What Does It Mean? WDIM as a Framework for Meaning-Based Interpreting and Translation

Abstract

This paper examines What Does It Mean? (WDIM) as a conceptual and practical framework supporting interpreters and translators in preserving meaning, intent, and cultural nuance. It situates WDIM alongside Skopos Theory (Vermeer, 1989) and Dynamic Equivalence (Nida, 1964) as a meaning-oriented approach that strengthens decision-making, promotes reflective practice, and provides an accessible structure for professional review. The paper argues that WDIM offers a versatile, low-theory but high-utility model that can be applied to live interpreting, translation, and self-assessment processes across sign language and spoken language contexts.

Introduction

In interpreting and translation, the central task is to transfer meaning, not merely words. While this may seem self-evident, achieving accurate, culturally responsive equivalence remains one of the most complex challenges faced by practitioners. For sign language interpreters in particular, the shift between visual–spatial and spoken–aural modalities requires ongoing attention to how meaning is constructed and conveyed.

The WDIM model “What Does It Mean?” is a practical framework for exploring meaning beyond lexical equivalence. It encourages interpreters and translators to ask what the source message means within its full context before beginning to produce a target message. Though conceptually simple, WDIM draws on established theoretical roots, aligning closely with Skopos Theory (Vermeer, 1989) and Nida’s Dynamic Equivalence (1964), while grounding those principles in a format that supports both practice and reflection.

This paper introduces WDIM as a framework that bridges theoretical knowledge and applied practice. It explores its relevance to decision-making, meaning preservation, and professional growth, offering interpreters and translators a structured yet flexible tool for improving accuracy, cohesion, and cultural integrity.

1. Theoretical Context

1.1 Meaning-based theories in interpreting and translation

The shift from form-based to meaning-based models in interpreting and translation was marked by Nida’s (1964) Dynamic Equivalence theory, which prioritised conveying the effect and intent of the source text rather than its grammatical or lexical form. This laid the groundwork for Skopos Theory (Vermeer, 1989), which posits that the purpose (Skopos) of the translation determines its form, style, and content.

Both approaches moved the field towards recognising that accuracy involves functional equivalence: the creation of a communicative experience for the target audience that mirrors, as far as possible, that of the source audience. However, while these theories are robust, they are also abstract and often challenging for practitioners to apply in real time.

1.2 WDIM: A practice-oriented extension

WDIM emerges as a way of operationalising these theories for working interpreters and translators. At its core, WDIM asks practitioners to stop and consider: What does this mean? The focus is not on individual words or signs, but on the overall message,its function, its cultural context, and its communicative intent.

WDIM can therefore be understood as a meaning-based reasoning process that helps interpreters manage time lag, monitor accuracy, and assess whether their output genuinely represents the intended message. In doing so, it situates meaning at the heart of both production and reflection.

2. WDIM as a Framework

2.1 The principle of “meaning before form”

The central tenet of WDIM is that form should follow meaning. Before producing an interpretation or translation, the practitioner identifies what the speaker or signer means in context, what the message is doing functionally, and only then seeks the most appropriate target-language equivalent.

For example, in BSL–English interpreting, a signer’s raised eyebrows, repetition, or specific use of space may not correspond directly to a word-for-word English structure but instead communicate emphasis, doubt, or relational information. The WDIM question prompts the interpreter to pause, conceptualise that meaning, and reformulate it in a way that achieves the same communicative purpose.

2.2 Applying WDIM in real time

WDIM operates effectively as a cognitive check within the interpreting process. It can be applied:

• During comprehension, to ensure that the interpreter recognises underlying intent rather than surface form.

• During production, to check that output decisions are meaning-driven.

• During reflection, to review whether the target message successfully preserved meaning and intent.

This reflective cycle parallels models of metacognitive control in interpreting (Gile, 1995) and the monitoring loop described in cognitive processing models (Cokely, 1992). WDIM can therefore be viewed as both a decision-making tool and a quality control mechanism.

3. WDIM in Practice: Interpreting and Translation Contexts

3.1 Application in BSL–English interpreting

In signed language interpreting, modality differences often lead to structural interference from English into BSL, particularly when interpreters focus on lexical equivalence. WDIM redirects attention from how it’s said to what it means.

For instance, when interpreting an English phrase such as “Let’s put this issue to bed”, a literal rendering could lead to confusion or an unnatural BSL construction. WDIM encourages the interpreter to consider what the speaker means (to resolve or conclude a matter) and then produce a conceptually accurate version using BSL’s own linguistic resources, perhaps through a sign combination such as ISSUE FINISH or a metaphorical classifier.

In reverse (BSL to English), WDIM supports voice-over work by helping interpreters manage features such as simultaneity and multichannel expression. Instead of translating each visual element separately, the interpreter considers the composite meaning being conveyed and produces a coherent spoken equivalent.

3.2 Application in written and recorded translation

WDIM is equally relevant to translation work, where the interpreter’s processing time allows for deeper reflection. Translators can use WDIM to analyse sections of source material and ask:

• What is the author’s intent here?

• What is the emotional or cultural tone?

• What response is this text designed to produce in the audience?

By answering these questions before reformulating, the translator maintains fidelity to both meaning and purpose, aligning with Skopos principles. In post-translation review, WDIM can also be used to evaluate whether meaning has shifted, been diluted, or over-interpreted, providing a structured framework for peer or self-assessment.

4. WDIM and Reflective Practice

4.1 WDIM as a self-assessment tool

One of WDIM’s strengths is its adaptability to reflective frameworks. After an assignment, practitioners can use WDIM to guide their analysis:

• What did I understand the source to mean?

• Did my interpretation accurately reflect that meaning?

• If not, why? Was it a processing issue, a lack of contextual understanding, or an inappropriate lexical choice?

This structured questioning helps interpreters identify specific areas for development rather than general weaknesses. It also supports the kind of evidence-based reflection required by professional bodies such as NRCPD (2024), where practitioners must demonstrate insight into their decision-making and growth.

4.2 Integration with other reflective models

WDIM complements existing reflective cycles such as Gibbs (1988) and Kolb (1984). It fits particularly well within the Analysis and Action Plan stages, offering a concrete method for connecting theoretical understanding with practice outcomes.

For example, after reviewing an assignment, an interpreter might realise that while their English output was accurate at surface level, the tone or intent was lost. Using WDIM, they can identify this as an issue of pragmatic equivalence rather than linguistic accuracy,an insight that directly informs future CPD goals.

5. The Relationship Between WDIM, Skopos, and Dynamic Equivalence

5.1 Shared philosophical grounding

WDIM, Skopos, and Dynamic Equivalence all prioritise meaning and function over form. However, WDIM distinguishes itself through accessibility. Whereas Skopos requires analysis of purpose, audience, and context at a theoretical level, WDIM distils this process into a single guiding question: What does it mean?

Dynamic Equivalence focuses on achieving an equivalent effect on the target audience; WDIM provides the cognitive prompt that helps practitioners reach that goal in practice. It acts as the micro-level tool that operationalises the macro-level theories.

5.2 Practical complementarity

In practical terms:

• Skopos Theory informs why a translation or interpretation should take a certain form (the purpose).

• Dynamic Equivalence defines what outcome is desired (equivalent impact).

• WDIM guides how to achieve it moment by moment through conscious meaning analysis.

Together, they form a coherent framework connecting theoretical understanding with professional application. Interpreters and translators can therefore use WDIM to enact Skopos and Dynamic Equivalence principles in live, dynamic settings where there is limited time for theoretical reasoning.

6. WDIM in Professional Development

6.1 Using WDIM in mentoring and supervision

Mentors and practice assessors can use WDIM as a diagnostic and developmental tool. During feedback sessions, mentees can be encouraged to explain their decision-making in terms of meaning preservation. Questions such as “What did you think that meant?” or “How did you decide what to prioritise in that section?” promote deeper analysis and awareness of linguistic and cultural equivalence.

This approach supports the development of reflective autonomy, helping practitioners internalise meaning-based reasoning until it becomes intuitive.

6.2 WDIM and assessment

WDIM can also underpin formal assessment criteria. In interpreting or translation evaluations, assessors can apply WDIM to identify where meaning has been lost, misrepresented, or unnecessarily expanded. It provides a clear framework for analysing accuracy without relying solely on linguistic comparison, aligning with current pedagogical shifts towards competence-based assessment (Pöchhacker, 2016).

7. Challenges and Limitations

Although WDIM offers a flexible and intuitive model, it relies on practitioners’ linguistic and cultural knowledge to interpret meaning accurately. A question like “What does it mean?” presupposes sufficient background understanding of both source and target languages, as well as cultural context.

Another limitation is time pressure. In fast-paced settings, there may be little opportunity to consciously apply WDIM, although with practice it becomes an internalised habit rather than an explicit process. Training and mentoring therefore play an essential role in embedding WDIM within the interpreter’s natural workflow.

8. Conclusion

WDIM provides a clear, accessible framework for meaning-based interpreting and translation. Rooted in the principles of Skopos Theory and Dynamic Equivalence, it encourages practitioners to prioritise meaning over form, purpose over structure, and cultural nuance over literal correspondence.

Its strength lies in its simplicity. By asking What does it mean? at each stage, comprehension, production, and reflection, interpreters and translators can produce work that is accurate, culturally aligned, and professionally reflective.

Beyond its use in active assignments, WDIM serves as a valuable reflective and evaluative tool, supporting continued professional development and assessment in line with regulatory standards. Whether used in live interpreting, written translation, or post-assignment reflection, WDIM offers a practical means of ensuring

Author: Stephen Ellis-Menton

Date: 24.10.2025

References

Cokely, D. (1992). Interpretation: A sociolinguistic model. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit.

Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

NRCPD. (2024). Code of Conduct and CPD Policy. Retrieved from https://www.nrcpd.org.uk/

Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos and commission in translational action. In A. Chesterman (Ed.), Readings in translation theory (pp. 173–187). Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.