(3)In the second question, “Did your instructors specify the time ratio of interpretation relative to the original speech

(1)

CHAPTER FOUR

4.1 Pilot Survey

Profile

ot survey, all of the interviewees received their

er

erience(yr) RESULTS

4.1.1 Interviewee

According to the pil

int preting trainings in interpreter’s training schools, including Graduate Institute

of Translation and Interpreting Studies of Fu Jen Catholic University and

Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation of Monterey Institute of

International Studies. The average professional experience is eleven years, and the

average teaching experience is eight years. The interviewees have various teaching

experiences. Four of them taught or teach at colleges, five at continuing education

institutes, and eight at the oldest interpreter training institutes of National Taiwan

Normal University and Fu Jen Catholic University. (See Table 4.1 and Table 4.2)

Table 4.1 Working and Teaching Experience of Interviewees Interviewee Working Experience(yr) Teaching Exp

A 10 5

B 13 12

C 15 15

D 12 10

E 10 7

F 8 6

G 8 4

H 14 7

I 10 8

(2)

Source: Compiled by this research

Average 11 8

Table 4.2 Interviewee’s Teaching Experience Interviewee College Graduate

School

Continuing Education Program

A ●

B ● ●

C ● ● ●

D ● E ●

F ● ● ●

G ● ●

H ● ●

I ● ●

4.1.2 Participants’ Perspectives on Time Ratio

In the questionnaire, the interviewees were first asked “When you were a

student at an interpreting training institute, did your instructors emphasize that in

a consecutive interpreting setting the time ratio of interpretation relative to the

original speech must be maintained at a certain level, and time your production in

class?” Seven out of nine respondents replied that their instructors did talk about

this concept, and six of them said their instructors did time their performance in

class.

(3)

In the second question, “Did your instructors specify the time ratio of

interpretation relative to the original speech?”, five respondents provided the

ratios specified by their instructors. Two of them said interpretation should take

no more than 80% of the time of the original, two said 75%, and the other one

said interpretation can take as much time as the original does. However, when

asked “Did your instructors explain how the ratio was defined”, four of the

respondents said their instructors did not provide any explanation, and the other

one could not recall if the explanation was given. As a result, none of the

interviewees could provide a rationale of keeping a time ratio.

In the fourth question “According to your working experience, what should

the ratio be?”, eight of the respondents suggested in a consecutive setting,

interpretation should take less time than the original while the other one said

interpretation can take as much as the original if necessary.

When further asked for explanations to support this concept, some

respondents offered the following arguments:

- Chinese is more condensed than English.

- Messages are reorganized and filtered when translated, so it should take less

time.

- An interpreter should not steal the speaker’s thunder.

(4)

- In a consecutive interpreting setting, a lengthy interpretation will slow down

the pace and delay the schedule.

- Conference organizers believe interpretation should be shorter than the

original in a CI setting.

The above arguments only reflect what interpreters believe. Is it really

necessary for interpreters to stay within the limit of their empirically defined time

ratio, and does the audience really care? It is in this research that such an issue will

be explored.

4.1.3 Pedagogical Practices

In the following section of the pilot study survey, it is found that six out of

the nine interviewees timed their student's CI production in class, and two other

interviewees did not do so. The other interviewee did not answer the three

questions in part two because this interviewee has been teaching simultaneous

interpreting only. In addition, among seven of the nine the respondents stated that

students’ interpretation should be shorter than the original, only three of whom

could provide specific time ratios: 70%, 80%, and 90% of the time of the original.

However, one respondent suggested that the students’ interpretation can take as

much as the original.

(5)

In the exams organized by their interpreter training institutes, such as GITI

and GITIS, students are also timed when taking the subject of consecutive

interpreting. Before Joint Professional Diploma Examination in Conference

Interpretation (JPDECI) co-organized by GITI and GITIS, time ratio was used as

a grading factor of professional exam organized by GITIS (Yang, 2000). However,

as mentioned before, is such a criterion relevant to audience’s expectation since an

interpreter’s job is to provide satisfactory service for audience? It is pivotal to

research audience’s expectations which should be incorporated in the evaluation

criteria of the joint professional exam.

4.2 Sample Profile

A total of 120 participants were invited to participate in the experiment, 30

for each group. All the participants are either college students or holders of a

higher education degree. In each group, 20 participants are students, and the other

10 non-students. The purpose of such an arrangement is to ensure an identical

pattern of participant profile in each group.

As for gender distribution, 40 are male, and 80 are female. In terms of

language proficiency, 111 participants indicated they had to 100% rely on

interpretation to understand the main ideas of the French speech, while nine

(6)

others could understand a small part of the French original but still needed to rely

on interpretation to understand the main ideas in the French speech. For the

Japanese speech, 102 participants indicated they had to 100% rely on

interpretation to understand the main ideas, while 18 others stated that they could

understand a small part of the original but still needed to rely on interpretation to

understand the main ideas.

The following charts are the breakdowns of gender distribution and profiles

of language proficiency of each group. (See Figure 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3)

Gender Distribution

Male

Male Female Female

Female

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

# of people

Male 10 7 18 5

Female 20 23 12 25

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Figure 4.1 Breakdowns by Gender Source: Compiled by this research

(7)

Language Proficiency Profile of French

29 27 28 27

1 3 2 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

# of people

100% Rely on Translation Mostly Rely on Translation

Figure 4.2 Profiles of Language Proficiency---French

Language Proficiency Profile of Japanese

24 23

27 28

6 7

3 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

# of people

100% Rely on Translation Mostly Rely on Translation

Figure 4.3 Profiles of Language Proficiency ---Japanese

4.3 Results

Of all the 120 participants, 42 participants are able to correctly identify the

length of interpretation (type A), while 56 indicate their evaluation is not subject

(8)

to the length of interpretation (type D). There are also 20 participants who

incorrectly identify the length while claiming that their evaluation is subject to the

length of interpretation (type B). Two others indicate they are unable to identify

the length of interpretation but still state that their evaluation is subject to the

length of interpretation (type C). Breakdown of the results is shown in Figure 4.4.

35%

17

35%

2% %

46% 46% A

B

D C

Figure 4.4 Breakdown of Overall Results

17%

2%

When the participants were asked to rate the overall quality of both

interpretations (Question One and Two), 30 out of the 120 participants (25%)

prefer the interpretation longer than its original, 29 (24.16%) assigned the same

score to both interpretations, and the rest 61 (50.84%) prefer the interpretation

shorter than the original.

Among type A participants, 33 (78%) of them prefer the interpretation that

takes less time than the original, seven (17%) prefer that takes more time, and the

other two (5%) rated both interpretations equal. (See Figure 4.5)

(9)

17%

5%

Rated Equal

Prefer Longer Translation

Prefer Shorter Translation

78%

Figure 4.5 Breakdown of Type A Participants’ Preferences 78%

Among type B participants, 12 out of 20 participants prefer interpretations

that take more time than the original, and the other eight participants prefer

otherwise. The breakdown of type B participants’ preferences is shown in Figure

4.6.

60%

40%

Prefer Translation Shorter

Than Original Prefer Translation Longer Than Original

Figure 4.6 Breakdown of Type B Participants’ Preferences

Among type C participants, one of the two participants prefers

interpretations longer than the original while the other one prefers otherwise. For

type D participants, their evaluation is not subject to the length of interpretation,

so there is not preference breakdown.

(10)

4.3.1 Group One ---Long French –Short Japanese

In Group One, 12 out of 30 participants (40%) correctly identify the length

of interpretation and indicate that their evaluation is subject to the length of

interpretation, five (16.66%) incorrectly identify the length of interpretation and

indicate their evaluation is subject to the length of interpretation, no one state that

they are unable to identify the length of interpretation, and 13 (43.33%) indicate

their evaluation is not subject to the length of interpretation. (See Table 4.3)

Table 4.3 Result of Group One

Correctly ID

Length of Interpretation

Incorrectly ID Length of Interpretation

Unable to ID Length of Interpretation Evaluation

Subject to Length of Interpretation

A = 12 (40%) B = 5 (16.66%) C = 0

Evaluation Not Subject to Length of Interpretation

D = 13 (43.33%)

Among type A participants, four prefer the Chinese interpretation from

French, six prefer that from Japanese, and two others rate both interpretations

equal. The distribution of type A participants’ preferences is shown in Figure 4.7.

(11)

0. 0% 14%

20%

6%

40%

43%

17%

Figure 4.7 Preference of Interpretation ---Type A Participants Source: Compiled by this research

Prefer Translation from French

Equal Prefer Translation from Japanese

C

B D

A

Among type B participants, two prefer the Chinese interpretation from

French, and three prefer that from Japanese. The distribution of type B

participants’ preferences is shown in Figure 4.8.

40%

0%

43%

7%

10%

17%

A D

C

B

Prefer Translation from Japanese Prefer Translation from French

Among type D participants, eight out of the 13 participants are able to Source: Compiled by this research

Figure 4.8 Preference of Interpretation---Type B Participants

(12)

correctly identify the length of interpretation, and the other five fail to do so. The

percentage distribution is shown in Figure 4.9.

17% 0%0%0%0%0%0%

27%

43% 17%

40%

C

Figure 4.9 Percentage of Correctly ID Length---Type D Participants

Incorrectly ID Length

B D

Correctly ID Length

A

Overall in Group One, 20 participants correctly identify the length of

interpretation, and the other 10 fail to do so. The percentage distribution is shown

in Figure 4.10.

Chart 4-10 Percentage of Correctly ID Length

67%

33%

ID Length Correctly Fail to ID Length

Figure 4.10 Percentage of Correctly ID Length---Group One Source: Compiled by this research

(13)

4.3.2 Group Two ---Long Japanese-Short French

In Group Two, 11 (36.66%) participants correctly identify the length of

interpretation and indicate that their evaluation is subject to the length of

interpretation, six (20%) incorrectly identify the length of interpretation and

indicate their evaluation is subject to the length of interpretation, one (3.33%)

state that he is unable to identify the length of interpretation, and 12 (20%)

indicate their evaluation is not subject to the length of interpretation, as shown in

Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Result of Group Two

Correctly ID

A = 11 (36.66%) B = 6 (20%) C = 1 (3.33%)

D = 12 (40%)

Among type A participants, all of the participants prefer the Chinese

interpretation from French. (see Figure 4.11 for the detailed breakdown)

(14)

Among type B participants, two prefer the Chinese interpretation from

French, and four prefer that from Japanese. (See Figure 4.12 for detailed

breakdown)

40%

7%

13%

3.33% 20%

36.66%

20%

40%

0%

36.66

%

3.33%

36.66%

A D

C B

A

Figure 4.11 Preference of Interpretation---Type A Participants

Prefer Translation from Japanese

C

D B

Among type C participants, only one participant indicates that s/he is unable

to identify the length of interpretation, but still states that the interpretation from

Japanese is preferred to that from French.

(15)

Among type D participants, eight out of 12 participants are able to correctly

identify the length of interpretation, and the other four fail to do so. (See Figure

4.13 for detailed breakdown)

20%

27%

40% 13%

36.66%

3.33%

Figure 4.13 Percentage of Correctly ID Length ---Type D Participants

Correctly ID Length

C B

A D

Overall in Group Two, 15 participants correctly identify the length of

interpretation, and the other 15 fail to do so. (See Figure 4.14 for detailed

breakdown)

50%

50% Correctly ID Length

Figure 4.14 Overall Percentage of Correctly ID Length---Group Two

(16)

4.3.3 Group Three ---Short French-Long Japanese

In Group Three, nine (30%) participants correctly identify the length of

interpretation, two (6.66%) incorrectly identify the length of interpretation and

indicate their evaluation is subject to the length of interpretation, one (3.33%)

state that he is unable to identify the length of interpretation, and 18 (60%)

indicate their evaluation is not subject to the length of interpretation. (see Table

4.5 for detailed breakdown)

Table 4.5 Result of Group Three

Correctly ID

A = 9 (30%) B = 2 (6.66%) C = 1 (3.33%)

D = 18 (60%)

Among type A participants, all of the nine participants suggest the Chinese

interpretation from French is superior to that from Japanese. (see Figure 4.15)

(17)

60%

30%

3.33%

6.66%

CB

D A

Figure 4.15 Preference of Interpretation---Type A Participants

Among type B participants, two incorrectly identify the length of

interpretation. One of them prefers the interpretation from French, and the

other one prefers that from Japanese. (see Figure 4.16 for detailed breakdown)

30%

3.33%

6.66%

3.33%

60%

Prefer Translation from Japanese Prefer Translation from French

D

C A

B

(18)

the

g type D participants, nine out of the 18 participants correctly identify

verall, in Group Three, 18 participants correctly identify the length of

inter

length of interpretation, indicates the interpretation from Japanese is

preferred.

Amon

the length of interpretation while the other nine fail to do so. (see Figure 4.17 for

detailed breakdown)

30%

60%

6.66%

3.33%

O

pretation, and other 12 fail to do so. (see Figure 4.18 for detailed breakdown)

60%

40%

Figure 4.18 Percentage of Correctly ID Length ---Group Three Source: Compiled by this research

Figure 4.17 Percentage of correc Participants Source: Compiled by this research

D B

C

Correctly ID Length

Correctly ID Length of Interpretation

A

tly ID Length---Type D

(19)

4.3.4 Group Four ---Short Japanese-Long French

In Group Four, ten (33.33%) participants correctly identify the length of

interpretation, s 33%) incorrectly identify the length of interpretation and

indicate their evaluation is subject to the length of interpretation, no one is unable

to identify the leng %) indicate their evaluation

is not subject to the length of interpretation. (see Table 4.6 for detailed

breakdown)

Table 4.6 Result of Group Four even (23.

th of interpretation, and 13 (43.33

Correctly ID

Unable to ID Length of Interpretation

Evaluation

Subject to Length of Interpretatio

A = 10 (33.33%) B = 7 (23.33%) C = 0 n

Evaluation Not S

of

ubject to Length Translation

D = 13 (43.33%)

Among

interpretation from

type A en of

F . (see

participants, sev the participants prefer the Chinese

rench, and the other three prefer that from Japanese

(20)

0% 10%

23%

33.33%

23.33%

33%

Among type B p , e of them prefer tation

from French, and the other two prefer that anese. (see Figure 4.20 for

detailed breakdown)

Among type D participants, eleven out of the 13 participants are able to

43.

articipants fiv the Chinese interpre

from Jap

0% 17%

7%

43.33%

23.33%

33.33%

D A

B

D

B C A

Prefer Translation

C

from French

10.33%

Figure 4.19 Preference of Interpretation---Type A Participants Source: Compiled by this research

Figure 4.20 Preference of Interpretation ---Type B Participants Source: Compiled by this research

(21)

correctly identify the length of interpretation, and the other two fail to do so. (see

Figure 4.21 for the detailed breakdown)

0%

0%0%

7%

37%

33.33%

23.33%

Overall in Group Four, 21 participants correctly identify the length of

interpretation, and the other nine fail. (see Figure 4.22 for the detailed breakdown)

43.33

%

30%

70%

ID Length Incorrectly

B C

Correctly ID Length

D A

ID Length Correctly

6.33%

Figure 4.21 Percentage of Correctly ID Length ---Type D Participants Source: Compiled by this research

Figure 4.22 Overall Percentage of Correctly ID Length Source: Compiled by this research