Research Methods

Shadowing has its similarities with simultaneous interpreting in the sense that both require simultaneous comprehension and production of speech, however excluding the additional complexity of having to reformulate the message and only one language is involved (Christoffels and de Groot, 2004: 228). Therefore, In Kuo (2012), shadowing was used to “elicit tangible evidences of participants’ intelligibility performance in a setting that simulates simultaneous interpreting without the confounding factor of language transition” (Kuo, 2012: 38-91).

and that a certain degree of linguistic flexibility should be allowed to reflect participants’ comprehension of the incoming speech. Therefore, rather than instructing participants to shadow word for word, as in Kuo (2012), participants were asked to conduct “smart shadowing,” which allows them to utilize techniques of paraphrasing, summarizing or omissions where they find necessary.

According to Danks et al. (1997:52 in Pippa and Russo, 2002:251), “simultaneous oral paraphrasing” is a step closer for its analogies with the simultaneous interpreting process: “when both input and output concern speech rather than writing, and the person producing the paraphrase does so on-line (simultaneously), the demands of the paraphrasing task appear very similar to those of simultaneous interpretation.”

Marinetto (1998: 85 in Pippa and Russo, 2002: 251) similarly focuses on the ability to express meaning with linguistic flexibility as an indicator of ones degree of understanding: “a person has really understood a text, i.e. its internal links, only when he/she is able to reword it in many different ways.”

Hence, as the purpose of this study is to verify participants’ comprehension of foreign-accented speech, paraphrasing is seen as an aid for participants to reflect their understanding of the incoming message despite the possible degradation of intelligibility. It is however not the purpose to add extra burden on participants to test their language flexibility, thus participants are informed to only do so when they find necessary.

3.3.1.2 Comprehension tests

Despite the benefits of paraphrasing as an evaluating criterion, it should be taken into account that unsuccessful paraphrasing may not always be the result of poor

understanding, but probably rather of poor performance in language production.

Therefore, comprehension tests are necessary to gain a more holistic grasp of participants’ degree of comprehension of a foreign-accented speech.

“Discourse comprehension, from the viewpoint of a computational theory, involves constructing a representation of a discourse upon which various computations can be performed, the outcomes of which are commonly taken as evidence for comprehension” (Kintsch, 1988: 163). Thus, after comprehending a text, one should reasonably be expected to answer questions regarding the context, recall, summarize, paraphrase, verify statements about it, and so on. Hence, this study adopts open Q&A comprehension questions as a method to allow participants to explain and elaborate what they have understood.

3.3.1.3 Retrospective interviews

Apart from quantitative shadowing and comprehension test results, this study also conducts retrospective interviews to serve as a qualitative compliment to the statistical results. The interviews serve two purposes: to identify where and understand the reasons why participants face difficulties during the shadowing process. Secondly, to gather and compare different points of views by standardized questions directed at every participant.

3.3.2 Instructions

3.3.2.1 Shadowing

In each task, participants would hear one speaker delivering the first half of the text/speech, with the other speaker delivering the latter part.

In order to avoid ordering effects and progressive errors, (Gravetter and Forzano, 2009 in Kuo, 2012: 47) different treatment protocols were designed for the participants:

Table 3.1 Treatment Protocols for the shadowing tasks

Task 1-

In terms of task 3, in order to retrieve a more reliable mean score of the interaction of intelligibility and comprehensibility, the order of speakers was reversed for the second speech each participant shadowed. The assignment of the Protocols was evenly distributed according to the order participants signed up to take part in the experiment.

All the instructions to the participants were written down beforehand, and their clarity

and procedure were tested in two rounds of pilot tests beforehand. The instructions were closely followed in each experiment and the location was kept constant.

3.3.2.1.1 Single words

Task 1 begins with a 45 seconds practice text to familiarize participants with the speed, combination of unrelated words, and shadowing. The participants were then informed to shadow a total of 80 words stimuli that lasts about 2 minutes and 42 seconds, which includes a change of speaker in the middle.

After the task, participants were first asked to write down their thoughts on the task, and then take out the transcript of the 80 words that was prepared in their drawer beforehand. The researcher then went through the words with the participants to ensure that the words they enunciated were based on clear intelligibility without hesitation or guesswork.

3.3.2.1.2 Strings of Words

Similarly, before task 2, the researcher explained the nature of the words strings and played 5 practice texts to familiarize participants with the speed and shadowing words strings. This session lasted around 4 minutes. After the session, the researcher also checked immediately with the participants on each hesitation or unclearness to ensure correct intelligibility counts.

3.3.2.1.3 Speeches

After the previous two tasks, the researcher explained that the third task involves the shadowing of two speeches. Participants were explicitly informed that they were not required to shadow word for word, but could feel free to paraphrase or utilize other interpreting skills where and when they find necessary. Participants were also informed that there would be a change of speakers in the middle of each speech, and that there would be a comprehension test directly following the end of each speech.

Before starting the session, the topic of each speech was read out loud two times to the participants to ensure that they are prepared and have no further questions. Since the content of the speeches are fairly general and do not contain any technical terms, it was not considered necessary to give extra time for participants to prepare. After the session, participants were first given time to write down opinions and reflections of the shadowing process before the researcher conducted comprehension tests.

After the comprehension tests, which includes four questions for each speech, participants were invited to come out of the booth and take part in a retrospective interview.

3.3.2.2 Retrospective Interview

The retrospective interviews, which were conducted in mandarin Chinese, contained standardized questions and individual questions based on the researcher’s notes or participants’ own reflection.

Participants were first asked to talk about the notes they have written down after the end of each speech. The researcher also further questioned what has happened or went through their mind where participants seemed to encounter difficulties. Taking into

account the validity of retrospective interviews, the researcher avoided referring to any possible explanations to what she has observed, this to ensure a fair and accurate reflection of participants’ cognitive process (Ericsson and Simon, 1993 in Kuo, 2012:

54).

Finally, based on the feedback from the pilot tests and the purpose of this study, specific questions were asked to solicit participants’ comments on the relationship between foreign-accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehension:

1. Does the foreign-accentedness affect your intelligibility or comprehension? If you feel intelligibility degrading, do you think it affects your comprehension?

2. How do you cope with your effort management under the two different speakers?

3. Were there any attempts of utilizing systematic paraphrasing or summarizing skills? Do you consider these a helpful strategy to the shadowing tasks?