Multimodal Processing in Simultaneous Interpreting

Author(s):  
Kilian G. Seeber
Target ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Chmiel ◽  
Przemysław Janikowski ◽  
Agnieszka Lijewska

Abstract The present study focuses on (in)congruence of input between the visual and the auditory modality in simultaneous interpreting with text. We asked twenty-four professional conference interpreters to simultaneously interpret an aurally and visually presented text with controlled incongruences in three categories (numbers, names and control words), while measuring interpreting accuracy and eye movements. The results provide evidence for the dominance of the visual modality, which goes against the professional standard of following the auditory modality in the case of incongruence. Numbers enjoyed the greatest accuracy across conditions possibly due to simple cross-language semantic mappings. We found no evidence for a facilitation effect for congruent items, and identified an impeding effect of the presence of the visual text for incongruent items. These results might be interpreted either as evidence for the Colavita effect (in which visual stimuli take precedence over auditory ones) or as strategic behaviour applied by professional interpreters to avoid risk.


Author(s):  
Tianyun Li ◽  
Bicheng Fan

This study sets out to describe simultaneous interpreters' attention-sharing initiatives when exposed under input from both videotaped speech recording and real-time transcriptions. Separation of mental energy in acquiring visual input accords with the human brain's statistic optimization principle where the same property of an object is presented through diverse fashions. In examining professional interpreters' initiatives, the authors invited five professional English-Chinese conference interpreters to simultaneously interpret a videotaped speech with real-time captions generated by speech recognition engine while meanwhile monitoring their eye movements. The results indicate the professional interpreters' preferences in referring to visually presented captions along with the speaker's facial expressions, where low-frequency words, proper names, and numbers gained greater attention than words with higher frequency. This phenomenon might be explained by the working memory theory in which the central executive enables redundancy gains retrieved from dual-channel information.


Interpreting ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ena Hodzik ◽  
John N. Williams

We report a study on prediction in shadowing and simultaneous interpreting (SI), both considered as forms of real-time, ‘online’ spoken language processing. The study comprised two experiments, focusing on: (i) shadowing of German head-final sentences by 20 advanced students of German, all native speakers of English; (ii) SI of the same sentences into English head-initial sentences by 22 advanced students of German, again native English speakers, and also by 11 trainee and practising interpreters. Latency times for input and production of the target verbs were measured. Drawing on studies of prediction in English-language reading production, we examined two cues to prediction in both experiments: contextual constraints (semantic cues in the context) and transitional probability (the statistical likelihood of words occurring together in the language concerned). While context affected prediction during both shadowing and SI, transitional probability appeared to favour prediction during shadowing but not during SI. This suggests that the two cues operate on different levels of language processing in SI.


2007 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kilian G. Seeber ◽  
Christian Zelger

Abstract Simultaneous conference interpreting represents a highly complex linguistic task and a very delicate process of information transfer. Consequently, the notion of truth – which applied to the field of simultaneous interpreting entails an accurate rendition of the original message – is of pivotal importance. In spite of that, an analysis of experimental transcripts and corpora sometimes seems to suggest that interpreters betray the speaker by deliberately altering the original. While we cannot exclude that such instances do exist, we argue that sometimes what looks like betrayal may in fact be a rendition based on a sound ethical decision. In this paper we take a closer look at these situations in an attempt to shed more light on the potential motivations underlying the interpreter’s decisions and actions. Using examples from real life interpreting situations, we take the interpreter’s output and put what at first sight appears to be a betrayal of the speaker on the ethical test bench, both from a deontological and a teleological perspective. Based on this analysis we propose a model suggesting that the interpreter uses three principal message components, verbal, semantic and intentional, in order to come up with an accurate interpretation of the original, which we call “truthful rendition.”


Interpreting ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabetta Sabatini

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.


Target ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Shlesinger ◽  
Noam Ordan

Since the early 1990s, with the advance of computerized corpora, translation scholars have been using corpus-based methodologies to look into the possible existence of overriding patterns (tentatively described as universals or as laws) in translated texts. The application of such methodologies to interpreted texts has been much slower in developing than in the case of translated ones, but significant progress has been made in recent years. After presenting the fundamental methodological hurdles—and advantages—of working on machine-readable (transcribed) oral corpora, we present and discuss several recent studies using cross-modal comparisons, and examine the viability of using interpreted outputs to explore the features that set simultaneous interpreting apart from other forms of translation. We then set out to test the hypothesis that modality may exert a stronger effect than ontology—i.e. that being oral (vs. written) is a more powerful influence than being translated (vs. original).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document