Sound effects in translation

Inger M. Mees, Barbara Dragsted, Inge Gorm Hansen and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Denmark | Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Denmark

Abstract

On the basis of a pilot study using speech recognition (SR) software, this paper attempts to illustrate the benefits of adopting an interdisciplinary approach in translator training. It shows how the collaboration between phoneticians, translators and interpreters can (1) advance research, (2) have implications for the curriculum, (3) be pedagogically motivating, and (4) prepare students for employing translation technology in their future practice as translators. In a twophase study in which 14 MA students translated texts in three modalities (sight, written, and oral translation using an SR program), Translog was employed to measure task times. The quality of the products was assessed by three experienced translators, and the number and types of misrecognitions were identified by a phonetician. Results indicate that SR translation provides a potentially useful supplement to written translation, or indeed an alternative to it.

Keywords
Table of contents

Consider the following three scenarios.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Agrifoglio, Marjorie
2004 “Sight Translation and Interpreting: A Comparative Analysis of Constraints and Failures.” Interpreting 6 (1): 43–67.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 153 ]
Chafe, Wallace, and Jane Danielewicz
1987 “Properties of Spoken and Written Language.” In Comprehending Oral and Written Language, ed. by Rosalind Horowitz and S. Jay, Samuels, 83–113. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Collins, Beverley, and Inger M. Mees
2013Practical Phonetics and Phonology, 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan
1994Gimson’s Pronunciation of English, 5th ed. London: Arnold. Google Scholar
Derwing, Tracey M., Murray J. Munro, and Michael Carbonaro
2000 “Does Popular Speech Recognition Software Work with ESL Speech?TESOL Quarterly 34 (3): 592–603.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, Inge Gorm Hansen, and Henrik Selsøe Sørensen
2009 “Experts Exposed.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 293–317. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 38.]Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, Inger M. Mees, and Inge Gorm Hansen
2011 “Speaking Your Translation: Students’ First Encounter with Speech Recognition Technology.” Translation & Interpreting 3 (1): 10–43.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “Translation Research Versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, ed. by , 10–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2010 “The Translation of Instructive Texts from a Cognitive Perspective: Novices and Professionals Compared.” In New Approaches in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Fabio Alves, and Inger M. Mees, 5–55. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 39.]Google Scholar
Hansen, Inge Gorm, and Miriam Shlesinger
2007 “The Silver Lining: Technology and Self-Study in the Interpreting Classroom.” Interpreting 9 (1): 95–118.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Lasse Schou
1999 “Translog Documentation.” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 151–186. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 24.]Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, and James H., Martin
2000Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Lambert, Sylvie
2004 “Shared Attention during Sight Translation, Sight Interpretation and Simultaneous Interpretation.” Meta 49 (2): 294–306.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Leijten, Mariëlle, Daniel Janssen, and Luuk Van Waes
2010 “Error Correction Strategies of Professional Speech Recognition Users: Three Profiles.” Computers in Human Behavior 26: 964–975.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Leijten, Mariëlle, and Luuk Van Waes
2005 “Writing with Speech Recognition: The Adaptation Process of Professional Writers with and without Dictating Experience.” Interacting with Computers 17: 736–772.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Luyckx, Bieke, Tijs Delbeke, Luuk van Waes, Mariëlle Leijken, and Aline Remael
2010 “Live Subtitling with Speech Recognition: Causes and Consequences of Text Reduction.” Artesis Working Papers in Translation Studies 1. Antwerp.Google Scholar
Phillipson, Robert
2003English-Only Europe: Challenging Language Policy?. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
Wells, John C
2008Longman Dictionary of Pronunciation, 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education. Google Scholar
Zong, Chengqing, and Mark Seligman
2005 “Toward Practical Spoken Language Translation.” Machine Translation 19 (2): 113–137. [ p. 154 ]http://​nlpr​-web​.ia​.ac​.cn​/cip​/ZongPublications​/2006​.06​.23%20Machine%20Translation%20Journal​_OnlinePDF​.pdf (accessed 20 January 2012).