The impact of sentence length and complexity on fluency in Turkish-English simultaneous interpreting
Abstract
This study was designed as an explorative, descriptive, and observational/ experimental study. With a fluency-oriented approach to quality, it aims at presenting and discussing the results of an experiment designed so as to explore the impact of sentence length and complexity on quality in Turkish-English SI. In addition, the self-perceptions of interpreting students regarding their own interpreting performance obtained through post-experiment interviews will be discussed. In accordance with the objectives of the study, performance-related quality criteria rather than content-related quality criteria will be observed and fluency will be explored in terms of pauses, false starts, repairs, and repetitions.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alonso Bacigalupe, L. (2013). Interpretation quality: from cognitive constraints to market limitations. In R. Barranco-Droege, E. M. Pradas Macias, O. Garcia Becerra (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening The Scope Volume 2, Editorial Comares.
Collados AÃs, A. (1998). La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: La importancia de la comunicación no verbal. Granada, Comares.
Collados AÃs A., Pradas MacÃas M., Stévaux E. and GarcÃa Becerra O. (Eds.). (2007). La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Granada, Comares.
Diriker, E. (2011). User expectation surveys: questioning findings and drawing lessons for interpreter training.http://www.iudergi.com/tr/index. php/ceviri/article/viewFile/11090/10348.
GarcÃa Becerra, O. (2007). La incidencia de las primeras impresiones en la evaluación de la calidad de la interpretación. Estudio piloto. In M.M. Fernández Sánchez and R. Muñoz MartÃn (Eds.), Aproximaciones cognitivas al estudio de la traducción y la interpretación. Granada, Comares, 302-326.
Gile, D. (1994). Methodological Aspects of Interpretation and Translation Research. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 39-56.
Kopczynski, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker and K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation Studies – An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189-199.
Kurz, I. (1989). Conference Interpreting: User Expectations. In D. L. Hammond (Ed.), Coming of Age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 143-148.
Kurz, I. (1993). Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups. The
Interpreter’s Newsletter 5: 13-21.
Kurz, Ingrid, (2001), “Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the Userâ€, Meta 45 (2):
-409.
Kurz I. and Pöchhacker F. (1995). Quality in TV interpreting, Translatio – Nouvelles de la FIT – FIT Newsletter15 (3/4), 350-358.
Macdonald, P. (2013). It don’t mean a thing… Simultaneous Interpretation Quality and User Satisfaction, The Interpreter’s Newsletter 18: 35-59.
Marrone, S. (1993). Quality: A Shared Objective, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 5, 35-39.
Mead, P. (2005). Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 13, 39-63.
Morris, Ruth. (1995). The Moral Dilemma of Court Interpreting, The Translator 1 (1): 25-46.
Pignataro, C., Velardi S. (2013). In the Quest for Quality Assesment Criteria in Media Interpreting. In O. Garcia Becerra, E. M. Pradas Macias, R. Barranco-Droege (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope Volume 1, Editorial Comares.
Pöchhacker, F. (2000). The Community Interpreter’s Task: Self-Perception and provider News. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham, A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Selected Papers from 2nd International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49-65.
Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting, Meta 46 (2): 410-425.
Pöchhacker, F. (2013). Researching Quality: A Two-Pronged Approach. In O. Garcia Becerra, E. M. Pradas Macias, R. Barranco-Droege, (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope Volume 1, Editorial Comares.
Pradas MacÃas, E.M. (2003). Repercusión del intraparámetro pausas silenciosas en la fluidez: Influencia en las expectativas y en la evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea, Dissertation, Universidad de Granada.
Pradas MacÃas, E.M. (2007). “La incidencia del parámetro fluidezâ€, Collados AÃs et al. (Eds.), op. cit,53-70.
Rennert, S. (2010). The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15, 101-115.
Rennert, S. (2013). The Production of Experimental Research Material for Fluency Research. In O. Garcia Becerra, E. M. Pradas Macias, R. Barranco-Droege (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope Volume 1, Editorial Comares.
Riccardi, A. (2002). Interpreting Research: Descriptive aspects and methodological proposals. In Garzone, G. and M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and opportunities, 15–27.
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous inter pretation: a descriptive analysis, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 10, 103-127.
Vuorikoski, A., (1993). Simultaneous interpretation – user experience and expectations. In C. Picken (Ed.), Translation – The Vital Link. Proceedings, XIIIth World Congress of FIT volume 1. London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting, 317-327.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies