以中進英口譯策略訓練提升台灣大學生英語口語能力之探討

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所博士論文 Doctoral Dissertation Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation National Taiwan Normal University. 以中進英口譯策略訓練提升台灣大學生英語口語能力之探討 A Study of Chinese-to-English Interpreting Strategy Training on Taiwan College-level EFL Learners’ English Oral Proficiency. 指導教授：廖柏森博士 Advisor: Dr. Liao, Po-Sen. 研究生：吳茵茵 Wu, Yin-Yin. 中華民國一○六年一月 January, 2017.

(2)

(3) 摘要口譯的本質在於溝通，英語教學的近年主流「溝通式教學觀」也強調培養學生的溝通能力。口譯員在認知限制、時間壓力及口譯規範等制約之下，採用策略解決問題、預防問題及提升溝通效果，箇中訣竅或許值得英語學習者借鏡。本研究有兩個主要目的。一是從教學的角度爬梳口譯策略文獻，整理出適用於大學部英語課堂中教授的口譯策略，並搭配第二語言學習理論，設計策略教學之教材與流程。二是檢視這些口譯策略是否能成功應用於學習者的英語口語輸出，幫助他們在表達心中思想時更為靈活變通、條理分明而提升口語能力。本研究採前、後測準實驗設計與質性訪談和資料收集，以臺灣北部某大學 67 位中高程度之非英語系大一學生為研究對象，分為實驗組 43 人及控制組 24 人。實驗組接受三個月的中進英口譯策略訓練，包含策略教學、六步驟口語訓練，以及口語作業三大面向。控制組未接受口譯策略教學，但接受相同或對等的口語訓練及口語作業。針對第一個研究目的，為了便於學生記憶與應用，口譯策略以四大原則歸納。原則一、「靈活變通」：包含「往上搜詞」、「橫向搜詞」、「解釋」、「換句話說」四大策略。原則二、「分段處理」：包含「斷句」、「順譯」、「簡單句」。原則三、「條理分明」：分為「重整思路」與「加銜接詞」。原則四、「簡潔扼要」：分為「去蕪」與「存菁」。策略教學以真實口譯語料為實例，透過回譯練習、小組討論、反思清單及口語作業等來啟動認知、後設認知及社會情意的學習機制。問卷資料顯示，口譯策略對於英語口說的幫助，以及學生對於回譯活動的喜愛，皆達中高的程度。針對第二個研究目的，資料分析以量性方法為輔、質性方法為主以檢驗教學成效。量性方面，兩組前、後測的英語口試成績分為總分與細項進行組間與組內比較。組間比較顯示，口譯策略訓練顯著提升實驗組在描述/記敘題型的流利度。組內比較方面，控制組有顯著進步的項目為整體辭彙變換、整體精確度，以及描述/記敘題型的精確度。實驗組顯著進步的項目遠多於控制組，除了整體精確度. i.

(4) 之外，還包含總分、整體流利度、整體連貫性、一般談話的流利度、申論題總分、申論題的連貫性及精確度，以及低成就者的總分。實驗組組內顯著進步的項目與口譯策略訓練有相關性。質性資料則是針對九位實驗組參與者後測及自我口譯作業的逐字聽打稿、課堂討論的逐字聽打稿、事後回想訪談、個別訪談、焦點訪談及反思清單進行分析，以便瞭解學習者策略使用的情況及心路歷程。訪談及反思資料顯示，三大原因限制口譯策略在英語口說上的廣泛應用：個人使用策略的本能、腦中思緒的不定性，以及中文出現於腦中的情況與程度。然而，參與者也認為口譯策略訓練提升靈活變通的能力、加快策略應用的速度、讓他們更為聽者著想，而回譯練習讓他們更意識到自身的盲點，進而更留意母語人士的表達方式。本研究試圖在口譯與英語口語教學研究上搭起另一座橋樑。研究結果顯示中進英口譯策略訓練有助於提升部分面向的英語口說能力，也頗受學習者的歡迎，為英語課堂增加趣味、挑戰及多元性。本研究整理的口譯策略及設計的教學流程也能應用於大學部口譯課程，以提升學生語言靈活度及溝通效果。研究生則可根據自身需求及弱點進一步延伸本研究的口譯策略分類，將之個人化。. 關鍵詞：中進英口譯、口譯策略教學、英語口語教材教法. ii.

(5) Abstract Communication is the nature of interpreting. The recent trend of communicative approach to language teaching also emphasizes the cultivation of learners’ communicative competence. Conditioned by cognitive and temporal constraints and interpreting norms, interpreters adopt strategies to solve and prevent problems, and to enhance communicative effectiveness. Interpreters’ resourcefulness and efficiency in achieving communicative goals is what language learners can learn from. This study had two main purposes. 1) To assess the pedagogical values of interpreting strategies identified in empirical studies, select those suitable for an undergraduate English class, and develop materials and procedures for strategy instruction based on theories in second language acquisition. 2) To examine if these interpreting strategies could be successfully applied to English learners’ oral output, and if the training could lead to proficiency gains by enhancing learners’ flexibility and clarity in dealing with ideas in mind. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design and methods of qualitative data collection were employed. The 67 participants of this study were high-intermediate to advanced level non-English major freshmen in a university in northern Taiwan. The experimental group (EG) had 43 participants, while the control group (CG) had 24. The EG received a three-month Chinese-to-English interpreting strategy training incorporated into a regular English class. The training consisted of strategy instruction, six-step oral training, and speaking assignments. On the other hand, the CG received no strategy instruction, but the steps of oral training and speaking assignments were the same or comparable. With regard to the first purpose of the present study, interpreting strategies were streamlined with four catchy principles for easier application. PRINCIPLE 1. BE FLEXIBLE included use a more general term, use a similar term, explain, and iii.

(6) paraphrase. PRINCIPLE 2. ONE CHUNK AT A TIME involved chunk the source text, preserve linearity, and produce short, simple, direct, and self-contained sentences in 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 iv.

(7) 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. Graduatelevel 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 v.

(8) 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.. vi.

(9) Table of Contents. Abstract (Chinese)……………………………………………………………………..i Abstract (English)…………………………………………………………………….iii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………...vi List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….....xi List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….xiii Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………..1 Motivation…………………………………………………………………….….1 Theoretical Background……………………………………………...…………..2 Research Purpose and Research Questions………………………………………6 Value of Research………………………………………………………………...8 Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………….....9 Translation and Interpreting in the Language Classroom……………..………..10 Interpreting for Enhancement of L2 Oral Proficiency…………………….……12 Interpreting Strategies…………………………………………………………..18 Rationale for interpreting strategy instruction…………………………….18 What interpreting strategies to teach?..........................................................23 Categorizations of interpreting strategies………………………….…23 Directionality, language pairs, and norms…………………………....25 Pedagogical values of interpreting strategies………………………...28 How to teach interpreting strategies?...........................................................30 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 vii.

(10) 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 Trial rating…………………………………………………..………111 Analysis of oral proficiency scores…………………………………112 Analysis of questionnaires……………………………………….....112 Collection and analysis of qualitative data………………………..……...113 Analysis of strategy use…………………………………………..…113 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 viii.

(11) 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 ix.

(12) 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. x.

(13) 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 xi.

(14) 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. xii.

(15) 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 backinterpreting 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. xiii.

(16) xiv.

(17) 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. 1.

(18) 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 2.

(19) the potential effects of interpreting training. Common preparatory exercises in interpreting training include reading-aloud, speech delivery, discourse analysis, gistextracting/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: problemorientedness and consciousness (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). Yet, in some other studies on 3.

(20) 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 4.

(21) 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 proficiency have produced mixed results. For instance, 廖柏森 and 徐慧蓮 (2004) found that a group of EFL learners in Taiwan taking a year-long interpreting course did not show significant improvement in their oral proficiency, compared with the control group who took a regular English oral training class for the same length of time. On the other hand, Yagi’s (2000) modified simultaneous interpreting drill in the form of backinterpreting led to significantly better L2 speaking performance on the same task due to higher retention of language items and increased fluency. The present study 5.

(22) attempted to examine if a strategy-focused Chinese-to-English interpreting training could enhance Taiwan college-level EFL learners’ oral proficiency in unpracticed tasks. Research Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study is twofold: First, to design and implement an interpreting training course for undergraduate EFL learners to enhance their English oral proficiency; second, to examine whether, why, and how the training might affect their English oral proficiency. The training has two main components: interpreting strategy instruction and back-interpreting practice from Chinese (L1/A language) to English (L2/B language). The four main research questions of this study are as follows: 1. What interpreting strategies to teach and how to teach them in an undergraduate English class? 2. How does this Chinese-to-English (C-to-E) interpreting strategy training affect the L2 learners’ English oral proficiency? 3. How do the learners apply interpreting strategies to their English speaking? 4. How do the learners respond to this interpreting strategy training? In the following chapters of this dissertation, chapter 2 will justify the rationale for C-to-E interpreting strategy instruction and back-interpreting practice in the language classroom. In terms of what strategies to teach, the pedagogical values of productionrelated interpreting strategies identified in previous empirical research and recommended by interpreting trainers are evaluated. As for how to teach these strategies, principles of strategy instruction and teaching L2 speaking in SLA are reviewed to create valid procedures for teaching interpreting strategies and for conducting interpreting practice under the framework of CLT. Details on the development of teaching materials for strategy instruction, back-interpreting practice, and other components of oral training will be expounded in chapter 3. 6.

(23) Chapter 4 will describe the research design of this study, including oral proficiency testing and teaching procedures. This study had two groups of participants: The experimental group (EG) consisted of 43 freshmen, while the control group (CG) had 24. The EG, receiving a three-month treatment, was instructed on interpreting strategies followed by C-to-E back-interpreting practice. On the other hand, although the CG received no interpreting strategy instruction, the materials for listening comprehension, discussions, and other components of the course were the same as those used in the EG. Chapter 5 will report the results of research questions 2 to 4. To answer the second question, two raters scored the participants’ oral proficiency in both pretest and posttest, adapted from IELTS speaking tests. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were conducted to examine significant between-group and within-group differences in the total scores and the detailed aspects of the tests. To answer the third question, nine EG participants did stimulated retrospective interviews and individual interviews right after their individual posttest. Transcripts of these nine participants’ posttest oral output, their self-interpreting speaking assignments, and segments from in-class debates were analyzed to identify strategy use, which was triangulated with their remarks and comments from retrospective interviews, individual interviews, focus group interviews, and self-evaluation worksheets. In terms of the fourth question, End-of-term Questionnaire was implemented to understand the participants’ perceptions of the interpreting training. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Moreover, qualitative accounts from semi-structured focus group interviews were analyzed to gain further insights into the intricate learning and teaching processes. Chapter 6 will put the findings into a broader context. I summarize and discuss the interpreting training and the learners’ responses to the training, exploring potential relationships between their proficiency gains and strategy use. 7.

(24) Value of Research Five features set this study apart. First, this quasi-experimental research on the effectiveness of interpreting training on EFL learners’ oral proficiency singles out the strategic component of interpreting and focuses solely on the direction of Chinese-toEnglish (L1-to-L2/A-to-B). Second, the interpreting strategies taught are empirically and/or theoretically valid. Third, theories in SLA provide basis for the design and implementation of interpreting strategy instruction and back-interpreting practice, activating cognitive, metacognitive, and social affective aspects of learning. Fourth, the meaning-focused interpreting training and in-class discussions are supplemented with form-focused activities, such as noticing of formulaic sequences. In this way, learners are not only using strategies to activate the limited resources they already possess, but also learning target language items. Fifth, the elicitation tasks on oral proficiency are unpracticed open-questions, examining whether the benefits (if any) of interpreting training can transfer to other contexts. It is hypothesized that the EG participants, especially those with lower speaking proficiency, would benefit from this interpreting training, as shown in the improvement of their oral proficiency and the effectiveness of their strategy use. Even if no significant improvement can be detected, interpreting strategy instruction and interpreting activities can still be a welcome addition to a conventional English class for fun, diversity, and challenge. Finally, the interpreting strategies streamlined for pedagogical purposes and the instructional procedures developed in this study may be used in interpreting courses at undergraduate level, especially when teaching C-to-E interpreting to novices. The strategies skilled interpreters employ to deal with cognitive and temporal constraints and to enhance communication effectiveness might benefit both L2 learners and interpreting novices. 8.

(25) Chapter 2: Literature Review. This study aims to explore the rationale for incorporating interpreting strategy training into the existing EFL curriculum that follows the spirit of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and to examine whether and how the training may affect L2 learners’ oral proficiency. As an umbrella term that covers a wide range of classroom practices, CLT sets the developing of learners’ communicative competence as its primary goal, focusing on not just linguistic forms, but also meanings and functions (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). CLT is characterized by use of authentic materials and tasks for meaningful communication, as well as group and pair work that facilitates negotiation of meaning and interaction in different social contexts (Celce-Murcia, 2014). Translation, now being regarded as a communicative skill featuring pragmatic and functional use of language, can play a complementary role to CLT (廖柏森, 2003). It means not going back to the old-fashioned linguistic approach that does not enhance L2 learners’ communicative competence, but activating learners’ limited target language resources to avoid literal translation by applying “a professional approach and translate in an authentic, intelligent, and contextualized manner” (Van Dyk, 2009, p. 206). Translation and interpreting activities with a modern twist, i.e., dealing with stretches of discourse and communicative needs, can be a resourceful pedagogical tool, preventing monotony in the language classroom (Zohrevandi, 1994). Interpreting training, with its focus on cultivating learners’ communicative competence through large amount of practice in both listening and speaking in authentic communicative contexts, makes it a valuable source of inspiration to foreign language teaching (劉敏. 9.

(26) 華, 2002). In sum, interpreting activities featuring interactive pair or group work, authentic communicative contexts, and pragmatic use of language can serve as meaningful tasks in an undergraduate English class. This chapter first reviews literature on translation and interpreting in the language classroom, followed by a focus on interpreting and L2 oral proficiency. I will then justify interpreting strategy training in the language classroom before exploring what strategies to teach and how to teach them to L2 learners. Translation and Interpreting in the Language Classroom With translation being regarded as a “legitimate and effective tool for learning, teaching and assessing foreign languages” (Laviosa, 2014, p. 1), attempts to incorporate translation activities in the language classroom have experienced a new momentum in recent years (Laviosa, 2014). Translation can be incorporated into task-based activities as a communicative tool (Ali, 2012), can positively help L2 learners with lower proficiency improve their writing (e.g., Kim, 2011; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992), can be a method for teaching creative writing (Laviosa, 2007), and can raise learners’ intercultural awareness through contrastive analyses of parallel corpus (Sidiropoulou & Tsapaki, 2014) or through subtitling (McLoughlin & Lertola, 2014). The effectiveness of translation activities in the language classroom was shown and well-explained in Laufer and Girsai’s (2008) study, which explored how explicit L1-L2 contrastive instruction and translation as a form-focused activity could facilitate incidental vocabulary acquisition. The researchers assigned three groups of high school students with Hebrew as L1 to three instructional conditions: message-focused instruction (MFI), non-contrastive form-focused instruction (FFI), and contrastive analysis and translation (CAT). It was found that the CAT group significantly outperformed the other two groups on both the immediate and one-week delayed tests, in which single target words and target collocations were both tested in terms of passive 10.

(27) and active recall of word form and word meaning (Laufer & Girsai, 2008). The researchers pointed out that the effectiveness of this cross-linguistic instruction and translation activities in both directions (L1-L2 and vice versa) can be explained by noticing hypothesis (i.e., the target items became salient in the input), by pushed output hypothesis (i.e., translation tasks required learners to stretch their linguistic resources), and by involvement load hypothesis (i.e., translation tasks strongly activated all three components—need, search, and evaluation—of involvement, and thus left stronger memory traces) (Laufer & Girsai, 2008). This empirical study showed that contrastive analysis and translation activities could be successfully incorporated into a communicative classroom, because they engaged the learners’ cognition and motivation more than the other two forms of instruction. Interpreting in the language classroom, however, has not received as much attention as translation. It is probably because interpreting is a highly-professional, cognitively-demanding activity that requires mastery of at least two languages, understanding of their cultures, general world knowledge, and specialized knowledge in certain areas. Generally, interpreters are trained at graduate level, where they have a greater command of L2, and are motivated to make a career out of it. To teach interpreting at undergraduate level, instructors would encounter quite a few challenges: insufficient L2 proficiency, insufficient background knowledge, and low learning motivation on the part of students, as well as having a large number of students (sometimes more than 30 people) in one class (胡家榮&廖柏森, 2009; Wu, 2015). Despite these difficulties, attempts have been made to use interpreting as an alternative in-class activity when teaching L2. For example, Zohrevandi (1994) suggests that consecutive interpreting can be conducted in groups of three, with students taking turn to be the English speaker, the L1 speaker, and the interpreter; the role plays can be recorded for subsequent analysis. Van Dyk (2009) outlines a more specific and 11.

(28) comprehensive method to implement sight translation (a hybrid form of translation and interpretation) activities in the language classroom, highlighting the strategic component in communicative competence. To help learners compensate for their L2 deficiency and explore alternative expressions, Van Dyk adopts communication strategies categorized by SLA researchers in teaching sight translation, and divides the strategies into two main groups: “risk-avoidance behavior” (p. 210) and “realization and problem-solving behavior” (p. 210). Risk-avoidance behavior, consisting of paralingual and interlingual compensation strategies such as calling for help, code switching, and literal translation, is of little pedagogical value and should be discouraged, while problem-solving behavior, comprising intralingual compensation strategies such as formal reduction, syntactic simplification, re-expression through commutations and permutations, and anticipation, should be encouraged to enhance learners’ adaptiveness and flexibility (Van Dyk, 2009). Interpreting activities can add variety to a language class, but it remains to be seen whether interpreting training can lead to improvement of L2 oral proficiency empirically. This will be explored in the next section. Interpreting for Enhancement of L2 Oral Proficiency Before examining empirical research on the impacts of interpreting training on L2 learners’ oral proficiency, I will first briefly review dimensions of L2 oral proficiency. L2 oral proficiency can be boiled down to complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAT), three constructs that are multidimensional, multilayered, and multifaceted (Housen & Kuiken, 2009; Housen, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2012; Norris & Ortega, 2009). CAT encapsulate the native-like performance and competence that L2 learners want to achieve (Skehan, 1996). The triad is also used as descriptors of L2 learners’ speaking and writing performance, indicators of the underlying proficiency, and measurements of language learning progress (Housen & Kuiken, 2009). 12.

(29) Complexity, the most ambiguous and complicated dimension of the three constructs (Housen & Kuiken, 2009), refers to “the stage and elaboration of the underlying interlanguage system” (Skehan, 1996, p. 46). Bulté and Housen (2012) distinguish three components of L2 complexity: linguistic, propositional, and discourse-interactional. Linguistic complexity refers to both the global elaborateness of the learner’s L2 system and the local formal and functional complexity of the individual lexical or syntactic features (Bulté & Housen, 2012). Propositional complexity refers to the number of idea units encoded by a speaker/writer to convey a given content (Bulté & Housen, 2012; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). Discourse-interactional complexity refers to interactional moves and turn changes initiated by the learners (Bulté & Housen, 2012). Accuracy, the most straightforward and consistent construct of the triad (Housen & Kuiken, 2009), refers to “the extent to which an L2 learner’s performance (and the L2 system that underlies this performance) deviates from a norm (i.e., usually the native speaker” (Housen et al., 2012, p. 4). Grammatical and lexical accuracy can be distinguished and measured through different kinds of error analysis (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). However, Housen et al. (2012) argue that acceptability and appropriateness should also be taken into account when it comes to accuracy. Fluency, also a multidimensional construct, can be further specified as cognitive, utterance, and perceived fluency (Segalowitz, 2010). Cognitive fluency is about the efficient operation of planning and assembling utterances, and of integrating and executing the underlying cognitive speaking processes (Segalowitz, 2010). This aspect of fluency is similar to Skehan’s (1996) definition of fluency as one of the goals for L2 learners: to be able to “mobilize an interlanguage system to communicate meanings in real time” (p. 46). Utterance fluency is about the objective features of an utterance, such as temporal, hesitation, pausing, and repair properties (Segalowitz, 2010). This aspect 13.

(30) of fluency can be measured in terms of temporal variables, such as speech rate and length of run, as well as hesitation phenomena, such as false starts and repetitions (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). Perceived fluency is related to the “inferences listeners make about a speaker’s cognitive fluency based on their perception of utterance fluency” (Segalowitz, 2010, p. 48). These three senses of fluency may correspond to Lennon’s (2000) two types of fluency: higher-order fluency, which is similar to all-round oral proficiency, and lower-order fluency, which is about the smoothness and speed of speech that can be measured instrumentally and impressionistically. Having reviewed the three dimensions of oral proficiency, we will now look at the few empirical studies on the effectiveness of interpreting training on EFL learners’ oral proficiency. A pretest-posttest design experiment was conducted by 廖柏森 and 徐慧蓮 (2004) on two groups of undergraduate students in Taiwan—one from an interpreting class (the experimental group) and the other from an English oral training class (the control group); both classes were taught by the same instructor to reduce the interference of this extraneous variable. The pretest and posttest were intermediatelevel simulated speaking tests of the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), and the audio recordings of the participants’ test performances were rated by the instructor based on the GEPT five-level holistic scoring descriptors (廖柏森&徐慧蓮, 2004). Although no significant difference was found between the posttest scores of the participants of the two groups, the end-of-term survey showed that the students in the interpreting class viewed interpreting training positively, feeling that interpreting practice was beneficial to one’s English listening comprehension and oral production, and most importantly, the interpreting training enhanced their interest, motivation, and determination to continue to improve their English; therefore, the value of college-level interpreting class could not be denied (廖柏森&徐慧蓮, 2004).. 14.

(31) In the study of 廖柏森 and 徐慧蓮 (2004), we can see that a regular interpreting training course for undergraduates, containing some of the preparatory exercises mentioned in chapter 1, did not prove to be effective in improving L2 learners’ oral proficiency in unpracticed tasks. One reason might be that some of these preparatory exercises were not directly applicable to the mental processing of L2 speaking. Another reason might be that at least half of the class time was devoted to the practice in the direction from English (B language) into Chinese (A language), and training in English listening comprehension might not lead to significant improvement in oral production. A third reason may be that holistic evaluation of oral proficiency might not capture the subtle changes of oral output. Another empirical research on the effectiveness of interpreting training on the EFL learners’ oral performance is that of Yagi (2000), in which a modified simultaneous interpreting drill was used as a learner task in the language classroom. Acknowledging the constraints of teaching English speaking in an EFL context, where there is no authentic need to use English for communication and where shy students tend to produce short responses even when they are given the chance to speak, Yagi argued that interpreting tasks provided students with genuine need to communicate in the foreign language, and that the modified SI drill primed the learners to focus more on language accuracy and fluency by reducing mental resources for idea formulation. The SI practice in Yagi’s study was conducted in the form of back-interpreting with numerous rehearsals, and the participants were encouraged to use speech formulas and idiomatic expressions they had learned for that particular interpreting task. Through this interpreting drill, the newly-learned English words and formulas were compelled to be used and internalized. To examine the effectiveness of this modified SI drill on EFL learners’ oral performance, 16 Arabic female sophomores with comparable English proficiency were 15.

(32) divided into two groups and participated in a one-time experiment consisting of a pretest and a posttest, with an additional SI test for the experimental group (Yagi, 2000). The material for all three tests was the same passage adapted from a short feature article in an English newspaper. The participants of both groups were told to listen to the passage, discuss its content and language use, and then retell the passage. After the pretest, the experimental group drilled on SI of the same passage from its Arabic version into English for 30 minutes with the last rendition recorded, while the control group practiced retelling the passage to one another as closely to the original version as possible for the same amount of time. The posttest was conducted the next day, when both groups were requested to give a full recount of the same passage. With objective measures like speech rates, dysfluency instances, word-lists, idiomatic expressions, grammatical structures, and propostional scores, the experimental group was found to outperform the control group in the posttest in terms of fluency, vocabulary size, idiomaticity, sentence complexity, and content density (Yagi, 2000). Yagi (2000) did not provide robust theoretical explanation for these improvements. The three theories from SLA that Laufer and Girsai (2008) used to explain the successful recall and retention of vocabulary on the part of the contrastive analysis and translation group might add further depth to the exploration of why L1-to-L2 interpreting training might work in a conventional language class. The three theories are Swain’s output hypothesis, Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis, and Laufer and Hulstijn’s task-induced involvement load hypothesis. Swain (1985) postulates the importance of comprehensible output (or pushed output) for language acquisition. According to Swain, comprehensible output serves the functions of engaging learners to use their linguistic resources meaningfully, to use alternative means to get their intentions across, to convey messages clearly, coherently, and appropriately, to test out their hypotheses to see if their expressions work, and to 16.

(33) “move from semantic processing to syntactic processing” (p. 249), and therefore it facilitates language acquisition. Interpreting practice, with its focus on achieving communicative goals, is a form of comprehensible output. Furthermore, the content for interpreting practice is usually more complicated than, or at least different from, what they have in mind, so it pushes the learners out of their comfort zone even further. Schmidt (1990) proposes that noticing is essential for converting input to intake in second and foreign language learning. “Noticing” is distinguished from “metalinguistic awareness” in that “the objects of attention and noticing are elements of the surface structure of utterances in the input, instances of language, rather than any abstract rules or principles of which such instances may be exemplars” (Schmidt, 2001, p. 5). Awareness is necessary for noticing. Although awareness at the level of understanding is more important that awareness at the level of noticing, studies have shown an association between awareness and learning (Gass & Selinker, 2008). Chinese-toEnglish back-interpreting practice should be able to raise learners’ awareness to the gap between their English output and the original English, and to enhance their noticing of useful language items as well as interlingual and intercultural differences. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) propose task-induced involvement load hypothesis to explain and predict how a task can induce effective retention of unfamiliar L2 vocabulary when processed incidentally. According to the researchers, “involvement” itself is a motivational-cognitive construct composed of three factors: need, search, and evaluation. “Need,” the motivational component, refers to learners’ drive to meet task requirements. “Search” and “evaluation,” the cognitive dimensions, are “contingent upon noticing and deliberately allocating attention to the form-meaning relationship” (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, p. 14). “Search” refers to searching for the L2 word form for a concept or searching for the meaning of an unfamiliar L2 word. “Evaluation” means assessing whether a form-meaning pair fits its context. A task inducing all three 17.

(34) components means having higher involvement load, and thus promotes vocabulary acquisition. We can say that interpreting practice is a task that induces high level of involvement load. During interpreting, learners have the “need” to achieve effective communication through “searching” for readily available language items that express the intended messages while simultaneously “evaluating” their appropriateness in that given context. The aforementioned three hypotheses may justify incorporating C-to-E interpreting practice in an English class because it stretches learners’ linguistic resources, raises their awareness to language items, and highly engages the motivational and cognitive aspects of learning. However, the study of 廖柏森 and 徐慧蓮 (2004) showed that a year-long interpreting course, albeit well-received by the learners, did not result in significant improvement in the overall L2 oral proficiency. Yagi’s (2000) research showed that a modified SI drill led to significantly better L2 speaking performance because of higher retention of language items and increased fluency, but we do not know if the proficiency gains can be transferred to unpracticed tasks. It remains to be seen if a strategic-focused interpreting training in the single direction of L1-to-L2 can lead to significant improvement in all dimensions of oral proficiency in unpracticed contexts. The next section reviews literature on interpreting strategies. Interpreting Strategies To further examine if Chinese-to-English interpreting training could enhance L2 learners’ oral proficiency, this study singles out the strategic component of interpreting, attempts to incorporate interpreting strategy instruction and back-interpreting practice into the undergraduate language classroom, and examines to what extent learners can apply interpreting strategies to L2 speaking. Rationale for interpreting strategy instruction. To justify interpreting strategy instruction as a treatment in the language classroom, we need to explore the similarities 18.