跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.201.99.222) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/12/09 14:28
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:陳品秀
研究生(外文):Ping-hsiu Chen
論文名稱:英中同步口譯之句末時間差與譯文精確性之關聯
論文名稱(外文):A Research on the Relationship between Tail-to-tail span and Quality in English to Chinese Simultaneous Interpreting
指導教授:范家銘范家銘引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chiaming (Damien) Fan
口試委員:汝明麗吳敏嘉
口試委員(外文):Elma Mingli JuMichelle Min-chia Wu
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:翻譯碩士學位學程
學門:人文學門
學類:翻譯學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2020
畢業學年度:108
語文別:英文
論文頁數:145
中文關鍵詞:同步口譯句末時間差聽譯時間差口譯品質
外文關鍵詞:Simultaneous interpretingtail-to-tail spanear-voice spanquality
DOI:10.6342/NTU202000181
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:115
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
同步口譯中之「同步性」(synchronicity) 係指原文與譯文發生之時間十分接近,近乎完全同步。但同步性可能因口譯員或情境而異,口譯員可能習慣於緊跟講者或刻意拉長距離,但也可能於特定情境下另做選擇。此一差異長久以來為口譯研究中的熱門主題,談討同步性或其與品質、語言方向、口譯員資歷等面向之關聯。同步性的具體探討乃透過原文與譯文間的「時間差」(time lag) 切入。過往研究多採取聽譯時間差 (ear-voice span) 為衡量時間差的方式,即量測原文開端與譯文開端間的時間差。2003年時,韓國學者Tae-hyung Lee提出另一種衡量時間差的方式:句末時間差 (tail-to-tail span) 。句末時間差以原文結尾與譯文結尾為時間差的量測點,乍看與聽譯時間差似乎十分雷同,然而兩者間卻有儘管細微但仍值得細究之差異, Lee認為應在研究上予以區別和重視。兩種時間差最關鍵之區別為,口譯員對於聽譯時間差較有自行掌控之可能,而句末時間差則相對受限。其次,譯者對於聽譯時間差長短可能各有偏好,或偏好較短的時間差以求降低記憶負擔,或選擇較長時間差以求理解更完整;相較之下,少有口譯員會選擇拉長句末時間差,因為句末時間差過長可能會犧牲原可用於理解和處理下一句原文的心力,在無法預知下一句原文難易輕重時,維持較短的句末時間差是較佳之策。本研究承襲Lee對句末時間差的研究,探討句末時間差與口譯品質間的關係,分析兩百餘組句子中句末時間差與下一句之口譯品質間的關係。本研究的核心假設為:某句句末時間差長短與下一句之口譯品質呈現反向關係,即某句譯文之句末時間差愈長,下一句之品質愈差;句末時間差愈短,下一句之品質則愈好。研究結果發現,整體而言,句末時間差短的譯文平均獲得較高分的口譯品質分數,且平均句末時間差較短的受試者獲得之平均口譯分數也較高。在部分受試者身上也發現同一位受試者不同句的口譯品質也會受到句末時間差長短的影響。
Synchronicity is a key factor in simultaneous interpreting (SI). While it is a basic element in SI, the level of synchronicity still varies by interpreting practitioner and by context sometimes. Synchronicity has long been the topic of much interest in the field of interpreting research. Past studies have looked at synchronicity itself and its relationship with such aspects as quality, directionality and experience. Most studies measure synchronicity through “ear-voice span”, the time that elapses between the onset of the source speech and the onset of the corresponding target speech. In 2003, researcher Tae-hyung Lee proposed a new parameter for measuring synchronicity – tail-to-tail span, the time that elapses between the end of a source speech sentence and the end of the corresponding target speech sentence. Though tail-to-tail span appears to be highly similar with ear-voice span, crucial differences exist. The main difference involves the manipulation of span length. While ear-voice span can be extended or shortened through adjusting the length of interpreter’s pause between sentences and for such purposes as better comprehension or lighter memory load, shortening tail-to-tail span requires more effort, and there is little rationale for extending one’s tail-to-tail span, as processing of the upcoming sentence could be at stake. This research follows Lee’s footstep in exploring the relationship between tail-to-tail span and interpreting quality, and conducts an experiment to examine the relationship between a sentence’s tail-to-tail span and the next sentence’s interpreting quality. The research hypothesizes that tail-to-tail span length and interpreting quality are negatively correlated. Results based on over 200 sentences show that the hypothesis holds true not just for the experiment data as a whole, but also for inter-participant comparison (i.e. participants with shorter TTS tend to have better quality), and in certain cases, for intra-participant comparison (i.e. the same participant produces renditions of better quality when TTS is shorter).
I. Introduction 11
II. Literature Review 16
2.1 Simultaneous interpretation and synchronicity 16
2.2 Time lag and working memory 19
2.2 EVS and factors influencing EVS length 22
2.2.1 Language pair & syntactic differences 23
2.2.2 Speech rate 25
2.2.3 Idiosyncratic preferences & other factors 26
2.3 Tail-to-tail span 28
2.3.1 Factors influencing TTS length 34
2.3.2 The influence of TTS length on SI quality 37
2.4 EVS and TTS 37
2.5 Research question and rationale 38
III. Methods 42
3.1 General Methods of the Experiment 42
3.2 Subjects 42
3.3 Material 43
3.3.1 Overview of the Material 43
3.3.2 The Design of Critical Sentence sets 44
3.3.3 Information Density 45
3.3.3 Recording of the Material 50
3.4 Procedures 50
3.5 TTS Measurement 52
3.6 Rating of Interpretation Quality 56
3.6.1 Critical Unit Score 58
3.6.2 The First Seven Seconds Score and the Second Seven Seconds Score 59
IV. Results 62
4.1 General Analysis 63
4.1.1 TTS and critical unit score 64
4.1.2 TTS and the 0-7th second score 70
4.1.2 TTS and the quality score for 8-14th second 73
4.1.4 Summary of the general analysis 77
4.2 Inter-participant Analyses 77
4.2.1 TTS and critical unit score 81
4.2.2 TTS and the quality score for 0-7th second 82
4.2.3 TTS and the quality score for 8-14th second 84
4.2.4 Summary of Inter-participant Analysis 86
4.3 Intra-participant Analysis 87
4.3.1 TTS and critical unit score 87
4.3.2 TTS and 0-7th second quality score 88
4.3.2 TTS and 8-14th second quality score 89
4.3.4 Summary of Intra-participant Analyses 91
V. Discussion 93
5.1 Comparing the results of the present study with Lee’s 2003 study 93
5.2 The effects of TTS on SI quality 94
5.3 Factors influencing TTS length 101
5.3.1 Imported TTS & EVS 102
5.3.1.1 0-7th second 104
5.3.1.2 8-14th second 109
5.3.1.3 Critical unit score 112
5.3.2 Speech rate 114
5.3.3 Succinctness 117
5.4 TTS and performance variance within participants 120
5.5 Conclusion 125
VI. Conclusion 126
VII. References 130
VIII Appendix 134
8.1 Experiment material 134
8.2 TTS and quality scores 139
Ahrens, B. (2005). Analysing prosody in simultaneous interpreting: Difficulties and solutions. Retrieved from CiteSeerX: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.667.2016&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Al-Khanji, R., El-Shiyab, S., & Hussein, R. (2000). On the Use of Compensatory Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting. Meta, 548-557.
Amini, M., Ibrahim-González, N., Ayob, L., & Amini, D. (2015). Users'' Quality Expectations in Conference Interpreting. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 1-17.
Barik, H. (1973). Simultaneous Interpretation: Temporal and Quantitative Data. Language and Speech, 237-270.
Bovair, S., & Kieras, D. (1985). A Guide to Propositional Analysis for Research on Technical Prose. University of Arizona.
Cecot, M. (2001). Pauses in Simultaneous Interpretation: A Contrastive Analysis of Professional Interpreter''s Performances. The Interpreter''s Newsletter, 63-85.
Chang, A. L. (2009). Ear-Voice-Span and Target Language Rendition in Chinese to English Simultaneous Interpretation. Studies of Translation and Interpretation,, 177-217.
Chang, C.-c. (2005). Impact of Directionality in Chinese/English Simultaneous Interpreting: Impact on Performance and Strategy Use. The University of Texas at Austin.
Chang, C.-c., & Schallert, D. L. (2007). The impact of directionality on Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 137-176.
Chen, C.-h. N. (2012). Ear-voice Span and Performance in English to Chinese Simultaneous Interpretation.
Chong, S. (2009). Chinese Translation and Interpretation: An Overview. Chinese Translator: S. Chong.
Crookes, G. (1990). The Utterance, and Other Basic Units for Second Language Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics, 183–199.
Crossley, S. A., Allen, D. B., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language , 84-101.
Díaz-Galaz, S. (2012). La influencia del conocimiento previo en la interpretacion simultanea de discursos especializados: Un estudio empirico.
Diaz-Galaz, S., Padilla, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2015). The role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting: A comparison of professional interpreters and interpreting students. Interpreting, 1-25.
Ding, Y. (2015). The Effect of Domain Knowledge on Consecutive Interprering Performance. University of Auckland.
Ding, Y. L. (2017). Using Propositional Analysis to Assess Interpreting Quality. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 17-39.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. John Benjamins.
Giles, D. (2008). Local Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting and its Implications for Empirical Research. Forum, 59-77.
Greene, A., & Turner, E. (1977). The construction and use of a propositional text base. University of Colorado.
Gumul, E., & Lyda, A. (2007). The time constraint in conference interpreting: simultaneous vs. consecutive. Research in Language, 5, 165-183.
Kirchhoff, H. (1976). Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdependence of Variables in the Interpreting Process, Interpreting Models and Interpreting Strategies. In F. Pöchhacker, & M. Shlesinger, The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 110-119). London and New York: Routledge.
Kraviarová, Z. (2013). Assessing Source Speech Difficulty for Research Purposes. Forum, 51-75.
Kriston, A. (2012). The Importance of Memory Training in Simultaneous Interpretation. Professional Communication and Translation Studeis, 79-86.
Kurz, I. (2001). Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User. Meta, 394-409.
Lee, T.-h. (1999). Speech Proportion and Accuracy in Simultaneous Interpretation from English to Korean. Meta, 260-267.
Lee, T.-h. (2002). Ear Voice Span in English into Korean Simultaneous Interpretation. Meta, 596-606.
Lee, T.-h. (2003). Tail-to-tail Span: A New Variable in Conference Interpreting Research. Forum, 41-62.
Li, J. (2013). An empirical study into categorisation and cause of omission in simultaneous interpreting. POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY.
Lian, X. (2015). The Influence of Cultural Differences on English-Chinese Interpreting. Contemporary English Teaching and Learning in Non-English-Speaking Countries, 1-23.
Liu, M. (2001). Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Working Memory Analysis.
Liu, M., & Chiu, Y.-h. (2009). Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 244-266.
Liu, M., Schallert, D. L., & Caroll, P. J. (2004). Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting. Interpreting, 19-42.
Macías, M. P. (2006). Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency. Interpreting.
Moser, P., & AIIC. (1995). Survey on Expectation of Users of Conference Interpretation. Vienna: AIIC.
Ono, T., Tohyama, H., & Matsubara, S. (2008). Construction and Analysis of Word-level Time-aligned Simultaneous Interpretation Corpus. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Paris: ELRA.
Pio, S. (2003). The Relation Between ST Delivery Rate and Quality in Simultaneous Interpreting. Retrieved from The Interpreter''s Newsletter: https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/2475/1/04.pdf
Pym, A. (2008). On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman, & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogas, Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 83-105). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Repovs, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The multi-component model of working memory: explorations in experimental cognitive psychology. Neuroscience, 5-21.
Seeber, K. G. (2013). Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Measures and Methods. Target, 25(1), 18-32.
Seeber, K. G. (2015). Simultaneous Interpreting. In H. Mikkelson, & R. Jourdenais, Routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 79-95). Taylor and Francis.
Shlesinger, M. (2000). Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How Can We Know What Really Happens. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit, & R. Jääskeläinen, Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research (pp. 3-15). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Timarová, Š., Dragsted, B., & Hansen, I. G. (2011). Time lag in translation and interpreting: A methodological exploration. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiseliu (Eds.), Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies (pp. 121-146). John Benjamins Publishing.
Tóth, A. (2011). Speech disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: A mirror on cognitive processes. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation.
Wang, B., & Tao, L. (2015). An Empirical Study of PAuses in Chinese-English Simultaneous Interpreting. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 124-142.
Wu, S.-c., Liu, M., & Chang, C.-c. (2008). Interpretation Evaluation Practices: Comparison of Eleven Schools in Taiwan, China, Britain and the USA. Compilation and Translation Review, 1-42.
Yagi, S. M. (2000). Studying Style in Simultaneous Interpretation. Meta, 520-547.
Yeh, S.-p. (2015). 口譯錯誤之辨認與分類 . National Taiwan Normal University.
Zamanian, M., & Heydari, P. (2012). Readability of Texts: State of the Art. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 43-53.
Zheng, W. (2014). The Principle Of Brevity in Simultaneous Interpreting. 2nd International Conference on Education, Management and Social Science (ICEMSS 2014), (pp. 136-138).
Zwischenberger, C. (2010). Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: an internaional vs. a national view.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊