Allameh Tabataba’i University
Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages
Interpreter-Training-Specific Techniques:
A Didactic Approach
A Dissertation Submitted
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Ph.D. in Translation Studies
Advisor: Dr. Kambiz Mahmoodzadeh
Readers: Dr. Farzaneh Farahzad
Dr. Gholam Reza Tajvidi
February 2015
برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود
(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)
تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :
(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)
Abbreviations
CI……………..….consecutive interpreting
CA…………….….processing capacity available for coordination
CR…………….….processing capacity requirements for coordination
DF…………….….degree of freedom
EVS………………ear voice span
GE…………….….general English
IT…………….…..interpreted text
LA…………….….processing capacity available for listening
LR…………….….processing capacity requirements for listening
LTM………………long-term memory
MI…………….….multiple intelligences
MA……………….processing capacity available for memory
MR……………….processing capacity requirements for memory
N.…………………number
NS………………..non-significant
P…………….……probability level
PA…………….….processing capacity available for production
PR…………….….processing capacity requirements for production
R…………….……correlation coefficient
R2…………….…..shared variance
S.……………..….significant
SI……………..….simultaneous interpreting
SL…………….….source language
SOV…….……….subject-object-verb
ST…………….….sight translation
ST…………….….source text
STM.…………….short-term memory
SVO…….……….subject-verb-object
TL…………….….target language
TA…………….….total processing capacity available for SI
TR…………….….total processing capacity requirements for SI
TS…………….….translation studies
TT…………….….target text
TTS………………tail-to-tail span
Figures and Tables
Figure 2.1 Gile’s Effort Model of SI 38
Figure 2.2 Processing Capacity Requirements for SI 40
Figure 2.3 Necessary Conditions for SI 42
Table 4.1 GE Test Scores for Experimental Subjects. 122
Table 4.2 GE Test Scores for Control Subjects. 123
Table 4.3 Three Raters’ Scores for Control Subjects on SI Pretest 125
Table 4.4 Three Raters’ Scores for Experimental Subjects on SI Pretest 126
Table 4.5 Three Raters’ Scores for Control Subjects on SI Posttest 127
Table 4.6 Three Raters’ Scores for Experimental Subjects on SI Posttest 128
Table 4.7 Pearson Correlation for Raters. 129
Table 4.8 Z Transformation for Data. 130
Figure 4.1 Inter-Rater Reliability Diagram for Control Subjects’ Pretest Scores 131
Figure 4.2 Inter-Rater Reliability Diagram for Experimental Subjects’ Pretest Scores 132
Figure 4.3 Inter-Rater Reliability Diagram for Control Subjects’ Posttest Scores 132
Figure 4.4 Inter-Rater Reliability Diagram for Experimental Subjects’ Posttest Scores 133
Table 4.9 Control Subjects’ SI Pretest Scores. 134
Table 4.10 Experimental Subjects’ SI Pretest Scores. 135
-Test Results for SI Pretest Scores. 138
Table 4.12 Control Subjects’ SI Posttest Scores. 139
Table 4.13 Experimental Subjects’ SI Posttest Scores. 140
-Test Results for SI Posttest Scores. 142
Table 4.15 Experimental Subjects’ SI Improvement Rate. 145
Table 4.16 Linguistic Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 147
Figure 4.5 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Linguistic Intelligence 150
Table 4.17 Logical-Mathematical Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects 153
Figure 4.6 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Logical-Mathematical Intelligence 156
Table 4.18 Visual-Spatial Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 157
Figure 4.7 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Visual-Spatial Intelligence 160
Table 4.19 Musical Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 162
Figure 4.8 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Musical Intelligence 165
Table 4.20 Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects 166
Figure 4.9 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence 168
Table 4.21 Interpersonal Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 170
Figure 4.10 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Interpersonal Intelligence 172
Table 4.22 Intrapersonal Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 175
Figure 4.11 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Intrapersonal Intelligence 177
Table 4.23 Naturalist Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 180
Figure 4.12 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Naturalist Intelligence 182
Table 4.24 Correlation between MIs and SI Improvement Rate. 184
Table 4.25 Experimental Subjects’ Degree of Extroversion/Introversion. 186
Table 4.26 Extroversion Degree and SI Improvement Rate. 187
Figure 4.13 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Extroversion. 190
Table 4.27 Introversion Degree and SI Improvement Rate. 192
Figure 4.14 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Introversion. 194
Abstract
Conducted within the framework of causal research model in translation studies, the present experimental work addresses the effect of applying certain interpreter-training-specific techniques (e.g. shadowing, improvisation, anticipation, paraphrasing, split-attention exercises, memory enhancement exercises, etc.) on the quality of simultaneous interpretation by the trainees. Prior to the commencement of the experiment, a standard test of General English (IELTS) was administered to ensure homogeneity. The participants (initially 102 who were later reduced to 70) were all undergraduate translation trainees, of whom 35 received the treatment (experimental group) and the remaining 35 did not (control group). Two tests of simultaneous interpretation (a pretest and a posttest) were conducted and then rated by three raters. T-test results for the pretest (t=0.59) showed there was no significant difference between the two groups whereas t-test results for the posttest (t=5.1) indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group significantly. Such an improvement is believed to be the outcome of the treatment. The possible relation between experimental subjects’ rate of SI improvement and their multiple intelligences was investigated: as to Gardner’s first five intelligences, no statistically significant correlation was found (verbal-linguistic: -0.03, logical-mathematical: 0.178, visual-spatial: 0.26, musical-rhythmic: 0.06, bodily-kinesthetic: 0.02) while the remaining three were observed to correlate significantly with SI improvement level (interpersonal: -0.49, intrapersonal: 0.482, naturalist: 0.446). The possible relation between SI improvement rate and Jung’s two personality types was also probed into: extroversion turned out to have a correlation of -0.08 (near zero) and introversion correlated to the extent of 0.46; a moderate positive correlation, though statistically non-significant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………….………………………..………………………..…I
Acknowledgments…………………….…………………..………………….………..II
Abbreviations……………………………………………..………………………………….III
Figures and Tables…………………………….………..…………………..…………V
Abstract……………………………………………………………………..…………VIII
Table of Contents………………………………………..……………………………..X
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.1 Chapter Overview… 2
1.2 Introduction.. 2
1.3 Background of the Problem… 5
1.4 Significance of the Study.. 7
1.5 Purpose of the Study.. 9
1.6 Research Questions. 9
1.7 Research Hypotheses. 10
1.8 Theoretical Framework.. 11
1.9 Limitations and Delimitations. 13
CHAPTER 2: Review of the Related Literature
2.1 Chapter Overview… 19
2.2 Interpreting: Definition and Modes. 20
2.2.1 Simultaneous Interpreting.. 23
2.2.2 Consecutive Interpreting.. 26
2.2.3 Sight Translation.. 28
2.2.4 Simultaneous Interpreting with Text. 31
2.2.5 Liaison Interpreting.. 32
2.2.6 Whispering Interpreting.. 32
2.2.7 Escort Interpreting.. 33
2.3 Simultaneous Interpreting.. 33
of SI. 38
2.3.2 Horizontal vs. Vertical Approaches. 42
2.3.3 EVS and TTS.. 45
2.4 Interpreter-Training Techniques. 52
2.4.1 Shadowing.. 54
2.4.2 Sight Translation.. 59
2.4.3 Consecutive Interpretation.. 60
2.4.4 Split-Attention.. 62
2.4.5 Anticipation.. 68
2.4.6 Improvisation.. 74
2.4.7 Memory-Enhancement. 74
2.4.8 (Simultaneous) Paraphrasing.. 78
2.4.9 Condensation/Compression.. 82
2.5 Multiple Intelligences. 84
2.5.1 Verbal-Linguistic. 86
2.5.2 Logical-Mathematical 87
2.5.3 Visual-Spatial 88
2.5.4 Musical-Rhythmic. 88
2.5.5 Bodily-Kinesthetic. 89
2.5.6 Interpersonal 90
2.5.7 Intrapersonal 90
2.5.8 Naturalist. 91
2.6 Extroversion/Introversion.. 92
CHAPTER 3: Methodology
3.1 Chapter Overview… 97
3.2 Type of Research.. 97
3.3 Experiment. 99
3.3.1 Participants. 99
3.3.1.1 Experimental Group 99
3.3.1.2 Control Group 100
3.3.2 Treatment. 100
3.3.2.1 Memory-Enhancement 102
3.3.2.2 Condensation/Compression 103
3.3.2.3 Improvisation 104
3.3.2.4 Consecutive Interpretation 105
3.3.2.5 Sight Translation 106
3.3.2.6 Split-Attention 107
3.3.2.7 Shadowing 108
3.3.2.8 Anticipation 110
3.3.2.9 (Simultaneous) Paraphrasing 111
3.3.3 Instruments. 112
3.3.3.1 General English Test 112
3.3.3.2 SI Pretest and Posttest 113
3.3.3.3 Multiple Intelligences Test 114
3.3.3.4 Personality Type Test 115
3.4 Data Collection and Analysis. 116
3.4.1 General English Test. 116
3.4.2 SI Pretest and Posttest. 116
3.4.3 Multiple Intelligences and Personality Type Tests. 118
CHAPTER 4: Research Findings, Data Analysis, and Discussion
4.1 Chapter Overview… 121
4.2 GE Test Scores. 121
4.3 SI Test Scores. 124
4.3.1 Inter-Rater Reliability.. 124
-test. 134
-test. 138
. 142
4.4 MI and SI Scores Correlation.. 144
4.4.1 Linguistic Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 147
4.4.2 Logical-Mathematical Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate 153
4.4.3 Visual-Spatial Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 157
4.4.4 Musical Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 161
4.4.5 Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 165
4.4.6 Interpersonal Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 170
4.4.7 Intrapersonal Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 174
4.4.8 Naturalist Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 179
4.5 Personality Type and SI Scores Correlation.. 185
4.5.1 Extroversion and SI Improvement Rate.. 187
4.5.2 Introversion and SI Improvement Rate.. 192
CHAPTER 5: Conclusion
5.1 Chapter Overview… 199
5.2 Research Questions Revisited and Answered.. 199
5.4 Pedagogical Implications. 204
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research.. 207
References…………………..…………………………………………………………211
Appendices……………………..………………………………………………………221
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Chapter Overview
The present chapter outlines the whole work on a small scale. We will first look at a short introduction to and background of the problem, then the significance and purpose of the study will be briefly discussed and finally the questions, hypotheses, and theoretical framework of the present study along with the main limitation and delimitations will be stated.
1.2 Introduction
Translation, considered in its broadest sense, is a practice, with a history thought to be as long as that of mankind, which has had tremendous influences upon man’s life throughout the history. The significance of such a practice in this day and age, duly termed as the age of communication, is far from disputable especially when one considers the role played by translation in all the communications that take place in various contexts. Therefore it is easy to see why the scientific study of translation has gained an unprecedented momentum over the past couple of decades.
No one can be sure when interpreting, in its broadest sense, was first undertaken by human beings. However, it is logical to assume that interpreting is definitely older than translation since the latter came into existence after the invention of some kind of writing system while the former could have existed before that. Pöchhacker (2005, p. 682) makes the following observation in this regard:
Interpreting as the activity of enabling or facilitating communication between speakers of different languages is a millennial practice, with earliest records dating back some five-thousand years (cf. Hermann 1956/2002).
However, for numerous reasons, to be elaborated on by researchers, translation has attracted much more attention in the history than interpreting. As Pöchhacker (2004, as cited in Pöchhacker, 2005, p. 683) states “In the history of scholarship on translation, few authors have reflected specifically on what we now call ‘interpreting’.” (my emphasis) The systematic study of interpreting is rare and cannot be claimed to be older than a number of decades (cf. Seleskovitch, 1999; Shaw et al., 2004; Riccardi, 2005; Pöchhacker, 2005; Lung & Li, 2005; Seeber & Zelger, 2007).
One reason for this could be that there exists a sort of widely-held misconception among people – laypeople to be more precise: anyone who knows two languages well enough can be a translator, and anyone who is a translator can be an interpreter. Schmitz (1988, pp. 273-274, as cited in Ibrahim, 2009, p. 358) makes the following observation regarding this chaotic situation:
