the target language. PRINCIPLE 3. BE CLEAR contained (re)structure messages from main idea to supporting details or from general to specific, as well as add cohesive words to explicate the logical relationships between ideas. PRINCIPLE 4. BE CONCISE involved omit redundant, secondary, superfluous, or repetitive parts of speech, and select important messages. Demonstrated with authentic examples from interpreting corpuses, strategy instruction activated cognitive, metacognitive, and social affective aspects of learning with back-interpreting practice, small group discussions, post-task reflection worksheets, and speaking assignments. Questionnaire data suggested that the usefulness of interpreting strategies to English speaking and the participants’ liking of back-interpreting activities were both perceived to be moderately high.
With regard to the second purpose of this study, the effectiveness of interpreting strategy training was examined using quantitative and qualitative methods. In terms of quantitative analysis, between-group and within-group comparisons were conducted on the total scores and detailed aspects of the pretest and posttest. Between-group comparisons showed that interpreting strategy training led to the EG’s significant improvement in fluency in the descriptive/narrative task type. Within-group comparisons showed that the EG saw far more extensive improvements than the CG.
The CG had significant improvement in the overall lexical resource, overall accuracy, and accuracy in the descriptive/narrative task type. In addition to overall accuracy, the EG also saw significant improvement in total scores, overall fluency, overall coherence, fluency in conversational task type, the total scores of argumentative task type, coherence and accuracy in argumentative task type, and the total scores of those with lower oral proficiency. The EG’s significant within-group improvements might have
v
something to do with interpreting strategy training.
To understand the learners’ strategy use and their perceptions of strategy application, qualitative data were analyzed, including transcriptions of nine EG participants’ posttest and self-interpreting assignments, of in-class discussions, comments made in stimulated retrospective interviews, individual interviews, and focus group interviews, as well as written reflections on worksheets. Three major causes were found to limit the application of interpreting strategies to English speaking: one’s natural tendency of strategy use, the elusive nature of thoughts, and the context and extent of Chinese appearing in one’s mind when speaking English. However, the participants also expressed that the training enhanced their resourcefulness, accelerated the application of strategies, and induced an interlocutor-oriented mindset. In addition, the realization of one’s language deficiency through back-interpreting practice more effectively raised their awareness to native speakers’ language use.
This study is another attempt to examine the actual benefits that interpreting training might bring to college-level EFL learners, and the participants’ perceptions and oral proficiency gains both showed that interpreting training could be a welcome addition to a conventional English class for fun, diversity, and challenge. Furthermore, the interpreting strategies streamlined for pedagogical purposes and the instructional procedures developed in this study may be used in undergraduate interpreting courses for enhancing students’ resourcefulness and communicative effectiveness. Graduate-level students can also personalize and expand the strategy typology based on their needs and weaknesses.
Keywords: Chinese-to-English interpreting, interpreting strategy instruction, pedagogy and teaching materials for English oral training
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my utmost gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Po-Sen Liao, for his teaching of empirical research methods, and for his valuable guidance and advice.
He is a role model in both life and academic pursuits. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to Dr. Yan-Hao Chen, Dr. Chia-Chien Chang, Dr. Huei-Lien Hsu, and Dr. An-Chi Chen for their insightful comments and inspiring suggestions during my oral defense, as well as Dr. Ming-Li Ju for the meticulous attention she devoted to my dissertation proposal. My heartfelt thanks to the teachers who have offered their kind assistance, suggestions, and words of encouragement throughout my doctoral student career.
This dissertation cannot be accomplished without the dedicated participation of the participants in this study. Their level of concentration and engagement was truly touching. It is the joy and fulfillment that come from teaching and the love and support from my family that have given me the strength to face the ups and downs on this journey.
vii
Translation and Interpreting in the Language Classroom………..………..10
Interpreting for Enhancement of L2 Oral Proficiency……….……12
Interpreting Strategies………..18
The teaching of L2 speaking………....30
The teaching of strategies……….…....33
Chapter Summary……….35
Chapter 3: Development of Teaching Materials………...37
The Making of Teaching Materials for Both Groups………...37
The Production of Materials for Interpreting Strategy Instruction……..……….39
Selection of interpreting strategies for instruction……….…..39
Principle 1. Be flexible………..………...…43
Principle 2. One chunk at a time……….….…48
Principle 3. Be clear………..………...52
Principle 4. Be concise……….…54
Authentic examples for strategy demonstrations and exercises…………...62
The Production of Materials for Back-interpreting Practice……… …………...64
Chapter Summary……….69
viii
Chapter 4: Research Methods……….…..71
Participants………..….…71
Experimental Design………...73
Test Materials for the Pretest and Posttest……….………..79
Pilot-testing of the speaking test materials.……….80
Teaching Procedures of Interpreting Strategy Training……….………..…82
Pilot of interpreting strategy training……….………..…82
Procedure of interpreting strategy instruction for the current study……....86
Procedures of oral training for both groups in the current study………..…91
Speaking assignments………....100
The CALLA model and instructional focus in the interpreting strategy training………...104
Data Analysis………..107
Collection and analysis of quantitative data……….. 107
Rating of the pretest and posttest………...108
Analysis of the learners’ reflections and perceptions……….114
Chapter Summary………...116
Chapter 5: Research Results………...…119
The Participants’ Proficiency Gains………...…119
Interrater reliability……….119
Equivalent forms reliability………....120
Comparison of the two groups’ total scores………...120
Comparison of the detailed aspects of proficiency tests…………...…….121
Comparison of the higher and lower subgroups’ total scores…………....127
The Learners’ Use and Perceptions of Strategies……….…..130
The use of strategies under PRINCIPLE 1. BE FLEXIBLE………….….131
Strategies 1-1 & 1-2. Use a more general term or a similar term…...132
Strategy 1-3. Explain………..136
Strategy 1-4. Paraphrase……….138
Sub-strategy 1-4-1. Paraphrase from the opposite angle………140
Sub-strategy 1-4-2. Use plain but clear English……….143
The use of strategies under PRINCIPLE 2. ONE CHUNK AT A TIME...149 Application 2-1a. Break down complicated thoughts into smaller
ix
chunks……….150
Application 2-1b. Deal with one chunk of thoughts at a time……....151
Application 2-2. Follow the flow of my thoughts……….….152
Application 2-3a. Use several short & simple sentences to express my ideas………154
Application 2-3b. Finish my current sentence before I start another one………..…158
The use of strategies under PRINCIPLE 3. BE CLEAR………...166
Strategy 3-1. (Re)structure messages from main idea to supporting details or from general to specific.……….167
Strategy 3-2. Add cohesive words to explicate the logical relationships between ideas.………....175
The use of strategies under PRINCIPLE 4. BE CONCISE……….….….180
Strategy 4-1. Omit redundant, secondary, superfluous, or repetitive parts of speech………181
Strategy 4-2. Select important messages………...184
The Learners’ Perceptions of the C-to-E Interpreting Strategy Training……..187
The perceived usefulness of interpreting strategy instruction…….……..187
The perceived usefulness of the interpreting principles and strategies….193 The learners’ perceptions of the back-interpreting practice…………...…197
The pros and cons of the two back-interpreting activities………..201
Chapter Summary………..204
Chapter 6: Discussion………207
The Design and the Learners’ Perceptions of the C-to-E Interpreting Strategy Training………..……207
Strategy selection………...207
Strategy instruction………208
The six-step oral training………209
Factors that limited the application of interpreting strategies to L2 speaking………..210
The value of interpreting strategy training………...214
Potential Relationships Between Proficiency Gains and Interpreting Strategies………217
Grammatical range and accuracy………...220
Fluency……….…..221
Coherence………...223
Lexical resource……….224
Comparison of proficiency gains in terms of task types………227
x
Comparison of proficiency gains in terms of groups and subgroups…….227
Chapter Summary………...…228
Chapter 7: Conclusions………..231
Advantages of Interpreting Tasks in an Undergraduate EFL Classroom……...233
Advantages of Teaching Interpreting Strategies over Communication Strategies in an EFL Classroom………..235
Pedagogical Applications of the Study………..236
Applications of the interpreting strategy training for undergraduate interpreting courses………236
Applications of the interpreting strategy instruction for graduate-level interpreting courses………237
Limitations of the Study……….239
Suggestions for Future Research………....242
References………..245
Appendix A: Handouts for Interpreting Strategy Instruction………..……258
Appendix B: Start-of-term Questionnaire……….……….…264
Appendix C: Consent Form for the Experimental Group………..……....267
Appendix D: Consent Form for the Control Group………...268
Appendix E: After-test Self-evaluation Questionnaire……….…………..269
Appendix F: Instruction for Stimulated Retrospective Interviews……….270
Appendix G: Questions Asked During Individual Interviews………271
Appendix H: End-of-term Questionnaire for the Experimental Group…………...272
Appendix I: End-of-term Questionnaire for the Control Group……….…275
Appendix J: Questions and Prompts for Semi-structured Focus Group Interviews for the High 35% and the Low 35% of the Experimental Group………..………..277
Appendix K: Speaking Test A………...…279
Appendix L: Speaking Test B (With the Same Instruction as Test A)…………...…281
Appendix M: Post-task Self-evaluation Worksheets………...282
Appendix N: An Example of the Lesson Plans for Interpreting Strategy Training..289
Appendix O: Format and Topics for Assignments 1 & 2 for Both Groups………...293
Appendix P: Assignments 3, 4, 7, 8 for the Experimental Group………...294
Appendix Q: Assignments 3, 4, 7, 8 for the Control Group………..…302
Appendix R: Assignments 5, 6, 9, 10 for the Experimental Group………...304
Appendix S: Descriptors of the Four Judging Criteria for Assessment of Oral Proficiency Adopted in the Present Study……….…….306
xi
List of Tables
Table 3.1. List of Interpreting Strategies for the Experimental Group……….42 Table 3.2. Interpreting Strategies Under PRINCIPLE 2. ONE CHUNK AT A TIME
and Their Application to L2 Speaking……….…52 Table 3.3. A Comparison of the Original Chinese Subtitle of “Justice With Michael
Sandel” Video Recordings and My Revised Translation for Back-interpreting Practice……….67 Table 3.4. Chinese Translation of a Business-related Video Clip for Back-interpreting
Practice………68 Table 4.1. An Overview of the Experimental Design………..78 Table 4.2. Schedule of Interpreting Strategy Instruction and Length of Time for Each
Unit from Weeks 3-16………..90 Table 4.3. A Comparative Overview of the Oral Training Procedures for Both
Groups……....………..92 Table 4.4. Schedule of Oral Training for the Experimental Group………..100 Table 4.5. A Checklist of How Components of Interpreting Strategy Training
Corresponded to the Five Phases of the CALLA Model, Activated Three Aspects of Learning, and Drew the Learners’ Attention to Meaning and/or Form…….105 Table 5.1. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the Pretest and Posttest Scores
for Both the Experimental (EG) and the Control Groups (CG), as well as
Between-group and Within-group t-values………..…..121 Table 5.2. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the Four Judging Criteria in
the Pretest and Posttest for Both the Experimental (EG) and the Control Groups (CG), as well as Between-group and Within-group t-values……….122 Table 5.3. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of Each Part (P) and the Four
Judging Criteria Under Each Part in the Pretest and Posttest for Both the
Experimental (EG) and the Control Groups (CG), as well as Between-group and Within-group t-values………....126 Table 5.4. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the Pretest and Posttest Scores
for the Higher 35% (High) and the Lower 35% (Low) Subgroups in Both the Experimental (EG) and the Control Groups (CG), as well as Between-group and Within-group t-values………128 Table 5.5. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the Perceived Usefulness of
the Nine Oral Skills to L2 Speaking………...188 Table 5.6. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the Perceived Usefulness of
the Interpreting Principles and Strategies to L2 Speaking……….194
xii
Table 5.7. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the EG’s Participants’ Liking Towards the Eight Speaking Activities………..198 Table 6.1. Between-group Comparisons of Proficiency Gains……….….218 Table 6.2. Within-group Comparisons of Proficiency Gains……….219
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 3.1. The conceptualization of how interpreting constraints and norms condition interpreting strategies………...60 Figure 4.1. The format of Chinese translation for role plays during back-interpreting
practice………...93 Figure 4.2. The format of Chinese translation for chain games during
back-interpreting practice……….94 Figure 5.1. The ranking of the nine oral skills in terms of their usefulness to L2
speaking……….188 Figure 5.2. The ranking of the four interpreting principles in terms of their usefulness
to L2 speaking………194 Figure 5.3. The ranking of the 13 interpreting strategies in terms of their usefulness to
L2 speaking………195 Figure 5.4. The ranking of the eight speaking activities in terms of how much they
were liked………..198 Figure 6.1. The potential relationships between the four interpreting principles and the
four judging criteria of the oral proficiency tests………..226
xiv
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Motivation
English is a foreign language (EFL) in Taiwan, so students rarely have the opportunities to communicate in English in their daily life. College freshmen are often mystified and discouraged by the discrepancy between their reading comprehension and oral proficiency, i.e., they can recognize quite an amount of vocabulary in reading, but when it comes to oral production, they often get stuck because of unknown vocabulary and momentarily irretrievable expressions. They may find it hard to assemble grammatically correct sentences under time pressure, let along achieving discourse level clarity and coherence. Furthermore, Chinese, their first language (L1), may pop up in their minds in the form of words, phrases, or sentences when they speak English. Some may even have to plan the entire response in Chinese before mentally translating it into English.
While some may believe that doing mental translation when speaking a second language (L2) or a foreign language (FL)1 is possibly “using a limiting and unnecessary process that leaves out intuition” (Muciaccia, 2012, p. 2), using translation in learning and producing L2 is a natural and inevitable cognitive activity, and learners can benefit from using translation as a learning strategy to memorize, comprehend, and produce L2, as well as to lower their anxiety and frustration during the learning process (廖柏森, 2003). In fact, a survey study conducted on more than 350 EFL learners in Taiwan showed that they overwhelmingly believed that translation played a positive role in helping them acquire English language skills, such as vocabulary, reading, writing, and speaking, and that they used translation moderately as a learning strategy (Liao, 2006).
1 For convenience sake, English is referred to as L2 in this study.
2
According to Brown, (2007b), a learner’s native language plays an extremely significant role in the acquisition of the target language; the effects it has on comprehension and production of the new language are both facilitating and interfering, yet the facilitating effects are often ignored because they are usually less observable.
From the perspective of cognitive psychology, L1 is prior knowledge. If we accept the fact that new knowledge is acquired through pre-existing knowledge, then it is natural that we fall back to our L1 to a certain extent when learning a L2. As Ortega (2009) puts it:
All L2 acquirers, by definition, possess complete knowledge of an L1, and often knowledge of other languages, when they begin learning the additional one. Many of them, indeed, will begin acquiring their L2 after many years of being able users of another language. Thus, previous language knowledge is an important source of influence on L2 acquisition, and this holds universally true of all L2 learners.
(p. 31)
In a social context where a second language is mostly a foreign language, I believe we can treat L1 as a friend, not an enemy, and that translation and interpreting activities can be used creatively in a language class. Using translation (a broad term that includes interpreting) as an in-class activity or technique does not mean going back to the grammar-translation method. Instead, it can be intelligently incorporated into the language classroom that follows the principles of communicative language teaching (CLT) to enhance learners’ communicative competence (e.g., 廖柏森, 2003; Laufer &
Girsai, 2008; Van Dyk, 2009; Zohrevandi, 1994).
Theoretical Background
To incorporate interpreting activities into a college-level language class, interpreting skills that best meet L2 learners’ needs should be pinpointed to maximize
3
the potential effects of interpreting training. Common preparatory exercises in interpreting training include reading-aloud, speech delivery, discourse analysis, gist-extracting/summarizing, memory and recall training, paraphrasing, and transcription exercise (李翠芳, 1996; 劉敏華, 2002). Specific to consecutive interpreting (CI) is the skill of note-taking (李翠芳, 1996; 劉敏華, 2002). In simultaneous interpreting (SI), skills include shadowing, multi-tasking (李翠芳, 1996; 劉敏華, 2002), distancing exercises, anticipation of speaker and speech direction, and sentence reduction (Wu, 1999).
If the goal of interpreting training in the language classroom is to enhance L2 learners’ oral proficiency, what should be highlighted is L2 production-related skills, rather than L2 reception-related skills, or language-unrelated skills such as memory or note-taking. This is because receptive and productive knowledge is not completely transferable (DeKeyser, 1997), which means that even if interpreting training is carried out with balanced practice in both directions (such as from English to Chinese and vice versa), the time spent on L2 listening comprehension does not automatically lead to improvement in L2 oral production.
A lot of the above-mentioned preparatory skills have their roots in second language acquisition (SLA) and are not unique to interpreting training, which means that they can be practiced in a regular English class without going through the route of interpreting activities. One of the components relatively unique to interpreting and might benefit L2 learners’ oral output is interpreting strategies.
The use of interpreting strategies can be defined as “any goal-oriented, potentially conscious employment of tactics designed to overcome the processing problems interpreters encountered during simultaneous interpreting” (Chang, 2005, p. 6). This is consistent with the two defining criteria of communication strategies in SLA: problem-orientedness and consciousness (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). Yet, in some other studies on
4
interpreting strategies, consciousness is sometimes not explicitly included in their working definitions (e.g., Al-Salman & Al-Khanji, 2002). Furthermore, in addition to problem-solving, potential problem-preventing and task-facilitating are sometimes included as the other criteria for interpreting strategies (e.g., Bartlomiejczyk, 2006; Li, 2013). Interpreting strategies in this study are broadly defined as “strategies, skills, and tactics that are problem-solving, problem-preventing, or message-enhancing.” They may be used consciously or unconsciously by interpreters. (See chapter 3 for more elaborated working definitions of interpreting strategies in this study.)
Professional interpreters sometimes have to interpret from their dominant language (A language) into their weaker language (B-language). This direction is called retour, A-to-B, or into-B interpreting. Appropriate use of interpreting strategies and awareness of interpreting norms allow professional interpreters to accomplish communicative tasks, despite the fact that their B-language resources are relatively limited (Chang & Schallert, 2007). To compensate for the limited linguistic resources when doing retour interpreting, interpreters with Chinese as their A language use meaning-based strategies, such as transformation and generalization that express the sense of the messages, rather than trying to find ideal or idiomatic equivalents; they delete redundancy and less important information, focusing instead on important messages to keep the delivery fluent, coherent, and logical; and they devote more attention to the acceptability and the overall quality of their interpreting output (Chang
& Schallert, 2007).
Interpreting strategies have long been the focus of interests in interpreting studies (e.g., Al-Khanji, El-Shiyab, & Hussein, 2000; Bartlomiejczyk, 2006; Donato, 2003;
Kohn & Kalina, 1996). This study did not attempt to re-define the existing typologies on interpreting strategies proposed by different scholars, but focused on how some of the strategies could be adapted and taught in an undergraduate English class to enhance
5
students’ flexibility and resourcefulness when speaking English. Van Dyk (2009), who suggests teaching strategies via the activity of sight translation (ST) in the language classroom, argues that rather than teaching language that aims at “accumulating terms and rules, students should learn how to activate the limited target language they already possess” (p. 208). Using limited resources in one’s B language to achieve the purpose of communication is what L2 leaners can learn from professional interpreters.
Although interpreting strategies are highlighted in some interpreting training books (e.g., Gile, 2009; Jones, 2002), the implementation of strategy instruction is largely prescriptive (e.g., Wu, 1999). In terms of the teachability of interpreting strategies, a study utilizing retrospection and questionnaires showed a moderate correlation between teachers’ strategy instruction and undergraduate trainees’ strategy use in English-to-Chinese CI tasks (Li, 2013). There is still a long way to go in identifying what interpreting strategies to teach to undergraduate non-English majors, and how to teach them effectively, systematically, and explicitly for the purpose of enhancing L2 oral proficiency.
Although the benefits of interpreting activities in the language classroom have been proposed (e.g., 劉 敏 華 , 2002; Van Dyk, 2009; Zohrevandi, 1994), the few empirical studies on the effectiveness of interpreting training on L2 learners’ oral
Although the benefits of interpreting activities in the language classroom have been proposed (e.g., 劉 敏 華 , 2002; Van Dyk, 2009; Zohrevandi, 1994), the few empirical studies on the effectiveness of interpreting training on L2 learners’ oral