the Degree of Ph.D. in Translation Studies
 
Advisor: Dr. Kambiz Mahmoodzadeh
Readers: Dr. Farzaneh Farahzad
Dr. Gholam Reza Tajvidi
 
February 2015
 

(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)

تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :

(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)

Abbreviations

CI……………..….consecutive interpreting

CA…………….….processing capacity available for coordination

CR…………….….processing capacity requirements for coordination

DF…………….….degree of freedom

EVS………………ear voice span

GE…………….….general English

IT…………….…..interpreted text

LA…………….….processing capacity available for listening

LR…………….….processing capacity requirements for listening

LTM………………long-term memory

MI…………….….multiple intelligences

MA……………….processing capacity available for memory

MR……………….processing capacity requirements for memory

N.…………………number

NS………………..non-significant

P…………….……probability level

PA…………….….processing capacity available for production

PR…………….….processing capacity requirements for production

R…………….……correlation coefficient

R2…………….…..shared variance

S.……………..….significant

SI……………..….simultaneous interpreting

SL…………….….source language

SOV…….……….subject-object-verb

ST…………….….sight translation

ST…………….….source text

STM.…………….short-term memory

SVO…….……….subject-verb-object

TL…………….….target language

TA…………….….total processing capacity available for SI

TR…………….….total processing capacity requirements for SI

TS…………….….translation studies

TT…………….….target text

TTS………………tail-to-tail span

Figures and Tables

Figure 2.1 Gile’s Effort Model of SI 38

Figure 2.2 Processing Capacity Requirements for SI 40

Figure 2.3 Necessary Conditions for SI 42

Table 4.1 GE Test Scores for Experimental Subjects. 122

Table 4.2 GE Test Scores for Control Subjects. 123

Table 4.3 Three Raters’ Scores for Control Subjects on SI Pretest 125

Table 4.4 Three Raters’ Scores for Experimental Subjects on SI Pretest 126

Table 4.5 Three Raters’ Scores for Control Subjects on SI Posttest 127

Table 4.6 Three Raters’ Scores for Experimental Subjects on SI Posttest 128

Table 4.7 Pearson Correlation for Raters. 129

Table 4.8 Z Transformation for Data. 130

Figure 4.1 Inter-Rater Reliability Diagram for Control Subjects’ Pretest Scores  131

Figure 4.2 Inter-Rater Reliability Diagram for Experimental Subjects’ Pretest Scores  132

Figure 4.3 Inter-Rater Reliability Diagram for Control Subjects’ Posttest Scores  132

Figure 4.4 Inter-Rater Reliability Diagram for Experimental Subjects’ Posttest Scores  133

Table 4.9 Control Subjects’ SI Pretest Scores. 134

Table 4.10 Experimental Subjects’ SI Pretest Scores. 135

Table 4.11 T-Test Results for SI Pretest Scores. 138

Table 4.12 Control Subjects’ SI Posttest Scores. 139

Table 4.13 Experimental Subjects’ SI Posttest Scores. 140

Table 4.14 T-Test Results for SI Posttest Scores. 142

Table 4.15 Experimental Subjects’ SI Improvement Rate. 145

Table 4.16 Linguistic Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 147

Figure 4.5 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Linguistic Intelligence  150

Table 4.17 Logical-Mathematical Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects  153

Figure 4.6 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Logical-Mathematical Intelligence  156

Table 4.18 Visual-Spatial Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 157

Figure 4.7 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Visual-Spatial Intelligence  160

Table 4.19 Musical Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 162

Figure 4.8 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Musical Intelligence  165

Table 4.20 Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects  166

Figure 4.9 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence  168

Table 4.21 Interpersonal Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 170

Figure 4.10 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Interpersonal Intelligence  172

Table 4.22 Intrapersonal Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 175

Figure 4.11 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Intrapersonal Intelligence  177

Table 4.23 Naturalist Intelligence Scores for Experimental Subjects. 180

Figure 4.12 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Naturalist Intelligence  182

Table 4.24 Correlation between MIs and SI Improvement Rate. 184

Table 4.25 Experimental Subjects’ Degree of Extroversion/Introversion. 186

Table 4.26 Extroversion Degree and SI Improvement Rate. 187

Figure 4.13 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Extroversion. 190

Table 4.27 Introversion Degree and SI Improvement Rate. 192

Figure 4.14 Scatterplot Diagram for SI Improvement and Introversion. 194

 

Abstract

 

Conducted within the framework of causal research model in translation studies, the present experimental work addresses the effect of applying certain interpreter-training-specific techniques (e.g. shadowing, improvisation, anticipation, paraphrasing, split-attention exercises, memory enhancement exercises, etc.) on the quality of simultaneous interpretation by the trainees. Prior to the commencement of the experiment, a standard test of General English (IELTS) was administered to ensure homogeneity. The participants (initially 102 who were later reduced to 70) were all undergraduate translation trainees, of whom 35 received the treatment (experimental group) and the remaining 35 did not (control group). Two tests of simultaneous interpretation (a pretest and a posttest) were conducted and then rated by three raters. T-test results for the pretest (t=0.59) showed there was no significant difference between the two groups whereas t-test results for the posttest (t=5.1) indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group significantly. Such an improvement is believed to be the outcome of the treatment. The possible relation between experimental subjects’ rate of SI improvement and their multiple intelligences was investigated: as to Gardner’s first five intelligences, no statistically significant correlation was found (verbal-linguistic: -0.03, logical-mathematical: 0.178, visual-spatial: 0.26, musical-rhythmic: 0.06, bodily-kinesthetic: 0.02) while the remaining three were observed to correlate significantly with SI improvement level (interpersonal: -0.49, intrapersonal: 0.482, naturalist: 0.446). The possible relation between SI improvement rate and Jung’s two personality types was also probed into: extroversion turned out to have a correlation of -0.08 (near zero) and introversion correlated to the extent of 0.46; a moderate positive correlation, though statistically non-significant.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Dedication…………………………….………………………..………………………..…I

Acknowledgments…………………….…………………..………………….………..II

Abbreviations……………………………………………..………………………………….III

Figures and Tables…………………………….………..…………………..…………V

Abstract……………………………………………………………………..…………VIII

Table of Contents………………………………………..……………………………..X

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1.1 Chapter Overview… 2

1.2 Introduction.. 2

1.3 Background of the Problem… 5

 

1.4 Significance of the Study.. 7

1.5 Purpose of the Study.. 9

1.6 Research Questions. 9

1.7 Research Hypotheses. 10

1.8 Theoretical Framework.. 11

1.9 Limitations and Delimitations. 13

CHAPTER 2: Review of the Related Literature

2.1 Chapter Overview… 19

2.2 Interpreting: Definition and Modes. 20

2.2.1 Simultaneous Interpreting.. 23

2.2.2 Consecutive Interpreting.. 26

2.2.3 Sight Translation.. 28

2.2.4 Simultaneous Interpreting with Text. 31

2.2.5 Liaison Interpreting.. 32

2.2.6 Whispering Interpreting.. 32

2.2.7 Escort Interpreting.. 33

2.3 Simultaneous Interpreting.. 33

2.3.1 Gile’s Effort Model of SI. 38

2.3.2 Horizontal vs. Vertical Approaches. 42

2.3.3 EVS and TTS.. 45

2.4 Interpreter-Training Techniques. 52

2.4.1 Shadowing.. 54

2.4.2 Sight Translation.. 59

2.4.3 Consecutive Interpretation.. 60

2.4.4 Split-Attention.. 62

2.4.5 Anticipation.. 68

2.4.6 Improvisation.. 74

2.4.7 Memory-Enhancement. 74

2.4.8 (Simultaneous) Paraphrasing.. 78

2.4.9 Condensation/Compression.. 82

2.5 Multiple Intelligences. 84

2.5.1 Verbal-Linguistic. 86

2.5.2 Logical-Mathematical 87

2.5.3 Visual-Spatial 88

2.5.4 Musical-Rhythmic. 88

2.5.5 Bodily-Kinesthetic. 89

2.5.6 Interpersonal 90

2.5.7 Intrapersonal 90

2.5.8 Naturalist. 91

2.6 Extroversion/Introversion.. 92

CHAPTER 3: Methodology

3.1 Chapter Overview… 97

3.2 Type of Research.. 97

3.3 Experiment. 99

3.3.1 Participants. 99

3.3.1.1 Experimental Group   99

3.3.1.2 Control Group   100

3.3.2 Treatment. 100

3.3.2.1 Memory-Enhancement  102

3.3.2.2 Condensation/Compression   103

3.3.2.3 Improvisation   104

3.3.2.4 Consecutive Interpretation   105

3.3.2.5 Sight Translation   106

3.3.2.6 Split-Attention   107

3.3.2.7 Shadowing   108

3.3.2.8 Anticipation   110

3.3.2.9 (Simultaneous) Paraphrasing   111

3.3.3 Instruments. 112

3.3.3.1 General English Test  112

3.3.3.2 SI Pretest and Posttest  113

3.3.3.3 Multiple Intelligences Test  114

3.3.3.4 Personality Type Test  115

3.4 Data Collection and Analysis. 116

3.4.1 General English Test. 116

3.4.2 SI Pretest and Posttest. 116

3.4.3 Multiple Intelligences and Personality Type Tests. 118

CHAPTER 4: Research Findings, Data Analysis, and Discussion

4.1 Chapter Overview… 121

4.2 GE Test Scores. 121

4.3 SI Test Scores. 124

4.3.1 Inter-Rater Reliability.. 124

4.3.2 Pretest, t-test. 134

4.3.3 Posttest, t-test. 138

4.3.4 Eta2. 142

4.4 MI and SI Scores Correlation.. 144

4.4.1 Linguistic Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 147

4.4.2 Logical-Mathematical Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate   153

4.4.3 Visual-Spatial Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 157

4.4.4 Musical Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 161

4.4.5 Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 165

4.4.6 Interpersonal Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 170

4.4.7 Intrapersonal Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 174

4.4.8 Naturalist Intelligence and SI Improvement Rate.. 179

4.5 Personality Type and SI Scores Correlation.. 185

4.5.1 Extroversion and SI Improvement Rate.. 187

4.5.2 Introversion and SI Improvement Rate.. 192

CHAPTER 5: Conclusion

5.1 Chapter Overview… 199

5.2 Research Questions Revisited and Answered.. 199

5.4 Pedagogical Implications. 204

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research.. 207

References…………………..…………………………………………………………211

Appendices……………………..………………………………………………………221

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

 

 

1.1 Chapter Overview
The present chapter outlines the whole work on a small scale. We will first look at a short introduction to and background of the problem, then the significance and purpose of the study will be briefly discussed and finally the questions, hypotheses, and theoretical framework of the present study along with the main limitation and delimitations will be stated.

 
1.2 Introduction
Translation, considered in its broadest sense, is a practice, with a history thought to be as long as that of mankind, which has had tremendous influences upon man’s life throughout the history. The significance of such a practice in this day and age, duly termed as the age of communication, is far from disputable especially when one considers the role played by translation in all the communications that take place in various contexts. Therefore it is easy to see why the scientific study of translation has gained an unprecedented momentum over the past couple of decades.

No one can be sure when interpreting, in its broadest sense, was first undertaken by human beings. However, it is logical to assume that interpreting is definitely older than translation since the latter came into existence after the invention of some kind of writing system while the former could have existed before that. Pöchhacker (2005, p. 682) makes the following observation in this regard:

Interpreting as the activity of enabling or facilitating communication between speakers of different languages is a millennial practice, with earliest records dating back some five-thousand years (cf. Hermann 1956/2002).

However, for numerous reasons, to be elaborated on by researchers, translation has attracted much more attention in the history than interpreting. As Pöchhacker (2004, as cited in Pöchhacker, 2005, p. 683) states “In the history of scholarship on translation, few authors have reflected specifically on what we now call ‘interpreting’.” (my emphasis) The systematic study of interpreting is rare and cannot be claimed to be older than a number of decades (cf. Seleskovitch, 1999; Shaw et al., 2004; Riccardi, 2005; Pöchhacker, 2005; Lung & Li, 2005; Seeber & Zelger, 2007).

One reason for this could be that there exists a sort of widely-held misconception among people – laypeople to be more precise: anyone who knows two languages well enough can be a translator, and anyone who is a translator can be an interpreter. Schmitz (1988, pp. 273-274, as cited in Ibrahim, 2009, p. 358) makes the following observation regarding this chaotic situation:

Anyone can decide to use the title [translator/interpreter], however dim their consciousness may be of the intellectual equipment required for the jobs […]. If someone designs a building he does not call himself an architect unless he is qualified to do so […]. And yet anyone who thinks he knows a foreign language and can therefore translate, and who feels like earning a living that way full-time or part-time, can put an ad in the paper