在過去幾十年，口譯研究已有長足的進展，也出現了許多關於口譯產出裡停頓與暫停方面的研究。但是在口譯產出的改口與重說部份的研究則沒有什麼著墨。
本研究之目的為分析四組口譯員產出內的改口 (此論文對改口的定義主要是指譯者對於自己譯語的訂正) 與重說現象。研究裡的四組口譯員分別為就讀法輔仁大學跨文化研究所中英口筆譯碩士班的一年級與二年級學生(各四位)、四位擁有一至三年經驗的新手職業譯者以及四位有八年以上經驗的老手職業譯者。
本研究所使用的語料為參與本研究的譯者所產出的64段同步口譯片段 (中進英以及英進中各有32段)。每位譯者的產出均依照原文切割成同等數目的段落。研究分析的段落為有三至四位一年級同學發生改口或重說現象的段落。本研究的主要目的為找出這些出現改口與重說現象的段落裡是否有共同的現象或問題，並把學生的段落與新/老手譯者的段落互相作比較，最後提出一些口譯教學與訓練方面的建議，希望能夠讓學生能以較快與較順利的方式讓自己的產出往老手口譯員的方向邁進。
本研究的主要發現如下:
1. 學生口譯員出現改口與重說現象的段落裡出現的常見現象包括文法錯誤 (時態、單複數等)、在段落裡一些地方出現問題 (這些地方包括特定動詞、語意模糊的句子等)。在某些段落也有觀察到譯者出現認知負荷過重的現象，主要的原因是原文的速度以及訊息密度。
學生口譯員以及新手職業譯者之間的改口與重說出現次數有一點差異，而新手職業口譯員以及老手職業口譯員之間則出現顯著的差異。
2. 從四組譯者遲疑與暫停的發生次數規律來看，可以觀察到職業譯者能以一致的認知模式處理特定語篇，而學生譯員在特定語篇的處理上，並無特定的產出模式。
3.重說與改口是理解口譯信息產出困難的重要指標。其中透露出口譯的詞語產出與非詞語產出等具體困難，同時也提供了有關構詞、句組、時態等語言型態的信息，可供譯員及口譯教學參考。
4.就重說與改口的表現而言，從學生到職業譯者的過程中可看出階梯式的進步。 / In the past few decades, there have been many studies on interpretation and also quite a number of studies that focuses on studying the pauses and hesitations (also known as filled pauses) in the output of interpreters. However, there have been few studies on the repetitions and corrections in interpretation output.
This study aims to analyze the repetitions and corrections in the output of four groups of interpreters. These four groups are each composed of four first-year and four second-year students studying in the Master’s Program for Translation and Interpretation at the Graduate Institute of Cross-Cultural Studies at Fu-Jen University as well as four interpreters with 1-3 years of experience (the new interpreters) and four with over 8 years of experience (the experienced interpreters).
The corpus used in this study is composed of 64 pieces of simultaneous interpretation output (32 Chinese to English and 32 English to Chinese) that was done by the sixteen participating interpreters. The output for each interpreter was divided into equal amount of segments according to the source text, and segments that saw three or all four of the first-year students commit either a repetition or correction were chosen for analysis. The goal of the analysis was to find issues or patterns in the output that coincided with the repetitions/corrections, compare the students’ output with those of the new/experienced interpreters and provide suggestions on how the teaching and training of interpreters might be adjusted to make the development of student interpreters and faster and smoother process.
The major findings were as follows:
1. Some common themes tied to repetitions and corrections include grammatical mistakes (ex. errors in tense or plurals) trouble at certain points within the segments, for example areas with unclear meanings or certain verbs. There were cognitive overload in certain segments, which mostly had to do with the speed and the density of information in the segments. There were small differences in the amount of repetitions and corrections between the student groups and the new interpreters, and a significant different in the number of repetitions and corrections between the new and experienced interpreters.
2. Looking at the patterns for the pauses and hesitations committed by the four groups of interpreters, we can observe that the professional interpreter groups share a common cognitive methodology in dealing with different source texts, while the student interpreters showed no discernable output strategy for the source texts.
3. Repetitions and corrections are important indicators in understand the difficulties in interpretation output. Analysis of the repetitions and corrections showed the verbal and non-verbal output difficulties encountered by the interpreters and also provided information on the morphology, sentence structure, tense and other linguistic aspects of interpretations output that can serve as a reference for interpreters and interpretation educators.
4. There was a step-by-step improvement going from the student to professional interpreter groups in terms of the number of repetitions and corrections committed. / able of Contents
Acknowledgements.......................................I
Table of Contents............................ .........II-III
Abstract (English)………….....……………………………………......……..…...IV-V
Abstract (Chinese).....................................VI
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………..…....……..1
1.1:Preface………………………......……...…………………………..………….1
1.2: Research Motive………………………………………….........…..1
1.3: Research Background and Goals……………………..……….3
1.4: Thesis Layout…………………………………….…………………..……...…5
Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………...............................................................................7
2.1 The Process of Simultaneous Interpretation………….....………………..............................................................…...7
2.2: Factors that Affect the Output in Simultaneous Interpretation……......................................................…....9
2.2.1: Factors that Influence Simultaneous Interpretation and Which Occur Within the Source Text………………………………………………………….…...9
2.2.2: External Factors that Influence the Interpretation…………........................................................….….…12
2.3: Issues and Skills Within Simultaneous Interpretation.......…….......................................................………..13
2.3.1: Issues in Simultaneous Interpretation..................................................................................14
2.3.2: Skills Utilized by Interpreters in Simultaneous Interpretation.........................................................15
2.4: Differences between Students, New and Experienced Interpreters...........................................................18
2.5: Studies on Pauses and Hesitations in Interpretation Output...............................................................29
2.6: Interpreter Training and Development.....................................................................................35
Chapter 3: Research Methodology...............................................................................................40
3.1: The Participants of this Study and Those of Past Studies.................................................................41
3.2: Software Used in Corpus Analysis.........................................................................................42
3.3: The Corpus and Samples of Corpus Analysis................................................................................46
Chapter 4: Analysis of Selected Corpus Segments: First and Second Year Students......................................................................................................................54
4.1: Chinese to English Analysis..............................................................................................54
4.2: English to Chinese Analysis..............................................................................................73
Chapter 5: Comparing the Student’s Output with those of New and Experienced Interpreters..................................................................................................................86
5.1: Chinese to English segments comparison...................................................................................86
5.2: English to Chinese segments comparison................................................................................103
Chapter 6: Analysis Results and Conclusions..................................................................................121
6.1: Summary of Analysis and Conclusion......................................................................................121
6.2: Limitations of Study and Possible Directions for Future Research........................................................125
References...................................................................................................................127
List of Figures
Figure 1: Pause duration used by the studies on pauses cited in this study...................................................30
Figure 2: Screen view of an interpreter’s output audio file in Audacity......................................................42
Figure 3: Audacity screenshot No.2...........................................................................................43
Figure 4: Audacity screenshot No.3...........................................................................................43
Figure 5: Audacity screenshot No.4...........................................................................................44
Figure 6: Audacity screenshot No.5...........................................................................................44
Figure 7: Audacity screenshot No.6...........................................................................................45
Figure 8: Issues and number of correct interpretations by the two student interpreter groups in segments 1-10...........................................................................................................................72
Figure 9: Issues and number of correct interpretations by the two student interpreter groups in segments 11-14.......................................................................81
Figure 10: Pauses/hesitations/repetitions/corrections committed by the student interpreters.................................................................................................................84
Figure 11: Issues and number of correct interpretations by the two professional interpreter groups in segments 1-10..........................................................................................................................103
Figure 12: Issues and number of correct interpretations by the two professional interpreter groups in segments 11-14..........................................................................................................................110
Figure 13: Grammatical errors committed by the interpreters.................................................................112
Figure 14: Number of pauses and hesitations committed by the interpreters in this study.......................................................................................................................114
Figure 15: Pauses and hesitations committed by the interpreters in this study. Parts where the number of pauses is higher are marked with a dark pink background, while the parts with a higher hesitation number have a gray background..................................................................115-116
Figure 16: Number of repetitions and corrections committed by the interpreters in this study...................................................................................................................116-117
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TW/102FJU00526005 |
| Date | January 1900 |
| Creators | 陳治平, Chen, Chih-ping |
| Contributors | 楊承淑, Yang Cheng-shu |
| Publisher | 輔仁大學, 跨文化研究所翻譯學碩士班 |
| Source Sets | National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan |
| Language | 英文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | 碩士 |
| Format | 132 |
| Relation | Ahrens, B. (2005). Prosodic phenomena in simultaneous interpretation: A conceptual approach and its practical application. Interpreting, 7(1), 51-76 Andres Kay-fan Cheung (2012). Omission in simultaneous interpretation: Word order differences.FORUM, International journal of interpretation and translation, Volume 10, No.2.19-34. Bakti, M. (2009) Speech disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation. Paper presented at the Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008. From http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/bakti.pdf Barik, H.C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech, Volume 16.237-271. Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data Language and Speech, Volume 18, 272-297. Barik, H. C (1994).A description of various types of omissions, additions, and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 121-137). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cecot, M (2001). Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: a contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 63-85. Chernov, G. V. (1979).Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation.Language and Speech, Volume 22, Number 3 (1979): 277-295. Davidson, Peter. (1992). Segmentation of Japanese source language discourse in simultaneous interpretation.The Interpreters' Newsletter, Special Issue, Number 1. 2-11. Dillinger, Mike (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that we don’t? In S.Lambert& B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.),Bridging the Gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. (pp. 155-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gerver, D. (1976) Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model in R. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and Research (pp. 165-207). New York: Gardner Press Gile, D. (1994). Methodological aspects of interpretation and translation research.In Lambert and Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. P. 39-56. Gile.D. (1995/2009).Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972) Segmentation of input in simultaneous interpretation.Journal of psycholinguistic research, 1(2), 127-140. Gran, Laura. (1995). In-training development of interpreting strategies and creativity.In Ann Beylard-Ozeroff, Jana Králová and Barbara Moser-Mercer (Eds.),Translators' Strategies and Creativity: Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.145-162. Huang, Y (2010). Expertise development in interpreting: An analysis of student interpreters’performance in English to Chinese simultaneous interpreting. MA Thesis.Fu-Jen University, 2010. Jones, R. (1998). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Kalina, S. (1992).Discourse processing and interpreting strategies - An approach to the of teaching of interpreting. In C. Dollerup& A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 251-257. Kalina, S. (1994).Analyzing interpreters' performance: methods and problems. In C. Dollerup&A. Lindegaard (Eds.),Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims & Visions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 225-232. Kalina, S. (2000) Interpreting competencies as a basis and a goal for teaching. The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 10.3-32. Kirchhoff, H. (2002). Simultaneous interpreting: Interdependence of variables in the interpreting process, interpreting modes and interpreting strategies.In F. Pochhacker& M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader. London & New York: Routledge, 110-119. Kopczynski, A (1980). Conference interpreting: Some linguistic and communicative problems. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Kurz, I. (2001). Conference interpreting: quality in the ears of the user. Meta, 46(2), 394-409. Lee, T. (1999a). Speech proportion and accuracy in simultaneous interpretation from English into Korean.Meta, 44, 260-167 Lee, T. (1999b). Simultaneous listening and speaking in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation.Meta, 44, 560-572. Lee, T. (2002).Ear voice span in English to Korean simultaneous interpretation.Meta, 47(4), 596-606. Li Chunyi (2009). Discourse linearity versus syntactic linearity: Tactics in simultaneous interpretation. Chinese Translators Journal, Volume 30, Number 3.69-73. Liu M., Schallert, D.L and Carroll, P.J. (2004) Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting.Interpreting, 6 (1). 19-42 Liu.M. (2008). How do experts interpret? Implications from research in interpreting studies and cognitive science. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman& H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting & translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 159-177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Livingston, S., Singer, B., & Abramson, T. (1994). Effectiveness compared: ASL interpretation versus transliteration. Sign Language Studies 82 (1994: Spring), 1-53. Lopacinska, Z. (2010). Dealing with speakers’ errors in interpreting –indispensable skill for a well-trained interpreter. In Lukasz Bogucki (Ed.) Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Challenges and Practices. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lounsbury, F.G. (1954). Transitional probability, linguistic structure, and systems of habit-family hierarchies. In C.E Osgood & T.A Sebeok (Eds.) Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems (pp. 93-101). Baltimore: Waverly Press. Marta Arumi Ribas (2012). Problems and strategies in consecutive interpreting: A pilot study at two different stages of interpreter training. Meta: Translators’ Journal, Volume 57, Number 3. 812-835. Mead (2000). Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 89-102. Mead (2005). Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 13, 39-63. Meuleman, C. & van Besien, F. (2009) Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 11 (1) 20-34. Moser-Mercer, B., Frauenfelder, U.H., Casado, B. &Kunzli, A.(2000). Searching to Define Expertise in Interpreting.In B.E. Dimitrova&K.Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pochhacker, F. (2004).Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge. Pochhacker, F. (2005). From operation to action: Process-orientation in interpreting studies. Meta: Translator’s Journal, Vol.50, No. 2. 682-695. Riccardi, A. (1998). Interpreting strategies and creativity. In A. Beylaro-Ozeroff, J. Kralova& B. Moser Mercer (Eds.), Translator’s Strategies and Creativity (p. 171-179). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Riccardi, A. (2002) Evaluation in interpretation: macrocriteria and microcriteria. In Eva Hung (Ed.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4: Building Bridges, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 115-126. Riccardi, A. (2005).On the evolution of interpreting strategies in simultaneous interpreting.Meta: Translators’ Journal, Volume 50, Number 2.753-767. Shlesinger, M. (2003).Effect of directionality on errors in simultaneous translation An introspective study.Seminar Paper October 2003. From http://translation.biu.ac.il/files/translation/shared/gnt_mrym_smynryvn.pdf Sawyer, D. (2004) Fundamental aspects of interpreter education. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences. Washington D.C: Pen and Booth. Seleskovitch, D. and Lederer, M. (1984).Interpreter pourtraduire. Paris: Didier Erudition. Sunnari, M. (1995) Processing strategies in simultaneous interpreting: “Saying it all” versus synthesis. In J.Tommola (Ed.), Topics in Interpreting Research (pp. 109-119). Turku, Finland: Center for Translation and Interpreting, University of Turku. Toth, A (2011). Speech disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A mirror on cognitive processes. Skase Journal of Translation and Interpretation, Volume 5, No.2.23-31. Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 103-127. Wei, S. (2003). Memory strategies of expert and novice interpreters in English to Chinese simultaneous interpretation.MA Thesis.Fu-Jen University, 2003. Winston, E. (1989). Transliteration: What’s the Message? In C. Lucas (Ed.) The social linguistics of the Deaf community. Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press, 147-164. Xu Ran (2010). Fostering “Attentive Listening Skills”: Strategies for improving listening comprehension among undergraduate trainee interpreters.Chinese Translators Journal, Volume 31, Number 3. 43-57. Yagi, Sane M. (2000).Studying style in simultaneous interpretation.Meta: Translators’ Journal, Volume 45, Number 3.520-547. Yang, C.S. (2008).A study of information processing in Interpreting. Fu-Jen University Publishing. Zhang, Lide (2009). Using quantitative measures in assessing interpreter performance: An exploratory study.MA Thesis.Fu-Jen University, 2009. 楊承淑 (2007). 逐步與同步口譯的訊息批次處理特徵. 翻譯學研究集刊, 第十期, 87-128. 楊承淑、鄧敏君(2010).老手與新手譯員的口譯決策過程. 中國翻譯, 32卷, 208期. 54-59. 張其帆 (2011). 漢英同傳中刪減語增益現象的案例分析. 中國翻譯, 32卷, 210期. 42-46. 邬姝麗(2010). 高校英語專業口譯能力評估及其對口譯教學的啟示. 中國翻譯, 31卷, 212期.37-39. |
Page generated in 0.004 seconds