Self-monitoring processes in simultaneous interpreting

FORUM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mária Bakti ◽  
Judit Bóna

Abstract In psycholinguistics there is an agreement that self-monitoring is part of the speech production system, it serves the repair of speech errors and disfluencies occurring during the process of speech production. During simultaneous interpreting, where source language speech perception and target language speech production happen simultaneously, the analysis of self-monitoring is of particular importance. In our study we compare self-monitoring processes in the target language texts, interpreted from English into Hungarian, of professional interpreters and trainee interpreters. We examine the frequency of incidence of error – type disfluencies, the editing phase of self-repairs, the frequency of incidence of disfluencies, and the editing phases of repetitions and restarts. Although our data have revealed considerable individual differences between interpreters, some tendencies can be detected. In general, differences can be detected in self-monitoring between professional and trainee interpreters. When compared to data about self-monitoring processes in spontaneous, monolingual Hungarian speech, we can state that there were far fewer phenomena connected to self-monitoring in the target language output of simultaneous interpreters than in monolingual Hungarian texts.

Interpreting ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mária Bakti ◽  
Judit Bóna

Erroneous stress placement (ESP) in the target language is one of the salient suprasegmental features of simultaneously interpreted texts. This paper investigates the phenomenon in simultaneous interpretation from English, a free stress language, into Hungarian, a fixed stress language, the aim being to ascertain whether ESPs are related to source language features. Analysis of an experimental corpus collected for an earlier study (Bóna & Bakti 2009) made it possible to identify 122 ESPs, divided into two categories: (a) related to source language features; (b) others. These categories were further divided into several subcategories. Thus, (a) included ESPs related to: (i) source language stress, with semantic correspondence between the source language and target language units concerned; (ii) source language stress, but with no semantic correspondence between the target language unit and the prosodically similar source language unit identified in relatively close proximity to it. For (b), the subcategories distinguished between ESPs related to: (iii) the phonetic target language context; (iv) translation problems; (v) individual speech characteristics. Our results provide support for the view that metrical planning and segmental planning are separate processes. Thus, successful inhibition of source language interference on the segmental level during simultaneous interpreting is not necessarily associated with suppression of suprasegmental level source language interference.


Linguaculture ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-98
Author(s):  
Oana-Maria Franțescu

Training interpreters is conventionally understood as predominantly ensuring that they have a sufficient amount of practice in specially equipped laboratories and some theoretical knowledge from the field of translation studies. However, despite the established existence of quality standards for interpreters and their work, very little can be standardized in what concerns their training due to the numerous levels of difference between the languages in which interpretars operate. This paper aims to explore the errors occuring in the basic training of third-year students in simultaneous interpreting by using a selected sample of recorded and scripted speeches delivered in class in the original (Source Language) and Target Language versions. The study focuses on the interpreting issues occuring between English and Romanian and explores the factors these issues originate from.


2005 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 696-712
Author(s):  
In-Kyoung Ahn

Abstract In simultaneous interpreting, if the syntactic structure of the source language (hereinafter SL) and the target language (hereinafter TL) are very different, interpreters have to wait before being able to reformulate the SL segments into a meaningful utterance in TL. It is inevitable to adapt the TL structure to that of the SL so as not to unduly increase the memory load and to minimize the pause. While such adaptation facilitates simultaneous interpreting, it results in damaging the perspective coherence of the text. Discovering when such perspective coherence is impaired, and how the problem can be attenuated, will enable interpreters to enhance their performance. This paper analyses the reasons for perspective coherence damage by looking at some examples of German-Korean simultaneous interpreting, and proposes means of reducing the problem which should be sought out and practised with students during interpreter training.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wouter Petrus Johannes Broos ◽  
Wouter Duyck ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker

The lexical bias effect is the tendency for people to make phonological speech errors that result in existing words. Several studies have argued that this effect arises from a combination of factors: the self-monitoring system covertly weeding out more nonword than word errors and feedback of activation during speech production biasing towards lexical outcomes. Moreover, lexicality of the context has been shown to influence the occurrence of the lexical bias effect (Hartsuiker, Corley, & Martensen, 2005), supporting a role for monitoring. But how does this process differ in one’s first language (L1) as opposed to this same process in the second language (L2) and is there even a difference to begin with? To address that question, we tested whether people also show the lexical bias effect when speaking in a second language (L2) and if so, whether the effect is also modulated by context lexicality. Additionally, we tested whether recent exposure to existing words in L2 influences such a lexical bias effect. We observed a lexical bias effect in L1 but not in L2 in Experiment 1. Moreover, the lexical bias effect in L1 was marginally modulated by context. Experiment 2, in which more L2 words were presented, did not demonstrate a lexical bias effect in either language. However, an analysis of a subset of the data (namely the blocks that were identical in both experiments and thus directly comparable) found a three-way interaction between Outcome, Language, and Experiment. This interaction suggests a strong lexical bias effect in Experiment 1 for L1 but not for L2 whereas Experiment 2 reveals a comparable lexical bias effect in both languages. This indicates that more exposure to existing L2 words leads to an increase in activation of the lexical representations of the target language, thereby increasing the number of transpositions and therefore an increase in the strength of the lexical bias effect.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Alina Dailidėnaitė ◽  
Julija Volynec

This article describes an experimental study of lexical interference in simultaneous interpreting from English into Lithuanian and from Lithuanian into English. The paper aims to contribute to the literature on language interference in simultaneous interpreting as well as to identify the influence of lexical interference on directionality and quality of simultaneous interpreting. The experiment was carried out with 6 students working in two directions (from English into Lithuanian and from Lithuanian into English). The paper presents the analysis of the types, frequency and gravity of lexical interference. The results of the study suggest that lexical interference is more common and more detrimental to quality when interpreting into the B language. The results also demonstrate that interpreters experience more difficulties when interpreting word equivalents than phraseological units.


Author(s):  
Linda Gaile ◽  

The research on the simultaneous interpreting process and the associated target and source languages requires both the oral source speeches and the simultaneous interpreting of the spoken source speeches into the target language. For a relatively short time now, researchers of translation and interpreting have been able to access digitized linguistic corpora, parallel and speech corpora of different language pairs, from which they can build their own purpose-oriented corpus of original and target-language oral texts. Furthermore, the built-up language corpus can be analysed qualitatively or quantitatively using different software and investigated for specific linguistic phenomena. This present article focuses on the benefits of data retrieval from digitalized language and speech corpora, which can be an important source of assistance for the analysis of the oral simultaneous interpretation target text. At the heart of this question is the European Parliament’s speeches corpus, from which authentic speeches in the source language (German) and simultaneous interpretation in the target language (Latvian) can be obtained to create a sub-corpus for the German-Latvian language pair. Among others, the question of which interpreting strategies can be used for simultaneous interpreting from German into Latvian is explored, and the application of EXMARaLDA Partitur-Editor software is presented, which allows to create a simultaneous transcription of the source language and the simultaneously interpreted target language as well as to develop a speech corpus.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document