1887
Volume 64, Issue 5-6
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Simultaneous Interpreting (SI) as a profession has been gaining momentum in China, but little has been researched on Chinese professional conference interpreting on a basis of large quantity of empirical data. This study adopts an information-based SI fidelity assessment approach to probe into the propositional information loss in an SI corpus of seventeen English(B)-Chinese(A) simultaneous interpreters’ interpretations, and through stimulated retrospective interviews of three conference interpreters. Results show that operational constraints (concurrent listening and speaking, time constraint and incremental processing), source language factors (speed, information density, accent, linguistic complexity, technicality, etc) and interpreting direction (B to A), etc, account for typical propositional omission, incompletion or error.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00070.lu
2019-02-22
2019-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexieva, Bistra
    1999 “Understanding the Source Language Text in Simultaneous Interpreting”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter9: 45–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman, Janet
    1994 “Error Analysis in the Teaching of Simultaneous Interpreting: A Pilot Study”. InBridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. bySylvie Lambert; and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 25–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.3.05alt
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.05alt [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, Linda
    1994 “Simultaneous Interpretation: Contextual and Translation Aspects”. InBridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. bySylvie Lambert; and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 101–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.3.11and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.11and [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, William J.
    1980 “Epilogue: An ‘Information Structure’ View of Language”. InExperimental Linguistics: Integration of Theories and Applications, ed. byGary D. Prideaux; Bruce L. Derwing; and William J. Baker, 293–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ssls.3.18bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssls.3.18bak [Google Scholar]
  5. Barik, Henri C.
    1971 “A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Meta16 (4): 199–210. 10.7202/001972ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/001972ar [Google Scholar]
  6. 1975 “Simultaneous Interpretation: Qualitative and Linguistic Data”. Language and Speech18 (3): 272–297. 10.1177/002383097501800310
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097501800310 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
    2007 “Interpreting Quality as Perceived by Trainee Interpreters: Self-evaluation”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer1 (2): 247–267. 10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798760
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798760 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2010 “Effects of Short Intensive Practice on Interpreter Trainees’ Performance”. InWhy Translation Studies Matters, ed. byDaniel Gile; Gyde Hansen; and Nike K. Pokorn, 183–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.88.16bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.88.16bar [Google Scholar]
  9. Buck, Gary
    1990 “The Testing of Second Language Listening Comprehension”. Ph.D dissertation. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.
  10. Bühler, Hildegund
    1985 “Conference Interpreting: A Multichannel Communication Phenomenon”. Meta30 (1): 49–54. 10.7202/002176ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002176ar [Google Scholar]
  11. Chang, Chia-Chien; and Diane L. Schallert
    2007 “The Impact of Directionality on Chinese/English Simultaneous Interpreting”. Interpreting9 (2): 137–176. 10.1075/intp.9.2.02cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.2.02cha [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang, Chia-Chien; and Wu Min-Chia
    2014 “Non-native English at International Conferences: Perspectives from Chinese-English Conference Interpreters in Taiwan”. Interpreting16 (2): 169–190. 10.1075/intp.16.2.02cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.2.02cha [Google Scholar]
  13. Chernov, Ghelly V.
    2004 “Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability-prediction Model”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.57
  14. Cheung, Kay-Fan
    2009 “Numbers in Simultaneous Interpreting: An Experimental Study”. Forum7 (2): 61–88. 10.1075/forum.7.2.03che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.7.2.03che [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark, Herbert H.; and Thomas T. Wasow
    1998 “Repeating Words in Spontaneous Speech”. Cognitive Psychology37: 201–242. 10.1006/cogp.1998.0693
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0693 [Google Scholar]
  16. Darò, Valeria.; and Franco Fabbro
    1994 “Verbal Memory during Simultaneous Interpretation: Effects of Phonological Interference”. Applied Linguistics15 (4): 365–381. 10.1093/applin/15.4.365
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.4.365 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dillinger, Michael
    1989 Component Processes of Simultaneous InterpretingPh.D Dissertation. Montreal: McGill University.
  18. Falbo, Caterina
    2002 “Error Analysis: A Research Tool”. InPerspectives on Interpreting, ed. byGiuliana Garzone; Peter Mead; and Maurizio Viezzi, 111–127. Forlì: Clueb.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Frauenfelder, Ulrich; and Herbert Schriefers
    1997 “A Psycholinguistic Perspective on Simultaneous Interpretation”. Interpreting2 (1–2): 55–89. 10.1075/intp.2.1‑2.03fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.2.1-2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  20. Garzone, Giuliana
    2002 “Quality and Norms in Interpretation”. InInterpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. byGiuliana Garzone; and Maurizio Viezzi, 107–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.43.11gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.11gar [Google Scholar]
  21. Gerver, David
    1969/2002 “The Effects of Source Language Presentation Rate on the Performance of Simultaneous Conference Interpreters”. InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker; and Miriam Shlesinger, 53–66. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1974 “Simultaneous Listening and Speaking and Retention of Prose”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology26 (3): 337–341. 10.1080/14640747408400422
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747408400422 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gile, Daniel
    1995/2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  24. 1998 “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting”. Target10 (1): 69–93. 10.1075/target.10.1.04gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.10.1.04gil [Google Scholar]
  25. 1999a “Variability in the Perception of Fidelity in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Hermes22: 51–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1999b “Testing the Effort Models’ Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting – A Contribution”. Hermes23: 153–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2015 “The Contributions of Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Linguistics to Conference Interpreting: A Critical Analysis”. InPsycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, ed. byAline Ferreira; and John W. Schwieter, 41–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Goh, Christine
    2000 “A Cognitive Perspective on Language Learners’ Listening Comprehension Problems”. System28: 55–75. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(99)00060‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hayashi, Takuo
    1991 “Interactive Processing of Words in Connected Speech in L1 and L2”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching29: 151–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Just, Marcel A.; and Patricia A. Carpenter
    1980 “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension”. Psychological Review87: 329–354. 10.1037/0033‑295X.87.4.329
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kalina, Sylvia
    2002 “Quality in Interpreting and Its Prerequisites: A Framework for a Comprehensive View”. InInterpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. byGiuliana Garzone; and Maurizio Viezzi, 121–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.43.12kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.12kal [Google Scholar]
  32. 2005 “Quality Assessment for Interpreting Processes”. Meta50 (2): 768–784. 10.7202/011017ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011017ar [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim, Hye-Rim
    2005 “Linguistic Characteristics and Interpretation Strategy Based on EVS Analysis of Korean-Chinese, Korean-Japanese Interpretation”. Meta50 (4). 10.7202/019846ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/019846ar [Google Scholar]
  34. Kurz, Ingrid
    1993 “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter5: 13–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kurz, Ingrid; and Elvira Basel
    2009 “The Impact of Non-native English on Information Transfer in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Forum7 (2): 187–213. 10.1075/forum.7.2.08kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.7.2.08kur [Google Scholar]
  36. Lambert, Sylvie
    1988 “Information Processing among Conference Interpreters: A Test of the Depth-of-Processing Hypothesis”. Meta33 (3): 377–387. 10.7202/003380ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003380ar [Google Scholar]
  37. Lambert, Sylvie; Valeria Darò; and Franco Fabbro
    1995 “Focalized Attention on Input vs. Output during Simultaneous Interpretation: Possibly a Waste of Effort!” Meta40 (1): 39–46. 10.7202/003384ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003384ar [Google Scholar]
  38. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  39. Leech, Geoffrey
    1981Semantics: The Study of Meaning. (2nd edition). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lin, I-hsin; Chang Feng-lan; and Kuo Feng-lan
    2013 “The Impact of Non-native Accented English on Rendition Accuracy in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Translation and Interpreting5 (2): 30–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu, Minhua; Diane L. Schallert; and Patrick J. Caroll
    2004 “Working Memories and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Interpreting6 (1): 19–42. 10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu [Google Scholar]
  42. Lu, Xinchao; and Wang Lidi
    2015 “Interpreters’ Turn-taking and Output Quality in English-Chinese Simultaneous Interpreting”. Foreign Language Teaching and Research47 (4): 585–596.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Massaro, Dominic W.; and Gregg C. Oden
    1995 “Independence of Lexical Context and Phonological Information in Speech Perception”. Journal of Experimental Psychology21 (4): 1053–1064.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Massaro, Dominic W.; and Trevor H. Chen
    2008 “The Motor Theory of Speech Perception Revisited”. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review15 (2): 453–457. 10.3758/PBR.15.2.453
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.453 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mead, Peter
    2005 “Methodological Issues in the Study of Interpreters’ Fluency”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter13: 39–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    1996 “Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter7: 43–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2001 “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting”. Meta46 (2): 410–425. 10.7202/003847ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003847ar [Google Scholar]
  48. 2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  49. Pym, Anthony
    2008 “On Omission in Simultaneous Interpreting: Risk Analysis of a Hidden Effort”. InEfforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. byGyde Hansen; Andrew Chesterman; and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 83–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Seeber, Kilian
    2013 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Measures and Methods”. Target25 (1): 18–32. 10.1075/target.25.1.03see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.03see [Google Scholar]
  51. Setton, Robin
    1998 “Meaning Assembly in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Interpreting3 (2): 163–199. 10.1075/intp.3.2.03set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.2.03set [Google Scholar]
  52. 1999Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2002 “A Methodology for the Analysis of Interpretation Corpora”. InInterpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. byGiuliana Garzone; and Maurizio Viezzi, 29–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.43.05set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.05set [Google Scholar]
  54. Shlesinger, Miriam
    1997 “Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting”. InConference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research, ed. byYves Gambier; Daniel Gile; and Christopher Taylor, 123–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.23.08shl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.23.08shl [Google Scholar]
  55. 2003 “Effects of Presentation Rate on Working Memory in Simultaneous Interpreting”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12: 37–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Shreve, Gregory Monroe; Isabel Lacruz; and Erik Angelone
    2011 “Sight Translation and Speech Disfluency”. InMethods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. byCecilia Alvstad; Adelina Hild; and Elisabet Tiselius, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.09shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.09shr [Google Scholar]
  57. Sperber, Dan; and Deirdre Wilson
    1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Tommola, Jorma; and Marketta Helevä
    1998 “Language Direction and Source Text Complexity: Effects on Trainee Performance in Simultaneous Interpreting”. InUnity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, ed. byLynne Bowker; Michael Cronin; Dorothy Kenny; and Jennifer Pearson, 177–186. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Traxler, Matthew J.
    2012Introduction to Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Xu, Jiajin; and Jia Yunlong
    2009Readability Analyzer 1.0. Beijing: National Research Center for Foreign Language Education (Beijing Foreign Studies University).
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Yang, Jun
    2004 “A Review of Studies on Disfluencies in Speech Production”. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (4): 278–284.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00070.lu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00070.lu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error