口譯學生的詞彙表調查

全文

(1)A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation National Taiwan Normal University 國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所碩士學位論文. Thesis Advisor: Dr. Ming-Li Ju 指導教授：汝明麗博士. The Student Interpreter’s Glossary: A Survey 口譯學生的詞彙表調查. Advisee: Po-yun Chan 研究生：詹柏勻. August, 2015 中華民國一 ○ 四年八月.

(2) 100. L. A. F Sandy. Sandy. Sandy ? 、. 2015. 8. 23. Corner 51 Dragon.

(3) Abstract The interpreter’s glossary is considered an indispensable element in the preparation for interpreting assignments. Nearly 70% of the AIIC (International Association of Conference Interpreters) interpreters surveyed by Jiang (2013) would build a glossary for most or all meetings. While existing research has addressed the use of glossary in the professional interpreting community, little is known about how interpreting trainees use their glossaries en route to professional careers. This study, as a follow-up to Jiang (2013)’s survey study on professional interpreters, attempted to bring the student interpreter’s glossary to light and ascertain students’ glossaryrelated practice by means of a questionnaire survey and a semi-structured interview. The questionnaire used in the study was adapted from Jiang’s and covered five areas concerning students’ glossary practice: general understanding, format, content, use, and efficacy. The survey participants included 110 master’s students of ChineseEnglish interpreting at all seven graduate institutes and programs in translation and interpretation in Taiwan; 20 of them were interviewed. The results revealed trends in the subjects’ general practice in relation to the glossary and highlighted potential differences between students’ and professionals’ glossary. The findings of this study may yield insight into how the glossary works for aspiring interpreters in expertise development and provide pedagogical implications for interpreter training.. Key words: glossary, interpreter training, conference preparation, expertise development. i.

(4) 摘要詞彙表（glossary）為口譯員準備口譯工作之重要環節，Jiang（2013）針對 476 位 AIIC（國際會議口譯員協會）口譯員進行調查，結果顯示高達近 70%的受試者會為多數或所有會議製作詞彙表，其重要性自是不言而喻。本研究旨在延續 Jiang 的詞彙表研究，並將重點置於口譯學生的詞彙表製作與運用，試圖剖析詞彙表對於學生專業發展與學習上的意義，藉此增進口譯研究領域中對詞彙表的瞭解。本研究採問卷調查法，問卷係由 Jiang 所用之問卷修訂而成，包含五大面向：詞彙表的基本認知、樣式、內容、用法、成效，受試者為 110 名臺灣七所翻譯研究所口譯碩士生，其中 20 名進一步接受半結構式個別訪談。由統計與訪談結果可得知學生製作詞彙表的趨勢，亦反映學生與專家製作與運用詞彙表的潛在差異。本研究最後探討詞彙表對於口譯學生專技發展（expertise development）所扮演的角色，期望突顯詞彙表對口譯教學的重要性，供口譯教學者參考。. 關鍵字：詞彙表、口譯教學、口譯準備工作、專技發展. ii.

(5) Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... i 摘要................................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ..............................................................................................................vii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. ix Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Research and Research Questions ............................................. 4 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................... 6 2.1 The Glossary: Definitions .............................................................................. 6 2.2 Glossary for Different Purposes .................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Glossary in foreign language learning .................................................. 9 2.2.2 Glossary in the interpreting profession................................................ 16 2.2.2.1 General concepts ....................................................................... 16 2.2.2.2 Glossary for acquiring specialized knowledge and correct use of terminology ............................................................................................ 17 2.2.2.3 The role of the glossary in assignment preparation .................. 19 2.2.3 Potential differences between professionals’ and students’ glossary .. 26 2.3 Glossary in Interpreter Training ................................................................ 27 2.3.1 The classroom as a bridging environment to the real world ............... 27 2.4 Glossary in the Framework of Expertise Development ............................ 30 2.4.1 Expertise and its acquisition ................................................................ 31 2.4.2 Novice and expert performance ........................................................... 34. iii.

(6) 2.4.3. Glossary in relation to the three cornerstones of interpreting competence .................................................................................................... 36 2.4.3.1 Language: domain-specific terms and expressions ................... 37 2.4.3.2 Knowledge buildup .................................................................... 39 2.4.3.3 Skills: flexible, automated language transfer ............................ 40 2.5 Review of Jiang’s Questionnaire (2013) ..................................................... 42 2.6 Research Questions....................................................................................... 44 Chapter 3 Research Methodology ............................................................................ 46 3.1 Research Design ............................................................................................ 46 3.2 Subjects and Survey Methods ..................................................................... 46 3.3 Research Instrument .................................................................................... 48 3.3.1 The questionnaire ................................................................................. 48 3.3.1.1 The design .................................................................................. 48 3.3.1.2 Survey data collection and analysis ........................................... 51 3.3.1.3 Survey data analysis .................................................................. 53 3.3.1.4 Validity and reliability of the survey .......................................... 53 3.3.2 The semi-structured interview .............................................................. 54 3.3.2.1 Sampling method of the interview participants ......................... 54 3.3.2.2. Design of the interview guideline ............................................. 57 3.3.2.3. Interview data collection and analysis ..................................... 58 Chapter 4 Results ....................................................................................................... 60 4.1 Basic Information ......................................................................................... 60 4.2 Part One: General Understanding of the Glossary ................................... 63 4.3 Part Two: Format of the Glossary .............................................................. 87 4.4 Part Three: Content of the Glossary........................................................... 98 4.5 Part Four: Use of the Glossary .................................................................. 111 iv.

(7) 4.6 Part Five: Efficacy of the Glossary ........................................................... 134 Chapter 5 Discussions .............................................................................................. 146 5.1 Discussion on the Questionnaire and Interview results .......................... 146 5.1.1 General understanding of the glossary .............................................. 146 5.1.2 Format of the glossary ....................................................................... 151 5.1.3 Content of the glossary ....................................................................... 153 5.1.4 Use of the glossary ............................................................................. 155 5.1.5 Efficacy of the glossary ...................................................................... 159 5.2 Comparison of the Present Study’s Findings with Jiang’s ..................... 161 5.2.1 Glossary-building frequency .............................................................. 161 5.2.2 Glossary medium ................................................................................ 161 5.2.3 Glossary content ................................................................................. 162 5.2.4 Glossary reuse .................................................................................... 162 5.2.5 The role of teamwork.......................................................................... 163 5.2.6 The role of expert consultation........................................................... 163 5.2.7 The job-specific nature of the glossary .............................................. 164 5.2.8 Issues pertaining to expertise development ........................................ 165 5.3 Pedagogical Implications ........................................................................... 167 5.3.1 The instructor and glossary building ................................................. 167 5.3.2 Glossary building and conference/class preparation ........................ 169 5.3.3 Glossaries not for a specific interpreting class .................................. 172 5.3.4 Glossary and the three cornerstones of interpreting competence...... 173 Chapter 6 Conclusions............................................................................................. 175 6.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 175 6.2 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................. 183 6.3 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................... 184 v.

(8) References ................................................................................................................. 188 Appendix ................................................................................................................... 195 Appendix 1: Questionnaire revision rationale ............................................... 195 Appendix 2: List of experts .............................................................................. 203 Appendix 3: Expert feedback chart ................................................................ 204 Appendix 4: Pilot opinion chart ...................................................................... 209 Appendix 5: Finalized questionnaire .............................................................. 211 Appendix 6: Instruction read to subjects ....................................................... 221 Appendix 7: Form of consent .......................................................................... 223 Appendix 8: Instruction for online subjects ................................................... 224 Appendix 9: Form of consent for online subjects .......................................... 225 Appendix 10: Interview guideline ................................................................... 226. vi.

(9) List of Tables Table 3.1 Distribution of subjects among the seven institutes ................................ 47 Table 3.2 Distribution of pilot subjects among the seven institutes ........................ 50 Table 3.3 Distribution of interview participants among the seven institutes .......... 56 Table 4.1 Profile of the subjects .............................................................................. 61 Table 4.2 Interpreting courses taken ........................................................................ 62 Table 4.3 Glossary/word list for foreign language learning .................................... 63 Table 4.4 Glossary for interpreting purposes .......................................................... 65 Table 4.5 Instructors and the glossary ..................................................................... 69 Table 4.6 Glossary making and expectations .......................................................... 71 Table 4.7 Glossary for non-class specific purposes ................................................ 76 Table 4.8 Class materials, topic announcement, and glossary making ................... 82 Table 4.9 Arrangement of language items ............................................................... 87 Table 4.10 Order of items ........................................................................................ 90 Table 4.11 Glossary medium ................................................................................... 93 Table 4.12 Glossary format ..................................................................................... 97 Table 4.13 Items to be included in the glossary ...................................................... 99 Table 4.14 Sources of the glossary ........................................................................ 106 Table 4.15 How to familiarize oneself with glossary items .................................. 111 Table 4.16 Print-outs for CI and SI ....................................................................... 116 Table 4.17 Glossary editing in and after class ....................................................... 124 Table 4.18 Saving and reuse of the glossary ......................................................... 126 Table 4.19 Collaboration with classmates ............................................................. 130 Table 4.20 Glossary and interpreting class preparation ........................................ 134 Table 4.21 Fulfillment of expectations .................................................................. 136 vii.

(10) Table 4.22 Pedagogical and long-term aspects of the glossary ............................. 141 Table 4.23 Practicum/real assignments and the glossary ...................................... 143. viii.

(11) List of Figures Figure 4.1 Sample glossary of financial and economic topics ................................ 77 Figure 4.2 Sample glossary of general expressions in categories (1) ...................... 79 Figure 4.3 Sample glossary of general expressions in categories (2) ...................... 79 Figure 4.4 Sample glossary of general expressions in categories (3) ...................... 80 Figure 4.5 Sample glossary arranged with English items on the left and Chinese items on the right..................................................................................... 88 Figure 4.6 Sample glossary with items categorized into conceptual categories ..... 92 Figure 4.7 A sample handwritten glossary .............................................................. 96 Figure 4.8 Sample glossary with parallel texts ...................................................... 103 Figure 4.9 Sample glossary with sentences and collocations ................................ 104 Figure 4.10 Sample glossary with a “notes” section ............................................. 105. ix.

(12) Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background of the Study Conference preparation as a skill is often mentioned in passing, taken for granted, and seldom closely examined (Luccarelli, 2006). In recent years, however, considerable concern has risen over conference preparation in interpreting research. This strain of research seeks to probe into various components that make up the preparatory effort of an interpreter before a given assignment to ensure the quality of interpreting performance. As meetings nowadays increasingly deal with highly specialized subjects (Gile, 2002), an interpreter often has to go through several stages of preparation to make sure that he or she has the knowledge base and terminological apparatus required for a given assignment. This could be best achieved by the interpreter reviewing various aspects of a conference to decide how and what to prepare and finding ways to contextualize with the conference (Luccarelli, 2006). In addition to surfacing to light in recent years, the study of conference preparation has moved from anecdotal attitudes, to more descriptive stances. Rodríguez and Schnell (2009) mentioned three stages of preparation in terms of timing: before, during, and after the assignment, while Gile (2009) divided preparation into advanced preparation, last minute preparation, and ongoing preparation during the meeting. The conference preparation process, as Gile (2009) suggested, involves the ad hoc acquisition of both extralinguistic and linguistic knowledge. Similarly, Luccarelli (2006) summarized previous findings and concluded that in addition to terminological work, conference preparation should also include “study of basic concepts, of the institutions involved, of the purpose of the meeting, of any specific way specialists speak” (p. 8), among others. 1.

(13) Although opinions differ as to which—extralinguistic or linguistic knowledge— should take priority, several researchers have stressed the importance of terminological preparation. Luccarelli (2006) suggested that for technical conferences, technical terminology must be acquired and presents the most obvious challenge. Gile (2009) also indicated that terminological solutions ought to take priority given that interpreter often have to deal with lexical and terminological difficulties online. The emphasis on terminological preparation could be explained by the research results where correct use of terminology has been shown to be regarded highly by conference goers (Moser, 1995, cited in Luccarelli, 2006) and that lexical specificity could be seen as a benchmark for evaluating interpreting competence (Farghal and Shakir, 1994). Therefore, it makes sense that terminological preparation would make up a large part of conference preparation. To document the results of their terminological research, many interpreters would build a glossary for interpreting assignments. As Jiang (2013) argued, building a glossary is one of the most important sub-processes in conference preparation, and probably few interpreters have never compiled one. Nearly 70% of the AIIC (International Association of Conference Interpreters) interpreters surveyed by Jiang would build a glossary for most or all meetings. Surprisingly, given the essential role of the interpreter’s glossary, only few attempts have been made at examining the glossary vis-à-vis the interpreting profession. The glossary has been neglected (or mentioned only sparingly in theoretical discussions) in interpreting studies. In the Practical Guide for Professional Conference Interpreters compiled by the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC, 2004), a section is devoted to “glossary preparation,” where interpreters are advised to compile a glossary based on conference documents and their own research. The section includes items, sources, functions, and medium/format of the glossary. The main point of 2.

(14) creating a glossary, according to the guide, is to help interpreters contextualize and increase the availability of glossary items when they are needed. Moser-Mercer (1992) also conducted a survey to ascertain the terminology and documentation needs of conference interpreters. To date, however, there have been few attempts to examine the interpreter’s glossary practice in greater detail. One of the few studies on the interpreter’s glossary is Jiang’s empirical survey study (2013) on how professional (mostly AIIC) interpreters compiled and utilized the glossary in their practice. The study marked an exploratory effort to investigate the interpreter’s glossary, with an emphasis on seasoned professional interpreters. The survey in the study was large-scale enough (n=476) to paint an overall picture of the nature of glossary, while underscoring the need for a more in-depth inquiry into other unexplored aspects. For example, the study suggested that the survey results could have practical implications for interpreter training and therefore open new doors for future research. In Jiang’s study, five issues related to the interpreter’s glossary were explored: sources of glossary items, the medium of the glossary, its use, its revision, and teamwork. The survey identified some of the trends in the glossary practice of professional interpreters and brought the long-ignored subject to light. It has also highlighted potential areas of future research. For example, how interpreters arrange glossary items and actually consult the glossary at work remains little studied. In particular, from a pedagogical point of view, how the concept of glossary building is inculcated in interpreting trainees has not been addressed so far, either. If the tradition of apprenticeship (Pöchhacker, 2004) still prevails in interpreter training, it remains unclear whether the teaching of glossary would occur in the “transfer of know-how and professional knowledge from master to student, mainly by exercises modeled on real-life tasks” (pp. 177-178). From the actual workings of the glossary to its 3.

(15) pedagogical dimensions, several potential aspects of research on the interpreter’s glossary apparently remain submerged.. 1.2 Purpose of Research and Research Questions To fill the above gaps in research on this subject, this study is intended as a follow-up study on Jiang’s research into glossary for interpreting purposes, but with a different focus. Based on the researcher’s own interpreter training background and observation of peers, interpreting trainees may also build glossary for interpreting classes and use glossaries in ways different from professionals and for different purposes. Although Jiang’s study revealed a high percentage of glossary usage in the professional interpreting community, little is known about how interpreting trainees use their glossaries en route to professionalism. As interpreter training serves to prepare students for real-life working situations, a survey on the student interpreter’s glossary may shine a light on the nature of the glossary and how it aids students in their expertise development. Therefore, the present study aims to look into the student interpreter’s glossary and see what happens at the training stage. It sets out to answer the following research questions: 1. What is the general practice of student interpreters in relation to the glossary (general understanding, format, content, use, and efficacy)? 2. How is the glossary different for student interpreters vs. professional interpreters? 3. What are the pedagogical implications of the student interpreter’s glossary? In interpreting studies, the student interpreter’s glossary has so far remained an uncharted territory that merits more investigation. By answering the above research questions, this study should yield additional insight into the interpreter’s glossary and. 4.

(16) particularly into how it works for aspiring interpreters, and ultimately have pedagogical implications for interpreter training.. 5.

(17) Chapter 2 Literature Review Research on glossary for interpreting purposes has so far remained few and far between, but for the purpose of this study, it is appropriate to locate this study in interpreting research in the framework of several key aspects in the literature, particularly glossary in relation to foreign language learning, the interpreting profession, and expertise development. The structure of the literature review should reveal the potentially critical yet much-neglected role of the student interpreter’s glossary while identifying gaps in existing research. At the same time, it will point up the insufficiency of an understanding of the glossary for interpreting trainees. Ultimately, this chapter will establish the analytical framework for the research questions.. 2.1 The Glossary: Definitions The English word glossary etymologically comes from glossārium in Latin, which came from glossarion (glossa) in Greek (Dictionary.com, 2014; Online Etymology Dictionary, 2014). The etymology of glossary sheds light on the word’s explanatory nature, since glossa in Greek means “'tongue', then 'word', and eventually 'to explain a word or text'” (Dictionary.com, 2014; Online Etymology Dictionary, 2014). Implied in its original definition is that a glossary mainly serves to explain. However, the original definition has evolved to acquire a modern meaning. The word glossary is now defined in modern English as “a collection of glosses; a list with explanations of abstruse, antiquated, dialectal, or technical terms; a partial dictionary” (OED, 2014, emphasis added). More than a list of random words, it contains “technical or special words, especially those in a particular text, explaining their meanings” (OALD, 2014). Items in a glossary are often arranged alphabetically 6.

(18) (Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, 2014; Collins English Dictionary, 2014) for the ease of search and involve a specific domain of knowledge. Indeed, one can think of the glossary that comes at the back of books (LDCE, 2014), offering explanations of technical or specialized terms covered in the text. One can safely state that a glossary, in its broadest definition, is complied in a special format to serve a purpose. However, the distinction between “word” and “terminology,” as referred to in the definition of a glossary, remains unclear. An attempt was made by Cabré (1999) to draw the distinction: “a word is a unit described by a set of systematic linguistic characteristics and has the property of referring to an element in reality. A term is a unit with similar linguistic characteristics used in a special domain” (p. 35). Viewed in this light, a glossary is not a collection of random words. Rather, specialized terms should be the bulk of glossary items, and together the terms are embedded in a specialized language (Lederer, 1986, cited in Luccarelli, 2006). Such language that involves a particular subject field is referred to as Language for Special Purposes (LSPs), as opposed to the Language for General Purposes (LGPs) that one uses in everyday situations (Jurko, 2009). The specialized terms in a glossary can be seen as “an ‘explicit’ element of a knowledge system” (Will, 2007, p. 7), the visible building blocks that constitute a knowledge domain. This dovetails with the description of Würster (1931/1970, 1979, as cited in Will, 2007, p. 7) that “terms are deemed to have only one specific (ideally standardized) meaning (principle of ‘Eineindeutigkeit’/monosemy), and are to be placed into rigidly structured (standardized) concept systems.” LSP terminology is indispensible for any special domain in that “without terminology there is no professional communication and without professional communication there is no transfer of knowledge” (Zauberga, 2005, p. 107, cited in 7.

(19) Mohammadi, 2013, p.3). As human knowledge develops, every highly specific subfield has its own LSP (Jurko, 2009). The specialized lexicon has its own specific vocabulary, making it difficult for those who do not have an adequate knowledge in the field to understand such specialized language (Berruto, 1974, discussed in Pignataro, 2012). One feature of specialized lexis of particular interest, for example, is “polysemous ‘cryptotechnical’ words,” which have “hidden technical meanings in addition to their commonly-known meanings” (Fraser, 2007, p. 134). A layman may not be aware that some common words have other technical meanings, but those who are in a certain field would nevertheless find such special way of communication more efficient, effective, and precise. The goal of terminology is to meet the social and academic needs not only of experts, but also of the general public interested in specialized fields (Mohammadi, 2013). For those who need LSPs for various purposes, a monolingual specialized dictionary is usually an important lexical reference work (Jurko, 2007). Readers of such references, sometimes in the form of a terminology database, include not only specialists, but diverse user types with varying needs. Based on Sager’s classification (1990, pp. 197-200), the user base may include, to name a few, professional communication mediators, lexicographers and terminologists, information and documentation specialists, language planners, language teachers, and general users. Along the same line, Jurko (2009) cited Fuertes-Olivera and Arribas-Baño (2008) to discuss the five distinct groups of LSP dictionary users based on their linguistic and conceptual needs: the expert (who needs linguistic information in L21), the semi-expert (who needs both conceptual and linguistic information in both L12 and L2), the. 1 2. A person’s second language, or the language he/she is learning in addition to his /her mother tongue. A person’s first language, or mother tongue. 8.

(20) layman and beginner (who only needs conceptual information in L1), the translator and interpreter (who needs both conceptual and linguistic information in both L1 and L2), and the LSP learner (who needs conceptual and linguistic information in L2). (p. 100) As there is a plethora of users of LSP terminology, it is clear that a traditional monolingual glossary would not suffice to suit the diverse needs of its users. Users who need information in L2 may find a traditional glossary inadequate because a glossary with only monolingual terms and explanations may not provide sufficient information for its users. Jurko (2009) lamented that a monolingual specialized dictionary is not ideal for medical interpreters due to its complexity of information and scarcity of linguistic information. Therefore, a customized bilingual LSP vocabulary reference with a strong pedagogical orientation is more welcome to suit the need of interpreters, who need both conceptual and linguistic information in their working languages. It seems reasonable to conclude that a glossary should go beyond merely collecting terms and definitions so as to serve a variety of functions. The original definition of the glossary is apparently too broad and unspecific to apply to each case of glossary use. It is against this backdrop that the next section will look at two areas of glossary use pertinent to the present study: glossary in foreign language learning and glossary in the interpreting profession.. 2.2 Glossary for Different Purposes 2.2.1 Glossary in foreign language learning It is generally agreed that linguistic proficiency is one of the key prerequisites for the making of an interpreter (Brisau, Godijns, & Meuleman, 1994; Gerver, Longely, Long, & Lambert, 1989; Moser-Mercer, 1985). As interpreters must learn at least one 9.

(21) more language in addition to his/her mother tongue, it is worthwhile to examine the role of glossary in foreign language learning and see whether the use of glossary is already present in foreign language acquisition. Vocabulary is considered the cornerstone of language learning. An extensive body of literature exists on the use of word lists3 as a learners’ strategy to acquire the vocabulary in a foreign language (Beck, 1983; Crow & Quigley, 1985; Frazer 2007; Griffin & Harley, 1996; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Hoshino, 2010; Newton, 2001; Sanaoui, 1995). In fact, Gu & Johnson (1996) argued that the word vocabulary has long suggested word lists, although expert opinions differ on its use, content, and efficacy. Some word lists are produced by learners themselves in the form of a vocabulary log, a notebook with words learned, or a word chart (Beck, 1983; Newton, 2001; Sanaoui, 1995). Such self-made lists to boost vocabulary may contain words, definitions, example sentences, and collocations (Beck, 1983; Newton, 2001). These lists of new words are said to help autonomous learners “keep track of the words they are learning” and motivate learners to be responsible for their learning and independently record and revise new words (Beck, 1983, p. 181; Newton, 2001). An example of a vocabulary log proposed by Newton (2001, p. 36) looks like the following (form adapted by the researcher):. 3. In this context, a word list can be seen as a glossary because the list is compiled for a special purpose (i.e. foreign language learning). Both “word list” and “glossary” will be used interchangeably in this section. 10.

(22) Vocabulary log Look back over the words you met for the first time in this task. Decide on five that you think will be useful for you. Then complete the table. Example sentence, collocation, New Words definition 1 2 3 4 5 Show your words to another learner, and explain your plan for revising these words. Notes:. Newton (2001) maintained that self-made vocabulary logs help increase the encounters learners have with new words and establish a procedure for reviewing them. However, the efficacy of such practice remains uninvestigated so far in the literature. Other word lists are not generated by the learners but are prepared in advance for them. Newton (2001) suggested that a glossary prepared by the teacher before teaching can save students the hassle of navigating around difficult words. Beck (1983) also pointed out that a glossary can often be found at the back of the text for students to consult. Newton (2001) went further to suggest that an interactive glossary. 11.

(23) may be a better option than a normal glossary because in such glossaries learners have to guess words from context and answer questions related to the new words. Indeed, teaching vocabulary in context has been a proven method to teach word meaning (August, Carlo, Dressler & Snow, 2005; Beck, 1983). Crow & Quigley (1985) proposed that vocabulary practice needs to be as contextualized as possible, although a word list incorporating lexical items that have little internal consistency is still adopted. The benefits of contextualized learning of vocabulary have been recognized, as Gu & Johnson (1996) argued: ... [vocabulary] words thus required retain not just their referential meaning but also the syntactic, pragmatic, and even emotional information from their context. Most important, vocabulary is no longer thought of as acquired as separate items; it is an integral part of discourse and is developed along with reading strategies such as contextual guessing. (p. 646) Several strategies have been proposed for the making of word lists for learners. Frazer (2007) discussed the need to create lists of the specialized vocabulary of certain fields in that “[providing] learners with the language they require for specific purposes to a larger extent means providing them with the words they need” (p. 127). In his study, Frazer attempted to create a word list representative of the field of pharmacology by researching into the characteristics of specialized language and using frequency and range criteria4. The artificially-created list, claimed the author, had a high coverage on two different pharmacology corpora and had the potential to equip learners with an extremely useful group of words for comprehension. However, the created list in the study is monolingual and contains only terms without definition.. According to Frazer (2007, p. 130), frequency is defined as the “total number of occurrences,” and range is defined as the “number of different texts in which a word is found.” 12 4.

(24) Other researchers have proposed a semantic field approach of vocabulary teaching and learning. Hoshino (2010) demonstrated through an experiment that presenting words in categorical lists that share a common semantic field (e.g., moth/wasp; asthma/diabetes) is a more effective way for second-language learners to memorize vocabulary. Crow & Quigley (1985) also proved the long-term efficacy of the semantic field approach through an experiment that had the control treatment using the traditional alphabetical list with words and definitions, and the experimental treatment using a keyword learned with four additional words in the same semantic field. The experiment method of Crow & Quigley’s study has drawn criticism by Hoshino (2010), who declared that the two groups of subjects in fact used two different methods to learn two different word types, which may have confounded the results. Still, Crow & Quigley (1985) summarized that learning theorists have long pointed out the better long-term retention of information organized into cognitive categories than that of material presented randomly. Still other researchers have cautioned against presenting related new words at the same time (Higa, 1963; Nation, 1994, as cited in Gu & Johnson, 1996; Tinkham, 1993; Tinkham, 1997; Waring, 1997). These studies have found that putting related words (e.g. synonyms, antonyms, categorical words) together for learners impeded vocabulary acquisition. Tinkham (1993), for example, found that learners learned new words more quickly when presented with a set of unrelated words than with semantic clusters. Tinkham (1997) went on to find that vocabulary was better learned through thematic clusters5 than through semantic or unrelated clusters. However, Hoshino. 5. Based on Tinkham’s (1997) distinction, semantic clusters (e.g., eye, nose, ear, mouth, chin) share. semantic and syntactic similarities, while thematic clusters (e.g., frog, green, hop, pond, slippery, croak) are cognitively rather than linguistically derived and are based upon psychological associations between clustered words and a shared thematic concept. 13.

(25) (2010) suggested that thematic words are harder to memorize because they share fewer common features than semantic words. The studies cited above seem to indicate that researchers are still divided over how to present new words to learners. No matter what presentation method is adopted, it is clear that rote-memorization of word lists is neither encouraged nor meaningful (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Tinkman, 1993). Instead, learners are encouraged to use a combination of ways to increase vocabulary retention. Sanaoui (1995) summarized previous findings and conducted case studies of adult learners’ approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages. Learners’ autonomous activities included “using dictionaries, memorizing lists of words, making up word charts, practicing words, learning words in context, repeating words, using mental imagery, and reviewing previously learned words;” “[asking] a friend to quiz them about specific pages of their vocabulary notebook;” “compiling new vocabulary items and finding ways to use them” and “kept extensive records of vocabulary items;” “immediate/spaced repetition (read words mentally or out loud);” “talking about the lexical item with someone” (pp. 16-24). The strategy of talking about lexical items with someone is equally noteworthy, as Beck (1983) also encouraged students to use new words in their own conversation and writing. Indeed, Gu & Johnson (1996) suggested that vocabulary knowledge must be integrated into discourse to be of real use. In their study, Gu & Johnson investigated the relationship between learners’ strategies and learning outcomes. It was found that some learners believed in actively finding opportunities to use English outside of the classroom and were doing so successfully. Using “vocabulary in action” (p. 659) has enabled the students to know how to use a word in real-life contexts. Learners who use multiple strategies to boost involvement with new words have seen better learning outcomes. Gu & Johnson (1996) found that oral repetition correlated positively with general proficiency, a finding that is consonant with 14.

(26) previous studies. The same paper also showed that “visual repetition of new words was the strongest negative predictor of both vocabulary size and general proficiency” (p. 668) and that vocabulary retention strategies correlated more with vocabulary size than proficiency in general. In other words, to effectively retain new words, learners are encouraged to go beyond mere memorizing of words. This is because active processing of the new words lead to better learning (Newton, 2001) and greater recall and understanding of meanings (Perez, 1981, discussed in August et al., 2005). In the same vein, intentional learning also leads to better retention (Hoshino, 2010). Of course, an in-depth discussion of foreign language vocabulary acquisition is beyond the scope of the present study, but it is clear that learning vocabulary through a word list is a widespread practice among learners. Second, learners use a variety of strategies that go beyond memorization to interact with items in the list to achieve better learning outcomes. Third, although traditional approaches to teaching vocabulary used alphabetical listings of random samples or words that occur most frequently (Crow & Quigley, 1985), new ways of arranging items in the list (e.g. through semantic/thematic clustering) have been proposed and proven to bring better learning results. Again, as a potential form of glossary, word lists in foreign language learning are made to serve a special purpose. What’s more, the existing literature shows that most learners of a foreign language are likely to have adopted list-learning at some point in their learning process. The same may well hold true for interpreters, who have to hone their foreign language skills throughout their career. As Jiang’s survey of conference interpreters (2013) revealed that the majority (81.3%) of respondents used the glossary to learn vocabulary, it would be worthwhile to examine how interpreters of varying expertise levels utilize the glossary for assignments.. 15.

(27) 2.2.2 Glossary in the interpreting profession 2.2.2.1 General concepts The interpreter’s work is characterized by the transfer between languages. However, the definitions of the glossary discussed so far tend to overlook linguistic elements. For example, the definitions do not specify the number of languages to be used in building a glossary. Of course, for comprehension purposes, a monolingual glossary would suffice, but to serve translators and interpreters, a glossary clearly needs to have more than monolingual terms and explanations, and should be presented in a format that suits the needs of its users. The inapplicability of the dictionary definitions of glossary to the context of interpreting, therefore, calls for a more tailored definition. In interpreting studies, there is no lack of mention of the glossary (see Dawrant, 2000; Fleming, 2009; Gile, 2002; Jiang 2013; Luccarelli, 2006/2013; Moser-Mercer 1992). It is considered “important, if not indispensible” (Jiang, 2013, p. 74), and its roles have been reiterated in the literature. For Gile (2002), a glossary can be either prepared by the interpreter him/herself or colleagues and help one locate linguistic potential equivalents to terms found in conference or background documents. However, even in a special section devoted to “interpreter glossaries,” Gile (2009) did not define it except to indicate that in glossaries interpreters “tend to list terminological indications appropriate for one particular occasion and to add little information regarding the reliability of the information, its source, the meaning or nature of the reference, etc” (p.147). The specifics of the glossary (e.g. items, usage, source, and format) remain unclear. The Practical Guide for Professional Conference Interpreters compiled by the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) touched on the items, sources, functions, medium/format of the glossary in the “glossary preparation” 16.

(28) section (AIIC, 2004, cited in Jiang, 2013). Moser-Mercer (1992) also described the interpreter’s workflow in his/her terminological work, starting from the moment the interpreter takes on an assignment to after the assignment is done. Still, there was little description of the details of the glossary. The mentioning of the glossary is scattered here and there in the literature, but it is difficult to find an existing definition of the interpreter’s glossary. It seems that the only available (working) definition of the glossary is the one proposed by Jiang (2013) after she summarized some of the features of the glossary mentioned in interpreting studies: “An interpreter’s glossary is a bilingual or multilingual list of terms and other items, captured from both written and other sources, that is prepared for a particular interpreting job and that may be revised for future reference” (p. 78). In this definition, the bi-/multi-linguality of the interpreter’s glossary comes to light. However, a succinct and reasoned definition as it is, this working definition may be subject to change and cannot capture all the dimensions of the interpreter’s glossary. For this reason, the following sections will discuss the multiple roles of the glossary in the context of interpreting.. 2.2.2.2 Glossary for acquiring specialized knowledge and correct use of terminology The subject matter of interpreting assignments varies from case to case, from general issues to highly specialized topics. It has been shown that meetings nowadays are becoming more and more specialized and technical (AIIC, 2004; Gile, 2002), which poses challenges to interpreters. In his paper on terminological challenges facing medical interpreters, Jurko (2009) argued that every specialized field (and every of its subfields) has its own Language for Special Purposes (LSPs). As discussed before, specialized vocabulary is important to specialized discourse in a professional field (Garzone, 2006). For experts in a chosen field to successfully 17.

(29) communicate, they must master the LSP and vocabulary of that particular field. Therefore, as participants in conferences of varying subjects, interpreters often have to transmit highly specialized knowledge for a public of experts (Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009). Given that interpreters are called to work in a variety of professional settings, how interpreters familiarize themselves with the LSPs of different fields is of great importance. As interpreters do not have the same level of knowledge as the experts, they need to compile terminological information or information in the respective languages to make sure that at least the language spoken is appropriate and sounds professional (Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009; Rutten, 2003; Will, 2007). To handle the variety of subject scenarios, interpreters need to have “some form of terminological apparatus” to ensure that the quality of work is up to par (Taylor, 1993, p. 72). For interpreters, a glossary becomes a means to gather specialized terminology and fit into the specialized context. The terminological work “[creates] a conceptual system, in which the terms are structured and organized” (Pignataro, 2012, p. 128). A glossary, in this regard, can be seen as an important part of the interpreter’s terminological work to acquire “an overall ‘thematic’ knowledge into which ‘terminology’ is embedded” (Will, 2007, p. 3). Indeed, as Jiang (2013) described, the interpreter’s glossary becomes “a tangible vehicle for the construction of conceptual knowledge that supports interpreting” (p. 75). Viewed in this light, the glossary helps the interpreter to speak the right language in the right context, and the glossary items become the building blocks that characterize specialized discourse. While how well interpreters can acquire the knowledge structure of a specialized subject remains an issue of ongoing debate, correct use of specialized terminology is a critical component of quality interpreting. Correct terminology has been shown in a number of surveys to be one of the evaluation criteria of interpreting (Kurz, 2001) and 18.

(30) is regarded highly by conference participants (Moser, 1995, discussed in Luccarelli 2006; Kurz, 1989, cited in Pöchhacker, 2004, p. 153). A glossary, in this regard, helps ensure correspondence at the lexical level. Farghal and Shakir (1994) argued that lexis can be used to judge the difficulty of an interpreting task and that lexical specificity is a reliable benchmark of evaluating interpreting competence. As “the ability to render source language lexical items with the same degree of specificity in the target language” (Farghal and Shakir, 1994, p. 31) is highly valued, items gathered by the interpreters during preparation may, in theory, help to ensure lexical correspondence and that interpreting at the lexical level does not go wrong. Of course, interpreting is much more than interlingual lexical transfer. Rodríguez and Schnell (2009) maintained that in interpretation, the transmission of meaning is more important than the correct terminology. As long as the meaning is maintained, interpreters enjoy greater leeway in bypassing specialized terminology in the transitory process of interpreting, albeit at the expense of lower translation quality. Still, more often than not the correctness of terminology is valued highly by both interpreters and users and may be better achieved through compiling a glossary.. 2.2.2.3 The role of the glossary in assignment preparation As the glossary is considered the result of the interpreter’s terminological work (Pignataro, 2012; Will, 2007), the question which one must consider next is the glossary’s role in relation to an interpreting assignment. A professional interpreter cannot go to work like a tabula rasa. In fact, as MoserMercer (1992) put it, the interpreter’s work begins the moment he/she agrees to interpret for a conference. There are various kinds of preparations modes and methods. In terms of preparation modes, W. Kutz (2003, discussed in Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009) distinguished between theme-based preparation, linguistic preparation, 19.

(31) translation preparation, and interpretation preparation. Donovan (2001, cited in Luccarelli, 2006) also mentioned three levels of preparation: terminological, subject matter, and the situation. With respect to the timing of preparation, the literature has defined three stages of preparation: before, during, and after the assignment (see Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009), while Gile (2009) divided preparation into advanced preparation, last minute preparation, and ongoing preparation during the meeting. In addition to assignment-specific preparation, interpreters also need long-term preparation (L1 and L2 language in general, as opposed to short-term preparation for specialized language), and general background knowledge (as opposed to subjectspecific knowledge) (Luccarelli, 2013; Rutten, 2003). While conference preparation per se is not the subject of the present study, terminological preparation is ever-present throughout the preparation process regardless of modes or timing, making the glossary “one of the most important subprocesses in these preparations” (Jiang, 2013, p. 74). In terms of timing, some reckoned that terminological work can only take place prior to the conference (Gile, 2009; Taylor, 1993; Will, 2007) because interpretation at work cannot be interrupted (Will, 2007) and it is impossible to conduct terminology research at work (Klaus Schmitz, discussed in Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009). Others proposed that terminological research is an ongoing process that extends to during and after the conference (Luccarelli, 2006; MoserMercer 1992; Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009). Typically, according to Jiang (2013) and Moser-Mercer (1992), interpreters build a glossary as he/she receives conferencerelated documents and go on to study the glossary items. The glossary can then be updated on the premises as the interpreter exchanges ideas with colleagues and delegates. After the conference, conscientious interpreters go further to polish the list and save it as a file.. 20.

(32) One of the most important roles of the glossary in preparation is that it helps the interpreter contextualize (AIIC, 2004; Gile, 1995, p. 150; Jiang, 2013; Setton, 1999, p. 89). Setton (1999) aptly described the contextualization process: More than in the case of ordinary conversation, contextualization begins before input: the interpreter starts assembling pieces of the model before entering the booth (perhaps weeks before), adding features at an accelerating rate, as she gets the agenda, the minutes of the previous meetings, and the list of participants, then sees the meeting room; finally, if her colleague (“booth-mate”) starts working first, she is fully contextualized by the time she begins. (p. 89) By putting him/herself into the context and preparing for the assignment, the interpreter can better deal with the unexpected (Luccarelli, 2013). When compiling a glossary, the interpreter anticipates what specialized terms and related fields may be involved in an assignment (Luccarelli, 2006) and may in so doing build confidence for the assignment (Jiang, 2013). After the glossary items are studied, they become more available on the tip of the tongue (AIIC, 2004) and quasi-active vocabulary for the interpreter (Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009). All the potential benefits of the glossary make specialized terminology an “operationally important part of preparation” (Gile, 2002, p. 7). Of course, building a glossary does not merely mean putting items on a list and memorizing them; it inherently involves some conceptual learning and vice-versa (Gile, 2002). As discussed before, terminological preparation is indeed part and parcel of assignment preparation, but beyond that, it is also a learning process (AIIC, 2004; Luccarelli, 2013). When searching for items to be included in the glossary, the interpreter often studies the concepts behind the terms (as a means of subject preparation), which forms the “knowledge basis” for interpreting (Moser-Mercer, 21.

(33) 1992). Luccarelli (2013) summarized previous studies and suggested that preparation should also entail the study of basic concepts, institutions involved, the purpose of the meeting, and any specific way specialists speak. This provides a tentative answer to the debate over the relative importance of linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge (Gile, 2009, pp. 146-147). Some (mostly theoreticians and teachers) hold the view that linguistic preparation should take primacy over extralinguistic preparation, while others (mostly non-teaching practitioners) reckon that a study of relevant knowledge of specific fields should be carried out prior to linguistic preparation. As terminological preparation is also a form of knowledge acquisition (Gile, 2009), various preparation modes may not be that clearly-cut. Indeed, there are “borderline cases” (Gile, 2002) in which terminology creation and content-oriented preparation overlap. What’s more, according to Gile’s personal observation (2009), “even proponents of the first approach (focusing on general background information which is gradually narrowed down to the specific conference) act on terminology first” (p. 146). One may therefore assume that through terminology preparation the interpreter may also acquire extralinguistic knowledge. In brief, building a glossary as a means of terminology preparation entails more than putting terms and their linguistic equivalents on a list. It is part of the preparation process that enables the interpreter to contextualize him/herself into the conference in different aspects (e.g. subject matter and specialized language). Once the interpreter is fully contextualized, he/she enjoys great power of prediction at work based on what he/she already knows, which makes preparation important (Luccarelli, 2006). Ultimately, preparation as a whole can equip the interpreter with the capabilities to ensure that his/her “usual interpreting powers—to predict, to anticipate, to monitor your output, to note and understand positions, etc.—are not upset” (Donovan, 2001,. 22.

(34) cited in Luccarelli, 2006). Once adequately prepared, the interpreter can walk into the venue with the glossary and start working. In addition to playing a critical role in pre-conference preparation, a glossary can also provide “online help” as part of “online preparation” (Gile, 2002, p. 12). The interpreter does not go to the booth and start using the glossary right away. Rather, during this “in-conference knowledge acquisition” phase (Gile, 2009, p. 146), he/she continues to update the glossary on the venue with the knowledge and phraseology captured from many sources, such as additional conference material, interpretation of a colleague who has some experience in the field and knows the correct terminology and phraseology, the speaker’s presentation, a briefing with delegates, or on-site consultation with experts (Gile, 2009; Jiang, 2013). In so doing, the interpreter continues the contextualization process, ensures that items on the glossary are most relevant to the assignment, and improves conditions for interpreting (Gile, 2009, p. 146). How the interpreter finds le mot juste with the help of the glossary is worthy of discussion at this point. Of course, as previously discussed, interpreting involves a lot more than the transfer of words between languages, and glossary compilation entails more than putting terms together on a list. Still, Gile (2009, pp. 146-147) pointed out that solutions to terminology should enjoy priority, given the severe cognitive constraints of interpreting and the fact that many difficulties interpreters have to tackle online are lexical and terminological. In this respect, how the glossary contributes to the reduction in cognitive demands becomes important. As lexical retrieval consumes processing capacity (Cheung, 2001), accurate and timely retrieval of items in the glossary is critical (Jiang, 2013, p. 90). To stay “quick-minded and quick-tongued in order to optimize both paradigmatic and syntagmatic repertoires” (Farghal and Shakir, 1994, p. 30), the interpreter consults the items at work without 23.

(35) having to commit terms to long-term memory before work. The interpreter’s effort to minimize the consumption of processing capacity is further evidenced by the fact that interpreters also study known terms and concepts (Gile, 2002) and in so doing make them more cognitively available. According to Gile (2002), this is because the processing of these known terms and concepts will reduce consumption of processing capacity, risks and frequency of saturation, and subsequent errors and omissions. The glossary’s function to facilitate and trigger output has been stressed in literature. Jiang (2013, p. 75) mentioned that glossary items can facilitate “information retrieval in the highly time-sensitive operation of interpreting,” “[trigger] conceptual and linguistic resources in long-term memory,” and “[assist] effective processing in working memory.” A glossary is also viewed as the interpreter’s effort to “preempt problem triggers, such as “high density of the speech,” “high speed of delivery,” “unknown names,” and items with “short duration and low redundancy” such as “numbers and short names” (Gile, 1995, p. 174, cited in Jiang, 2013).That is to say, by reducing the need to process terms at work, the interpreter can allocate more cognitive resources to deal with other unexpected situations. Glossaries prepared in advance are not finished products and may need corrections and revisions afterwards (Rodríguez and Schnell, 2009). After the assignment, the interpreter may continue to polish the glossary by reviewing, revising, and archiving it for future reference at similar conferences (discussed in Jiang, 2013, p. 75; Moser-Merser, 1992, pp. 508-509). Given that interpreters are likely to encounter assignments with similar subject matter, it makes sense that a used glossary may come in handy again in the future. The interpreter revises the glossary based on the knowledge gathered at work to ensure the information in the glossary is correct. Despite the myriad benefits the glossary can bring to interpreters at work, the literature does not discuss other “online” issues pertaining to glossary use. For 24.

(36) example, how the interpreter interacts with glossary items before an assignment remains unknown. Jiang (2013) pointed out that the interpreters do not store the items in memory but “rehearse them mentally to keep them active and easily retrievable, and put in the extra effort of verbalizing a term which might be unfamiliar” (p. 89), but did not specify what “rehearsal” and “extra effort” are needed. If, as Rutten (2003) suggested, “automation of word pairs may be necessary” (p. 169), does the interpreter really not store in memory at least some, if not all, items in a glossary? Second, how the interpreter consults the glossary at work is little studied. How does the interpreter locate an item he/she is looking for in the glossary? Does the interpreter “gesture for assistance from colleagues” (Jiang, 2013, p. 78)? Does the interpreter always know where a difficult item is in the glossary and consult it every time the term appears? Gile (2009) suggested that the lay-out of the documents in the booth (including the glossary) should be arranged in such a way as to “minimize the time needed to access them” (p. 293) In addition to the glossary, having a sheet of paper with important technical terms and names6 is also a way to make them available at any time, to stand out for quick check (Gile, 2009, p. 203). Third, how the use of glossary differs between consecutive and simultaneous interpreting remains unclear. Jiang (2013, p. 78) maintained that the uses are indeed different due to the different conditions of the two modes. The consecutive interpreter, while focusing on note-taking, may not be able to search for the items when interpreting and so has to commit glossary items to memory. Yet, to what degree the practice of consecutive and simultaneous interpreters in relation to the glossary differs still remains uninvestigated.. 6. The additional sheet of paper may as well be another form of the glossary. This will be put to confirmation in the questionnaire. 25.

(37) 2.2.3 Potential differences between professionals’ and students’ glossary One aspect of the glossary reiterated in the literature is its “job-specific nature” (p. 89) and that the preparation of the glossary is “job-oriented” (Jiang, 2013, p. 78). In the same vein, Gile (2009) stated that “because of their limited accuracy and reliability, such glossaries cannot always be depended on for use in conferences other than the one they were prepared for” (p. 147). Yet, interpreting students do not do “real assignments” in the classroom. Rather, they learn the necessary skills and knowledge for the making of an interpreter. Whether glossary compilation may not be a one-off effort for students and may have a cumulative effect on learning merits inquiry. What’s more, it is possible that students, who are at the same time foreign language learners, may produce non-conference-specific glossaries for learning purposes. Then whether the student’s glossary has a “life-span” and is “prepared for a particular conference” (Jiang, 2013, p. 78) (or a particular classroom exercise for students) is open to question. The glossary generated for a particular class may be the building blocks that constitute the expertise required for a professional interpreter. The “subject-linked, jargonistic vocabulary” needs not, as Brisau et. al. (2004) claimed, to be deleted from memory after the job is over. The classroom setting is different from the real-world situation, which may lead to another difference between professionals’ and students’ glossary. First, while Jiang (2013) believed that glossary practice may differ in consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, whether students use the glossary differently in the two modes is unclear. Even in a consecutive interpreting class, students can lay the glossary on the table for consultation, a practice not much different from the simultaneous mode. Second, professional interpreters tend to value the opinions of experts/delegates (Jiang, 2013, pp. 89-90) as a source of the glossary. Yet, it is unknown whether students have the 26.

(38) opportunity or habit to consult experts before class. Third, it remains uninvestigated if glossary building has become a conventional practice among interpreting students. Jiang’s findings (2013) revealed that most professional interpreters surveyed followed the advice of AIIC to use and manage their glossaries, but whether the students generate a glossary for every class is less known. Last but not least, the content of glossaries produced by professionals and students may differ. The professional interpreter’s glossary is said to contain mostly linguistic equivalents of terms for quick consultation. Is it possible that students may include other information (e.g. pronunciations, definitions, collocations) in the glossary for language learning purposes? Furthermore, unlike the professional interpreter who has to interpret the entire conference, students often only get to practice a segment of a talk in the classroom. The difference in preparation time may also lead to different glossary building practices between professionals and students. As there are potential differences between professionals’ and students’ glossary, one of the research questions seeks to discover such differences by comparing the glossary-related practice between the two groups of users.. 2.3 Glossary in Interpreter Training 2.3.1 The classroom as a bridging environment to the real world Professional interpreters generate a glossary in preparation for interpretation assignments. However, unlike professionals, students do not do real interpreting assignments in class. How the concept and practice of glossary can be introduced to the classroom merits attention, if students indeed build one. Since most interpreting students are likely to take on real assignments immediately after training, the classroom setting is suggested to be as close to the real-life situation as possible. Indeed, after investigating into the glossary practice of AIIC interpreters, Jiang (2013) 27.

(39) suggested that the survey results could be “a useful source of guidance for trainers and students” and that conference preparations with emphasis on glossaries should receive more attention in trainings (p. 76). However, how the concept of glossary making is taught is class remains little uninvestigated. While the core capabilities of interpreting are important in training, other “preliminary and ancillary skills” (Pöchhacker, 2004, p. 183) for interpreting have been addressed in the literature, such as assignment preparation with special attention to terminology research and documentation. Unfortunately, how such skills are taught in the classroom, again, remains unknown. Pöchhacker (2004, p. 188) lamented that there is little information on prototypical components in tests for interpreting skills, including the time and resources allowed for preparation, among others. If interpreting students are to transition into the real world, there is no reason why preparation methods should be left out in interpreter training. Lexical relations are suggested to receive more attention in training, too. Farghal and Shakir (1994) proposed that prospective interpreters should receive intensive training in lexical relations before they are entrusted with interpreting tasks. The failure to cope with subtle relations among lexical items in the target language and source language may reflect adversely on interpreting, and the inability to deal with clear relations among words unquestionably leads to distorted and deviant target language outputs. (p. 36) While thorough preconference glossary preparations cannot guarantee interpreting excellence (Jiang, 2013), by learning to build a glossary students still can learn the importance of lexical correspondence, which, as discussed before, may be a benchmark for quality interpreting.. 28.

(40) Assignment preparation with particular attention to terminology research has been recognized as one of the preliminary and ancillary skills of interpreting (Pöchhacker, 2004, p. 183). As the interpreting classroom is regarded as a bridge to the real world, the interpreting exercises that students do in class should be prepared as are real-life assignments. According to Gile (2009, pp. 150-151), in translation training, it is relatively easy to stimulate real-life situations with authentic source texts, appropriate briefs, and reasonable deadlines. For interpreter training, this can be more difficult, as classroom situations (including mock conferences) are far from real working conditions and live speakers are often not available. While it is hard to have a real speaker “with genuine communication stakes” (Gile, p. 150), the real-life situation still can be simulated in the classroom. Jiang (2013) suggested that training material be relevant to the real world so that students’ glossary preparation can lay a solid foundation for their future career. Gile (2009) also advised using real conference documents for preparation and recordings for students to interpret. This helps ensure ecological validity of preparation exercises. Recognizing the importance of conference preparation, Luccarelli (2006) proposed a model for a conference preparation course. For such a course, Luccarelli would use a conference that he has worked in because he has returned with resources (i.e. opening speeches, conference room documents, power point presentations) to be used for advance preparation. If students are unfamiliar with online information search, glossary generation, and terminology management, these could also be included in the course. With regard to the glossary, Luccarelli suggested that students “make a short list of key terms that sum up the meeting” and “make a short bilingual or multilingual glossary of 20 terms” (p. 19). In so doing, students get to learn how the glossary fits into the preparation process.. 29.

(41) Conference preparation (or exercise preparation in training) is a multifaceted concept. It may cover practice, the study of new vocabulary, or the expansion of general knowledge (Luccarrelli, 2006). With the instructor introducing proper preparation methods to students, the preparation expertise of experienced interpreters will be inculcated in interpreting trainees and facilitate their transition to the world of work (Luccarrelli, 2006, p. 4). Such training and preparation exercise, however, must be evidence-based. That is, in addition to experts’ practice in glossary preparation, how interpreting trainees prepare and perceive the glossary should be investigated, hence the motivation of the present study.. 2.4 Glossary in the Framework of Expertise Development Interpreting trainees are very likely to launch into the world of professional interpreting after only a few years of training. Therefore, the challenge lies in using teaching methods that will bring about the most efficient acquisition of interpreting skills within the prescribed time (Riccardi, 2005). Of course, a novice does not turn into an expert overnight; they must go through certain processes to become an expert. The underlying mechanisms for the making of an expert are the focus of expertise studies. This area of research, stemming from the field of chess (Ericsson, 1996, 2000; MoserMerser, 1997), looks into how experts reach the highest level of performance and analyzes the reliable and reproducible aspects of expert performance (Ericsson, 1996). By examining factors that distinguish an expert from a novice, expertise studies seek to establish a general theory of expert performance acquisition and scientifically explain how exceptional achievements are made possible (Ericsson, 1996) and why experts can reliably reproduce their performance anytime when needed (Ericsson, 2000).. 30.

(42) In interpreting studies, while due attention has been paid to the interpreter’s expertise development, it appears that no research studies are yet available concerning how glossary building may fit into expertise development of interpreting and how it may assist interpreting students in their pursuit of excellence. This study is exactly an attempt to fill that gap.. 2.4.1 Expertise and its acquisition It is said that it takes approximately 5,000 hours for a novice to become an expert (Moser-Merser, 1997). The number of hours devoted, however, does not in itself guarantee superior expert performance. On the trajectory to becoming an expert, a beginner clearly needs more than time and maturation in any domain of expertise (Hoffman, 1996, cited in Moser-Merser, 1997). For example, studies have suggested the benefit of guidance in expertise development. According to Ericsson (2000), “virtually all the essential aspects of elite performance have been acquired through training” (pp. 215-216). In any domain of expertise, professional coaches and teachers play a critical role in helping prospective experts reach superior performance effectively. Efficient training is indeed important in interpreter training as interpreting trainees only have a couple of years to hone their interpreting skills before venturing into the professional world. The goal, therefore, is to develop students’ expertise as efficiently and rapidly as possible (Moser-Merser, 1997). Ericsson (2000) also observed that in interpreting schools, students’ performance improves because of training and interpreting experience. Aspiring interpreters, therefore, need appropriate training activities designed by teachers that will enable them to reach better performance. Indeed, Ericsson’s review of the literature revealed that “improvement of performance was uniformly observed when individuals, who 31.