EVS Patterns, Regulation Strategies and Quality of Persian/English Simultaneous Interpretations
Keywords:simultaneous interpreting, ear-voice-span (EVS), strategies, quality assessment
A mind-boggling obsession facing the recent interpreting studies is the how and why of ear-voice-span (EVS) regulation during simultaneous interpreting (SI) and its relationship with the quality of SI outputs especially in the case of two asymmetrical languages. The present case study aimed at investigating the EVS patterns and strategies used during Persian-to-English (henceforth P-E) (SOV-SVO) and English-to-Persian (henceforth E-P) (SVO-SOV) SI. Moreover, it sought to find out the relationship between EVS choices and quality of simultaneous interpretations. In doing so, live data were collected from a professional interpreter in two interlingually held conferences. The analysis of transcribed and synchronized audio files revealed the adoption of a wide range of linguistic and temporal EVS choices and regulation strategies. The results indicated that EVS patterns in the SOV-to-SVO direction were generally longer than vice versa. The quality assessment of interpretations by two raters with reference to Buhler's (1986) rating scale revealed that the choice of EVS strategies had a direct impact on the overall EVS length, imposed cognitive demand and, subsequently, quality of interpretations. On implication side, the study suggests the incorporation of detected strategies into the interpreter training syllabus.
Alvstad, C., Hild, A., & Tiselius, E. (Eds.). (2011). Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies (Vol. 94). John Benjamins Publishing.
Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and speech, 16(3), 237-270.
Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2007). Interpreting quality as perceived by trainee interpreters: Self-evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 247-267.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231-235.
Davidson, P.M. (1992). Segmentation of Japanese source language discourse in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters Newsletter, Special issue, 1, 2-11.
Díaz-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, 17, 1–25.
Díaz-Galaz, S., & Portuguez, C. L. (2016). Omission in simultaneous interpretation: involuntary failure or communicative strategy?. ONOMAZEIN, (33), 427-455.
Donato, V. (2003). Strategies adopted by student in SI: A comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian pairs. The Interpreters Newsletter. 12, 100-134.
Eugeni, C. (2008). A sociolinguistic approach to real-time subtitling: Respeaking vs. shadowing and simultaneous interpreting. English in International Deaf Communication, 72, 357–382.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 127-140.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1980). Psychological mechanisms of speech production as studied through the analysis of simultaneous translation. Language production, 1, 143-153.
Gran, L. (1989). Interdisciplinary research on cerebral asymmetries: Significance and prospects for the teaching of interpretation. In The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching conference interpretation (pp. 93-100). Udine: Campanotto Editore.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (2005). The translator as communicator. Routledge.
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Kohn, K. & Kalina, S. (1996). The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta, 41, 118-138.
Kopczyriski, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline: Selected papers from the Translation Studies Congress, Vienna, 1992 (Vol. 2, p. 189). John Benjamins Publishing.
Lee, T. H. (1999). Simultaneous listening and speaking in English into Korean simultaneous interpreting. Meta, XVLIV, 4.
Lee, T. H. (2002). Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 47(4), 596-606.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 7, 43-56.
Niska, H. (1999). Text linguistic models for the study of simultaneous interpreting. Stockholm University. Retrieved from http://www.someya-net.com/01-Tsuyaku/Reading/TextLinguisticModels.pdf
Ng, B. C. (1992). English End users' subjective reaction to the performance of student interpreters. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, Special Issue, 1, 42-51.
Marrone, S. (1993). English quality: A shared objective. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 5, 35-41.
Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Rutledge.
Seeber, K. G. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories-new models. Interpreting, 13(2), 176-204.
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous Interpreting: A Cognitive–Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shabani, K. (2004). Anticipation strategy and simultaneous interpreting. Translation Studies, 2(7-8), 9-32.
Shabani, K. (2011). Student interpreters’ EVS choices during simultaneous interpreting. Translation Studies, 8(30), 11-26.
Shlesinger M. (2000). Evaluation issues in interpreting. A bibliography, The Translator, 6(2), 363-366.
Timarová, S., Dragsted, B. & Hansen, G.I. (2011). Time lag in translation and interpreting, A methodological exploration. In Alvstad, Cecilia, Hild & Tiselius (eds.), Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies, xii, 377 (pp. 121-146).
Timarová, Š., Čeňková, I., & Meylaerts, R. (2015). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory capacity. In Ferreira, A. & Schwieter, J. W. (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting (pp. 101-126). Amsterdam: Benjamins.