Challenges and Coping Strategies in English-Kiswahili Sermon Interpreting
Insights from Selected Pentecostal Churches in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Abstract
This study investigated the challenges church interpreters encounter during English-Kiswahili sermon interpreting in Pentecostal churches in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Guided by Gile’s (1995) Effort Models of Interpreting, the research employs a qualitative design to provide an in-depth analysis of the interpreters' experiences. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation, and video recordings in two purposively selected Pentecostal churches in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The findings reveal that interpreters often face significant challenges, including the rapid pace of preachers' speech, technical malfunctions in public address systems, the complexity of figurative language, and the physical and mental fatigue associated with prolonged interpreting sessions. These challenges frequently resulted in communication breakdowns between preachers and their audiences. To address these challenges, sermon interpreters adopted various strategies, including skipping certain parts of the message, summarising content, maintaining intense focus, and engaging in rigorous Bible study to enhance their understanding and preparation. Although these coping mechanisms were sometimes effective, persistent challenges often led to information loss and hindered effective communication. The study also highlights a significant lack of professional training among the interpreters, which significantly limited their ability to manage the challenges during sermon interpreting. Comparatively, the literature indicates that professionally trained interpreters are better equipped to address challenges during interpreting, benefiting from their advanced skills and specialised methodological training. Based on these insights, the study advocates for the development of specialised professional training programmes for interpreters in Tanzania. These programmes would equip interpreters with essential knowledge, advanced skills, and a strong ethical foundation, enabling them to deliver high-quality interpretations and ensure accurate and effective communication in religious and other social settings in Tanzania.
Keywords: Interpreting, sermon interpreting, guest preachers, challenges of interpreting, back translation.
References
References
Biamah, S. 2013, Dealing with communication challenges during interpretation of church sermons in UASIN GISHU county, Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 14, pp. 148-157.
Bühler, H. 1986, Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 231-236.
Gile, D. 1995, Fidelity assessment in consecutive interpretation. Target, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 151-164. DOI 10.1075/target.7.1.12gil
Kurz, I. 2001, Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user. Meta, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 394-409.
Longman. 2009, Longman dictionary of contemporary English (5th Edition). Harlow. England: Longman.
Mulundi, S. 2001, Towards professionalization of church interpretation in Tanzania: What do church stakeholders say about the quality criteria of church interpretation? The Bible Translator, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 294-312. DOI: 10.1177/20516770211039491
Mwinuka, L., Malangwa, P. and Asheli, N. 2022, Quality assessment of English-Kiswahili sermon interpreting from selected churches in Dar es salaam: The case of sense consistency with the original message. Journal of Linguistics and Language in Education, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 132-150.
Mwinuka, L. 2023, Linguistic and extra-linguistic aspects affecting the quality of English-Kiswahili sermon interpreting in Dar es salaam, Tanzania. Unpublished PhD thesis: University of Dar es Salaam.
Ngoda, N. 2018, The practice of community interpreting in Tanzania: Unpublished MA Thesis: Pan African University.
Peremota, I. 2017, Church interpreting in evangelical churches with Russian- language services (M.A Thesis). The University College of Economics and Culture, Riga.
Petzell, M. 2012, The linguistic situation in Tanzania. Moderna språk, 106 (1): 136-144.
Pöchhacker, F. 2001, Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta, vol. 46, no.2, pp. 410-425. DOI: 10.7202/003847ar
Pöchhacker, F. 2004, Introducing interpreting studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. 2015, Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
Seleskovitch, D. 1986, Comment: Who should assess an interpreter ' s performance? Multilingua, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 236.
Tibategeza. E. R. 2018, The prospects of Kiswahili as a medium of instruction in the Tanzania education and training policy. Journnal of Language and Education, 15 (4): 88-98.
TUKI. 2000, Kamusi ya Kiswahili sanifu, Dar es Salaam/Nairobi: Oxford University Press.
Yates, L. 2007, Interpreting at church. A paradigm for sign language interpreters. South Carolina: Booksurge, LLC.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
