Cooperativeness – A necessary trait for interpreters? A study on temperament and character dimensions of experts in different fields

Abstract

Aims and Objectives:

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether particular temperament and personality traits are more characteristic to interpreters’ expert performance than to expert performance in other fields.

Design:

To these ends, the Temperament and Character Inventory by Cloninger et al. (1994) and the distractibility scale of the Revised Dimensions of Temperament Survey by Windle (1992) were used.

Data and Analyses:

The data was gathered from two groups of interpreters (simultaneous and consecutive) and was compared to one group of foreign language teachers and one of non-linguistic experts from different fields of society. The group size varied between 20 and 23 participants each. The analyses were carried out with multivariate analysis of variance, supplemented with Bonferroni corrected contrasts.

Findings:

The results seem to indicate that temperament and character traits may have different impacts on different expert groups. In this study, in comparison to the control groups of foreign language teachers and non-linguistic experts, high cooperativeness was found to be more characteristic to simultaneous and consecutive interpreters. Cooperativeness also appears to be valued by recruiters and trainers of interpreters, for instance.

Originality:

The study was the first one comparing interpreters’ temperament and character dimensions with those of other expert groups, such as foreign language teachers and non-linguistic experts.

Significance and Limitations:

Among the different temperament and personality traits, at least cooperativeness seems to have a connection to the abilities and skills needed in the profession of an interpreter. More research, however, is needed to reveal possible connections of various temperament and personality traits with expertise in different fields. In this particular case, additional studies could show whether individuals with high cooperativeness become more easily interested in such professions as interpreting, or whether the high cooperativeness is a result of more experience and expertise in interpreting.

Keywords

Consecutive interpreter simultaneous interpreter foreign language teacher non-linguistic expert temperament trait character trait cooperativeness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AIIC Training Committee. (2010). Advice to students wishing to become conference interpreters, Retrieved from http://aiic.net/page/attachment/723

Ando

Suzuki

Yamagata

Kijima

Maekawa

Ono

Jang

K.L.

(2004). Genetic and environmental structure of Cloninger’s temperament and character dimensions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(4), 279–293.

Christoffels

I. K.

De Groot

A. M. B.

(2004). Components of simultaneous interpreting: Comparing interpreting with shadowing and paraphrasing, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(3), 227–240.

Cloninger

C. R.

(2008). The psychological theory of temperament and character: Comment on Farmer and Goldberg, Psychological Assessment, 20, 292–299.

Cloninger

C. R.

Przybeck

T. R.

Svrakic

D. M.

Wetzel

R. D.

(1994). The temperament and character inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and use. St. Louis, Missouri: Washington University, Center for Psychobiology of Personality.

Ericsson

K. A.

Lehmann

A. C.

(1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Revue of Psychology, 47, 273–305.

Ericsson

K. A.

Smith

(1991). Prospects and limits in the empirical study of expertise. In Ericsson

K. A.

Smith

(Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 1–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feltovich

P. J.

Prietula

M. J.

Ericsson

K. A.

(2006): Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives. In Ericsson (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 41–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gile

(2008). Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research, Forum, 6(2), 59−77.

10.

Hiltunen

Vik

G.-V.

Pääkkönen

Krause

Chr. M

. (2016). On interpreters’ working memory and executive control, International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(3), 297–231.

11.

Jang

K. L.

Livesley

W. J.

Vernon

P. A.

(1996). Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64(3), 577–591.

12.

Määttänen

Hintsa

Toivonen

Swan

Pulkki-Råback

Hintsanen

. . . Keltikangas-Järvinen

(2011). Cloninger’s temperament traits and inherited long QT syndrome, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 71(4), 245–249.

13.

Pöchhacker

(2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.

14.

Rosiers

Eyckmans

Bauwens

(2011) A story of attitudes and aptitudes? Investigating individual difference variables within the context of interpreting, Interpreting, 13(1), 53–69.

15.

Russo

(2011). Aptitude testing over the years. Interpreting, 13(1), 5–30.

16.

Shaw

(2011). Cognitive and motivational contributors to aptitude. A study of spoken and signed language interpreting students, Interpreting, 13(1), 70–84.

17.

Sheikh

M. M. El.

Shaker

N. M.

Hussein

Ramy

H. A.

(2014). Impact of personality temperaments and characters on academic performance and specialty selection among a group of Egyptian medical graduates. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 60(5), 499–507.

18.

Shuttleworth

Cowie

(1997). Dictionary of translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.

19.

Strelau

(1998). Temperament: A psychological perspective. New York: Plenum Press.

20.

Thomas

Chess

(1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

21.

Treisman

A. M.

(1965). The effects of redundancy and familiarity on translating and repeating back a foreign and a native language. British Journal of Psychology, 56, 369–379.

22.

Viaggio

(1996). The tribulations of a chief interpreter. Proceedings XIV World Congress of the Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT), Vol. 2, Melbourne, 591–601.

23.

Windle

(1992). Revised dimensions of temperament survey (DOTS-R): simultaneous group confirmatory factor analysis for adolescent gender groups. Psychological Assessment, 4(2), 228–234.

24.

Wong

K. M.

Cloninger

C. R.

(2010). A Person-centered approach to clinical practice, FOCUS. The Journal of Life-long Learning in Psychiatry, 8(2), 199–215.