Ten final-year interpreting students, all native speakers of Italian, were asked to perform three tasks using two ‘non-standard’ English speeches, one by an Indian speaking English as a second language (speaker A), and one by an American speaking English as a native language with a strong accent (speaker B). The duration of each speech was about 11 minutes, of which a different section was used for each task. First, subjects listened to the initial part of each speech (about 3 minutes) and were tested for listening comprehension. They then shadowed part of the speeches (about 2 minutes), after which they simultaneously interpreted the remainder from English into Italian. The working hypotheses were that: (i) the three tasks involve an increasing level of complexity: listening comprehension being the simplest and simultaneous interpretation the most difficult; (ii) ‘non-standard’ language in the source speech is a potential problem trigger for the interpreter. Performance in the three tasks was evaluated by examining the subjects’ answers to questions in the listening comprehension task (the highest score possible being 12), and by transcribing the shadowing and the simultaneous interpretation (both scored on a 12 point scale). In addition, subjects’ handling of previously identified problem areas in each simultaneous interpreting task was evaluated, again on a 12 point scale. Scores for each task were divided into bands, to distinguish between ‘very high’, ‘high’, ‘low’, and ‘very low’. Performance in the three exercises partly reflected their growing complexity, listening comprehension being the simplest and simultaneous interpretation the most difficult. The non standard characteristics of the two speeches were indeed difficult for some of the subjects to interpret. Taking Gile’s Effort Model as a theoretical basis, the study also provides some insight as to which phase of simultaneous interpretation caused most difficulties.
Boos, Michael, Matthias Kobi, Stefan Elmer & Lutz Jäncke
2022. The influence of experience on cognitive load during simultaneous interpretation. Brain and Language 234 ► pp. 105185 ff.
Aishwarya, N. & D. Ruth Deborah
2021. Comparison of Narrative Comprehension and Inference-Making Ability in Native Tamil Speakers in Monolingual and Bilingual Context. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 35:4 ► pp. 616 ff.
Perry, Lynn K., Emily N. Mech, Maryellen C. MacDonald & Mark S. Seidenberg
2018. Influences of speech familiarity on immediate perception and final comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25:1 ► pp. 431 ff.
DONOVAN, Clare
2017. El lugar del intérprete y de la interpretación en un entorno institucional. CLINA: Revista Interdisciplinaria de Traducción, Interpretación y Comunicación Intercultural 3:2 ► pp. 91 ff.
Huh, Jiun
2017. Phonological consideration of World Englishes in interpreter training: pedagogical suggestions based on an experimental study of consecutive interpretation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11:1 ► pp. 56 ff.
RUIZ ROSENDO, Lucia & Marie DIUR
2017. Los exámenes de admisión en las organizaciones internacionales: la oposición para intérpretes en plantilla de las Naciones Unidas. CLINA: Revista Interdisciplinaria de Traducción, Interpretación y Comunicación Intercultural 3:2 ► pp. 33 ff.
2013. Shadow-reading: Affordances for imitation in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 17:4 ► pp. 433 ff.
Sungmook Choi
2010. The effect of accent on interpersonal and content-based listening comprehension of EFL high school students. English Language Teaching 22:2 ► pp. 1 ff.
Major, Roy C., Susan M. Fitzmaurice, Ferenc Bunta & Chandrika Balasubramanian
2005. Testing the Effects of Regional, Ethnic, and International Dialects of English on Listening Comprehension. Language Learning 55:1 ► pp. 37 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. 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.