The analysis of the interpretation of the recording Beneficial

effects of drinking Champagne into Polish language

The subject of this article is to compare the Polish translation of the statements about the
benefits of drinking champagne with the original in Polish. An emphasis is placed on the analysis of
two recordings, the original (in English) and its interpretation into Polish, to be able to extract
interesting research material and to assess the accuracy of the corresponding recordings. The analysis
took into account whether the interpreter had not changed the actual meaning of the recording,
fluency, grammar and pronunciation, and the overall impression of the interpreter’s work.

Taking into consideration the main clearly visible differences between the original and the
interpretation is lack of fluency in speech and underachieving pronunciation. At the very beginning, in
the sentence “(…) opowiem wam o moim ulubionym...”. It is hard to actually hear, if the interpreter
ends the sentence with “drinku” or “trunku”. A few seconds later, instead of “proseko”, the interpreter
says “preseko”, next there is “krwioności” however immediately corrected to “krwionośne”. In the
given recording, the interpreter repeats “to nie tylko, to nie tylko tyczy się…”. It is known that
sometimes repetitions are relevant, when they appear in the original, and are intended to emphasize the
statement rather than perturb its perception. In addition, in a sentence “gdzie uczymy się ma czer.. ma
korzyści na naczynia krwionośne” there is a pause. Various studies have shown that recipients
prioritize the ability to deliver full content. The essential aspects that are evaluated by them are a way
of articulation, correct pronunciation, no pauses in speaking, such as in “krążenia (pause) krwi),
hesitations, additional sounds (e.g. sighing), excessive correcting or voice control capabilities.

Having discussed fluency, grammatical structures and pronunciation are worth noting. There
are no significant grammatical errors in the interpretation. However, two of the sentences that might
interfere with the reception of the message are “Byłam bardzo szczęśliwa kiedy dostałam artykuł od
mojego znajomego przed świetami o korzyściach, jakie płyną z picia szampana. Fakt, że otrzymałam
przed świetami, co było doskonałym momentem”. The main idea of the sentence remains clear,
however the syntax is incorrect as, there is lack of a subject. Another example is “Jest to odmiana
czarnego winogrona, które są używane do produkcji szampana. Jeśli będziesz umiarkowanie
spożywać to będzie dobre dla serca”. In this passage, there is a semantic progression in the
interpretation, which will be discussed in the next paragraph, but if this fragment was to be considered
in terms of sentence structure, it could look in the following way: “Jest to odmiana czarnego
winogrona, które jest używane do produkcji szampana. Jego umiarkowane spożywanie będzie dobre
dla serca”. In the previous one, the plural was confused with the singular (są instead of jest), and the
subject was missing in the second sentence. Even so, the grammar in general is correct and few
mistakes did not hinder the clue of a given message in the interpretation.
 When it comes to a semantic progression during this interpreting, a few examples may
influence the right reception and comprehension of the main point. First of all, Helen Campbell in the
original says that scientists proved “a few glasses of champagne everyday is good for you”, whereas in
the interpretation we receive misleading information that researches found out that two glasses are
beneficial. Does it mean that three glasses would be harmful for our health? Another example, is when
the woman in the original name other beneficial drinks such as “cava, prosecco, sekt”, and the
interpreter does not mention the last one. The next mistake in this interpretation is the moment when
we get information about who conducted the research. The interpreter said that the researchers from
the UK and France were involved in the study, but did not mention, as in the original, that the French
only joined the work at some point. Furthermore, the interpreter said that wine contains “flawoidy”. In
Polish it should be “flawonoidy”, but the major problem in this problem is the fact, Helen Campbell
did not speak anything about flavonoids, but polyphenols. Flavonoids are the most numerous group of
polyphonels, an average recipient of this recording does not have to require such knowledge. Factual
errors are any mistakes linked with careless interpretation of the original, unconscious omissions of
text fragments or spelling, stylistic and grammatical errors, that we could encounter in this work.

The purpose of analysing this interpretation is to verify its reception relative to the original.
The advantages and disadvantages may be seen here. The most important aspect to convey the content
in a form that is understandable to the recipient, and in general this has been done well. The interpreter
is certainly knowledgeable on the subject. However, for more demanding recipients, a good oral
translator uses the language gently and naturally. In my opinion, this one lacked self-confidence what
was proved in the analysis. A good interpreter simply speaks beautifully, has a rich vocabulary and,
most importantly, does not make language and pronunciation mistakes. Although the interpreter has a
voice that is friendly to the recipient's ears, which is also important, the quality of that voice and good
diction are essential likewise. Errors in the work of interpreters and translators are inevitable. Their
complete elimination is impossible, because even an expert is only human. It should be noted,
however, that only qualified professionals with the appropriate inclination, who will perform the
assigned task at a high level, will be admitted to the profession.