國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	高毓鎂 Kao, Yu-mei
論文名稱：	外國英文口音對專業及學生口譯員辨識度及理解力之影響 A Comparison of Expert and Trainee Interpreters’ Intelligibility and Comprehension of Foreign-accented Speech
指導教授：	陳子瑋 Chen, Tze-Wei
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	翻譯研究所 Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	96
中文關鍵詞：	外國口音、辨識度、理解力、專業及學生口譯員
英文關鍵詞：	Foreign Accent, Intelligibility, Comprehension, Expert and Trainee Interpreters
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：188 下載：23
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在探討及比較專業與學生譯者對於有外國口音的英語談話之辨識度（intelligibility）及理解力(comprehensibility)異同。研究對象為5名專業譯者與10名學生譯者，針對美國口音與西班牙口音之講者發言進行跟述，並於跟述後接受理解力測驗及回溯訪談。數量與質性分析結果發現：(1) 兩組譯者因外國口音而造成的談話辨識度下降程度並無顯著差異。(2) 專業譯者在有外國口音時之理解力及產出均明顯表現優於學生譯者。(3) 據訪談資料顯示，專業譯者較能因應不同情況有效調整氣力分配及運用口譯技巧。(4) 此一差異性應係主要源自於專業譯者豐富實務經驗之累積。根據研究結果，在口譯技能習得上，學生譯者應有系統的因應不同口譯情境挑戰，有效整合及運用所學之口譯技巧。此外，口譯學校可促進專業及學生譯者之對話交流，以增進學生譯者對口譯工作實務之瞭解及所應具備及強化之技能。

This study investigates professional and trainee interpreters' intelligibility and comprehension of foreign-accented English speech in a simultaneous-interpreting like mode. Five professional interpreters (Group P) and ten trainee interpreters (Group T) who are Chinese A and English B were invited to perform shadowing tasks of three different source texts delivered by a native English (American) and nonnative English (Spanish) speaker. After the shadowing tasks, comprehension tests and retrospective interviews were conducted to verify participants' comprehension of the speech and elicit their perceptions of the process during the shadowing tasks and general comments on shadowing/interpreting for foreign-accented English speakers. The results of quantitative and qualitative analysis reveal that: a) Statistically speaking, trainees and professionals do not differ significantly in their intelligibility of a foreign-accented input. b) However, Group P performs significantly better than Group T in terms of comprehension and production under a foreign-accented speaker. c) According to retrospective interview results, Group P is more at ease with their effort management and can still efficiently utilize their interpreting skills despite encountering challenges. d) This difference may be mainly due to the accumulation of expert interpreters’ years of real work experiences. The results in this study suggest that trainee interpreters should engage in deliberate practice of coordinating their interpreting skills to meet different interpreting challenges, with foreign-accentedness being one of the problem triggers. Furthermore, schools of interpreting can facilitate more expert-novice dialogues to enable students to gain more knowledge and understanding of the actual working situation. This can also give them a better idea of which skills and competences they should focus on during their interpreting training.

Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review ..................................................................................... 4
1 Defining the constructs of this study .................................................................... 4
1.1 Accent and intelligibility .......................................................................................... 4
1.1.1 Accent ............................................................................................................... 4
1.1.2 Intelligibility ..................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Listening comprehension .......................................................................................... 6
1.2.1 Comprehension in Simultaneous Interpreting .................................................. 8
1.2.2 Working Memory Capacity .............................................................................. 8
2 The relationship between accent, intelligibility and comprehension ................... 9
2.1 The inter-relations of intelligibility and comprehension in the context of accented speech ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Factors influencing intelligibility and comprehension in accented speech ............ 10
3 Differences between Expert and Novice Performance ...................................... 11
3.1Expertise acquisition ............................................................................................... 11
3.2 Expertise performance on comprehension and output in interpreting .................... 12
4 Research Question .............................................................................................. 14
Chapter 3 Research methodology............................................................................. 17
1 Participants ......................................................................................................... 17
2 Materials ............................................................................................................. 18
2.1 Speakers .................................................................................................................. 18
2.2 Speech text Preparation .......................................................................................... 19
2.2.1 Single Words .................................................................................................. 19
2.2.2 Strings of Words ............................................................................................. 20
2.2.3 Speech Transcripts ......................................................................................... 21
2.3 Recordings of the Stimulus Materials .................................................................... 21
3 Procedures .......................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Research Methods .................................................................................................. 22
3.1.1 “Smart” Shadowing ........................................................................................ 22
3.1.2 Comprehension tests ....................................................................................... 23
3.1.3 Retrospective interviews ................................................................................ 24
3.2 Instructions ............................................................................................................. 25
3.2.1 Shadowing ...................................................................................................... 25
3.2.1.1 Single words ............................................................................................ 26
3.2.1.2 Strings of Words ..................................................................................... 26
3.2.1.3 Speeches .................................................................................................. 27
3.2.2 Retrospective Interview .................................................................................. 27
3.3 Data Entry ............................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 4 Findings .................................................................................................... 30
1 Quantitative findings .......................................................................................... 30
1.1 Intelligibility and Meaning Unit scores .................................................................. 30
1.2 Comprehension test ................................................................................................ 36
2 Retrospective interviews .................................................................................... 39
2.1 Findings of Interview Results ................................................................................. 40
2.1.1 Intelligibility, comprehension and processing output ..................................... 40
2.1.2 Phonological variations that interfered with intelligibility ............................. 42
2.1.3 Survival Skills ................................................................................................ 44
2.1.3.1 Coping Strategies .................................................................................... 44
2.1.3.2 Comprehension skills: Anticipation and contextual clues ...................... 45
2.1.4 Effort management ......................................................................................... 47
2.1.5 Attitudes toward the Task ............................................................................... 48
Chapter 5 Discussion ................................................................................................. 51
1 Discussion on Shadowing and Comprehension Test results .............................. 51
3 Discussion of Retrospective Interview Results .................................................. 52
3.1 The implications of “smart shadowing” ................................................................. 52
3.2 Comprehension Skills: Anticipation and Contextual Clues............................... 56
3.3 Effort Management ................................................................................................. 59
3.4 Attitudes toward the task ........................................................................................ 61
4 Pedagogical implications of this study ............................................................... 62
Chapter 6 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 65
1 Summary of the Study ........................................................................................ 65
2 Limits of Current Study...................................................................................... 67
3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 69
Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 70
Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix i: Materials ............................................................................................... 76
Task 1. Single Words ...................................................................................................... 76
Task 2: Strings of Words ................................................................................................. 79
Task 3 Speeches .............................................................................................................. 81
Speech 1: What should government do to make people happier? .............................. 81
Speech 2: The link between creativity and mental illnesses ...................................... 82
Appendix ii: Sample of Speech Shadowing Transcript ........................................... 83
Appendix iii: Descriptive results of Task 3-Speeches ............................................. 87
Appendix IV: Descriptive results of Comprehension Tests ..................................... 89

                                

Albl-Mikasa. (2010). Global English and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF): Implications for the Interpreting Profession. Trans-kom, 3(2), 126-148
Anderson-Hsieh J., Johnson R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgements of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42(4), 529-555.
Bajo, M. T., Padilla, F., & Padilla, P. (2000). Comprehension processes in simultaneous interpreting. In A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo, & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Translation in context (pp. 127–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Bajo M. T., Padilla P., Munoz R., Padilla F., Gomez C., Puerta M. C., Gonzalvo P., Macizo P. (2001). Comprehension and memory processes in translation and interpreting. Quaderns. Revista de traducciò. 6, 27-31.
Christoffels I. K. and De Groot A. M. B. (2004) Components of simultaneous interpreting: Comparing interpreting with shadowing and paraphrasing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(3), 227-240.
Christoffels I. K. and De Groot A. M. B. (2005) Simultaneous Interpreting: A Cognitive Perspective. In Kroll J. E. & De Groot A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 454-479). New York: Oxford University Press.
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 1-16.
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42(4), 476-490.
71
Derwing, T. & Rossiter, M. (2002). ESL learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. System, 30(2), 155-166.
Dillinger, M. (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t?. In S. Lambert, & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 155–189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performanc: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games (pp. 1-50). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ericsson, K. A. (2000). Expertise in interpreting: An expert-performance perspective, Interpreting, 5(2), 187-220.
Ericsson, K. A. (2008). Deliberate Practice and Acquisition of Expert Performance: A General Overview, Academic Emergency Medicine, (15), 988-994.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The effet of familiarity on the comprehension of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65-89.
Gillispie W. M. (1998). Semantic Processing in Children with Reading Comprehension Deficits. Doctoral dissertation of the University of Kansas
72
Gile, D. (Ed.). (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training (Revised Edition). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Graesser, A.C., & Forsyth, C. (2013). Discourse comprehension. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40.1: 157-181.
Kalikow D. N., Stevens K.N., and Elliott L. L., (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 61(5), 1337-1351.
Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38, 301-315.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kuo, T.C. (2012). The Perception of Processing Foreign-accented English Speech by Professional and Trainee Interpreters in Taiwan. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation, National Taiwan Normal Univeristy. Taipei, Taiwan.
Kurz, I. (2008). The impact of non-native English on students' interpreting performance. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.),
73
Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research (Vol. 80, pp. 179-192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
Liu, M. (2008). How do experts interpret? Implications from research in Interpreting Studies and cognitive science. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research (Vol. 80, pp. 159-177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Liu, M. H., Schallert D. L. and Carroll P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19-42.
Mackintosh J. (1985). The Kintsch and Van Dijk Model of Discourse Comprehension and Production Applied to the Interpretation Process. Meta: Translators‟ Journal, 30(1), 37-43.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1997). The expert-novice paradigm in interpreting research. In E. Fleischmann, W. Kutz & P. A. Schmitt (Eds.), Translationsdidaktik: Grundfragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft (pp. 255-261). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Moser-Mercer, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., Casado, B., & Künzli, A. (2000). Searching to define expertise in interpreting. In B. E. Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 107-131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
74
Munro, M. J. and Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility and Intelligibility in the Speech of Second Language Learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73-97.
Padilla F., Bajo M. T., Macizo P. (2005). Articulatory suppression in language Interpretation: Working memory capacity, dual tasking and word Knowledge. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(3), 207-219.
Pippa S. & Russo M. (2002) Aptitude for Conference interpreting. in Garzone G. & and Viezzi M. et al. Interpreting in the 21st Century, Challenges and opportunities, selected papers from the 1st Forli Conference on Interpreting Studies, 9-11 November, 2000. Johns Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Sabatini, E. (2000). Listening comprehension, shadowing and simultaneous interpretation of two 'non-standard' English speeches. Interpreting, 5(1), 25-48.
Séguinot C. (2000). Knowledge, expertise, and theory in translation. In A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo, & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Translation in context (pp. 87–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Slowiaczek L. M. (1994) Semantic priming in a single-word shadowing task. American Journal of Psychology. 107(2), 245-260.
Smiljanic, R. and Bradlow A. R. (2011). Bidirectional clear speech perception benefit for native and high-proficiency non-native talkers and listeners: Intelligibility and accentedness. Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 4020-4031.
75
Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L. (1985). International intelligibility of English: Directions and resources. World Englishes, 4(3), 333-342.
Treisman A. (1964). Monitoring and Storage of Irrelevant Messages in Selective Attention. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 3, 449-459.
Trofimovich P. and Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Cambridge University Press 2012, 1-
12.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 432-451.
Yudes C., Macizo P., Morales L. and Bajo M. T. (2013). Comprehension and error monitoring in simultaneous interpreters. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34 (5), 1-19.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文