Cover not available
Article published In:
Babel
Vol. 64:5/6 (2018) ► pp.792–818

Propositional information loss in English-to-Chinese simultaneous conference interpreting

A corpus-based study

| Beijing Foreign Studies University
Simultaneous Interpreting (SI) as a profession has been gaining momentum in China, but little has been researched on Chinese professional conference interpreting on a basis of large quantity of empirical data. This study adopts an information-based SI fidelity assessment approach to probe into the propositional information loss in an SI corpus of seventeen English(B)-Chinese(A) simultaneous interpreters’ interpretations, and through stimulated retrospective interviews of three conference interpreters. Results show that operational constraints (concurrent listening and speaking, time constraint and incremental processing), source language factors (speed, information density, accent, linguistic complexity, technicality, etc) and interpreting direction (B to A), etc, account for typical propositional omission, incompletion or error.
Keywords: English-to-Chinese simultaneous interpreting, corpus, propositional information loss, cognitive resource deficiency, cognitive capability deficiency
Article outline
  • 1.Fidelity assessment in simultaneous interpreting (SI)
    • 1.1Traditional approaches
    • 1.2Information-based assessment
  • 2.Propositional information loss: Corpus data
    • 2.1The corpus
    • 2.2The data
  • 3.Propositional information loss: Causes and mechanisms
    • 3.1Corpus-based quantitative study
      • 3.1.1Annotation of source language variable levels
      • 3.1.2From information loss to variable levels
      • 3.1.3Between-clip analysis
      • 3.1.4Within-clip and within-group analysis
      • 3.1.5From variable levels to information loss
    • 3.2Corpus-based qualitative study
      • 3.2.1Propositional omission
        • (1)Time constraint
        • (2)Processing difficulties
      • 3.2.2Propositional incompletion
        • (1)Processing difficulties
        • (2)Time constraint
      • 3.2.3Propositional error
        • (1)Incomprehension
        • (2)Miscomprehension
  • 4.Findings and discussions
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00070.lu
References (61)
References
Alexieva, Bistra. 1999. “Understanding the Source Language Text in Simultaneous Interpreting”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 91: 45–59.Google Scholar
Altman, Janet. 1994. “Error Analysis in the Teaching of Simultaneous Interpreting: A Pilot Study”. In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Sylvie Lambert; and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 25–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Linda. 1994. “Simultaneous Interpretation: Contextual and Translation Aspects”. In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Sylvie Lambert; and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 101–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, William J. 1980. “Epilogue: An ‘Information Structure’ View of Language”. In Experimental Linguistics: Integration of Theories and Applications, ed. by Gary D. Prideaux; Bruce L. Derwing; and William J. Baker, 293–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barik, Henri C. 1971. “A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Meta 16 (4): 199–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. “Simultaneous Interpretation: Qualitative and Linguistic Data”. Language and Speech 18 (3): 272–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena. 2007. “Interpreting Quality as Perceived by Trainee Interpreters: Self-evaluation”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (2): 247–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Effects of Short Intensive Practice on Interpreter Trainees’ Performance”. In Why Translation Studies Matters, ed. by Daniel Gile; Gyde Hansen; and Nike K. Pokorn, 183–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buck, Gary. 1990. “The Testing of Second Language Listening Comprehension”. Ph.D dissertation. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
Bühler, Hildegund. 1985. “Conference Interpreting: A Multichannel Communication Phenomenon”. Meta 30 (1): 49–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Chia-Chien; and Diane L. Schallert. 2007. “The Impact of Directionality on Chinese/English Simultaneous Interpreting”. Interpreting 9 (2): 137–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Chia-Chien; and Wu Min-Chia. 2014. “Non-native English at International Conferences: Perspectives from Chinese-English Conference Interpreters in Taiwan”. Interpreting 16 (2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chernov, Ghelly V. 2004. “ Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Probability-prediction Model ”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Kay-Fan. 2009. “Numbers in Simultaneous Interpreting: An Experimental Study”. Forum 7 (2): 61–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.; and Thomas T. Wasow. 1998. “Repeating Words in Spontaneous Speech”. Cognitive Psychology 371: 201–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darò, Valeria.; and Franco Fabbro. 1994. “Verbal Memory during Simultaneous Interpretation: Effects of Phonological Interference”. Applied Linguistics 15 (4): 365–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dillinger, Michael. 1989. Component Processes of Simultaneous Interpreting Ph.D Dissertation. Montreal: McGill University.Google Scholar
Falbo, Caterina. 2002. “Error Analysis: A Research Tool”. In Perspectives on Interpreting, ed. by Giuliana Garzone; Peter Mead; and Maurizio Viezzi, 111–127. Forlì: Clueb.Google Scholar
Frauenfelder, Ulrich; and Herbert Schriefers. 1997. “A Psycholinguistic Perspective on Simultaneous Interpretation”. Interpreting 2 (1–2): 55–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana. 2002. “Quality and Norms in Interpretation”. In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. by Giuliana Garzone; and Maurizio Viezzi, 107–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 Franz Pöchhacker; and Miriam Shlesinger, 53–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1974. “Simultaneous Listening and Speaking and Retention of Prose”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 26 (3): 337–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995/2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999a. “Variability in the Perception of Fidelity in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Hermes 221: 51–79.Google Scholar
. 1999b. “Testing the Effort Models’ Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting – A Contribution”. Hermes 231: 153–172.Google Scholar
. 2015. “The Contributions of Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Linguistics to Conference Interpreting: A Critical Analysis”. In Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Aline Ferreira; and John W. Schwieter, 41–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goh, Christine. 2000. “A Cognitive Perspective on Language Learners’ Listening Comprehension Problems”. System 281: 55–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Takuo. 1991. “Interactive Processing of Words in Connected Speech in L1 and L2”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 291: 151–160.Google Scholar
Just, Marcel A.; and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension”. Psychological Review 871: 329–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia. 2002. “Quality in Interpreting and Its Prerequisites: A Framework for a Comprehensive View”. In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. by Giuliana Garzone; and Maurizio Viezzi, 121–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Quality Assessment for Interpreting Processes”. Meta 50 (2): 768–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hye-Rim. 2005. “Linguistic Characteristics and Interpretation Strategy Based on EVS Analysis of Korean-Chinese, Korean-Japanese Interpretation”. Meta 50 (4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 1993. “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 51: 13–21.Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid; and Elvira Basel. 2009. “The Impact of Non-native English on Information Transfer in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Forum 7 (2): 187–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Sylvie. 1988. “Information Processing among Conference Interpreters: A Test of the Depth-of-Processing Hypothesis”. Meta 33 (3): 377–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Sylvie; Valeria Darò; and Franco Fabbro. 1995. “Focalized Attention on Input vs. Output during Simultaneous Interpretation: Possibly a Waste of Effort!” Meta 40 (1): 39–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics: The Study of Meaning. (2nd edition). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lin, I-hsin; Chang Feng-lan; and Kuo Feng-lan. 2013. “The Impact of Non-native Accented English on Rendition Accuracy in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Translation and Interpreting 5 (2): 30–44.Google Scholar
Liu, Minhua; Diane L. Schallert; and Patrick J. Caroll. 2004. “Working Memories and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Interpreting 6 (1): 19–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, Xinchao; and Wang Lidi. 2015. “Interpreters’ Turn-taking and Output Quality in English-Chinese Simultaneous Interpreting”. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 47 (4): 585–596.Google Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W.; and Gregg C. Oden. 1995. “Independence of Lexical Context and Phonological Information in Speech Perception”. Journal of Experimental Psychology 21 (4): 1053–1064.Google Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W.; and Trevor H. Chen. 2008. “The Motor Theory of Speech Perception Revisited”. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15 (2): 453–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, Peter. 2005. “Methodological Issues in the Study of Interpreters’ Fluency”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 131: 39–63.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1996. “Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 71: 43–55.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2001. “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting”. Meta 46 (2): 410–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2008. “On Omission in Simultaneous Interpreting: Risk Analysis of a Hidden Effort”. In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. by Gyde Hansen; Andrew Chesterman; and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 83–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Seeber, Kilian. 2013. “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Measures and Methods”. Target 25 (1): 18–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin. 1998. “Meaning Assembly in Simultaneous Interpretation”. Interpreting 3 (2): 163–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “A Methodology for the Analysis of Interpretation Corpora”. In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. by Giuliana Garzone; and Maurizio Viezzi, 29–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1997. “Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting”. In Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research, ed. by Yves Gambier; Daniel Gile; and Christopher Taylor, 123–131. 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
Shreve, Gregory Monroe; Isabel Lacruz; and Erik Angelone. 2011. “Sight Translation and Speech Disfluency”. In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad; Adelina Hild; and Elisabet Tiselius, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan; and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tommola, Jorma; and Marketta Helevä. 1998. “Language Direction and Source Text Complexity: Effects on Trainee Performance in Simultaneous Interpreting”. In Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, ed. by Lynne Bowker; Michael Cronin; Dorothy Kenny; and Jennifer Pearson, 177–186. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J. 2012. Introduction to Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Xu, Jiajin; and Jia Yunlong. 2009. Readability Analyzer 1.0. Beijing: National Research Center for Foreign Language Education (Beijing Foreign Studies University).Google Scholar
Yang, Jun. 2004. “A Review of Studies on Disfluencies in Speech Production”. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (4): 278–284.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ouyang, Lingwei, Qianxi Lv & Junying Liang
2021. Coh-Metrix Model-Based Automatic Assessment of Interpreting Quality. In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation/Interpreting Product Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 september 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.