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)
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