1887
Volume 17, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This corpus-based study explores the effects of relay interpreting at meetings of the United Nations General Assembly by comparing features of disfluency between the outputs of relay and non-relay simultaneous interpreting (SI). The findings are as follows: (1) the output of relay interpreting is shorter and more dispersive than that of non-relay interpreting; (2) filled pauses are the most common type of disfluency; and (3) the relay SI output shows fewer lexical and phonetic E-repairs and more A-repairs for ambiguity, syntactic E-repairs, and D-repairs than the non-relay output. The results suggest that the use of relay vs. non-relay interpreting may affect interpreters’ output.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/forum.18016.che
2019-07-26
2019-10-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bakti, Maria
    2009Speech disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation. Paper presented at theCETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008, Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bendazzoli, Claudio, Sandrelli, Annalisa, & Russo, Mariachiara
    2011 Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: a corpus-based analysis. InA. Kruger, K. Wallmach, & J. Munday (Eds.), Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications (pp.282–306). London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bühler, Hildergund
    1986 Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cecot, Michela
    2001 Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 63–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cenoz, Jasone
    1998Pauses and Communication Strategies in Second Language Speech. Retrieved fromhttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED426630
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chernov, Ghelly V.
    2004Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.57 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dechert, Hans Wilhelm, & Raupach, Manfred
    (Eds.) 1980Towards a cross-linguistic assessment of speech production. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Duez, Danielle
    1982 Silent and non-silent pauses in three speech styles. Language and speech, 25(1), 11–28. 10.1177/002383098202500102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098202500102 [Google Scholar]
  9. Foster, Pauline, Tonkyn, Alan, & Wigglesworth, Gillian
    2000 Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gile, Daniel
    2009Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2011 Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary fndings from a case study. InC. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp.201–218). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.94.15gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.15gil [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
    1958 The predictability of words in context and the length of pauses in speech. Language and speech, 1(3), 226–231. 10.1177/002383095800100308
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383095800100308 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gósy, Mária
    2005Pszicholingvisztika. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2007 Disfluencies and self-monitoring. Govor, 24(2), 91–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hargrove, Patricia M., & McGarr, Nancy S.
    1994Prosody management of communication disorders. Sandiego and California: Singular Publishing Group Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kormos, Judit
    1999 Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language learning, 49(2), 303–342. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00090
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00090 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kurz, Ingrid
    1993 Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreter’s Newsletter (5), 13–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Levelt, Willem
    1983 Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104. 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90026‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Mackintosh, Jennifer
    1983 Relay interpretation: An exploratory study. (MA thesis), University of London.
  20. Mead, Peter
    2000 Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 89–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2005 Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 13, 39–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Künzli, Alexander, & Korac, Marina
    1998 Prolonged turns in interpreting: Effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress (Pilot study). Interpreting, 3(1), 47–64. 10.1075/intp.3.1.03mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.1.03mos [Google Scholar]
  23. Moser, Peter
    1996 Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting, 1(2), 145–178. 10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos [Google Scholar]
  24. Petite, Christelle
    2005 Evidence of repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based analysis. Interpreting, 7(1), 27–49. 10.1075/intp.7.1.03pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.03pet [Google Scholar]
  25. Plevoets, Koen, & Defrancq, Bart
    2016 The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 11(2), 202–224. 10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple [Google Scholar]
  26. Pöchhacker, Franz
    1995 “Clinton speaks German”: A case study of live broadcast simultaneous interpreting. InM. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation as intercultural communication: selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995 (Vol.20, pp.207–216). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012Interpreting quality: Global professional standards. Paper presented at theInterpreting in the Age of Globalization: Proceedings of the 8th National Conference and International Forum on Interpreting, Beijing.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Postma, Albert
    2000 Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77(2000), 97–131. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00090‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00090-1 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pradas Macías, Macarena
    2006 Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency. Interpreting, 8(1), 25–43. 10.1075/intp.8.1.03pra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.03pra [Google Scholar]
  30. Riggenbach, Heidi
    1991 Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14(4), 423–441. 10.1080/01638539109544795
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544795 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schnadt, Michael J., & Corley, Martin
    2006The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency production. Paper presented at theProceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2011 Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories-new models. Interpreting, 13(2), 176–204. 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  33. Seleskovitch, Danica, & Lederer, Marianne
    1989a The problems of relay. InD. Seleskovitch & M. Lederer (Eds.), A systematic approach to teaching interpretation (pp.173–192). Luxembourg: Didier.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1989bA systematic aproach to teaching interpretation. Paris: European Communities.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Setton, Robin
    1999Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  36. Setton, Robin, & Dawrant, Andrew
    2016Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
  37. Shlesinger, Miriam
    2010 Relay interpreting. InY. Gambier & L. V. Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol.1, pp.276–278). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/hts.1.rel1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.rel1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Shreve, Gregory M., Lacruz, Isabel, & Angelone, Erik
    2011 Sight translation and speech disfluency: Performance analysis as a window to cognitive translation process. InC. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (Vol.93–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.94.09shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.09shr [Google Scholar]
  39. Simone, Raffaele
    1995Fondamenti di linguistica. Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tissi, Benedetta
    2000 Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 103–127.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/forum.18016.che
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/forum.18016.che
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