcry
two samples of students: the bctwccn the
advanced studen
score than thc beginners, group,
which tics i.j Ti:flff""ffi"l j}-Í'"J
reviewed. one cxplanation courd be that the fiíff:;
acrvanced students have bccn
to a number of courses in exposed
transration theory, textual anarysis,
etc. so that they have come textual criticism,
better to undersíand th" p,o,,,,;;;"*.;;;""slation;
thus, they considcr a process orientation
difference, which is, however,
essentiar for transrators. Another
not significant, concems people
orientation. The
rank ir second, *h";;ih;-beginners
I:i":"d ""lenrs
rmportant value orientation. see it as rhe third mosr
one possible expranation i"
their studies, the advanced studenis *
have developed an understanding
irr", as part or ;;

people element in translators'lives for the rl

(having io n"gotiut" with
experts to obtain information, clients, talking to
etc.) insteaiof.'. .'seeing them as tl
an ivory tower' sulTounded
only uí u""[.
f"opl"'r".rua.a in
ll
As far as interpreters (see t'atie
5) are'concerned, two significant tl
may be identified between beginners'ana differences
advanced students attribute
aavancea
-g,"u,". students.-For o"",ti"g, ,h"
i.po.ián"" to action. A reasonable l"
explanation would be that the rur,". tru"" been sensitized
undersrandingof towards an ll
rhe actual int".p.ting
their assessment comes closer
pi"""r, *a its action"l";";1r. In facr, 'l
to tt ui"*" round in the riterature. lr
The second significant^ difference
"
,"g*d"" pror"ss orientatioa which the t\
advanced students consider far
ress i-pof*t tnun the beginners
explanation might be that, do. Again, the
b"cuuse ii.r. training, advanced students
distinguish more clearly between "i
,t,"-.'ilJi, required of translators aÍId t)
interpreters. process is associated with translati on, actionwith
interpretation.
 I7
Scribe or Actor?

8. Conclusions
arrd
rsts
The two hypotheses (see 4.) have been largely confirmed
by the findings of
ute study has shown that the
the survey. uiing casset questionnaire, this empirical
the people oriented, whereas
typical tránslatoiis ,""n u. predominantly process
and
.to interpreter ts considered to be people and action oriented; however'
the typical
translators and interpreters
othei orientations should not be neglected, as both
as
values'
have been shown to have fairly balanced communication
and interpreters
Figure 4: Aclvanced students' assessment of translators

Actr cn
by
low

gcly
the
,(:cJ.t

hors
osecl
rstl) ! Pmfle
lion;
parts of the literature
Ithcr Admittedly, it may be argued that the survey and large
'l'hc To attempt a
rcvicwod reflect but stcreotypc views of translators and interpreters.
gone beyond the scopc of
)t osl more complex pcrsonality iroÍile stu<ly would have
this papei. Wc ar" als.i o*,ue o1' the fact that any modol of
rt ol' personality
' ori.niotlun, involvcs the risk of simplification. As M.
thc Bowen (1994: 189)

rg to rightlypointsout,woshoultl'.bcwareeifoversimplifications,''as''[the]introvert
:cl in tran,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
inco:i findings
, thc prcscntccl in ttrls papcr with thc actual persona|ity proÍilos of a sample of
nable practising translaiors ancl interpreters. Therefore' we suggcst that Casse's
represcntatives of these tw<r
s alll
iurrtion*i." be aclministerecl to a sample of held by the
fhct, prof'essions in orclcr to seo how their scores compare with the vicws
iwo samplos of stuclents ancl the authors reviewed'
r the
r, (he
rclcnls 9, Acknowlctlgcmcnts
iuxl
autlrtlrs tlf this papcr woulcl likc to thank Ms. FÜrthaucr, Mr.
ll. "I.he Kaiscr arxl
Mr, Piichhackcr, thc tcilchers who allowcrj the survoy to bc canicd out during
 I 8 I. Kurz,, E. Ilase I, D. Chilta, W. l,rilt:ls utrd J. Wolltruttttt
i
i

their classes, as wcll as nll ilrc stu<lcnts who participutctr

in trrc survey. A sincerc
thank you also gocs to Ms' Waldherr or ihc lnstitutc
o| Psyclroíogy cl|. tlto
University 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,,, in
Deanna L. Hammond (ed'\, Professional Issuei
7c,í rinstators en!
Interpreters' American Translators' Association sehotarly
Monograph
Scries, Vol. VIL Amsrcrclam/philactclphia, Bcnjanrins, pp.
t S t - t VZ.
casse, Piene (1981): Training fer the cross-curturar Mind:
A irandbook Jitr
C 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): ,,Interprctilrg
Stress: Sources of job stress among conÍbrcnce interprcters,,,
Multilingua I -2, pp. 97 _toj .
Fortin, Robert (1992): Stuclienanf(ngerlnnen c]er Übersetzerlnnen- und
Dolmetscherlnnenausbildung: Soziodemographische
Daten untl
Studienwahl, 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,
pp.72-86.
QueIle & Meyer,
Herbert, Jean (1952): The Interpreter's Handbook:
How to Becomc a conference
Interprete r, Geneva, Librairie de l'Université.
Keiser, walter (1979): "selection and training of conference
interpreters,,, in D.
Gerver & H.W. Sinaiko (eds.), Language Interpretation ad
Communicatlon, New york, plenum fress, pj. n_24.
Paulovsky, Louis H. (1949): ''Prinzipien der akadernischen
Übersetzer- und
Diplomdolmetschausbildung", in p. Reiner (ed.),
schrifienreihe
Moderne Sprachen, Wien, Verband der östeneichischen
Neuphilologen.
szuki, Atsuko (r988): "Aptitudes of transrators and interp reters,,, Meta
XXX[yl, pp: 108_114.