1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This experimental study examines whether use of a corpus-based terminological preparation procedure, managed by a term extraction tool (Syllabs Tools) and a concordance tool (on the Sketch Engine platform), enables trainee interpreters (Chinese A, English B) to achieve greater accuracy in a simultaneous interpreting (SI) task on a specialised topic. Twenty-two interpreting students on a one-year MA course in the UK were divided into a test group (10 students) and a control group (12 students). Nine days before the experiment, which involved SI from the A into the B language as well as vice versa, both groups were given preparatory documentation in both languages. In addition, the test group received term lists automatically generated by the extraction tool and used the Sketch Engine concordance tool. The control group extracted terms manually and did not have the concordance tool. Terminological accuracy in SI was found to be significantly higher, with fewer omissions, even when terms occurred in rapid succession, in the test group. All students afterwards participated in focus group discussions, providing feedback on the effectiveness of their preparation and an estimate of the time they had dedicated to it. In addition, their recall of terms was tested two months later by completion of a 15-item quiz and was found to be significantly better in the test group.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00002.xu
2018-04-26
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altman, J.
    (1994) Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpretation: A pilot study. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–38. doi: 10.1075/btl.3.05alt
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.05alt [Google Scholar]
  2. Barik, H. C.
    (1975) Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech18, 272–298.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1994) A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–138. doi: 10.1075/btl.3.12bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.12bar [Google Scholar]
  4. Blancafort, H. , Bouvier, F. , Daille, B. , Heid, U. & Ramm, A.
    (2013) TTC web platform: From corpus compilation to bilingual terminologies for MT and CAT tools. InTRALOGY II: Futures in Technologies for Translation. Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Botley, S. , Glass, J. , McEnery, T. & Wilson, A.
    (Eds.) (1996) Proceedings of Teaching and Language Corpora 1996. Technical Paper9. Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Craik, F. & Lockhart, R.
    (1972) Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour11, 671–684. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(72)80001‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X [Google Scholar]
  7. Díaz-Galaz, S.
    (2012) La influencia del conocimiento previo en la interpretación simultánea de discursos especializados: Un estudio empírico. PhD Dissertation, University of Granada.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Díaz-Galaz, S. , Padilla, P. & Bajo, M. T.
    (2015) The role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting17 (1), 1–25. doi: 10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia [Google Scholar]
  9. Donovan, C.
    (2001) Interpretation of technical conferences. Conference Interpretation and Translation3, 7–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dunaevsky, C.
    (2015) Term extraction and tools. termcoord.eu/useful-links/free-term-extractors/ (accessed7 July 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eckersley, H.
    (2002) Systems for evaluating translation quality. Multilingual Computing and Technology3 (3), 39–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fantinuoli, C.
    (2006) Specialized corpora from the web and term extraction for simultaneous interpreters. In M. Baroni & S. Bernardini (Eds.), WaCky! Working Papers on the Web as Corpus. Bologna: Gedit, 173–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gile, D.
    (1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  14. (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gorjanc, V.
    (2009) Terminology resources and terminological data management for medical interpreters. In D. Andres & S. Pöllabauer (Eds.), Spürst Du, wie der Bauch rauf-runter? Fachdolmetschen im Gesundheitsbereich. München: Meidenbauer, 85–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ISO 1087-1:2000
    ISO 1087-1:2000. Terminology work – Vocabulary – Part 1: Theory and application. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jiang, H.
    (2013) The interpreter’s glossary in simultaneous interpreting: A survey. Interpreting15 (1), 74–93. doi: 10.1075/intp.15.1.04jia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.1.04jia [Google Scholar]
  18. Kalina, S.
    (2005) Zur Dokumentation von Maßnahmen der Qualitätssicherung beim Konferenzdolmetschen. In C. Heine , K. Schubert & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Translation theory and methodology. Tübingen: Narr, 253–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2015) Preparation. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 318–320.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kohn, K. & Kalina, S.
    (1996) The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta41 (1), 118–138. doi: 10.7202/003333ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003333ar [Google Scholar]
  21. McEnery, A. & Xiao, Z.
    (2010) What corpora can offer in language teaching and learning?In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol.2). London/New York: Routledge, 364–380.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Moser-Mercer, B.
    (1992) Banking on terminology: Conference interpreters in the electronic age. Meta37 (3), 507–522. doi: 10.7202/003634ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003634ar [Google Scholar]
  23. Napier, J.
    (2002) Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies. Coleford: Douglas McLean.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2004) Interpreting omissions: A new perspective. Interpreting6 (2), 117–142. doi: 10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap [Google Scholar]
  25. Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A.
    (1923) The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Richards, J. C. , Platt, J. & Platt, H.
    (1992) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Rütten, A.
    (2003) Computer-based information management for conference interpreters ‒ or how will I make my computer act like an infallible information butler?InProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Translating and the Computer, 20–21 November 2003. London: Aslib. www.mt-archive.info/Aslib-2003-Rutten.pdf (accessed7 July 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2015) Terminology. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 416–417.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SAE International
    SAE International (2001) SAE J2450: Translation quality metric. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Secară, A.
    (2005) Translation evaluation - a state of art survey. InConference Proceedings of eCoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop, Leeds, UK, 39–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Stoll, C.
    (2009) Jenseits simultanfähiger Terminologiesysteme. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ure, J.
    (1971) Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. E. Perren & J. L. M. Trimm (Eds.), Applications of linguistics: Selected papers of the 2nd International Congress of Applied Linguists. London: Cambridge University Press, 443–452.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Will, M.
    (2007) Terminology work for simultaneous interpreters in LSP Conferences: Model and method. MuTra 2007 – LSP translation scenarios. www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2007_Proceedings/2007_Will_Martin.pdf (accessed7 July 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Xu, R. & Sharoff, S.
    (2014) Evaluating term extraction methods for interpreters. InProceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Computational Terminology. Dublin, Ireland, 86–93. doi: 10.3115/v1/W14‑4811
    https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-4811 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00002.xu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00002.xu
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