Cover not available
Article published In:
APTIF 9 - Reality vs. Illusion: From Morse code to machine translation
Edited by Frans De Laet, In-kyoung Ahn and Joong-chol Kwak
[Babel 66:4/5] 2020
► pp. 588–603

The impact of source text presence on simultaneous interpreting performance in fast speeches

Will it help trainees or not?

 | Central China Normal University
 | University of Macau
 | University of Macau
The issue addressed in this study is the impact of source text presence on simultaneous interpreting performance in fast speeches. Fast speech rate is assumed to frustrate even professional interpreters in simultaneous interpreting (SI) without source text (ST) scenario, yet little is known about what happens when the ST is available to interpreters, an interpreting practice of increasing popularity. Previous studies present mixed results concerning the effect of fast speech rate and ST presence on SI quality, which further adds to the complexity of this issue. This study adopted the experimental approach with a qualitative assessment of SI quality, quantisation of output parameters and retrospective interview, to unravel some myths surrounding this issue. The 54 trainees were randomly divided into two groups to interpret two fast Chinese speeches into English under with and without ST conditions. The results found a significant effect of ST presence on the qualitative assessment of interpreting performance, on the interpreting delivery fluency, and on the information completeness. The facilitative effect of ST presence in fast speeches was confirmed while new issues also arise concerning trainee interpreters’ ability in eye-ear coordination.
Keywords: SI performance, fast speech, ST presence, trainee interpreters
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Research design
    • 3.1Experiment design
    • 3.2Manipulating the source text
    • 3.3Participants
    • 3.4Data collection
    • 3.5Data processing
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Expert assessment results
    • 4.2Further quantitative assessment results
    • 4.3Retrospective interview results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 2 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00189.yan
References (36)
References
Baigorri-Jalón, Jesus; and Travieso-Rodríguez, Críspulo. 2017. “Interpreting at the United Nations: the impact of external variables. The Interpreters’ View”. CLINA: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Translation, Interpreting and Intercultural Communication 3 (2): 53–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barghout, Alma; Rosendo, Lucía Ruiz; and García, Mónica Varela. 2015. “The influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study”. Babel 61 (3): 305–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, Robert Neal. 2016. “Exploring the Possible Effects of Visual Presentations on Synchronicity and Lag in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Sendebar: Revista de la Facultad de Traducción e Interpretación (271): 9–23.Google Scholar
Cammoun-Claveria, Rawdha; Davies, Catherine; Ivanov, Konstantin; and Naimushin, Boris. 2009. “Simultaneous Interpretation with Text: Is the Text ‘Friend’ or ‘Foe’? Laying Foundations for a Teaching Module” Seminar Paper – Master of Advance Studies in Interpreter Training. École de Traduction et d’Interprétation, Université de Genève. [URL]
Chang, Chia-chien. 2005. Directionality in Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting: Impact on performance and strategy use (Doctoral dissertation). Austin (TX): The University of Texas.Google Scholar
Daro, Valeria. 1994. “Non-linguistic factors influencing simultaneous interpretation”. In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Lambert Silvie; and Moser-Mercer Barbara. 249–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galli, Cristina. 1990. “Simultaneous interpretation in medical conferences: A case-study”. In Aspects of applied and experimental research on conference interpretation, ed. by Gran, Laura; and Christopher Taylor. 61–82. Udine: Campanotto Editor.Google Scholar
Gerver, David. 1969/2002. “The Effects of Source Language Presentation Rate on the Performance of Simultaneous Conference Interpreters”. In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Pöchhacker, Franz; and Shlesinger, Miriam, 53–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995, 2009. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Vol. 81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Chao; and Riazi Mehdi. 2017. “Investigating the effects of speech rate and accent on simultaneous interpretation: A mixed-methods approach”. Across Languages and Cultures 18 (2): 237–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanov, Konstantin; Davies, Cathrine; and Naimushin, Boris. 2014. “Teaching SI with text”. In Fighting the Fog of Multiculturalis. A Festschrift in Honour of Irina S. Alekseeva, ed. by William Hackett Jones (English text), 48–61. St. Petersburg: Herzen University Press.Google Scholar
Jesse, Alexandra; Vrignaud, Nick; Cohen, Michael. M.; and Massaro, Dominic W. 2000. “The processing of information from multiple sources in simultaneous interpreting”. Interpreting 5 (2): 95–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rodrick. 2002. Conference interpreting explained. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korpal, Powel. 2016. “Interpreting as a stressful activity: Physiological measures of stress in simultaneous interpreting”. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52 (2): 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Linguistic and psychological indicators of stress in simultaneous interpreting. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Lamberger-Felber, Heike. 2003. “Performance variability among conference interpreters: examples from a case study”. In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretacion: investigacion. ed. by Collados Aís, Angela; Fernandez Sanchez, Maria Manuela; and Gile Daniel. 147–168. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Lambert, Silvie. 2004. “Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal 49 (2): 294–306. DOI logo copiéeune erreur s’est produiteGoogle Scholar
Li, Changshuan. 2010. “Coping strategies for fast delivery in simultaneous interpretation”. The Journal of Specialized Translation 131: 19–25.Google Scholar
Liu, Minhua; Schallert, Diane L.; and Carroll, Patrick. J. 2004. “Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting”. Interpreting 6 (1): 19–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Minhua; and Chiu, Yu-Hsien. 2009. “Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting: Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment”. Interpreting 11 (2):244–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, Jennifer. 2003. “The AIIC Workload Study”. In FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction/International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 1 (2):189–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, Peter. 2015. “Input Variables”. In Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies, ed. by Pöchhacker Franz. 191–192. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meuleman, Chris; and Van Besien, Fred. 2009. “Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting”. Interpreting 11 (1): 20–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monacelli, Claudia. 2009. Self-preservation in simultaneous interpreting: Surviving the role (Vol. 841). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina. 2004. “Interpreting omissions: A new perspective”. Interpreting 6 (2):117–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Loughlin, Kieran. 1995. “Lexical Density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test”. Language testing 12 (2): 217–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pio, Sonia. 2003. “The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 121: 69–100.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2016. Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Killian. 2018. “Interpreting at the European Institutions: faster, higher, stronger”. CLINA: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Translation, Interpreting And Intercultural Communication 3 (2): 73–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin. 2015. “Simultaneous with text”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Pöchhacker Franz. 385–386. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Setton, Robin; and Dawrant, Andrew. 2016. Conference interpreting: A complete course (Vol. 1201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1995. “Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting”. The Translator 11: 193–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How can we know what really happens?”. In Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting. ed. by Jääskeläinen, Ritta; and Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 121: 37–49.Google Scholar
Tissi, Benedetta. 2000. “Silent Pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 101:103–127.Google Scholar
Yudes, Carolina; Macizo, Pedro; and Bajo, Teresa. 2011. “The influence of expertise in simultaneous interpreting on non-verbal executive processes”. Frontiers in psychology 2: 309 (1–9). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Peng, Xuejiao, Xiangling Wang & Guangjiao Chen
2024. Text availability and the speaker’s visibility in simultaneous interpreting: effects on the process, product, and interpreters’ perceptions. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.