Over the course of two years, I have learned a great deal about the interpreting process

and exactly what it means to interpret meaning. Going into the program, I had no real concept of

what this meant in my mind, interpreting for meaning was as straight-forward as hearing words

and signing them in ASL (and vice versa). This idea, however, is an oversimplification of the

process, to say the least.

I believe that the concept of interpreting meaning is best approached through the

discussion of models of interpreting and how these models shape the way the interpreter views

her work. Through learning about many different models of interpreting, I found myself

gravitating to two different models that I think work best when used simultaneously. The models

are Betty Colonomos (1992) pedagogical model of interpreting and a cognitive model of

interpreting, as discussed by Wilcox and Shaffer (2005).

Colonomos (1992) breaks the interpreting process down into three phases: concentrating,

representing, and planning. Because of this, the model is often referred to by its acronym, CRP.

During the C (or concentrating) phase, the interpreter attends to the speaker, analyzes the source

message, and drops the form of the source language. This is incredibly important because it

allows the interpreter to move into the next phase without being stuck on the specifics of the

language used to construct the message. Once in the R phase (or the representing phase), the

interpreter attempts to conceptualize the meaning of the message without the use of language.

Another way of putting this is that she runs a movie in her mind to understand the meaning

within what the speaker is saying. The interpreter then moves into the last phase, the P (or

planning) phase. It is here that the interpreter composes, modifies, and delivers a message in the

target language that maintains dynamic equivalence with the source message. This means that

the target message carries as close as possible to the same meaning as the source message, while
accounting for the differences between the languages, cultures, and experiences of the speaker

and audience. It is important to note that the three phases of the CRP model overlap each other,

as while the interpreter is in the planning phase with one part of the message, she may also be in

the concentrating or representing phase with the next part of the message.

CRP is a good way to understand the structure of the interpreting process because it

clearly outlines what is going on in the interpreters mind at any given time during the process. It

also provides interpreters with vocabulary to be able to think about the process in depth and

identify specific areas for improvement. For example, if something went awry during the

production of the message in the planning phase, it is likely that the interpreter did not spend

enough time processing in the representing phase. By using this vocabulary, it is easy to discuss

specific points in the interpreting process in a clear and comprehensive way.

It is also important to note that Colonomos (1992) CRP model stands on the idea that the

meaning of the message can be found within the message itself and that it is the responsibility of

the interpreter to find that meaning and relay it in the target language. For this reason, I do not

believe that this model stands alone as the best way to understand what it means to interpret

meaning. Rather, I believe it works best when paired with a cognitive model.

When I am interpreting, I use Colonomos (1992) CRP model paired with a cognitive

model as discussed by Wilcox and Shaffer (2005). When applying a cognitive model, the

meaning is not found within the message, but co-constructed between the speaker and the

interpreter, and then again between the interpreter and the audience. This approach to the idea of

interpreting meaning is important because it does not depend only on the words, spoken or

signed, for the meaning of the message, but also on the context of the words. The meaning of the

message is dependent on who is saying it, why they are saying it, where they are saying, when
they are saying it, and who they are saying it to. The thought worlds of the speaker, the audience,

and the interpreter all play a role in the meaning of that message because they are the screen

through which the message is filtered. Ultimately, what one person understands from a message

could be different from what another person understands from the same message, depending on

their experiences, beliefs, values, and world view. It is important to remember that the interpreter

also brings her own thought world into the situation while she is interpreting. It is for this reason

that the cognitive model approach to interpreting is so effective it includes the interpreter in the

process and recognizes that the context she brings will affect the process and will be a factor in

the co-construction of the meaning between her and the consumers.

References

Colonomos, B. (1992). Pedagogical model of the interpreting process [Class handout]. Riverdale,

MD: The Bicultural Center.

Wilcox, S., & Shaffer, B. (2005). Towards a cognitive model of interpreting. Topics in Signed

Language Interpreting, 27-50.