Chapter 6 Conclusions
6.4 Future Directions
The researcher hopes that this research will serve as a base for future studies on the complex interplay between FSR, CI note-taking and interpreting performance.
First, future research can increase the FSR to reach a more significant difference between the results from SSR and FSR. Furthermore, to generalize that the results are
the case in FSR circumstances, more testing needs to be done. It would be ideal to increase the scope of the study by implementing different topics and density level of source texts. In addition, studies about differences in CI performance and strategies between professional and student interpreters can incorporate the factor of FSR into the study design. In all, future studies on the present topic are required to provide more insights for the interaction between CI and FSR.
References
Ahmed, I., Pandharipande, M., & Kopparapu, S. K. (2013) SpeakRite: Monitoring speaking rate in real time on a mobile phone. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 5(1), 62-69.
AIIC. (2011). How interpreters work. aiic.net. Retrieved from http://aiic.net/p/4005 Albl-Mikasa, M. (2008). (Non-)Sense in note-taking for consecutive interpreting.
Interpreting, 10(2), 197-231. doi: 10.1075/intp.10.2.03alb.
Andres, Dörte (2002) Konsekutivdolmetschen und notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Barghout, A., Rosendo, L. R., & García, M. V. (2015). The influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. Babel, 61(3), 305-334.
Boéri, J., & De Manuel Jerez, J. (2011). From training skilled conference
interpreters to educating reflective citizens: A case study of the Marius Action Research Project. Journal of The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 5(1), 41-64.
Bovair, S., & Kieras, D. E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp.
315-362). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Journal Multilingua Archive, 5(4), 231-236.
Cardoen, H. (2013). The effect of note-taking on target-text fluency. In G. González Núñez, Y. Khaled, & T. Voinova (Eds.), Emerging research in translation studies:
Selected papers of the CETRA Research Summer School 2012 (pp. 1- 22). Leuven:
CETRA.
Carroll, J. B. (1966). Proceedings from a conference on Speech Compression.
Kentucky, KY: ERIC.
Chang, A. L. (2009). Ear-voice-span and target language rendition in Chinese to English simultaneous interpretation. Studies of Interpretation and Translation, 13, 177-217. doi:10.29786/STI.200907.0006.
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Experimental methods: Between- subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1-8.
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an
introduction to think-aloud methods. Brook Educational Journal, 12(2), 68-82.
doi: HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.26522/BROCKED.V12I2.38.
Chen, S. (2017). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. Translation and Interpreting, 9(1), 4-23.
doi:10.12807/ti.109201.2017.a02.
Chiu, Y.-h. (2017) The effects of input rate on the output of simultaneous interpreting from English to Chinese. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Choi, J. Y. (2006). Metacognitive evaluation method in consecutive interpretation for novice learners. Meta, 51(2), 273-283.
Chuang, L.-l. (2008). Note-taking know-how: A processing perspective on
consecutive interpreting. Spectrum: Studies in Language, Literature, Translation, and Interpretation, 2, 93-101.
Dam, H. V. (2001). On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting: the effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 11, 27-55.
Dam, H. V. (2004). Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of form and language.
Interpreting, 6(1), 3-17.
Dam, H.V. (2007). What makes interpreters’ notes efficient?: Features of
(non-)efficiency in interpreter's notes for consecutive. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger,
& R. Stolze (Eds.), Doubts and directions in translation studies: Selected
contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004, (pp. 183-197). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
David Zarefsky (2013). Public speaking: Strategies for success. (7th ed.). London:
Pearson
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2001). What speaking rates do non-native listeners prefer? Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 324-337.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.3.324.
Ding, Y. L. (2017). Using propositional analysis to assess interpreting quality.
International Journal of Interpreter Education, 9(1), 17–39.
Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.522.
Foulke, E., & Sticht, T. G. (1967). The intelligibility and comprehension of time- compressed speech. Proceedings of Louisville Conference on Time-Compressed Speech, 21-28. Louisville, KY: University of Louisville
Garretson, D. A. (1981). A psychological approach to consecutive interpretation.
Meta, 26(3), 244-254. doi:https://doi.org/10.7202/002808ar.
Gerver, D. (1969/2002). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In E. Foulke (ed.),
Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency Controlled Speech, 162-184. Louisville: University of Louisville. Reprinted in F. Pöchhacker,
& M. Shlesinger (eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader, 53-66. London: Routledge.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2001). The role of consecutive in interpreter training: A cognitive view.
aiic.net. Retrieved from http://aiic.net/p/377
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gillies, A. (2017). Note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A short course (2nd ed.).
London: Routledge.
Hale, S. (1997). The interpreter on trial: Pragmatics in court interpreting, in Carr, S.
E., Roberts, R. P., Dufour, A., Steyn, D. (eds.), The critical link: Interpreters in the community: Papers from the 1st international conference on interpreting in legal, health and social service settings, Geneva Park, Canada, 1–4 June 1995 (pp.
201-211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harris, B. (1990). Norms in interpretation. Target, 2(1), 115-119.
Her, H. (2001). Notetaking in basic interpretation class: An initial investigation.
Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 6, 53-77.
Hsiao, S.-Y., & Chang, F.-L. A. (2014). Teaching consecutive interpretation note- taking strategies to improve Taiwanese senior high school students’ English listening comprehension. Compilation and Translation Review, 7(2), 107-150.
Ivanova, A. (2000). The use of retrospection in research on simultaneous interpreting.
In S. Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (Ed.), Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research (pp.
27-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
K. Mahmoodzadeh (1992). Consecutive interpreting: Its principles and techniques. In C. Dollerup, & A. Loddegaard (eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting:
Training talent and experience. Papers from the First Language International Conference (pp. 231-236). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.56.
Kalina, S. (2005). Quality assurance for interpreting processes. Meta, 50(2) 769-784.
Kohn, K., & Albl-Mikasa, M. (2002). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting. On the reconstruction of an individualised language. In L. V. Vaerenbergh (Ed.),
Linguistics and translation studies: Translation studies and linguistics (pp.
257-262). Antwerpen: Hogeschool Antwerpen Hoger Instituut voor Vertalers en Tolken
Korpal, P. (2012). Omission in simultaneous interpreting as a deliberate act. In A.
Pym, & D. Orrego-Carmona (Eds.), Translation research projects 4 (pp. 103-111).
Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
Kuo, T.-C. (2012). Perceived intelligibility and processing of foreign-accented English speech: Professional vs. trainee interpreters in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Kurz, I. (1993). Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 5, 13-21.
Lee, J. (2008). Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2(2), 165-184.
Li, C. (2010). Coping strategies for fast delivery in simultaneous interpretation. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 13, 19-25.
Liu M., Schallert D. L., & Carroll P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6, 19–42. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu.
Liu, M., & Chiu, Y.-H. (2009). Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting: Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment. Interpreting, 11(2), 244-266.
Lu, L., & Chen, Y. (2013). A survey of short-term memory in consecutive
interpreting course. Proceedings of the 2013 International Academic Workshop on Social Science, 671-674. Paris: Atlantis Press. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2991/iaw-sc.2013.148.
Massaro, D. W., & Shlesinger, M. (1997) Information processing and a computational approach to the study of simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting, 2(1-2), 13-53.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.2.1-2.02mas
Megehee, C. M., Dobie, K., & Grant, J. (2003). Time versus pause manipulation in communications directed to the young adult population: does it matter? Journal of Advertising Research, 43(4), 281-292. doi:10.2501/JAR-43-3-281-292.
Moody, B. (2011). What is a faithful interpretation? Journal of Interpretation, 21(1), Article 4.
Neff, J. (2011). A statistical portrait 2005-2009. aiic.net. Retrieved October 11, 2019, from https://aiic.net/page/3585/a-statistical-portrait-2005-2009/lang/1
Nikitina, A. (2012). Successful public speaking. bookboon.com.
Osborn. M., Osborn. S., & Osborn. R. (2009). Public speaking. (8th ed.). London:
Pearson
Peltekov, P. (2017). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit instruction on German L2 learners’ pronunciation (Unpublished master thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Pio, S. (2003). The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The interpreter’s Newsletter, 12, 69-100.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Ribas, M. A. (2012). Problems and strategies in consecutive interpreting: A pilot study at two different stages of interpreter training. Meta, 57(3), 541-842.
doi:https://doi.org/10.7202/1017092ar.
Roach, P. (1991). English phonetics and phonology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, R. (2000). Interpreter assessment tools for different settings. In R. Roberts, S. Carr, D. Abraham, & A. Dufour (Eds.), The critical link 2: Interpreters in the community (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rodero, E. (2012). A comparative analysis of speech rate and perception in radio bulletins. Text & Talk, 32(3), 391-411. doi:10.1515/text-2012-0019.
Rozan, J.-F. (1956). La prise de notes en interprétation consécutive, Geneva: Georg;
trans by Andrew Gillies as Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting (2003), Cracow:
Tertium. Russell, D., & Takeda, K. (2015) Consecutive Interpreting.
Sawyer, D. B. (2004). Fundamental aspects of interpreter education. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Schjoldager, A. (1996) Assessment of simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup, & V.
Appel (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3: New Horizons. Papers from the Third Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark (pp. 187-).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Setton, R., & Dawrant, A. (2016a). Conference interpreting: A complete course.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120.
Setton, R., & Dawrant, A. (2016b). Conference interpreting: A trainer’s guide.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.121.
Shlesinger, M. (2003). Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 12, 37-49.
Strong, M., & Rudser, S. (1985). An assignment instrument for sign language interpreters. Sign Language Studies, 49, 344-362.
Szabó, C. (2006). Language choice in note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A topic revisited. Interpreting, 8(2), 129-148.
Tang, F. (2018). Explicitation in consecutive interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.135.
Vančura, A. (2013). The story of the tortoise and the hare – Speech rate in
simultaneous interpretation and its influence on the quality of trainee-interpreters performance. Jezikoslovlje, 14(1), 85-99.
Viaggio, S. (1992). Cognitive clozing to teach them to think. The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 4, 40-44.
Vik-Tuovinen, G.-V. (2002). Retrospection as a method of studying the process of simultaneous interpreting. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Ed.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 63-71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wang, W., Zhou, D., & Wang, L. (2010). An empirical study of note-taking
characteristics and output quality in interpreting. Foreign Language World, 4, 9-18.
行政院新聞局（2004）。臺灣翻譯產業現況調查研究總結分析報告。 臺北：國 立臺灣師範大學翻譯所，臺灣經濟研究院。[ Government Information Office, Taiwan (2004). Taiwan fan yi chan ye xian kuang diao cha yan jiu zong jie fen xi bao gao [Analysis report of survey of the translation and interpretation industry in Taiwan] Taipei: NTNU Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation,
Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.]
李佳穎（2016）。企業內口譯員的角色與工作策略（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺 灣師範大學，臺北市。[Lee, C.-Y. (2016). The roles and interpreting strategies of in-house interpreters (Unpublished master thesis). National Taiwan Normal
University, Taipei.]
吳愛俊、張辭、趙唯、左佩、王永秋、肖舒芸（2010）。英漢交替傳譯中原語輸
入速度與譯文完整性的相關性研究。語文學刊（外語教育與教學），8，71-76。
[Wu, A.-J., Zhang, C., Zhao, W., Zuo, P., Wang, Y.-Q., & Xiao, S.-Y. (2010). Study on correlation between the input speed of the source language and the integrity of the interpretation in English-Chinese consecutive interpretation. Chinese Journal of Education (Foreign Language Teaching), 8, 71-76.]
陳子瑋、林慶隆、彭致翎、吳培若、何承恩、張舜芬、廖育琳（2012）。臺灣 翻譯產業調查研究。臺北市：國家教育研究院。[Chen, T.-W., Lin, C.-L., Peng, Z.-L., Wu, P.-R., He, C.-E., Zhang, S.-F., & Liao, Y.-L. (2012). Taiwan fan yi chan ye diao cha yan jiu [Survey of the translation and interpretation industry in Taiwan]
(Report No. NAER-100-12-F-2-01-00-2-02). Taipei: National Academy for Educational Research.]
葉舒白、劉敏華（2006）。口譯評分客觀化初探：採用量表的可能性。國立編譯 館館刊，34(4)，57-78。[Yeh, S-P., & Liu, M-H. (2006). A more objective approach to interpretation evaluation: Exploring the use of scoring rubrics. Journal of the National Institute for Compilation and Translation, 34(4), 57-78.]
劉建軍（2010）。英語專業本科學生漢英交傳筆記特徵及其與口譯成績的關係
—一項基於學生交傳筆記的實證研究。外語界，2，47-53+82。[Liu J. (2010) The features of English majors’ note-taking in C-E consecutive interpreting and their relations with scores——An empirical study. Foreign Language World, 2, 47-53+82.]
劉敏華（2008）。逐步口譯與筆記。臺北市：書林。[Liu, M.-h. (2008). Zhubu kouyi yu biji [Consecutive interpreting and note-taking]. Taipei: Bookman Books.]
賴則中（2010）。從文本難度與特色看視譯之困難（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺 灣師範大學，臺北市。[Lai, Z.-Z. (2010). Source text difficulty and sight
translation (Unpublished master thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.]
戴煒棟、徐海銘（2007）。漢英交替傳譯過程中譯員筆記特徵實證研究―以職業 受訓譯員和非職業譯員為例。外語教學與研究（外國語文雙月刊），39(2)，
136-144。[Dai, W.-D., Xu, H.-M. (2007) Features of note-taking made by professional interpreter trainees and non-professional interpreters in consecutive interpreting: An empirical study. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 39(2), 136-144.]
Appendix
Appendix i. Information Sheet
Event: 2018 Global Youth Entrepreneur Forum- panel discussion
The moderator’s question: What contribute to the success of a startup business?
What should entrepreneurs do to sustain their business?
Task: Interpret the answer provided by one of the panelists, who is a successful entrepreneur. There will be three segments.
glossary:
broadband penetration 寬頻普及率
village banking 鄉村金融模式
Appendix ii. Practice Speech
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is not to start a company just to start a company. I never understood the psychology of starting to build a company before knowing what you want to do, but this is actually not uncommon. Another thing is that you have to keep yourself flexible. For one thing, startups need to be flexible to adjust to their audience. For example, we noticed early on that people were changing their profile picture on Facebook every day. It was that user activity that made our company realize that we needed to focus more on photos.
Appendix iii. SSR Speech
I just came upon a study on entrepreneurs, who were broken into five groups in total.
One group got no special training; another group got financial training; third got essentially a crash course MBA; growth mindset training, and resilience training. The researchers checked whether they were still in business after two years, and found no statistical difference between the MBA and Finance training entrepreneurs and those that got no intervention whatsoever. But the results showed that more than 60% of the
companies in the growth mindset group were still in business two years later. That is a huge effect. I mean unbelievably remarkable effect to be perfectly honest. And you see similar stats with the group that got resiliency training. Then I realized, this is a
significant part of what it is to be successful. It’s not being able to read P&L or to figure out exactly the right way to structure your cap table. It's about having that kind of resilience. And if you’re starting a startup, that is what you should be working on. That is the kind of growth and resilience that is truly meaningful and promising for people doing a start-up or doing something creative in society.
Appendix iv. FSR Speech
Actually, in one of my own studies, I tried to look at what factors accounted the most for success and failure across companies, and the results really surprised me. The number one thing was timing, which accounted for 42 percent of the difference between success and failure. Team and execution came in second, and the idea actually came in third. Let me give you an example. We started a company, X, which was an online entertainment company. We were very excited about it -- we raised enough money; we had a great business model; we even signed incredibly great talent to join the
company. But back then in 1999, there were not enough Internet users, and it was too hard to watch video content online. So, unfortunately, the company eventually went out of business. However, just two years later, when the technical problem was solved and when broadband penetration crossed a certain rate in the US, YouTube was perfectly timed. Its success came from a great idea, but also excellent timing. In fact, YouTube didn't even have a business model when it first started. It wasn't even certain that that would work out. So to answer your question, I would say timing definitely matters a lot. And the best way to assess timing is to look at whether consumers are ready for what you have to offer them. And you have to be honest about the result. You can’t be in denial about any result you see, because if you have something you are passionate about, you would want to push it forward, but you must be honest about timing.
Appendix v. Form of Consent for Participants
Dear Participant,
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this research being conducted for a thesis about the impact of speech rate on note-taking and performance in consecutive
interpreting. This study is being conducted by You-An, Tai, from the Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation at National Taiwan Normal University.
By contributing in this research, you will help bring about a better understanding on the impact of speech rate on consecutive interpreting performances, and generate some possible strategies to straighten out difficulties in the note-taking phase.
Your interpreting output and the retrospective interview will be recorded, and your notes will be collected, all for research purposes only. These data along with your basic information will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous.
If you have any questions about the study, please contact You-An, Tai.
Conference Interpretation Track, Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation, National Taiwan Normal University
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Ming-Li, Ju Advisee: You-An, Tai
Subject’s Signature: __________________ Date: ________________
Researcher’s Signature: ________________ Date: _______________
Appendix vi. Basic Information Questionnaire
Basic Information
* This experiment is anonymous. Please do not write your name on the basic information sheet.
Q1: Gender
Male Female
Q2: Age
21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 Over 50
Q3: Language Combination A:
B:
Q4: Year of Graduate Study You Are Currently in 1
2
Q5: Years of Consecutive Interpreting Training in Total ____ year(s)
Q6 Years of Professional Experience in Interpreting ____ year(s)
Appendix vii. ANOVA on the Effect of Grade and SR on Note-taking Preferences
ANOVA on the effect of grade and SR on language/symbol ratio
SS df MS F p
Within-Subjects Effects
SR and L/S ratio 4.87 1 4.87 8.01 .011
SR and L/S ratio *
Grade 0.39 1 0.39 0.64 .435
Error(SR) 10.93 18 0.61
Between-Subjects Effects
Grade 0.06 1 0.06 0.02 .894
Error 62.72 18 3.48
* P value < 0.05
ANOVA on the effect of grade and SR on full word/incomplete word ratio
SS df MS F p
Within-Subjects Effects
SR and F/N ratio 0.67 1 0.67 0.19 .666
SR and F/N ratio * Grade 2.01 1 2.01 0.58 .455
Error(SR) 62.13 18 3.45
Between-Subjects Effects
Grade 14.96 1 14.96 1.48 .239
Error 181.88 18 10.11
* P value < 0.05
ANOVA on the effect of grade and SR on English/Chinese ratio
ANOVA on the effect of grade and SR on horizontal lines per proposition
SS df MS F p
ANOVA on the effect of grade and SR on total note units
SS df MS F p
Appendix viii. CI Results- SSR setting
Language Symbol Full word
Incomplete
word Chinese English
Horizontal
line Number Hybrid Other Total
Accuracy score
A1 36 20 27 9 5 31 0 3 2 1 62 77.9
A2 56 21 47 9 7 49 15 3 1 0 96 81.4
A3 42 22 19 23 17 25 6 3 6 2 81 60.5
A4 31 12 21 10 0 31 6 3 4 3 59 79.1
A5 44 18 23 21 9 35 10 3 5 0 80 93
A6 54 25 27 27 5 49 11 3 1 0 94 86
A7 34 20 19 15 5 29 2 3 4 1 64 68.6
A8 28 16 13 15 11 17 14 3 15 0 76 64
A9 55 22 28 27 9 46 17 3 0 0 97 78
A10 38 18 18 20 7 31 8 3 6 1 74 75.6
B1 66 25 22 44 9 57 13 3 2 0 109 87.2
B2 33 19 17 16 12 21 8 2 4 1 67 79.1
B3 51 17 36 15 29 22 9 3 5 0 85 80.2
B4 36 38 5 31 11 25 19 4 5 2 104 94.2
B5 44 33 12 31 39 5 3 2 5 0 87 87.2
B6 48 46 22 26 15 33 6 3 12 1 116 86
B7 41 29 27 14 6 35 7 3 1 0 81 88.4
B8 75 12 34 41 15 60 3 3 3 2 98 86
B9 44 16 20 24 9 35 6 2 0 3 71 74.4
B10 42 25 16 26 18 24 15 3 10 1 96 87.2
Average 22.65 22.2 11.9 33 44.9 22.7 2.9 2.9 8.9 4.55 0.9 84.85
Appendix ix. CI Results- FSR setting
Language Symbol
Full word
Incomplete
word Chinese English
Horizontal
line Number Hybrid Other Total
Accuracy score
Accuracy score