1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines uncertainty encountered by expert interpreters at Chinese Premier Press Conferences by marking interpreters’ five types of hesitation phenomena and analyzes uncertainty management strategies. Results show (1) self-corrections, repetitions, and reformulations occur less frequently than pauses, indicating expert interpreter’s better control of interpreting fluency; (2) speakers may impact interpreters’ hesitation with segment length positively correlated with interpreters’ pauses, self-correction, and reformulation, and speaking rate explains the variance in the occurrence of filled pauses; (3) pauses occur for retrieving lexical and morphological information, eliminating logical doubt, and explicating cultural connotation; (4) expert interpreters adopt addition and rank shift more than ellipsis, simplification, splitting, and repetition as uncertainty management strategies, showing an emphasis on adequacy, comprehensibility, and acceptability in their output.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00034.she
2019-04-05
2019-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amirian, Zahra and Mohamad J. Baghiat
    2013 “Uncertainty and uncertainty management: The metacognitive state of problem-solving of professional (experienced) translators and students of translation studies.” International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies1(2): 223–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angelone, Erik
    2010 “Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task.” InTranslation and Cognition, ed. byGregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.03ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.03ang [Google Scholar]
  3. Angelone, Erik, and Gregory M. Shreve
    2011 “Uncertainty management, metacognitive bundling in problem solving and translation quality.” InCognitive Exploration of Translation, ed.Sharon O’Brien, 108–29. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bachy, Sylviane,
    2007 Conventions de Transcription Régissant les Corpus de la Banque de Données VALIBEL. [Transcription Conventions of the Corpora Included in the VALIBEL Database]. https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal:165551
  5. Cenoz, Jasone
    1998 “Pauses and communication strategies in second language speech.” College Student11: 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fraser, Janet
    2000 “What do real translators do? Developing the use of TAPs from professional translators.” InTapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation, ed. bySonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 111–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.37.11fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.37.11fra [Google Scholar]
  7. Gile, Daniel
    1995Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  8. 2002 “Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem.” InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 163–76. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2015 “Effort models.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker, 135–37. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
    1968Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Granholm, Eric, Robert F. Asarnow, Andrew J. Sarkin, and Karen L. Dykes
    1996 “Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations.” Psychophysiology33(4): 457–61. 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.1996.tb01071.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb01071.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Hansen, Gyde
    2003 “Controlling the process: Theoretical and methodological reflections on research into translation process.” InTriangulating Translation, ed.Fabio Alves, 25–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45.05han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45.05han [Google Scholar]
  13. He, Gujia
    2002 “Fanyizhong de lianciqianxi” [Analysis of conjunction in translation]. Journal of Nanhua University12: 93–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jakobsen, Arnt L.
    2002 “Translation drafting by professional translators and by translation studies.” InEmpirical Translation Studies: Process and Product, ed. byGyde Hansen, 191–204. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kenny, K. Dallas
    1996Language Loss and the Crisis of Cognition: Between Socio- and Psycholinguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110812374
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110812374 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kohn, Kurt, and Sylvia Kalina
    1996 “The strategic dimension of interpreting.” Meta41(1): 118–38. 10.7202/003333ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003333ar [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu, Minhua
    2008 “How do experts interpret? Implications from research in interpreting studies and cognitive science.” InEfforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, eds.Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 159–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Maclay, Howard, and Charles E. Osgood
    1959 “Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech.” Word15: 19–44. 10.1080/00437956.1959.11659682
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659682 [Google Scholar]
  19. Mead, Peter
    2002 “Exploring hesitation in consecutive interpreting: An empirical study.” InInterpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. byGiuliana Garzone and Maurizio Viezzi, 73–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.43.08mea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.08mea [Google Scholar]
  20. 2005 “Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter13: 39–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Monacelli, Claudia
    2009Self-preservation in Simultaneous Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.84 [Google Scholar]
  22. Peavler, Scott W.
    1974 “Pupil size, information overload, and performance differences.” Psychophysiology11(5): 559–66. 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.1974.tb01114.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1974.tb01114.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Petite, Christelle
    2005 “Evidence of repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based analysis.” Interpreting7(1): 27–49. 10.1075/intp.7.1.03pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.03pet [Google Scholar]
  24. Pio, Sonia
    2003 “The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation.” The Interpreters Newsletter12: 69–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Plevoets, Koen, and Bart Defrancq
    2018 “The cognitive load of interpreters in the European Parliament.” Interpreting20(1): 1–28. 10.1075/intp.00001.ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00001.ple [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016 “The effect of informational load on disfluency in interpreting.” Translation and Interpreting Studies11(2): 202–224. 10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple [Google Scholar]
  27. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  28. Poock, Gary K.
    1973 “Information processing vs. pupil diameter.” Perceptual and Motor Skills37(3): 1000–1002. 10.2466/pms.1973.37.3.1000
    https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1973.37.3.1000 [Google Scholar]
  29. Seeber, Killian G.
    2011 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories-new models.” Interpreting13(2):176–204. 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods.” Target25(1): 18–32. 10.1075/target.25.1.03see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.03see [Google Scholar]
  31. Shreve, Gregory M.
    2006 “The deliberate practice: Translation and expertise.” Journal of Translation Studies9(1): 27–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Tiselius, Elisabet, and Gard B. Jenset
    2011 “Process and product in simultaneous interpreting.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 269–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.20tis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.20tis [Google Scholar]
  33. Yang, Chengshu, and Junmin Deng
    2011 “Laoshouyuxinshouyiyuan de kouyijueceguocheng” [Decision-making between professional interpreters and novice interpreters in simultaneous interpretation]. Chinese Translators Journal32(4): 54–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhang, Wei
    2015 “Zhongguokouyixuexizheyuliaoku de kouyiceluebiaozhu: fangfayuyiyi” [Tagging of interpreting strategies in CILC: Method and Significance]. Journal of Foreign Languages38(5): 63–73.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00034.she
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.00034.she
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