1887
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This experimental study of consecutive interpreting investigates whether: (1) there is any correlation between assessments of its fluency and accuracy; (2) judged fluency can be predicted from computer-based measurements like articulation rate. Ten raters judged six criteria of accuracy and fluency in two consecutive interpretations of the same recorded source speech, from Chinese A into English B, by 12 trainee interpreters (seven undergraduates, five MA students). The recorded interpretations were examined with the speech analysis tool PRAAT. From a computerized count of the pauses thus detected, together with disfluencies identified by raters, 12 acoustic measures of fluency were calculated. The advanced students were more fluent than the beginners; both groups were less fluent in the initial interpretation. Statistical analysis shows: (1) a strong positive correlation between judged accuracy and judged fluency; (2) strong correlations between judged fluency and objective fluency variables; (3) the usefulness of effective speech rate (number of syllables, excluding disfluencies, divided by total duration of speech production and pauses) as a predictor of judged fluency. Other important determinants of judged fluency were the number of filled pauses, articulation rate, and mean length of pause. Potential for developing automatic fluency assessment in consecutive interpreting is discussed, as are possible training implications.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.1.03yu
2017-05-08
2019-08-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AIIC
    (2002) Regulation governing admissions and language classification. Geneva: AIIC.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bortfeld, H. , Leon, S. D. , Bloom, J. E. , Schober, M. F. & Brennan, S. E
    (1999) Which speakers are most disfluent in conversation and when?Proceedings ICPhS99 Satellite Meeting on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, 7–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brumfit, C
    (1984) Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bühler, H
    (1986) Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua5 (4), 231–235. doi: 10.1515/mult.1986.5.4.231
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1986.5.4.231 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chambers, F
    (1997) What do we mean by fluency?System25, 535–544. doi: 10.1016/S0346‑251X(97)00046‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00046-8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chiaro, D. & Nocella, G
    (2004) Interpreters’ perception of linguistic and non-linguistic factors affecting quality: A survey through the World Wide Web. Meta49 (2), 278–293. doi: 10.7202/009351ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/009351ar [Google Scholar]
  7. Collados Aís, A
    (1998/2002) Quality assessment in simultaneous interpreting: The importance of nonverbal communication. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 327–336.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Collados Aís, A. , Pradas Macías, M. , Stévaux, E. & García Becerra, O
    (Eds.) (2007) La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cucchiarini, C. , Strik, H. & Boves, L
    (2000) Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency by means of automatic speech recognition technology. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America107, 989–999. doi: 10.1121/1.428279
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428279 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2002) Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America111, 2862–2873. doi: 10.1121/1.1471894
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1471894 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Jong, N. H. & Wempe, T
    (2009) Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods41 (2), 385–390. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.2.385
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.385 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, C. J
    (1979) On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore , D. Kempler & W. S. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behaviour. New York: Academic Press, 85–101. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑255950‑1.50012‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-255950-1.50012-3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Freed, B. F
    (1995) What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent?In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study-abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–148. doi: 10.1075/sibil.9.09fre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.9.09fre [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Goldman-Eisler, F
    (1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grosjean, F
    (1980) Temporal variables within and between languages. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Towards a cross-linguistic assessment of speech production. Frankfurt: Lang, 39–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Grosjean, F. & Deschamps, A
    (1975) Analyse contrastive des variables temporelles de l’Anglais et du Francais: Vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phénomènes d’hésitation. Phonetica31, 144–184. doi: 10.1159/000259667
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000259667 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kormos, J. & Dénes, M (2004) Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System32, 145–164. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kurz, I
    (1993) Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreters’ Newsletter5, 3–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2001) Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user. Meta46 (2), 394–409. doi: 10.7202/003364ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003364ar [Google Scholar]
  21. (2003) Quality from the user perspective. In A. Collados Aís , M. Fernández Sanchez & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación. Granada: Comares, 3–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Leeson, R
    (1975) Fluency and language teaching. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lennon, P
    (1990) Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning3, 387–417. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1990.tb00669.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.x [Google Scholar]
  24. (2000) The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 25–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Levelt, W. J. M
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mead, P
    (2000) Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter10, 89–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2005) Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency. The Interpreters’ Newsletter13, 39–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Möhle, D
    (1984) A comparison of the second language speech production of different native speakers. In H. W. Dechert , D. Möhle & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 26–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Moser, P
    (1996) Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting1 (2), 145–178. doi: 10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos [Google Scholar]
  30. Nation, P
    (1989) Improving speaking fluency. System3, 377–384. doi: 10.1016/0346‑251X(89)90010‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(89)90010-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pinget, A. , Bosker, H. R. , Quené, H. , Sanders, T. & De Jong, N. H
    (2014) Native speakers’ perceptions of fluency and accent in L2 speech. Language Testing31 (3), 349–365. doi: 10.1177/0265532214526177
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526177 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pradas Macías, E. M
    (2003) Repercusión del intraparámetro pausas silenciosas en la fluidez: Influencia en las expectativas y en la evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea. PhD dissertation, University of Granada.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2007) La incidencia del parámetro fluidez. In A. Collados Aís , M. Pradas Macías , E. Stévaux & O. García Becerra (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Granada: Comares, 53–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pöchhacker, F
    (1993) On the science of interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter5, 52–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2012) Interpreting quality: Global professional standards?In W. Ren (Ed.), Interpreting in the age of globalization: Proceedings of the 8th National Conference and International Forum on Interpreting. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 305–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rennert, S (2010) The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality. The Interpreters’ Newsletter15, 101–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Riggenbach, H
    (1991) Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of non-native speaker conversations. Discourse Processes14, 423–441. doi: 10.1080/01638539109544795
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544795 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schmidt, R
    (1992) Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition14, 357–385. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100011189
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011189 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tavakoli, P. & Skehan, P
    (2005) Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 239–273. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav [Google Scholar]
  40. Towell, R. , Hawkins, R. & Bazergui, N
    (1996) The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics1, 84–119. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.1.84
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.84 [Google Scholar]
  41. Townshend, B. , Bernstein, J. , Todic, O. & Warren, E
    (1998) Estimation of spoken language proficiency. Proceedings of the ESCA Workshop Speech Technology in Language Learning (STiLL 98), 179–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Yu, W. T. & van Heuven, V. J
    (2013) Effects of immediate repetition at different stages of consecutive interpreting: An experimental study. In: S. Aalberse & A. Auer (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–213. doi: 10.1075/avt.30
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.30 [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhou, D
    (2006) A study on the effects of input frequency and output frequency. Modern Foreign Languages29, 154–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Zwischenberger, C. & Pöchhacker, F
    (2010) Survey on quality and role: Conference interpreters’ expectations and self-perceptions. Communicate!www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article2510.htm (accessed21 January 2013).
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.1.03yu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.19.1.03yu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accuracy , acoustic measures , automatic assessment , consecutive interpreting and fluency
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