1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interpreting
  4. Volume 24, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 24, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

With the rise of the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF), the number of conference speakers and attendees who use English is increasing. Simultaneous interpreting (SI) into and from English may be provided at conferences to meet the needs of individuals with differing levels of English ability. This paper reports on the findings obtained from two sets of experiments that explored the link between listeners’ perceived dependence on SI and their perceptions of its quality. The first set of experiments was conducted onsite and the second using a remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) setting. Native Hong Kong Cantonese-speaking participants were divided into two groups: one with Russian as the source language (SL) (Russian group) and the other with English as the SL (English group). Both groups listened to the same prerecorded simultaneous interpretation into Cantonese performed by a non-native interpreter. In the onsite setting, the Russian group perceived the non-native-accented interpretation more favorably than the English group did. This suggests that in onsite settings, perceived dependence on SI may be associated with perceptions of its quality; the greater the perceived dependence on SI, the higher the perceived SI quality. However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in the RSI setting. Factors such as the inaudible SL in the background, similar levels of perceived dependence, negative feelings about online learning and tensions in the state-society relationship may contribute to the similar quality perception ratings across the two RSI groups.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00070.che
2021-11-18
2024-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.00070.che
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albl-Mikasa, M.
    (2010) Global English and English as a lingua franca (ELF): Implications for the interpreting profession. Trans-kom3 (2), 126–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2013a) Express-ability in ELF communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca2 (1), 101–22. 10.1515/jelf‑2013‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2013-0005 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2013b) ELF speakers’ restricted power of expression: Implications for interpreters’ processing. Translation and Interpreting Studies8 (2), 191–210. 10.1075/tis.8.2.04alb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.04alb [Google Scholar]
  4. (2014) The imaginary invalid: Conference interpreters and English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics24 (3), 293–311. 10.1111/ijal.12076
     https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12076 [Google Scholar]
  5. Altano, W. B.
    (1990) The intricate witness-interpreter relationship. InD. Bowen & M. Bowen. (Eds.), Interpreting: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 96–100. 10.1075/ata.iv.17alt
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.iv.17alt [Google Scholar]
  6. Au-Yeung, H. K. C.
    (2017) Understanding traditional classroom culture and student behaviour: The know-how of being a foreign teacher in Hong Kong. InR. Maclean. (Ed.), Life in schools and classrooms. Singapore: Springer, 337–349. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑3654‑5_21
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3654-5_21 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker, C.
    (2012) When Bosnia was a Commonwealth country: British forces and their interpreters in Republika Srpska 1995–2007. History Workshop Journal74 (1), 131–155. 10.1093/hwj/dbs018
     https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbs018 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bao, W.
    (2020) COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies2 (2), 113–115.   10.1002/hbe2.191
     https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baxter, R. N.
    (2016) Exploring the possible effects of visual presentations on synchronicity and lag in simultaneous interpreting. Sendebar27, 9–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bendazzoli, C.
    (2020) Translators and interpreters’ voice on the spread of English as a lingua franca in Italy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca9 (2), 239–264. 10.1515/jelf‑2020‑2040
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2020-2040 [Google Scholar]
  11. Birney, M. E., Rabinovich, A. & Morton, T. A.
    (2020) Where are you from? An investigation into the intersectionality of accent strength and nationality status on perceptions of nonnative speakers in Britain. Journal of Language and Social Psychology36 (4), 495–515.   10.1177/0261927X20932628
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20932628 [Google Scholar]
  12. Braun, S.
    (2013) Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings. Interpreting15 (2), 200–228. 10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra [Google Scholar]
  13. Bühler, H.
    (1986) Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua5 (4), 231–235.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cheung, A. K.
    (2003) Does accent matter? The impact of accent in simultaneous interpretation into Mandarin and Cantonese on perceived performance quality and listener satisfaction level. InA. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez & D. Gile. (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación. Granada: Editorial Comares, 85–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2013) Non-native accents and simultaneous interpreting quality perceptions. Interpreting15 (1), 25–47. 10.1075/intp.15.1.02che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.1.02che [Google Scholar]
  16. (2014) The use of reported speech and the perceived neutrality of court interpreters. Interpreting16 (2), 191–208. 10.1075/intp.16.2.03che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.2.03che [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015) Scapegoating the interpreter for listeners’ dissatisfaction with their level of understanding: An experimental study. Interpreting17 (1), 46–63. 10.1075/intp.17.1.03che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.03che [Google Scholar]
  18. (2019) The hidden curriculum revealed in study trip reflective journals. InD. B. Sawyer, F. Austermühl & V. Enríquez Raído. (Eds.), The evolving curriculum in interpreter and translator education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 393–408. 10.1075/ata.xix.19che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xix.19che [Google Scholar]
  19. (2020) Interpreters’ perceived characteristics and perception of quality in interpreting. Interpreting22 (1), 35–55. 10.1075/intp.00033.che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00033.che [Google Scholar]
  20. Chiaro, D.
    (2002) Linguistic mediation on Italian television. When the interpreter is not an interpreter: A case study. InG. Garzone & M. Viezzi. (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 215–225. 10.1075/btl.43.21chi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.21chi [Google Scholar]
  21. Choi, E. K., Wilson, A. & Fowler, D.
    (2013) Exploring customer experiential components and the conceptual framework of customer experience, customer satisfaction, and actual behavior. Journal of Foodservice Business Research16 (4), 347–358. 10.1080/15378020.2013.824263
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2013.824263 [Google Scholar]
  22. Christodoulides, G. & Lenglet, C.
    (2014) Prosodic correlates of perceived quality and fluency in simultaneous interpreting. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on speech prosody, 20–23 May 2014, Dublin, 1002–1006. 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2014‑190
     https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2014-190 [Google Scholar]
  23. Collados Aís, A.
    (1998/2002) Quality assessment in simultaneous interpreting: The importance of nonverbal communication. InF. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger. (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London: Routledge, 327–336.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dal Fovo, E.
    (2015) Media interpreting. InF. Pöchhacker. (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London: Routledge, 245–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Dan, M.
    (2016) Romanian conference interpreting market: Educating the client. Revue Internationale d’Études en Langues Modernes Appliquées9 (2), 50–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Dragojevic, M., Tatum, N. T., Beck, A. C. & McAninch, K.
    (2019) Effects of accent strength expectancy violations on language attitudes. Communication Studies70 (2), 133–150. 10.1080/10510974.2018.1526815
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1526815 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Albl-Mikasa, M., Andermatt, K., Heeb, A. H. & Lehr, C.
    (2020) Cognitive load in processing ELF: Translators, interpreters, and other multilinguals. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca9 (2), 217–238. 10.1515/jelf‑2020‑2039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2020-2039 [Google Scholar]
  28. Eugeni, C.
    (2008) A sociolinguistic approach to real-time subtitling: Respeaking vs. shadowing and simultaneous interpreting. InC. J. Kellett Bidoli & E. Ochse. (Eds.), English in international deaf communication. New York: Peter Lang, 357–382.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Garzone, G.
    (2003) Reliability of quality criteria evaluation in survey research. InA. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez & D. Gile. (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación. Granada: Editorial Comares, 23–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gentile, P. & Albl-Mikasa, M.
    (2017) “Everybody speaks English nowadays.” Conference interpreters’ perception of the impact of English as a lingua franca on a changing profession. Cultus10, 53–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gulati, R. & Sytch, M.
    (2007) Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly52 (1), 32–69. 10.2189/asqu.52.1.32
     https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.32 [Google Scholar]
  32. Holub, E.
    (2010) Does intonation matter? The impact of monotony on listener comprehension. The Interpreters’ Newsletter15, 117–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kalina, S.
    (2015) Measure for measure: Comparing speeches with their interpreted versions. InC. Zwischenberger & M. Behr. (Eds.), Interpreting quality: A look around and ahead. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 15–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Katan, D. & Straniero-Sergio, F.
    (2014) Submerged ideologies in media interpreting. InM. Calzada-Pérez. (Ed.), Apropos of ideology: Translation studies on ideology – ideologies in translation studies. London: Routledge, 138–151.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim, H. R.
    (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]
  36. Kopczyński, A.
    (1994) Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. InM. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl. (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189–198. 10.1075/btl.2.24kop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.2.24kop [Google Scholar]
  37. Kurz, I.
    (1989) Conference interpreting: User expectations. InD. L. Hammond. (Ed.), Coming of age: Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 143–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (1990) Overcoming language barriers in European television. InD. Bowen & M. Bowen. (Eds.), Interpreting: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Binghamton: State University of New York, 168–175. 10.1075/ata.iv.29kur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.iv.29kur [Google Scholar]
  39. (1993) Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreters’ Newsletter3, 13–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kurz, I. & Pöchhacker, F.
    (1995) Quality in TV interpreting. Translatio: Nouvelles de la FIT-FIT Newsletter14 (3/4), 350–358.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lee, F. L. F. & Liang, H.
    (2020) Perceived threat of a linguistic community and context effect on attitude toward immigration in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Social Science48, 250–273. 10.1163/15685314‑04803004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/15685314-04803004 [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, D. C.
    (2017) Multilingual Hong Kong: Languages, literacies and identities. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑44195‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44195-5 [Google Scholar]
  43. Li, Y. & Xiao, D.
    (2020) Mandarin discrimination in Hong Kong: Four mainland Chinese sojourn teachers’ experience of symbolic violence. Journal of Education Culture and Society11 (2), 499–520. 10.15503/jecs2020.2.499.520
     https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2020.2.499.520 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lippi-Green, R.
    (1997) English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. London: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Lo, S. S. H., Hung, S. C. F. & Loo, J. H. C.
    (2021) The dynamics of peaceful and violent protests in Hong Kong. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑981‑15‑6712‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6712-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ma, X. & Cheung, A. K.
    (2020) Language interference in English–Chinese simultaneous interpreting with and without text. Babel66 (3), 434–456. 10.1075/babel.00168.che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00168.che [Google Scholar]
  47. Mikkelson, H.
    (2000) Introduction to court interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Moser, P.
    (1996) Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting1 (2), 145–178. 10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos [Google Scholar]
  49. Moser-Mercer, B.
    (2003) Remote interpreting: Assessment of human factors and performance parameters. https://aiic.org/document/516/ (accessed14 October 2021).
  50. Poon, A. Y.
    (2010) Language use, and language policy and planning in Hong Kong. Current Issues in Language Planning11 (1), 1–66. 10.1080/14664201003682327
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14664201003682327 [Google Scholar]
  51. Pöchhacker, F. & Zwischenberger, C.
    (2010) Survey on quality and role: Conference interpreters’ expectations and self-perceptions. https://aiic.org/document/9646/ (accessed14 October 2021).
  52. Pradas Macías, M.
    (2006) Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting8 (1), 25–43. 10.1075/intp.8.1.03pra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.03pra [Google Scholar]
  53. Reithofer, K.
    (2013) Comparing modes of communication: The effect of English as a lingua franca vs. interpreting. Interpreting15 (1), 48–73. 10.1075/intp.15.1.03rei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.1.03rei [Google Scholar]
  54. (2020) Intelligibility in English as a lingua franca: The interpreters’ perspective. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca9 (2), 173–193. 10.1515/jelf‑2020‑2037
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2020-2037 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rennert, S.
    (2010) The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality. The Interpreters’ Newsletter15, 101–115.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Rodríguez Melchor, M. D. & Walsh, A. S.
    (2020) What does ELF mean for the simultaneous interpreter? An overview of the current situation of the Spanish interpreting market. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca9 (2), 265–286. 10.1515/jelf‑2020‑2041
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2020-2041 [Google Scholar]
  57. Roziner, I. & Shlesinger, M.
    (2010) Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting12 (1), 214–247. 10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz [Google Scholar]
  58. Sanchez, C. A. & Khan, S.
    (2016) Instructor accents in online education and their effect on learning and attitudes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning32, 494–502.   10.1111/jcal.12149
     https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12149 [Google Scholar]
  59. Setton, R. & Dawrant, A.
    (2016) Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.120
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
  60. Shanka, T. & Taylor, R.
    (2005) Assessment of university campus café service: The students’ perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research10 (3), 329–340. 10.1080/10941660500309754
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660500309754 [Google Scholar]
  61. Shlesinger, M.
    (1997) Quality in simultaneous interpreting. InY. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor. (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–131. 10.1075/btl.23.08shl
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.23.08shl [Google Scholar]
  62. Sternberg, R. J. & Sternberg, K.
    (2016) Cognitive psychology. Boston: Cengage Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Stévaux, E.
    (2007) La incidencia del parámetro acento. InA. Collados Aís, M. Pradas Macías, E. Stévaux & O. García Becerra. (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Granada: Editorial Comares, 17–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Straniero Sergio, F.
    (2003) Norms and quality in media interpreting: The case of Formula One press conferences. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12, 135–174.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. (2013) Media interpreting. InC. A. Chapelle. (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of applied linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.   10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0757
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0757 [Google Scholar]
  66. Vuorikoski, A.
    (1993) Simultaneous interpretation: User experience and expectations. InC. Picken. (Ed.), Translation – the vital link. Proceedings of the XIIIth World Congress of FIT (Vol.1). London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting, 317–327.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. (1998) User responses to simultaneous interpreting. InL. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson. (Eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 184–197.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Wong, R.
    (2020) When no one can go to school: Does online learning meet students’ basic learning needs?Interactive Learning Environments.   10.1080/10494820.2020.1789672
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1789672 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00070.che
Loading
Listeners’ perception of the quality of simultaneous interpreting and perceived dependence on simultaneous interpreting
Interpreting 24, 38 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00070.che
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00070.che
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00070.che
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): English as a lingua franca; perceived dependence; quality perception; remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI)

Most Cited

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