Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 20:1 (2018) ► pp.33–62

Corpus-based terminological preparation for simultaneous interpreting

| China Foreign Affairs University

This experimental study examines whether use of a corpus-based terminological preparation procedure, managed by a term extraction tool (Syllabs Tools) and a concordance tool (on the Sketch Engine platform), enables trainee interpreters (Chinese A, English B) to achieve greater accuracy in a simultaneous interpreting (SI) task on a specialised topic. Twenty-two interpreting students on a one-year MA course in the UK were divided into a test group (10 students) and a control group (12 students). Nine days before the experiment, which involved SI from the A into the B language as well as vice versa, both groups were given preparatory documentation in both languages. In addition, the test group received term lists automatically generated by the extraction tool and used the Sketch Engine concordance tool. The control group extracted terms manually and did not have the concordance tool. Terminological accuracy in SI was found to be significantly higher, with fewer omissions, even when terms occurred in rapid succession, in the test group. All students afterwards participated in focus group discussions, providing feedback on the effectiveness of their preparation and an estimate of the time they had dedicated to it. In addition, their recall of terms was tested two months later by completion of a 15-item quiz and was found to be significantly better in the test group.

Keywords: terminological preparation, simultaneous interpreting, corpus-based, term extraction, concordance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Terminology-driven preparation
    • 1.2Models and procedures for the simultaneous interpreter’s terminological preparation
      • 1.2.1Moser-Mercer’s terminology workflow
      • 1.2.2Will’s knowledge management model
      • 1.2.3Rütten’s information and knowledge management model
    • 1.3The interpreter’s preparation with corpus tools
  • 2.The study
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Study design
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Experimental materials
      • 3.3.1Preparation documents
      • 3.3.2Experimental speeches
    • 3.4Total preparation time allowed
    • 3.5Procedure
    • 3.6Dependent variables
      • 3.6.1Judges
      • 3.6.2Holistic assessment of SI
      • 3.6.3Terminological accuracy
      • 3.6.4Terminological quiz
      • 3.6.5Focus groups
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Terminological accuracy
    • 4.2Holistic assessment of SI
    • 4.3Significant error categories
    • 4.4Terms prone to serious error
    • 4.5Association between density of terms and number of serious errors
    • 4.6Subsequent recall of terms
    • 4.7Preparation time
    • 4.8Students’ feedback on their preparation
      • 4.8.1Traditional preparation
      • 4.8.2Corpus-based preparation
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Main effects of the two preparation procedures
    • 5.2Challenges and coping strategies
      • 5.2.1Coping with challenging terms
        • Items not prepared beforehand, and therefore not activated
        • Insufficient activation
      • 5.2.2Coping with high information density
  • 6.Conclusion
    • 6.1Contextualising the findings
    • 6.2Limitations of the study
    • 6.3Future work
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00002.xu
References
Altman, J.
(1994) Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpretation: A pilot study. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barik, H. C.
(1975) Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech 181, 272–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blancafort, H., Bouvier, F., Daille, B., Heid, U. & Ramm, A.
(2013) TTC web platform: From corpus compilation to bilingual terminologies for MT and CAT tools. In TRALOGY II: Futures in Technologies for Translation. Paris.Google Scholar
Botley, S., Glass, J., McEnery, T. & Wilson, A.
(Eds.) (1996) Proceedings of Teaching and Language Corpora 1996. Technical Paper 91. Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language.Google Scholar
Craik, F. & Lockhart, R.
(1972) Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 111, 671–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Galaz, S.
(2012) La influencia del conocimiento previo en la interpretación simultánea de discursos especializados: Un estudio empírico. PhD Dissertation, University of Granada.Google Scholar
Díaz-Galaz, S., Padilla, P. & Bajo, M. T.
(2015) The role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 17 (1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donovan, C.
(2001) Interpretation of technical conferences. Conference Interpretation and Translation 31, 7–29.Google Scholar
Dunaevsky, C.
(2015) Term extraction and tools. [URL] (accessed 7 July 2016).
Eckersley, H.
(2002) Systems for evaluating translation quality. Multilingual Computing and Technology 3 (3), 39–42.Google Scholar
Fantinuoli, C.
(2006) Specialized corpora from the web and term extraction for simultaneous interpreters. In M. Baroni & S. Bernardini (Eds.), WaCky! Working Papers on the Web as Corpus. Bologna: Gedit, 173–190.Google Scholar
Gile, D.
(1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorjanc, V.
(2009) Terminology resources and terminological data management for medical interpreters. In D. Andres & S. Pöllabauer (Eds.), Spürst Du, wie der Bauch rauf-runter? Fachdolmetschen im Gesundheitsbereich. München: Meidenbauer, 85–95.Google Scholar
ISO 1087-1:2000
Terminology work – Vocabulary – Part 1: Theory and application. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Jiang, H.
(2013) The interpreter’s glossary in simultaneous interpreting: A survey. Interpreting 15 (1), 74–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalina, S.
(2005) Zur Dokumentation von Maßnahmen der Qualitätssicherung beim Konferenzdolmetschen. In C. Heine, K. Schubert & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Translation theory and methodology. Tübingen: Narr, 253–268.Google Scholar
(2015) Preparation. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 318–320.Google Scholar
Kohn, K. & Kalina, S.
(1996) The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta 41 (1), 118–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, A. & Xiao, Z.
(2010) What corpora can offer in language teaching and learning? In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 21). London/New York: Routledge, 364–380.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B.
(1992) Banking on terminology: Conference interpreters in the electronic age. Meta 37 (3), 507–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, J.
(2002) Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies. Coleford: Douglas McLean.Google Scholar
(2004) Interpreting omissions: A new perspective. Interpreting 6 (2), 117–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A.
(1923) The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H.
(1992) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rütten, A.
(2003) Computer-based information management for conference interpreters ‒ or how will I make my computer act like an infallible information butler? In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Translating and the Computer, 20–21 November 2003. London: Aslib. [URL] (accessed 7 July 2016).
(2015) Terminology. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 416–417.Google Scholar
SAE International
(2001) SAE J2450: Translation quality metric. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.Google Scholar
Secară, A.
(2005) Translation evaluation - a state of art survey. In Conference Proceedings of eCoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop, Leeds, UK, 39–44.Google Scholar
Stoll, C.
(2009) Jenseits simultanfähiger Terminologiesysteme. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Ure, J.
(1971) Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. E. Perren & J. L. M. Trimm (Eds.), Applications of linguistics: Selected papers of the 2nd International Congress of Applied Linguists. London: Cambridge University Press, 443–452.Google Scholar
Will, M.
(2007) Terminology work for simultaneous interpreters in LSP Conferences: Model and method. MuTra 2007 – LSP translation scenarios. [URL] (accessed 7 July 2016).
Xu, R. & Sharoff, S.
(2014) Evaluating term extraction methods for interpreters. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Computational Terminology. Dublin, Ireland, 86–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 14 other publications

Balakhonov, Vladimir & Christopher D. Mellinger
2023. Developing and Using an Ad Hoc Corpus to Teach Specialized Interpreting: A Case Study of German Embassy Speeches. CLINA Revista Interdisciplinaria de Traducción Interpretación y Comunicación Intercultural 9:2 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Corpas Pastor, Gloria & Fernando Sánchez Rodas
2021. Chapter 1. Now what?. In Corpora in Translation and Contrastive Research in the Digital Age [Benjamins Translation Library, 158], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Fantinuoli, Claudio
2023. Chapter 3. Towards AI-enhanced computer-assisted interpreting. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Gaber, Mahmoud
2023. How to master phraseology and automate the documentation process: a technological solution for interpreter training in the Spanish<>Arabic combination. Romanica Olomucensia 35:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Goldsmith, Joshua
2023. Chapter 2. Tablet interpreting. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Gu, Chonglong & Binhua Wang
2023. From “Within” to “Beyond” in interpreting studies. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation / Revista Internacional de Traducción DOI logo
Liu, Jinping, Hong Liu & Sheng Bin
2022. Construction of Medical Academic English Translation Model Driven by Bilingual Corpus-Based Data. Scientific Programming 2022 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Chapter 8. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Su, Wenchao
2020. Translation Style in Sight Translation. In Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Sun, Sanjun & Kairong Xiao
2019. Chinese scholarship in Cognitive Translation Studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:1 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Tian, Sha & Wenjiao Yang
2023. Modeling the use behavior of interpreting technology for student interpreters: An extension of UTAUT model. Education and Information Technologies DOI logo
Zhao, Nan
2022. Use of Computer-Assisted Interpreting Tools in Conference Interpreting Training and Practice During COVID-19. In Translation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19 [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 9], ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo
胡, 敏霞
2020. The Impact of Rote Repetition Impacts Simultaneous Interpreting Performance: An Explorative Study. Modern Linguistics 08:02 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
胡, 敏霞
2021. The Two-Way Relationship between Interpreting Experience and Working Memory—A Review of Empirical Evidence. Modern Linguistics 09:01 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 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.