Conclusion

Building on Kuo’s (2012) research, this study further confirms that with the accumulation of actual working experience and extensive practice of interpreting skills, difficulties caused by the foreign-accentedness factor and resulting intelligibility loss can be overcome. Results from the professional interpreters suggest that by efficiently applying comprehensive interpreting skills, comprehension of the foreign-accented input can still be achieved and output quality can be maintained.

Following these findings, an interpreting curriculum should encourage students to go deeper into the meaning of the context, instead of fixating on the surface word or sentence level, and build confidence in determining how to efficiently distribute their effort between listening, comprehension and production in response to different challenges. With such deliberate practice, trainees will gradually learn to apply their interpreting skills and potentially reach the level of expertise.

Bibliography

Albl-Mikasa. (2010). Global English and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF):

Implications for the Interpreting Profession. Trans-kom, 3(2), 126-148

Anderson-Hsieh J., Johnson R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgements of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in

segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42(4), 529-555.

Bajo, M. T., Padilla, F., & Padilla, P. (2000). Comprehension processes in

simultaneous interpreting. In A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo, & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Translation in context (pp. 127–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Bajo M. T., Padilla P., Munoz R., Padilla F., Gomez C., Puerta M. C., Gonzalvo P., Macizo P. (2001). Comprehension and memory processes in translation and interpreting. Quaderns. Revista de traducciò. 6, 27-31.

Christoffels I. K. and De Groot A. M. B. (2004) Components of simultaneous interpreting: Comparing interpreting with shadowing and paraphrasing.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(3), 227-240.

Christoffels I. K. and De Groot A. M. B. (2005) Simultaneous Interpreting: A Cognitive Perspective. In Kroll J. E. & De Groot A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 454-479). New York: Oxford University Press.

Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 1-16.

Derwing, T. & Rossiter, M. (2002). ESL learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. System, 30(2), 155-166.

Dillinger, M. (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t?. In S. Lambert, & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 155–189).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performanc: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games (pp. 1-50). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ericsson, K. A. (2000). Expertise in interpreting: An expert-performance perspective, Interpreting, 5(2), 187-220.

Ericsson, K. A. (2008). Deliberate Practice and Acquisition of Expert Performance: A General Overview, Academic Emergency Medicine, (15), 988-994.

Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The effet of familiarity on the comprehension of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65-89.

Gillispie W. M. (1998). Semantic Processing in Children with Reading Comprehension Deficits. Doctoral dissertation of the University of Kansas

Gile, D. (Ed.). (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training (Revised Edition). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Graesser, A.C., & Forsyth, C. (2013). Discourse comprehension. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40.1: 157-181.

Kalikow D. N., Stevens K.N., and Elliott L. L., (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 61(5), 1337-1351.

Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38, 301-315.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.

Kuo, T.C. (2012). The Perception of Processing Foreign-accented English Speech by Professional and Trainee Interpreters in Taiwan. Unpublished Masters

Dissertation. Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation, National Taiwan Normal Univeristy. Taipei, Taiwan.

Kurz, I. (2008). The impact of non-native English on students' interpreting performance. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.),

Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.

Liu, M. (2008). How do experts interpret? Implications from research in Interpreting Studies and cognitive science. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research (Vol. 80, pp. 159-177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Liu, M. H., Schallert D. L. and Carroll P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19-42.

Mackintosh J. (1985). The Kintsch and Van Dijk Model of Discourse Comprehension and Production Applied to the Interpretation Process. Meta: Translators’

Journal, 30(1), 37-43.

Moser-Mercer, B. (1997). The expert-novice paradigm in interpreting research. In E.

Fleischmann, W. Kutz & P. A. Schmitt (Eds.), Translationsdidaktik:

Grundfragen der Ü bersetzungswissenschaft (pp. 255-261). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Moser-Mercer, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., Casado, B., & Künzli, A. (2000). Searching to define expertise in interpreting. In B. E. Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 107-131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Munro, M. J. and Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility and Intelligibility in the Speech of Second Language Learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73-97.

Padilla F., Bajo M. T., Macizo P. (2005). Articulatory suppression in language Interpretation: Working memory capacity, dual tasking and word Knowledge.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(3), 207-219.

Pippa S. & Russo M. (2002) Aptitude for Conference interpreting. in Garzone G. &

and Viezzi M. et al. Interpreting in the 21^st Century, Challenges and opportunities, selected papers from the 1^st Forli Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November, 2000. Johns Benjamins Publishing Company.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Sabatini, E. (2000). Listening comprehension, shadowing and simultaneous interpretation of two 'non-standard' English speeches. Interpreting, 5(1), 25-48.

Séguinot C. (2000). Knowledge, expertise, and theory in translation. In A.

Chesterman, N. Gallardo, & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Translation in context (pp. 87–

104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Slowiaczek L. M. (1994) Semantic priming in a single-word shadowing task.

American Journal of Psychology. 107(2), 245-260.

Smiljanic, R. and Bradlow A. R. (2011). Bidirectional clear speech perception benefit for native and high-proficiency non-native talkers and listeners: Intelligibility and accentedness. Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 4020-4031.

Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L. (1985). International intelligibility of English:

Treisman A. (1964). Monitoring and Storage of Irrelevant Messages in Selective Attention. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 3, 449-459.

Trofimovich P. and Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Cambridge University Press 2012, 1- 12.

Tsui, A. B. M., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 432-451.

Yudes C., Macizo P., Morales L. and Bajo M. T. (2013). Comprehension and error monitoring in simultaneous interpreters. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34 (5), 1-19.

Appendix

Appendix i: Materials

Task 1. Single Words Text 1. (40 words)

Resolution prefer marvelous past. Length create honorable somehow. Leader spell still carefully. Parliament develop wet best. Neck sign pretty previously. Step ensure tremendous across. Goods expected massive hard. Technology vote chief perfectly.

Memory comment key altogether. Flowers pulled significant late.

Word Pos FrSp

34.carefully Adv 32

Salt control electric reasonably. Classes cause guilty terribly. Task suspect sensible dead. Spending taught temporary real. Gun divided foreign fast. Arrangements recall sweet instead. Managers laugh stuck slowly. Heat included ridiculous near.

Temperature dealt fresh underneath. Priority enter worst occasionally.

Word Pos FrSp

31.fast Adv 20

Route affect enormous longer. Season knock nasty effectively. King appreciate prime late. Decision borrow rough carefully. Difficulty show conservative twice.

route NoC 38

Task 2: Strings of Words

21. Consider tom won't the east.

22. About John called the keys.

23. Should you consider the salt.

24. She was the word said truth.

25. Ruth known about have the must heart.

26. He about the talk doesn’t firms.

27. I his hope about asked nose.

28. She buy to wants big a van.

29. Nancy the discuss should rain.

30. I'm you called about the glad foot.

31. She discuss did not the show.

32. John called the about ask to speed.

33. They saw think your wife.

1. Pub does John not the discuss.

2. She to say wants no hope.

3. I am to buy want bird.

4. Bob the consider will sheet.

5. They heard the about have lords.

6. Tom thinking about the is food.

7. He her looking at was skin.

8. Ruth consider the should calls.

9. I'm called about glad she the nurse.

10. Bill the discuss didn’t bus.

11. The heard I was word wood.

12. He must called for his have teeth.

13. David not the discuss does kids.

14. She's know that you glad the path.

15. I his talk about can’t sight.

16. You some bought have could oil.

17. He the hopes asks about she fox.

18. You could the have considered gun.

19. He right find to right the lane.

20. I discuss her cannot voice.

34. The discuss Betty can’t heat.

35. That about I was talking roof.

36. I asked the tom hope about king.

37. Bob about my ask to called wall.

38. Jane consider the should grass.

39. They think saw they a lump.

40. I about Jane heard a called gate.

41. I want to buy don’t a chain.

42. The talked boy about the age.

43. The picture his about is bird.

44. She about John asked hopes the plant.

45. I'm about he heard glad the queen.

46. Liz have must about known the teams.

47. Billy should consider the pie.

48. The read I word was mile.

49. They called my heard about I stick.

50. David discuss does not the rule.

51. Tom about is talking a film.

52. He have must about know the ring.

53. Looking at he was the moon.

54. Ben talked the about John and form.

55. You must for call Jane a suit.

56. They think some need they food.

57. I called he the thought for card.

3. There are life seems when times wise.

Task 3 Speeches