Effects of raters’ nativeness and interpreting expertise on the assessment of speech fluency and comprehensibility of interpreter trainees

References

1. Arons, Barry
   1993 “Speech Skimmer: Interactively Skimming Recorded Speech.” Paper presented at the6th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, San Jose, CA. https://www.media.mit.edu/speech/old/papers/1993/arons_ACM93_speechskimmer.ps.gz
   [Google Scholar]
2. Barranco-Droege, Rafael
   2015 “Too fast to be true? Exploring time compression in simultaneous interpreting.” Speech Communication, 751, 84–96. 10.1016/j.specom.2015.09.009
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2015.09.009 [Google Scholar]
3. Bakti, Mária
   2009 “Speech disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation.” InSelected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008. Edited byDries De Crom, 1–18. Elkins Park, PA: CETRA. https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/old-website/papers/files/bakti.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
4. Beattie, Geoffrey W., and Brian Butterworth
   1979 “Contextual Probability and Word Frequency as Determinants of Pauses and Errors in Spontaneous Speech.” Language and Speech22 (3): 201–211. 10.1177/002383097902200301
   https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097902200301 [Google Scholar]
5. Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink
   2012 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program]. www.praat.org/ (Version 3.5.18)
6. Bosker, Hans Rutger, Hugo Quené, Ted Sanders, and Nivja H. de Jong
   2014 ““Native ‘um’s Elicit Prediction of Low-frequency Referents, but Non-native ‘um’s do not.””. Journal of Memory and Language751: 104–116. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.004
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.004 [Google Scholar]
7. Bosker, Hans Rutger, Anne France Pinget, Hugo Quené, Ted Sanders, & and Nivja H. de Jong
   2014 “What Makes Speech Sound Fluent? The Contributions of Pauses, Speed and Repairs.” Language Testing30 (2): 159–175. 10.1177/0265532212455394
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212455394 [Google Scholar]
8. Bosker, Hans Rutger, Jade Tjiong, Hugo Quené, Ted Sanders, and Nivja H. de Jong
   2015 “Both Native and Nonnative Disfluencies Trigger Listeners’ Attention.” Poster presented at theInternational Congress of Phonetic Sciences Satellite Meeting: Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, Edinburgh.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Campione, Estelle, and Jean Véronis
   2002 “A Large-Scale Multilingual Study of Silent Pause Duration.” InProceedings of Speech Prosody 2002. Edited byBernard Bel and Isabelle Marlien, 199–202. 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2002‑35
   https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2002-35 [Google Scholar]
10. Chiaro, Delia, and Giuseppe Nocella
    2004 “Interpreters’ Perception of Linguistic and Non-linguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web.” Meta49 (2): 278–293. 10.7202/009351ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/009351ar [Google Scholar]
11. Collados Ais, Ángela
    1998 La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea. La importancia de la comunicación no verbal [The Evaluation of Quality in Simultaneous Interpretation. The Importance of Non-verbal Communication]. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Collados Ais, Ángela
    2002 “Quality assessment in simultaneous interpreting: The importance of nonverbal communication.” InThe Interpreting Studies Reader. Edited byFranz Pöchhacker, and Miriam Shlesinger, 327–336. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Derwing, Tracy, and Murray J. Munro
    1997 “Accent, Intelligibility, and Comprehensibility: Evidence from Four L1s.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition19 (1): 1–16. 10.1017/S0272263197001010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001010 [Google Scholar]
14. Derwing, Tracy, Marian J. Rossiter, Murray Munro, J., and Ron I. Thomson
    2004 “L2 Fluency: Judgments on Different Tasks.” Language Learning54 (4): 655–679. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2004.00282.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00282.x [Google Scholar]
15. Derwing, Tracy, Murray Munro, J., and Ron. I. Thomson
    eds. 2022 The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Speaking. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003022497
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022497
16. Ginther, April, Slobodanka Dimova, and Rui Yang
    2010 “Conceptual and Empirical Relationships between Temporal Measures of Fluency and Oral English Proficiency with Implications for Automated Scoring.” Language Testing27 (3): 379–399. 10.1177/0265532210364407
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364407 [Google Scholar]
17. Guillot, Marie-Noelle
    1999 Fluency and its Teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
18. Gooskens, Charlotte, and Renée van Bezooijen
    2014 “The Effect of Pause Insertion on the Intelligibility of Danish among Swedes.” InAbove and Beyond the Segments: Experimental Linguistics and Phonetics. Edited byJohanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller, and Ellen van Zanten, 96–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.189.08goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.08goo [Google Scholar]
19. Hahn, Laura D.
    2004 “Primary Stress and Intelligibility: Research to Motivate the Teaching of Suprasegmentals.” TESOL Quarterly38 (2): 201–223. 10.2307/3588378
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588378 [Google Scholar]
20. Holmes, Virginia
    1988 “Hesitations and Sentence Planning.” Language and Cognitive Processes3 (4): 323–361. 10.1080/01690968808402093
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968808402093 [Google Scholar]
21. de Jong, Nivja H., Margarita P. Steinel, Arjen F. Florijn, Rob Schoonen, and Jan H. Hulstijn
    2012 “Facets of Speaking Proficiency.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition34 (1): 5–35. 10.1017/S0272263111000489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000489 [Google Scholar]
22. de Jong, Nivja H.
    2016 “Fluency in Second Language Assessment.” InHandbook of Second Language Assessment. Edited byDina Tsagari, and Jayanti Banerjee, 203–218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614513827‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513827-015 [Google Scholar]
23. Fraenkel, Jack. R., Wallen, Norman E., and Hyun, Helen
    2006 How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Boston. MA: McGraw Hill.
24. Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
    1968 “Psycholinguistics Experiments in Spontaneous Speech.” London: Academic Press.
25. Gósy, Mária
    2007 “Disfluencies and self-monitoring.” Govor24 (2): 91–110.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Kahng, Jimin
    2014 “Exploring Utterance and Cognitive Fluency of L1 and L2 English Speakers: Temporal Measures and Stimulated Recall.” Language Learning64 (4): 809–854. 10.1111/lang.12084
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12084 [Google Scholar]
27. Kalina, Sylvia
    2005 “Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes.” Meta50 (2): 769–784. 10.7202/011017ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011017ar [Google Scholar]
28. Kalina, Sylvia
    2015 “Measure for Measure — Comparing Speeches with their Interpreted Versions.” InInterpreting Quality: A Look around and ahead. Edited byCornelia Zwischenberger, and Martina Behr, 15–34. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Kang, Okim, Donald Rubin, and Lucy Pickering
    2010 “Suprasegmental Measures of Accentedness and Judgments of Language Learner Proficiency in Oral English.” The Modern Language Journal94 (4): 554–566. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2010.01091.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01091.x [Google Scholar]
30. Kennedy, Sara, and Pavel Trofimovich
    2008 “Intelligibility, Comprehensibility, and Accentedness of L2 Speech: The role of Listener Experience and Semantic Context.” Canadian Modern Language Review64 (3): 459–490. 10.3138/cmlr.64.3.459
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.459 [Google Scholar]
31. Kormos, Judit
    2000 “The Timing of Self-repairs in Second Language Speech Production.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition22 (2): 145–169. 10.1017/S0272263100002011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100002011 [Google Scholar]
32. Kormos, Judit, and Mariann Dénes
    2004 “Exploring Measures and Perceptions of Fluency in the Speech of Second Language Learners.” System32 (2): 145–164. 10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001 [Google Scholar]
33. Kurz, Ingrid
    1993 “Conference interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter51: 3–16. hdl.handle.net/10077/4908
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kurz, Ingrid
    2008 “The Impact of Non-native English on Students’ Interpreting Performance.” InEfforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research. Edited byGyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 179–792. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.80.15kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.80.15kur [Google Scholar]
35. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    1983 “Monitoring and Self-repair in Speech.” Cognition14 (1): 41–104. 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90026‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar]
36. Lennon, Paul
    1990 “Investigating Fluency in EFL: A Quantitative Approach.” Language Learning40 (3): 387–417. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1990.tb00669.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.x [Google Scholar]
37. Liu
    , HYPERLINK “https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Minhua-Liu?utm_content=businessCard&utm_source=publicationDetail&rgutm_meta1=AC%3A5402337&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19"Minhua, Chia-Chien Chan, and Shao-Chuan Wu 2008 “Interpretation Evaluation Practices: Comparison of Eleven Schools in Taiwan, China, Britain, and the USA.” Compilation and Translation Review1 (1): 1–42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271770740
    [Google Scholar]
38. MacGregor, Lucy J., Martin Corley, and David I. Donaldson
    2010 “Listening to the Sound of Silence: Disfluent Silent Pauses in Speech have Consequences for Listeners.” Neuropsychologia48 (14): 3982–3992. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.024 [Google Scholar]
39. Maclay, Howard, and Charles E. Osgood
    1959 “Hesitation Phenomena in Spontaneous English Speech.” Word15 (1): 19–44. 10.1080/00437956.1959.11659682
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659682 [Google Scholar]
40. Mead, Peter
    2005 “Methodological Issues in the Study of Interpreters’ Fluency.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter131: 39–63. hdl.handle.net/10077/2469
    [Google Scholar]
41. Moser, Peter
    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]
42. Munro, Murray J., and Tracy Derwing
    1995 “Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the Speech of Second Language Learners.” Language Learning45 (1): 73–97. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00963.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x [Google Scholar]
43. Munro, Murray J., Tracy Derwing, and Susan L. Morton
    2006 “The Mutual Intelligibility of L2 Speech.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition28 (1): 113–131. 10.1017/S0272263106060049
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060049 [Google Scholar]
44. Pawley, Andrew, and Frances H. Syder
    2000 “The One Clause at a Time Hypothesis.” InPerspectives on fluency. Edited byHeidi Riggenbach, 163–191. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Pöchhacker, Franz
    1994 “Quality Assurance in Simultaneous Interpreting.” InTeaching Translation and Interpreting: Insights, Aims, Visions. Selected papers from the Second ‘Language International’ Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 4–6 June 1993. Edited byCay Dollerup, and Annette Lindegaard, 233–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.5.33poc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.5.33poc [Google Scholar]
46. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2012 “Interpreting Quality: Global Professional Standards?” InInterpreting in the Age of Globalization: Proceedings of the 8th National Conference and International Forum on Interpreting. Edited byWen Ren, 305–318. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Pöchhacker, Franz, and Cornelia Zwischenberger
    2010 “Survey on Quality and Role: Conference Interpreters’ Expectations and Self-perceptions.” Communicate! – A Webzine for Conference Interpreters and the Conference Industry531: 1–11. www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article 2510.htm
    [Google Scholar]
48. Pradas Macías, Macarena
    2003 “Repercusión del Intraparámetro Pausas Silenciosas en la Fluidez: Influencia en las Expectativas y en la Evaluación de la Calidad en Interpretación Simultánea [Impact of Silent Intraparameter Pauses on Fluency: Influence on Expectations and Quality Assessment in Simultaneous Interpretation].” PhD dissertation, University of Granada.
49. Pradas Macías, Macarena
    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]
50. Rennert, Sylvi
    2010 “The Impact of Fluency on the Subjective Assessment of Interpreting Quality.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter151: 101–115. Accessedhdl.handle.net/10077/4752
    [Google Scholar]
51. Rossiter, Marian J.
    2009 “Perceptions of L2 Fluency by Native and Non-native Speakers of English.” Canadian Modern Language Review65 (3): 395–412. 10.3138/cmlr.65.3.395
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.3.395 [Google Scholar]
52. Scharpff, Peter J. and Heuven, Vincent. J. van
    1988 “Effects of pause insertion on the intelligibility of low-quality speech”. InProceedings of the 7th FASE/Speech-88 Symposium. Edited byWilliam A. Ainsworth, and John N. Holmes, 261–268. Edinburgh: The Institute of Acoustics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371469561
    [Google Scholar]
53. Segalowitz, Norman
    2016 “Second Language Fluency and its Underlying Cognitive and Social Determinants.” International Review of Applied Linguistics54 (2): 79–95. 10.1515/iral‑2016‑9991
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9991 [Google Scholar]
54. Suzuki, Yuichi
    2020 “Optimizing Fluency Training for Speaking Skills Transfer: Comparing the Effects of Blocked and Interleaved Task Repetition.” Language Learning71 (2): 285–325. 10.1111/lang.12433
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12433 [Google Scholar]
55. Tavakoli, Parvaneh
    2011 “Pausing Patterns: Differences between L2 Learners and Native Speakers.” ELT Journal65 (1): 71–79. 10.1093/elt/ccq020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq020 [Google Scholar]
56. van Heuven, Vincent J., and Peter J. Scharpff
    1991 “Acceptability of several speech pausing strategies in low quality speech synthesis: interaction with intelligibility”. InProceedings of the 12th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Aix-en-Provence, 458–461. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371226410
    [Google Scholar]
57. Wood, David
    2010 Formulaic Language and Second Language Speech Fluency: Background, Evidence and Classroom Applications. London: Continuum
58. Yenkimaleki, Mahmood
    2021 “Prosody Training Benefits in Perception vs. Production Skills in Simultaneous Interpreting: An Experimental Study”. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics. 101, 1–15. 10.51751/dujal9888
    https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal9888 [Google Scholar]
59. Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, and Vincent J. van Heuven
    2018 “The Effect of Teaching Prosody Awareness on Interpreting Performance: An Experimental Study of Consecutive Interpreting from English into Farsi.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology26 (1): 84–99. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1315824
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1315824 [Google Scholar]
60. Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, and Vincent J. van Heuven
    2019 “The Relative Contribution of Computer Assisted Prosody Training vs. Instructor Based Prosody Teaching in Developing Speaking Skills by Interpreter Irainees: An Experimental Study.” Speech Communication, 1071: 48–57. 10.1016/j.specom.2019.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2019.01.006 [Google Scholar]
61. Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, and Vincent J. van Heuven
    2022 “Comparing the Nativeness vs. Intelligibility Approach in Prosody Instruction for Developing Speaking Skills by Interpreter Trainees: An Experimental Study.” Speech Communication1371: 92–102. 10.1016/j.specom.2022.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2022.01.007 [Google Scholar]
62. Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, and Vincent J. van Heuven
    2023 “Effect of Pedagogic Intervention in Enhancing Speech Fluency by EFL Students: A Longitudinal Study.” Language Teaching Research0 (0): 1–24. 10.1177/13621688231205017
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231205017 [Google Scholar]
63. Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, and Vincent J. van Heuven
    2024a “Developing Interpreter Trainees’ Speech Comprehensibility: Does Nativeness of the Instructor Matter?” Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language27 (4):1–29. 10.55593/ej.27108a8
    https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.27108a8 [Google Scholar]
64. Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, and Vincent J. van Heuven
    2024b “Perception of ‘Broad’ and ‘Narrow’ Fluency in the EFL Performance of Student Interpreters.” Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice18 (2): 246–263. 10.1558/jalpp.26465
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jalpp.26465 [Google Scholar]
65. Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, Vincent J. van Heuven, and Hossein Moradimokhles
    2023 “The Effect of Prosody Instruction in Developing Listening Comprehension Skills by Interpreter Trainees: Does Methodology Matter?” Computer Assisted Language Learning361 (5–6): 968–1004. 10.1080/09588221.2021.1957942
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1957942 [Google Scholar]
66. Yu, Wenting, and Vincent J. van Heuven
    2013 “Effects of Immediate Repetition at Different Stages of Consecutive Interpreting Training. An Experimental Study.” In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013. Edited bySuzanne Aalberse, and Anita Auer, 201–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/avt.30.15yu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.30.15yu [Google Scholar]
67. Yu, Wenting, and Vincent J. van Heuven
    2017 “Predicting Judged Fluency of Consecutive Interpreting from Acoustic Measures: Potential for Automatic Assessment and Pedagogy.” Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting19 (1): 47–68. 10.1075/intp.19.1.03yu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.03yu [Google Scholar]
68. Yu, Wenting, and Vincent J. van Heuven
    2021 “Quantitative Correlates as Predictors of Judged Fluency in Consecutive Interpreting: Implications for Automatic Assessment and Pedagogy.” InTesting and Assessment of Interpreting. Edited byJing Chen, and Chao Han, 117–142. Berlin: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑981‑15‑8554‑8_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8554-8_6 [Google Scholar]