DENIS LLAMBRO

228 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
228
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

DENIS LLAMBRO

  1. 1. ISMAIL QEMALI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT MASTER OF SCIENCES IN TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION RESEARCH WORK MTI 536 RESEARCH METHODS IN T&I THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAG TIME AND RETENTION IN SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETING by DENIS LLAMBRO A research work submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements Fall Term February 2014 Course Instructor ERIDA PRIFTI, MA Lecturer in Translation and Interpretation Studies
  2. 2. 1. Introduction 1. a . Background The field of interpreting is represented as a very complex tax. During the way for succeeding in transmitting accurate information the interpreter comes across different problems. In order to produce information of a very good quality it is of great importance to deal with these aspects and problems and find any solutions to them. In the process of simultaneous interpreting, the issue which is worthy dealing with is the relationship between the speaker’s utterance and the retention of the interpreter. While observing some of the videos in which interpreters deal with different kind of materials it emerged that the lag time, or the ear-voice span is different in different interpreters. In some of them the lag time is zero, in some others it goes two or even three seconds. Furthermore, the retention of the interpreter plays a decisive role in the process of transmitting accurate information. As a result, the smaller the lag time between the speaker and the interpreter, the greater the number of words transmitted. Of great importance in this research work is to find whether there is a correlation between the lag time and the retention of the interpreter, and if this correlation exist at what degree it influences the interpreter’s memory and information production. 1. b. Significance of the study This topic is of great importance to be studied due to the fact that it focuses closely on the correlation between lag time and the interpreter’s retention trying to find out how does this correlation affects both these variables. Based on the close observation of the videos of ten interpreters in the simultaneous interpreting it is found out that the lag time changes from interpreter to interpreter, and this change it is transmitted to the quality of information processed. In order to find the relationship between these two variables, i.e. the relationship between variable A (lag time) and variable B (retention) it is considered as necessary an accurate measurement of the number of milliseconds of lag time relating it to the retention of the interpreter. Furthermore, in order to conclude with an accurate hypothesis in this research work it is of great importance to find how does lag time affects retention. In addition to this investigation it is observed that the larger the lag time, the smaller the retention of the interpreter. As a result, the observer comes with the
  3. 3. hypothesis that the variable B (retention) depends on variable A (lag time). In this research work based on videos in simultaneous interpreting the scope is to come with the conclusion that lag time affects negatively retention. The results coming out of this research work will give their contribution to enlarge the field of interpreting, especially in these aspects, also, will give ideas for further research based on lag time and retention. 1. c. Research questions Some of the questions raised in this research work are as following: Do lag time and retention correlate with each other? How do they affect each other? What does it mean an invisible lag time and how does it affect the quality of interpreting? Is there any fixed lag time which enables the interpreter to produce quality interpreting? Which is the relation between number of words produced by the interpreter and the lag time per second? How does this research work contribute to the field of interpreting? 1.d. The conditions related to this study are as following: 1. Variable A changes variable B in a unidirectional causal relationship. 2. Variable A exercises a direct influence on variable B. 3. The effect of variable A to variable B should be noticed in each of the cases taken. 4. The variable A is predictable for variable B. 2. Definition of terminology In this paper it is planned to cover a detailed explanation regarding Lag time and Retention in the field of simultaneous interpreting. Lag time: According to Maximilian dictionary, lag time is the amount of time between two related events. Retention: According to Maximilian dictionary, retention is the ability to remember ideas or facts.
  4. 4. Variable: According to Oxford Dictionary, variable is an element, feature, or factor that is liable to vary or change: there are too many variables involved to make any meaningful predictions 3. Literature review For a better understanding of this research work, and its concepts it is of great importance to take into the consideration the literature concerned with lag time and retention due to the fact that the results of this research work should be in accordance with the previous studies and investigations. Interpreting activity is strictly connected with time constraint (Gumul and Lyda, 2007). Also, time lag is represented as an inseparable aspect of simultaneous interpreting performance. The durance of time lag depends on particular variables, such as language combination, discourse type, speech delivery rate, information density, redundancy or word order (Yagi 2000).As a result, according to Christoffels and de Groot work in “Listenin while talking: The retention of prose under articulatory suppression in relation to simultaneous interpreting” the simultaneous interpreting is represented as a cognitive task where many processes happen in the same time. The interpreter has to comprehend the source text, store it in the short memory and reproduce the text in the target language (2005). In addition, this gathering of information, its storage and its reproduction is a very complex process and occur in a short period of time. According to Christoffels and de Groot there is a gap between the moment of information acquisition and its transformation in target language called lag time that happens in an average of two seconds (2004). Furthermore, according to Cokley in the case when both, source and target languages have similar structures, it happens that the lag time may be shorter and as a result even the information processed is more accurate, but, in the case when there is an obvious distinction between two structures, the lag time becomes longer which causes a shorter retention (1986). During the investigation in previous studies based on lag time and retention it observed that different scholars have different approaches concerning the average of lag time. According to Paneth investigation the lag time varies between 2 and 4 seconds declaring that the interpreter expresses not what he hears, but what he has heard (1957/2012). In advance, according to Goldman-Eisler the lag time units have a syntactic nature, which means that these units are compound of a total predicative expression (noun phrase + verb phrase). According to Ono T., et al. in the research based on the measurement of lag time in simultaneous interpreting between Japanese to English and vice versa, the delay is affected by the differences of the respective languages which take part in the process of interpreting. In addition, in interpreting from German
  5. 5. to English, we must take into the consideration the fact that the verb in German is placed at the end of the sentence. It means that the interpreter should wait until the speaker finishes the sentence before delivering the target text. As a result, the lag time increases, and the retention shortens. 4.Methodology: In order to realize an accurate study and come out with reliable results, there is of great importance the use of research methods. In addition, to make the topic clear, and to better understand especially the two variables (lag time and retention) there has been made adequate research regarding the works of different authors that have contributed in the field of interpreting. Taking into consideration the fact that this topic was discussed by a considerable number of authors, then, there was made a research regarding the experiments and observations conducting by these authors, concerning firstly, lag time and then retention. By the previous studies there was seen that lag time was an important factor in the process of simultaneous interpreting. Also, the information regarding retention showed that it was different from interpreter to interpreter, and changed even from language to language as well. Having gathered enough information for both, lag time and retention, there was the moment to arrange this information and see how both these variables correlate with each other, and which affects the other, because these results would be important in supporting the previous hypothesis that the variable B (retention) depends on variable A (lag time). After dealing with theoretical work, the last step of this observation which will prove or disapprove the hypothesis raised, is the practical one. As a result, this observation will be based on videos recorded from students of master of sciences in interpreting. In advance, there will be made a careful examination of each video, measuring in milliseconds the lag time between the speaker and the interpreter. Taking into consideration each video and the results taken from them there will be seen how retention is affected by lag time.
  6. 6. 5. Practical Part Video Link Modality Duration 1 https://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=5krijMhnGrM SI ENG>ALB 7:42 Nr of Pauses 29 Lag time per second 0.5,0.5,2,1.5,1,1.5,1.5,2.5,3,12.5,2,1.5, 3,2 ,3,1,2.5,2,3.5,2,1.5,2,3,1.5 ,2,1,3,0.5,1.5, 2 https://www.youtube.com/wa SI ENG>ALB 7:32 34 0.5,1,2,1.5,1,2.5,1,2,2.5,3,2,3,1,3.5,2,2. 5,2,1,2.5,2,1.5,3.5,2,1.5,2,1, 2.5, 1.5,2, tch?v=MaednQSyub8 3, 3.5, 2.5, 2,1.5, 3 SI ENG>ALB 7:22 31 0.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 0.5, 2.5, 1.5, 2.5, 2, http://www.youtube.com/wat 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, 2, 3, 2.5, 1, 2, 1.5. ch?v=llhVTzrD9sA 4 https://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=8jaEODE3dMw 0.5, 0.5, 1,1, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 2, 1,2, 0.5, 2, 3, SI ENG>ALB 7:34 35 1, 2, 0.5, 3, 0.5, 1, 0.5, 4.5, 2, 3, 2, 2.5, 1.5, 2.5, 2, 2, 0.5, 3, 2, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 3, 3.5, 2.5, 3, 1.5, 2, 3.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3, 2.5, 3,2 5 https://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=E5SGqKGPKwg SI ENG>ALB 6:55 32 0.5, 0.5, 1, 1, 2, 1.5, 2, 0.5, 1, 0.5, 1.5, 2, 1, 1.5, 2, 1.5, 2, 1, 2.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1, 2.5, 1.5, 2, 1,5, 2.5, 3, 2, 3, 1.5, 6 https://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=nBIk5aKLeTA SI ENG>ALB 7:42 41 2, 1.5, 1, 3, 3.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 1, 3, 3.5, 3, 2, 3, 2.5, 3, 4.5, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 1.5, 2.5, 6, 2, 5, 6, 3, 3.5, 2, 3, 3, 3.5, 3, 3.5, 1.5, 1, 4, 2,1.5, 3, 4, 7 https://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=6aAAgvInMUg SI ENG>ALB 7:02 33 0.5, 1, 1.5, 0.5, 1, 2, 1, 0.5, 1, 1, 2, 1.5, 1, 1.5, 0.5, 1.5, 1, 2.5, 1, 1.5, 1.5, 2, 1,5, 2.5, 1, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 2, 1.5, 3, 2, 1.5, 8 https://www.youtube.com/wa SI ENG>ALB 7:31 31 0.5, 1, 2, 1.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2, 1.5, 3, 2, 2, 2.5, 0.5, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 1.5, 3, 2, 1.5, 2, 2, 3, tch?v=AeD07LGyYn0 2.5, 3, 2, 1.5, 0.5, 1.5, 2, 1 9 https://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=Y1IE73mOa6o SI ENG>ALB 7:56 32 1, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 1.5, 2, 1.5, 2, 2, 1, 1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3, 1.5, 4, 2.5, 2.5, 4, 2, 4.5, 3, 1.5, 3, 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 3.5, 2, 2.5 10 https://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=0jJodyZt-wQ SI ENG>ALB 7:28 33 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 1.5, 1.5, 2, 3, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2.5, 4, 2.5, 2, 4, 2.5, 5,2, 3, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 4, 3.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 3.5,
  7. 7. Video Approximate Lag Importance of detail lost time per sec in the whole speech Impact on memory: Level of impact on performance 1 1.93 Significant Minimal Low 2 2.01 Significant Minimal Low 3 1.85 Significant Minimal Low 4 2.31 Critical Considerable High 5 1.64 Irrelevant Inconsiderable Irrelevant 6 2.76 Critical Considerable High 7 1.43 Irrelevant Inconsiderable Irrelevant 8 1.77 Irrelevant Inconsiderable Irrelevant 9 2.32 Critical Considerable High 10 2.92 Critical Considerable High Average 2.08 Average lag time effect on retention Lag time Impact on retention Information lost Interpreting performance 1.43-1.77 Insignificant Irrelevant Excellent 1.85-2.01 Minimal Significant Good 2.31-2.92 Critical Essential Unsatisfying
  8. 8. 6. Results: I. By observing the first video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made short pauses, (0.53 seconds), with an average lag time of (1.93), having a positive impact on retention. Due to the relevant lag time (1.93), the interpreter has omitted significant information of the speech, resulting in a quiet good performance. II. By observing the second video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made short pauses, (0.5-3.5 seconds), with an average lag time of (2.01) having a positive impact on retention. Due to the relevant lag time (2.01), the interpreter has omitted significant information on the speech, resulting in a quiet good performance. III. By observing the third video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made short pauses, (0.5-3.5 seconds), with an average lag time of (1.85) having a positive impact on Retention. Nevertheless, the relevant lag time in this case, (1.85), has not resulted in a very good interpreting, considering the fact that there is loss of significant details of the speech. IV. By observing the fourth video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made long pauses, (0.5-4.5 seconds), with an average lag time of (2.31) causing a negative impact on retention. Due to the relevant lag time, (2.31), there is loss of essential information, resulting in a not good enough interpreting. V. By observing the fifth video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made short pauses, (0.53 seconds), with an average lag time of (1.64) having a positive impact on retention. Due to the lag time, (1.64), being constant in remembering, the interpreter has omitted irrelevant information on the speech, resulting in a satisfying interpreting. VI. By observing the sixth video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made in most of cases long pauses, (1-6 seconds), with an average lag time of (2.76) causing a negative impact on performance. Due to the relevant lag time, (2.76), the interpreter has omitted critical information on the speech, and has affected performance in interpreting, with an inaccuracy in interpreting. Another aspect that should be taken into consideration is the fact that the interpreter was involved emotionally in the interpreting task, which is an issue that does not demonstrate professionalism.
  9. 9. VII. By observing the seventh video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made short pauses, (0.5-2.5 seconds), with an average lag time of (1.43), having a positive impact on retention. Due to the lag time, (1.43), the interpreter has omitted irrelevant information on the speech, resulting in a satisfying interpreting. VIII. By observing the eighth video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made short pauses, (0.5-3 seconds), with an average lag time of (1.77) having a positive impact on retention. Due to the relevant lag time, (1.77) the interpreter has not omitted any relevant information of the speech, resulting in a satisfying interpreting. IX. By observing the ninth video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made long pauses, (0.54.5 seconds), with an average lag time of (2.32) causing a negative impact on the retention and the performance as result of information that were lost. Due to the relevant lag time, (2.32), the interpreter has omitted information which is critical to be interpreted for the speech. the interpreter has omitted critical information on the speech. X. By observing the tenth video, it was noticed that the interpreter has made long pauses (1-4 seconds), with an average lag time of (2.92) seconds, causing a negative impact on the retention and the performance as result of information that were lost. Due to the relevant lag time, (2.92), the interpreter has omitted information which is critical to be interpreted for the speech. Another aspect that should be taken into consideration is the fact that the interpreter was involved emotionally in the interpreting task, which is an issue that does not demonstrate professionalism.
  10. 10. 7.Conclusion: After dealing with materials of different sources concerning the topic, the researcher came with the hypothesis that between lag time and retention exist a correlation. Different experiments and observations done for the purpose of this topic come with the conclusion that lags time changes from interpreter to interpreter, according even to the differences in language structures. Also, this change is reflected to retention. As a result, it is reflected that the larger the lag time, the shorter the retention, which means, less words transmitted by the interpreter. In the practical part of this observation, from the results taken from the accurate measurement of lag time and retention of videos in simultaneous interpreting there is proved that there is a correlation between lag time and retention. The results answer the hypothesis that the variable B (retention), depends on variable A (lag time). Also, variable A (lag time) changes variable B (retention) in a unidirectional causal relationship, and has a direct influence on variable B. The conclusion of this research work is that lag time affects negatively retention. That is of great importance to say that this research work contributes to the field of simultaneous interpreting, giving additional information for further investigations.
  11. 11. 8. Limitations to the study: In the observations of the videos in simultaneous interpreting which will be used in this research work certain limitations will be taken into consideration: a. This is not an experiment in real life but an observation from videos taken in you tube, recorded by students of master of interpretation. b. External factors should be taken into consideration: the setting is at home; internet connection problems, noise. c. The participants are not professional interpreters but students of master. 9. Annotated Bibliography 1.COKLEY D. 1986. The effect of lag time on interpreter errors. http://doug.stringham.net/uvuasl/3350/3350_cokely_effectsoflagtime.pdf This source provides efficient data about the effect that lag time has on the errors committed by the interpreter during the act of interpreting. 2.CHRISTOFFELS K. I., de GROOT M. B. A. Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches: Simultaneous interpreting, A cognitive perspective. http://books.google.al/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2fzBDptA5NMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA454&dq=lag+time+in +simultaneous+interpreting&ots=Pn6tCfXJlk&sig=4c3cOFDMMdGTI96f7X8I8L3Bmg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lag%20time%20in%20simultaneous%20interpreting&f=false This source provides necessary data about the lag time and retention correlation in simultaneous interpreting process. 3. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972) Segmentation of Input in Simultaneous Translation, in Pöchhacker and Shlesinger (eds) 2002: 69-76.Cited in Gao W. (2011) Coherence in simultaneous interpreting an idealized cognitive model perspective. http://www.ros.hw.ac.uk/bitstream/10399/2504/1/GaoW_1111_sml.pdf
  12. 12. 4. Paneth, E. (1957/2002) An investigation into conference interpreting. In Pöchhacker and Shlesinger (eds) 31-40. Cited in Gao W. (2011) Coherence in simultaneous interpreting - an idealized cognitive model perspective. http://www.ros.hw.ac.uk/bitstream/10399/2504/1/GaoW_1111_sml.pdf 5.Ono T., Tohyama H., Matsubara Sh. Construction and Analysis of Word-level Time-aligned. Simultaneous Interpretation Corpus. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/860_paper.pdf 6. Gumul E., Lyda A. (2007). The time constraint in conference interpreting: Simultaneous vs. Consecutive. http://jaits.sakura.ne.jp/Articles/%93%AF%8E%9E%82%C6%92%80%8E%9F%82%CC%8E%9 E%8A%D4.pdf 7. Y a g i, S. M. 2000. ‘‘Studying Style in Simultaneous Interpretation’’. Meta 45(3), 520–547. http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2000/v45/n3/004626ar.pdf 8. Lag time 2013. In Maximilian Dictionary.com. Retrieved November 18, 2013. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/time-lag 9. Retention 2013. In Maximilian Dictionary.com. Retrieved November 18, 2013. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/retention 10. Variable 2013. In Oxford Dictionary.com Retrieved November 18,2013. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/variable?q=variable 11.Bani A. En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5krijMhnGrM 12. Bita, D. En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaednQSyub8 13.Tenaj, A. En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llhVTzrD9sA 14.Shehaj, D. En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jaEODE3dMw 15.Llambro, D. Exam En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5SGqKGPKwg 16.Hoxha, F. Exam En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNIwTfHDICQ
  13. 13. 17. Sadedini, XH. Exam En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBIk5aKLeTA 18. Alushi, A. Exam En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aAAgvInMUg 19. Peco, E. Exam En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeD07LGyYn020.B Beqo, M. Exam En-Sq, Simultaneous Interpreting. July, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1IE73mOa6o

×