For the following two research questions,
15. Would the interaction between the input rate and English proficiency level affect the output rate of student interpreters?
16. Would input rates affect the output rate of student interpreters?
Two hypotheses were formulated as follows,
Hypothesis 17 English proficiency would affect the effects of input rate on the output rate of student interpreters.
Hypothesis 18 Input rates would affect the output rate of student interpreters.
The means and standard deviations of the output rate based on the observed data are presented in Table 4.30, where the group means of the output rate were varied from 127.97 to 190.98, and the group standard deviations of the output rate were varied from 9.62 to 38.01
Table 4.30 Means and Standard Deviations of Output Rate Arranged by Input Rate, English Proficiency, and Speech
Rate 100 130 160 Subtotal
English
Proficiency
M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n
Speech A
Low 127.97 15.62 3 150.16 33.76 3 163.79 38.01 5 150.30 33.09 11
High 153.94 9.62 7 190.25 30.65 6 190.98 22.75 4 175.47 27.75 17
Subtotal 146.15 16.53 10 176.88 35.69 9 175.88 33.49 9 165.58 31.91 28
114
Table 4.30 (continued)
Rate 100 130 160 Subtotal
English Proficiency
M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n
Speech B
Low 145.27 33.50 5 140.30 25.71 3 129.64 15.01 3 139.65 25.93 11
High 166.06 23.17 4 169.12 14.82 7 173.25 31.55 6 169.86 22.41 17
Subtotal 154.51 29.71 9 160.47 22.07 10 158.71 33.97 9 157.99 27.79 28
Speech C
Low 124.84 26.22 3 152.10 36.07 5 133.98 26.29 3 139.72 30.81 11 High 165.11 20.59 6 170.75 26.45 4 176.95 19.11 7 171.31 20.71 17
Subtotal 151.68 29.02 9 160.38 31.77 9 164.06 28.77 10 158.90 29.20 28
Total 150.61 24.80 28 165.72 30.00 28 166.14 31.65 28 160.82 29.52 84
Note. The means refer to Chinese characters per minute (spm).
The results of linear mixed model analyses for the output rate (See Table 4.31) fail to indicate that there was statistically significant interactive effect involving the
hypotheses-related factors, including English proficiency by input rate and English
proficiency by speech by input rate. This suggests that English proficiency did not affect the effects of input rate on the output rate. Therefore, Hypothesis 17 is not supported by this research.
The results in Table 4.31 also show that there was a significant main effect of input rate on the output rate, F (2, 66) = 20.095, p < .01.
115
Table 4.31 Three-Factor ANOVA Summary Table for Output Rate
Source
F df1 df2 p
speech 7.487** 2 66 .001
input rate 20.095** 2 66 .000
English proficiency 10.696** 1 66 .002
English proficiency by speech
.196 2 66 .822
speech by input rate 3.836** 4 66 .007
English proficiency by input rate
1.840 2 66 .167
English proficiency by speech by input rate
.400 4 66 .808
Note. ** p < .01
The EMM of the output rate among three input rates were calculated and pairwise comparisons were conducted and adjusted by the Bonferroni procedure, as shown in Table 4.32 and 4.33.
Table 4.32 Estimated Marginal Means of Output Rate among Three Input Rates
Input rate 100 130 160
Estimated marginal means (EMM)
Output Rate 147.199 162.110 161.433
116
Table 4.33 Pairwise Comparisons of Estimated Marginal Means of Output Rate Input rate
Pairwise contrasts
Contrast Estimate
Std. Error
t df p
100-130 -14.912** 2.656 -5.613 66 1.279E-6
100-160 -14.234** 2.656 -5.358 66 2.295E-6
130-160 .678 2.656 .255 66 .799
Note. The Bonferroni-adjusted significance level is .05. ** p < .01
The EMM of the output rate was 147.199 for 100 wpm, 162.110 for 130 wpm, and 161.433 for 160 wpm. The results in Table 4.33 indicate that the pairwise comparison of EMM difference of output rate was significant for 100-130 and 100-160, but not for 130-160.
The EMM difference of output rate between 100 wpm and 130 wpm was -14.912, which was significant at .01 level, t (66) = -5.613. The difference of output rate between 100 wpm and 160 wpm was -14.234, also significant at .01 level, t (66) = -5.358. This suggests that the output rate was significantly lower at 100 wpm than at 130 wpm and 160 wpm. This finding is inconsistent with the hypothesized result that the output rate would decrease as the input rate increased, so Hypothesis 18 is not supported by the empirical evidence of this research.
In terms of factors unrelated to hypotheses, the results in Table 4.31 indicate that there was a statistically significant main effect of speech on the output rate, F (2, 66) = 7.487, p
< .01. The EMM of output rate was 162.840 for speech A, 153.940 for speech B, and 153.953 for speech C. The results of post hoc pairwise comparisons indicate that the EMM difference of output rate between speech A and B was significant at .01 level, t (66) = 3.353, and the difference between speech A and C was also significant at .01 level, t (66) = 3.349. This suggests that the output rate was significantly higher for speech A than for speech B and C.
117
In addition, the main effect of English proficiency on the output rate was significant, F (1, 66) = 10.696, p < .01 (See Table 4.31). The EMM of output rate in the low group was 140.894, significantly lower than 172.934 in the high group, t (66) = -3.270.
The results in Table 4.31 also reveal that the interactive effect of speech by input rate was significant, F (2, 66) = 3.836, p < .01. The EMM of output rate as a function of input rate and speech is presented in Table 4.34
Table 4.34 Estimated Marginal Mean of Output Rate Arranged by Input Rate and Speech
Speech/Rate 100 130 160
A 140.956 170.202 177.387
B 155.668 154.708 151.445
C 144.972 161.421 155.466
Simple main effect tests show that the effect of input rate was significant in speech A, F (2, 66) = 4.764, p < .05, but not significant in speech B and C. The EMM of output rate in speech A was 140.965 for 100 wpm, 170.202 for 130 wpm, and 177.387 for 160 wpm.
Table 4.35 Pairwise Comparisons Estimated Marginal Means of Output Rate in Speech A Input rate
Pairwise contrasts
Contrast Estimate
Std. Error
t df p
Speech A
100-130 -29.246* 12.740 -2.263 66 .050
100-160 -36.431* 12.409 -2.936 66 .014
130-160 -7.185 12.568 -.572 66 .569
Note. The Bonferroni-adjusted significance level is .05. * p < .05
118
The results in Table 4.35 reveal that the pairwise comparison of EMM difference of output rate in speech A was significant for 100-130 and 100-160, but not for 130-160. The EMM difference of output rate in speech A between 100 wpm and 130 wpm was -29.246, significant at .05 level, t (66) = -2.263, and the difference between 100 wpm and 160 wpm was -36.431, also significant at .05 level, t (66) = -2.936. These findings suggest that when interpreting speech A, the participants’ output rate was significantly higher at 160 wpm and 130 wpm than at 100 wpm.
119
Chapter Five Discussion
The first section provides a summary of major findings in this study. In the following sections, interpretations of the findings for factors related and unrelated to the research hypotheses will be discussed with reference to previous literature in interpreting studies.
Then, implications for interpreting studies and interpreter training will be presented.
Limitations of the study and recommendations for future research will also be elaborated. The conclusion of the present study will be provided in the last section.