Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting: Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment

Interpreting

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 244-266

  Liu, Minhua ^a,b   Chiu, Yu Hsien ^a  

^a FU JEN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Consecutive interpreting; Difficulty; Expert judgment; Information density; Readability; Source material

Indexed keywords

EID: 72949102504     PISSN: 13846647     EISSN: 1569982X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/intp.11.2.07liu     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alderson, J. C. (1993). Judgments in language testing. In D. Douglas & C. Chapelle (Eds.), A new decade of language testing research: Selected papers from the 1990 language testing research colloquium. Sterling, VA: TESOL, 46-57
2. Anderson, R. C. & Davison, A. (1988). Conceptual and empirical bases of readability formulas. In A. Davison & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 23-53
3. Baddeley, A. D. & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In P. Shah & M. Akira (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 28-61
4. Bailin, A. & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language and Communication 21, 285-301
5. Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech 16, 237-270
6. Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech 18, 272-297
7. Bovair, S. & Kieras, D. E. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 317-362
8. Campbell, S. (1999). A cognitive approach to source text difficulty in translation. Target 11 (1), 33-63
9. Chincotta, D. & Underwood, G. (1998). Simultaneous interpreters and the effect of concurrent articulation on immediate memory. Interpreting 3 (1), 1-20
10. Chiu, Y-H. (2006). Assessing input difficulty in interpretation: An experiment of English to Chinese consecutive interpretation (in Chinese). Unpublished MA thesis, Fu Jen University, Taiwan
11. Dam, H. V. (2001). On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting: The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters' Newsletter 11, 27-55
12. Darò, V., Lambert, S. & Fabbro, F. (1996). Conscious monitoring of attention during simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting 1 (1), 101-124
13. Davison, A. & Green, G. M. (1988). Introduction. In A. Davison & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1-4
14. Déjean Le Féal, K. (1982). Why impromptu speech is easy to understand. In N. E. Enkvist (Ed.), Impromptu speech: A symposium. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 221-239
15. 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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155-189
16. Dubay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. http://www.impact- information.com (accessed 13 June 2005)
17. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32, 221-233
18. Fulcher, G. (1997). Text difficulty and accessibility: Reading formulae and expert judgment. System 25, 497-513
19. Gerver, D. (1969/2002). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London: Routledge, 53-66
20. Gerver, D. (1974). The effects of noise on the performance of simultaneous interpreters: Accuracy of performance. Acta Psychologica 38, 159-167
21. Harrison, C. (1980). Readability in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
22. Kintsch, W., & Keenan, J. M. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257-274
23. Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G. & Keenan, J. M. (1975). Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variable. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14, 196-241
24. Kintsch, W. & Miller, J. R. (1984). Readability: A view from cognitive psychology. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language and the structure of prose. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 220-232
25. Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85, 363-394
26. Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames: Iowa State University Press
27. Lee, T. (1999a). Speech proportion and accuracy in simultaneous interpretation from English into Korean. Meta 44, 260-267
28. Liu, M., Chang, V., Lin, S-H., Chen, B-J. & Chiu, Y-H. (2006). Establishment of a national standard for the evaluation of translation and interpreting - 3rd phase (in Chinese) (National Institute for Compilation and Translation research report). Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation
29. Liu, M., Schallert, D. L. & Carroll, P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 6 (1), 19-42
30. Pio, S. (2003). The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters' Newsletter 12, 69-100
31. Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge
32. Smith, M. & Taffler, R. (1992). Readability and understandability: Different measures of the textual complexity of accounting narrative. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 5, 84-98
33. Solso. R. L. (1998). Cognitive psychology (5th edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
34. Tommola, J. & Helevä, M. (1998). Language direction and source text complexity: Effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson. (Eds.), Unity in diversity: Current trends in translation studies. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome, 177-186
35. Tommola, J. & Lindholm, J. (1995). Experimental research on interpreting: Which dependent variable? In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku, 121-133