Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In the previous study (Takahashi 2010), the omission of rendition was identified as one of the student problems. In the present study, ten undergraduate students interpretation and those of two professional interpreters were compared. It was found that decreasing accuracy of interpretation of the following sentence was identified as one of the student problems. Also, it was examined that there was an interpreting unit where the participants who used natural Japanese expressions in the proceeding sentence but with fillers, resulting in omitting or substituting interpretations in the following sentence. It is suggested that some of the student participants were not able to de-verbalize the English word in the source speech, and resulting eventually in the omission and substitution. Therefore, it is recommended that students should be taught a de-verbalization process (Selescovith,1989) as part of interpreting theory.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Altman, Janet
    1994 “Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpreting: a pilot study.” InBridging the Gaped. by Lambert, Sylvia and Moser-Mercer, Barbara , 25–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.3.05alt
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.05alt [Google Scholar]
  2. Barik, Henri C.
    1971 “A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions, and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Meta16, 121–137. doi: 10.7202/001972ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/001972ar [Google Scholar]
  3. 1975 “Simultaneous interpretation: qualitative and linguistic data.” InThe interpreting studies reader, ed. by Pöchhacker, Franz and Shlesinger, Mariam , 78-92, London, New York: Routledge Language Readers.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
    2010 “Effects of short intensive practice on interpreter trainees’ performance.” InWhy translation studies matters, ed. by Gile, Daniel , Hansen, Gyde , and Pokorn , Nike, K. , 183–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.88.16bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.88.16bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Creswell, John, W.
    2008 “Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.” Sage Publications, Incorporated.
  6. Creswell, John, W. , and Plano Clark, V. L.
    2007 “Designing and conducting mixed methods research.” Wiley Online Library.
  7. Dillinger, Mike
    1994 “Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t?” In Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultanoeus interpretation, ed. by Lambert, Sylvia , and Morser-Mercer, Barbara 155–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.3.14dil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.14dil [Google Scholar]
  8. Kintsch, Walter
    1974 “The representation of Meaning in Memory.” Ney York: Wiley.
  9. Kurz, Ingrid and Färber, B.
    2003 “Anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpreting.” Forum, 1 (2), 123–150. doi: 10.1075/forum.1.2.06kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.1.2.06kur [Google Scholar]
  10. Liu, M. , Schallert, D. , and Carroll, P.
    2004 “Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting.” Interpreting, 6 (1): 19–42. doi: 10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu [Google Scholar]
  11. Newmark, Peter
    1977 “Communicative and Semantic Translation.” Babel: International Journal of Translation.
  12. 1988 “A textbook of translation” Vol.66: Prentice HallNew York.
  13. Ooigawa, Tomohik and Takahashi, Kinuko
    2010 “Identification of English Words Embedded in Sentences by Japanese Professional Interpreters with Different Language Experiences.” Interpreters’ Newsletter15: 159–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004 “Introducing Interpreting Studies.” London and New York: Routledge.
  15. Riccardi, Alexandra
    2002 “Evaluation in interpretation: macrocriteria and microcriteria.” Benjamins Translation Library, 42: 115–127. doi: 10.1075/btl.42.14ric
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.42.14ric [Google Scholar]
  16. Sadanobu, Toshiyuki
    2010 “Uttering Fillers in Conversation.” In Journal of Phonetic Society of Japan, 14 (3): 27–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Seleskovitch, Danica
    1989 “A systematic approach to teaching interpretation.” The office for official publications for European Communities, J. Harmer , Trans, Luxembourg.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Takahashi, Kinuko
    2009 “Identifying the common problems in English-to-Japanes consecutive interpretations performed by Japanese interpreting students: A case of Japanese interpreting students.” Unpublished MA Thesis, Sophia University.
  19. 2012a “Interpreting abilities of untrained Japanese returnee university and postgraduate students.” Forum10 (2): 137–159. doi: 10.1075/forum.10.2.07tak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.10.2.07tak [Google Scholar]
  20. 2012b “The problems of the interpretations that were performed by Japanese Untrained Returnee Students.” In Proceedings of Sophia University Linguistics Society27: 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Tommola, Jorma and Helevä, M.
    1998 “Language direction and source text complexity: Effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting.” InUnity in diversity, 177–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): de-verbalization; delay; omission; problem; student interpreters
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