(34.204.201.220) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/19 17:06
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:安娜
研究生(外文):Anna Rekhovskaya
論文名稱:混合語言口譯訓練學生逐步口譯筆記語言使用之選擇
論文名稱(外文):Language Choice in Consecutive Interpretation Note-taking for Mixed-language Interpreter Training
指導教授:陳聖傑陳聖傑引用關係
指導教授(外文):Sheng-Jie Chen
口試委員:陳聖傑
口試日期:2012-05-28
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣科技大學
系所名稱:應用外語系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:108
中文關鍵詞:逐步口譯筆記語言
外文關鍵詞:Note-takingconsecutive interpretation
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:268
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:49
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
ABSTRACT
Whether interpreters’ notes should be taken in the source language (SL) or the target language (TL) during consecutive interpreting note-taking remains a controversial issue and this issue lies at the heart of this study. This study attempts to answer the following research questions: (1) Do the participants use SL or TL in CI note-taking?; (2) Do the participants use English exclusively as one possible option in their language choice?; (3) Do the participants use their A-language (native language) or B-language (foreign language)?; and (4) What are the participants’ perceptions governing their language choice in CI note-taking?
Data was collected from quantitative and qualitative analysis of participants’ note language choices based on their consecutive interpretation note-taking sheets, post-implementation questionnaire, and semi-structured open-ended interviews. Three Russian, three Taiwanese, and two Indonesian students participated in the study. Traditional categories of SL, TL and two categories of A and B-language as proposed by Dam (2004b) were applied to investigate the students’ preferences regarding the choice of language in note-taking.
The results of the study showed that participants prefer to use SL in consecutive interpreting note-taking regardless of the interpreting direction. Notes taken in TL within-and-between subject analysis are only 14%; whereas, notes taken in SL are 85.7% for all word-based notes. For notes taken in A and B-languages, the SL ranges between 73.3% (A=SL) and 92.7% (B=SL) in the final results. English as an alternative choice for note-taking was found to be strong in English into A-language interpretation, which took up 93.4% percent; but was found to be weak, 6%, in A-language into English interpretation. Furthermore, participants claimed that the choice of language in CI note-taking more likely depends on personal English proficiency and note-taking skills. Thus, more training on note-taking in consecutive interpretation for further self-development is needed.
ABSTRACT
Whether interpreters’ notes should be taken in the source language (SL) or the target language (TL) during consecutive interpreting note-taking remains a controversial issue and this issue lies at the heart of this study. This study attempts to answer the following research questions: (1) Do the participants use SL or TL in CI note-taking?; (2) Do the participants use English exclusively as one possible option in their language choice?; (3) Do the participants use their A-language (native language) or B-language (foreign language)?; and (4) What are the participants’ perceptions governing their language choice in CI note-taking?
Data was collected from quantitative and qualitative analysis of participants’ note language choices based on their consecutive interpretation note-taking sheets, post-implementation questionnaire, and semi-structured open-ended interviews. Three Russian, three Taiwanese, and two Indonesian students participated in the study. Traditional categories of SL, TL and two categories of A and B-language as proposed by Dam (2004b) were applied to investigate the students’ preferences regarding the choice of language in note-taking.
The results of the study showed that participants prefer to use SL in consecutive interpreting note-taking regardless of the interpreting direction. Notes taken in TL within-and-between subject analysis are only 14%; whereas, notes taken in SL are 85.7% for all word-based notes. For notes taken in A and B-languages, the SL ranges between 73.3% (A=SL) and 92.7% (B=SL) in the final results. English as an alternative choice for note-taking was found to be strong in English into A-language interpretation, which took up 93.4% percent; but was found to be weak, 6%, in A-language into English interpretation. Furthermore, participants claimed that the choice of language in CI note-taking more likely depends on personal English proficiency and note-taking skills. Thus, more training on note-taking in consecutive interpretation for further self-development is needed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT (English)………………………………………………………………………..ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………………...iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………iv
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………….vii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………...viii
LIST OF APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………….ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………1
1.1. Background of the Study…………………………………………………………......1
1.2. Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………….2
1.3. Research Questions…………………………………………………………………...3
1.4. Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………..3
1.5. Definition of Special Terms…………………………………………………………..4
1.6. Structure of the Thesis………………………………………………………………..5

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW...…………………………………………....7
2.1. Note-taking Process Constituents…………………………………………………….7
2.2. Choice between Language and Non-Language Codes in CI Note-taking……………8
2.2.1. Note-taking Economy…………………………………………………………….8
2.2.2. Language-independent Note-Taking……………………………………………..9
2.2.3. Language-dependent Note-Taking……………………………………………...11
2.2.4. Code Switching in CI Note-Taking……………………………………………...12
2.3. History of Research on Interpreter’s Notes…………………………………………14
2.4. Choice between TL and SL in CI note-taking………………………………………16
2.4.1. Research for TL Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting……………………...16
2.4.2. Choice for A-language in CI Note-taking………………………………………19
2.4.3. Choice for English Language in CI Note-taking………………………………..21
2.4.4. Research on SL note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting……………………….22
2.4.5. Mixed language use in CI Note-taking………………………………………….25
2.4.6. Summary of Language Choice in CI Note-taking………………………………27
2.5. Relevance of the Study…………….………………………………………………..28
2.6. Summary of Literature Review……………………………………………………...29
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ………………………………………………...30
3.1. Research Design …………………………………………………………………….30
3.2. Participants…………………………………………………………………………..31
3.3. Instruments …………………………………………………………………………33
3.3.1. Pre-implementation Questionnaire……………………………………………..34
3.3.2. Post-implementation Questionnaire…………………………………………….34
3.3.3. Audio Text in English…………………………………………………………...34
3.3.4. Audio-video Texts in Indonesian, Chinese, Russian……………………………34
3.3.5. Semi-structured Open-Ended Interview………………………………………...35
3.4. Research Procedures………………………………………………………………...35
3.5. Data Collection Procedures…………………………………………………………36
3.5.1. Pre-implementation Questionnaire……………………………………………..38
3.5.2. B-language into A-language CI Note-taking…………………………………...38
3.5.3. A-language into B-language CI Note-taking…………………………………...38
3.5.4. Post-implementation Questionnaire…………………………………………….38
3.5.5. Semi-structured Open-Ended Interview………………………………………...38
3.6. Data Analysis Procedures…………………………………………………………...39
3.6.1. Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………..39

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS……………………………………41
4.1. Results of Note-sheet Analysis from English into A-language CI …………………41
4.2. Results of Note-sheet Analysis from A-language into English CI………………….42
4.2.1. SL into TL Interpreting (Russian → English)…………………………………42
4.2.2. SL into TL Interpreting (Chinese → English)…………………………………43
4.2.3. SL into TL Interpreting (Indonesian → English)……………………………...44
4.2.4. Overall Notes Distribution from A – into – B-language CI…………………….45
4.3. Overall Notes Distribution Results………………………………………………….46
4.4. Choice Between A and B-language…………………………………………………48
4.5. Results of Questionnaire Analysis…………………………………………………..51
4.5.1. Language Usually Used During CI Note-taking………………………………..52
4.5.2. SL Use in Note-taking Activity………………………………………………….52
4.5.3. TL Use in Note-taking Activity………………………………………………….53
4.5.4. To take notes in English, as the SL is Easier than in A-language in CI Note-taking…………………………………………………………………………….54
4.5.5. To take notes in English, as the TL is Easier than in A-language in CI Note-taking…………………………………………………………………………….55
4.5.6. SL Note-taking is More Time-saving in CI Note-taking………………………..55
4.5.7. TL Note-taking Takes Less Time and Energy for Speech Production………….56
4.6. Interview Results……………………………………………………………………57
4.6.1. Factors Influence Language Choice in CI Note-taking………………………...58
4.6.2. Preferences for Notes in SL: “Ease” Factor…………………………………...60
4.6.3. Preferences for Notes in SL: Other Factors ……..…………………………….62
4.6.4. TL Note-taking Process Disadvantages………………………………………...63
4.6.5. Combination of SL and TL in CI Note-taking…………………………………..65
4.6.6. Note-taking in English as Universal Language………………………………...67
4.6.7. Density of Chinese Characters…………………………………………………69
4.6.8. Idea in SL Note-taking………………………………………………………….71
4.6.9. Factors Influence Language Switching in CI Note-taking……………………..73

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………...77
5.1. Discussion of Research Questions……………………………………………………….77
5.2. Implications for Pedagogy ………………………………………………………………79
5.3. Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………………80
5.4. Future Research Suggestions…………………………………………………………….80
5.5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….81

REFERENCES………..…………………………………………………………………….82
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………89
REFERENCES
AIIC (1994). Interpreter Training Workshop. Poznan, 8-10 April: Genève: AIIC.
Albl-Mikasa, M. (2008). (Non-) Sense in note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 10(2), 197-231.
Albl-Mikasa, M. (2010). Global English and English as Lingua Franca (ELF): Implications for the interpreting profession. Tans-kom, 3(2), 126-148.
Alexieva, B. (1993). On teaching note-taking in consecutive interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2 (pp. 199-206). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Al-Rubai'i, A. M. H. A. (2009). Instructing novice consecutive interpreters. Steps to improve the performance of memory. Babel, 55(4), 329-344.
Anderson, G. J. (1998). Fundamentals of educational research (2nd ed.). London: New York Falmer.
B Language. (n.d.). AIIC's Conference Interpretation Glossary. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://www.aiic.net/glossary/default.cfm?ID=49
Bao, H. (2010). A Tale of Two Pictures: an AIIC Training of Trainers Seminar. Retrieved June, 2, 2011, from http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm?page_id=3463
Beglar, D., Murray, N. (2002). Contemporary topics 3: advanced listening and note-taking skills (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Błaszczyk, P., Hanusiak, D. (2010). The choice of language for note-taking for consecutive interpreting: a polish perspective. Paper presented at the MikaEL ― Electronic proceedings of the KäTu Symposium on Translation and Interpreting Studies.
Bogdan, R. C., Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Chen, S. J. (16-18, June 2010). Applying the Blackboard Learning System to a Mixed-language Interpreter Training Course: a Taiwan Case Study.
Chen, S. J. (1999). Teaching and learning in non-language-specific interpreter training course. University of Texas, Austin.
Cheng, Y. P. (1994). Consecutive interpretation: How to use your symbols intelligently In R. K. Seymour & C.C. Liu (Eds.), Translation and interpreting: bridging east and west. Selected conference papers (Vol. 8, pp.11-17). Hawaii, Manoa: University of Hawaii Press
Chuang, L. L. (2008). Note-taking know how: A processing perspective on consecutive interpreting. Spectrum: Studies in Language, Literature, Translation and Interpretation, 2, 93-101.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Dalton, R. (1975). Note-taking. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Dam, H. V. (1996). Text condensation in consecutive interpreting - summary of PhD dissertation. Hermes, 17, 273-281.
Dam, H. V. (2004a). Interpreters' notes: On the choice of form and language. In G. Hansen, K.Malmkjær & D.Gile, (Eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in Translation Studies (pp. 251-261). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dam, H. V. (2004b). Interpreters' notes. On the choice of language. Interpreting, 6(1), 3-17.
Dam, H. V. (2007). What makes interpreters' notes efficient? Features of (non-)efficiency in interpreters' notes for consecutive. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger & R. Stolze (Eds.), Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Lisbon 2004 (pp. 183-198). Lisbon: John Benjamins.
Dam, H. V., Engberg, J., & Schjoldager, A. (2005). Modeling semantic networks on source and target texts in consecutive interpreting: A contribution to the study of interpreters' notes. In H. V. Dam, J. Endberg & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Ed.), Knowledge Systems and Translation (pp. 227-254). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. New York, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dunkel, P., Pialorsi, F. (1982). Advanced listening comprehension: developing listening and note-taking skills. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative Research in Education: Interaction in Education. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Paris: INALCO and ISIT.
Gile, D. (2002). Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Managment Problem. In F. Pochhaker, M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreter Studies Reader (pp. 162-176). London and New York: Routledge.
Gillies, A. (2005). Note-taking for consecutive interpreting - a short course. Manchester, U.K., Northampton, MA: St. Jerome.
Glossary of Translation and Interpreting Terminology. (n.d.). ATC Language Translation. Retrieved May, 2011, from http://www.ats-group.net/translation/target_text.html
Hale, S. B. (2007). Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Henderson, J. A. (1987). Note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Babel, 22(3), 107-116.
Hong-Nanh, P. (2006). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting. Hanoi University of Foreign Studies, Hanoi.
Hönig, H. G. (1997). Using text mappings in teaching consecutive interpreting. Machine translation and translation theory.
Johnson, B., Christensen, L. (n.d). Educational Research. Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Approaches, from Retrieved from http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/lectures/lec6.htm
Jones, R. (1998). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: a guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, U.K; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Katayama, A. D. (1997). Getting Students Involved in Note Taking: Why Partial Notes Benefit Learners More Than Complete Notes.
Kisslinger, E. (2002). Contemporary topics 2: high intermediate listening and note-taking skills (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Lang, Z. G. (n.d). Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting [Video file]. Retrieved from Interpreter Training Resource http://www.emcinterpreting.org/resources/module1.php
Lebauer, R. S. (1988). Learn to listen: listen to learn: an advanced ESL lecture comprehension and note-taking textbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lederer, M. (2003). Translation. The interpretive model. Manchester: St, Jerome Publishing.
Lee, P. C. (2000). A study of note-taking in consecutive interpretation - students' learning behavior. Unpublished MA Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Lin, Y. H. (2007). The sounds of Chinese. Cambridge, UK; New-York: Cambridge University Press.
Longley, P. (1978). An integrated programme for training interpreters. In D. Gerver & H.W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication NATO Symposium on Language Interpretation and Communication, Giorgio Cini foundation, 1997 (pp. 45-56). New York: Plenum Press.
Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. Module 1 Qualitative Research Methods Overview. Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide, 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.fhi.org/NR/rdonlyres/etl7vogszehu5s4stpzb3tyqlpp7rojv4waq37elpbyei3tgmc4ty6dunbccfzxtaj2rvbaubzmz4f/overview1.pdf
Mahmoodzadeh, K. (1992). Consecutive interpreting: its principles and techniques. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Makany, T., Kemp, J., & Dror, I. E. (2009). Optimizing the Use of Note-Taking as an External Cognitive Aid for Increasing Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 619-635.
McWhorter, K. T. (2006). Study and critical thinking skills in college (6th ed.). New York: Pearson, Longman.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & Mcbrewster, J (2010). Source Text. Retrieved from http://ru.chocobid.com/lot/899001/view/Source+Text
Nolan, J. (2005). Interpretation. Techniques and exercises. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Patrie, C. J. (2004). Consecutive Interpreting from English. San Diego, California: Dawn Sign Press.
Phelan, M. (2001). Topics on translation. The interpreter’s resource. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters.
Radtke, O. L. (2007). Chinglish: found in translation (1st ed.). Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, Publisher.
Roguski, C., Palmberg, E. (1990). Academic mini-lectures: a text for listening and note-taking practice. New York, NY: Maxwell Macmillan International Pub. Group.
Rozan, J. F. (1956). La prise de notes en interpre?Vtation conse?Vcutive. Gene?Vve: Georg.
Rozan, J. F. (n.d.). Seven principles of note-taking. Interpreter Training Resource. Retrieved March, 30, 2011, from http://interpreters.free.fr/consecnotes/rozan7principles.doc
Schweda Nicholson, N. (1990). Consecutive note-taking for community interpretation. In D. Bowen & M. Bowen (Eds.), Interpreting - Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Vol. IV, pp. 136-145). New-York: State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamton, Center for Research in Translation.
Schweda-Nicholson, N. (1985). Consecutive interpreting training: Videotapes in the classroom. Meta: Translators' Journal, 30(2), 148-154.
Seleskovitch, D. (2002). Language and memory (J. Harmer, Trans.). In F. Pochhaker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreter Studies Reader (pp. 120-129). London, New York: Routledge.
Solorzano, H., Frazier, L. (2002). Contemporary topics 1: intermediate listening and note-taking skills (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Sorvali, I. (1996). Translation studies in a new perspective. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris, Wein: Peter Lang.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case Studies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Szabó, C. (2006). Language choice in note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting. Interpreting, 8(2), 129-147.
Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Taylor-Bouladon, V. (2006). Conference Interpreting, Principles and Practice (2nd ed.). Van Beuningen, Rotterdam: BookSurge, LLC.
Taylor-Powell, E., & Renner, M. (2003). Analyzing qualitative data. Retrieved from http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/G3658-12.pdf
Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative & quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Tsai-Fu, T., & Wu, Y. (2010). Effects of Note-Taking Instruction and Note-Taking Languages on College EFL Students' Listening Comprehension. New Horizons in Education, 58(1), 120-132.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Бурляй, C. A. (2005). Французский язык. Устный перевод. Переводческая запись Mосква: Р.Валент.
陳萬雄. (Ed.). (2009) 現代漢語詞典 (繁體字版) (9th ed.).香港:商務印書館(香港)有限公司
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔