7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

1/10

4. The experiment: method

The sample is composed of 20 professional interpreters, all of whom had

been working for more than 5 years on the Parisian market and had Frenchand English as their A and B langages !not necessarily in that order"# Allwere enlisted in the workplace, dring the first half of a simltaneosinterpreting working day, after they had time to $warm p$ with one or twotrns of interpreting in the booth in their $normal$ assignment# They were toldthey wold ha%e to interpret from English into French in the simltaneosmode !for the stdy reported in &ile '(((b, '0 sb)ects" or in theconsecti%e mode !for this stdy, '0 other sb)ects" the answer of *odak$snew +E to a )ornalist$s -estion dring a press conference held when his

appointment to this position was annonced# They were also told the Frenchtranslation of one difficlt technical term,silver halide!halognure d'argentin French"# Both in consecti%e and in simltaneos, the speech !' minteand .0 seconds" was interpreted in one stretch# The e/periment was carriedot in interpretation booths the sorce speech was played on a portablecassette player and heard by sb)ects throgh a standard headset# Theinterpreter$s target speech was recorded on a portable cassette recorder andtranscribed#

The sorce speech was analy1ed and nine potential problem triggers !falsestarts, modifiers, digressions, le/ical nits with no ob%ios e-i%alent" wereidentified# ote that not all potential problem triggers types identified by theEffort 3odels !see abo%e and &ile '((5a" were fond in the speech# Thetranscripts of the target speeches were then scrtini1ed for signs of errorsand omissions !e4o$s" in the segments containing these problem triggers, andthe nmber of sch e4o$s in consecti%e %s# simltaneos were conted !table'"#

For the prpose of assessing the $o%erall$ speriority of consecti%e %s#simltaneos or %ice%ersa in terms of accracy, the speech was segmentedas shown in table 2 into 26 segments# The segments were determinedsb)ecti%ely, on the basis of what 7 considered either complete translationnits, or problematic nits !see the discssion frther down"# For eachsegment, each corresponding targetlangage rendition was rated !by myselffirst, and then by two other raters see below" as faithfl !and allocated 8'

point", erroneos !' point", or difficlt to classify !0"# For each segment, thesm of %ales for all '0 interpreters who worked in consecti%e was

7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

2/10

compared to the sm of %ales for all '0 interpreters who worked insimltaneos# The scores in simltaneos and in consecti%e for eachsegment were compared, and the nmber of segments for which the scorewas higher for simltaneos was compared with the nmber of segments for

which the score was higher in consecti%e as a metric for o%erall $fidelity$ ofconsecti%e %s# simltaneos# 9ensiti%ity analysis was carried ot bychecking whether the o%erall speriority was still obser%ed when onlydifferences of at least 5 points between the scores for simltaneos andconsecti%e were taken into accont !see table 2"#

E%en thogh 7 did not ha%e any !conscios" e/pectations regarding thesperiority of consecti%e o%er simltaneos or %ice%ersa, 7 checked for

possible e/perimenter bias by asking two other professional interpreters!assessors B and +" who had not taken part in the e/periment to carry ot the

same rating procedre on the transcripts !after all signs that cold ha%eidentified target speech segments as prodced in the consecti%e or thesimltaneos mode had been remo%ed"# 7n %iew of the strong con%ergenceof reslts as shown in table 2, 7 did not replicate the procedre with moreassessors#

ote that fidelity assessment was essentially condcted on aninformational basis# Assessors were instrcted not to take lingisticcorrectness or elegance into accont, the reason being high %ariability in theassessment of lingistic normcompliance, especially in transcripts ofspontaneos speech !see &ile '(65, '(((a"#

5. Results

5.1 Examination of individual hypotheses

The ( segments in table ' were singled ot in ad%ance for comparison !onthe basis of the transcripts only, with a single assessor 7 fond the

procedre reliable enogh becase of the focsed natre of the assessment"#ther segments were considered, for instance :;isal memories, or %isalimages: !segment '. in table 2" and :To commnicate them, to distribtethem: !segment 22 in table 2" as false starts, bt they were not inclded

becase it was not clear whether they were genine false starts or caseswhere the speaker formlated his ideas in one way and then decided to addan alternati%e formlation#

7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

3/10

7n the case of false starts !segments n

7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

4/10

assessor A, '2 to 2 for assessor B, and to '' to ' for assessor + !see bottomline of table 2"#

1. Discussion and conclusion

At first sight, the data seems to demonstrate that in the case of the particlarspeech stdied and its interpretation, the simltaneos mode is more$accrate$ than the consecti%e mode# owe%er, the findings need to beconsidered with cation

a# The assessment was done on transcripts, not on a sond track, whichmight affect general )dgments regarding fidelity !as shown in &ile'(((a"#

b# The procedre whereby small segments are assessed in relati%e isolationmay prodce a different perception of accracy from that resltingfrom the assessment of the whole speech on a continos mode#

c# The %ery way that the segmentation was done, on the basis of difficltiesencontered, gi%es salience to local information discrepancies whichmight well ha%e been ndetected in the middle of larger segments !see&ile '((5b" and led to different assessments of consecti%e %s#simltaneos#

e%ertheless, the reslts seem to sggest that the general claim that:consecti%e ismore accrate than simltaneos: deser%es to be seriosly challenged#+ertain differences in the accracy of simltaneos %s# consecti%e can

probably be predicted and tested on the basis of both cogniti%e load andtechnical considerations !in particlar information density on the one hand,and notetaking on the other" as was done in this stdy# owe%er, while this

procedre may yield satisfactory reslts with respect to specific types ofproblem triggers, it remains to be seen whether it can reslt in anymeaningfl reslts in holistic terms, in %iew of the high %ariability and lackof reliability of indi%idal assessments#

Finally, it may be worth recalling that in this e/ploratory stdy, only afew problem triggers were stdied# Beyond replications to confirm orchallenge the reslts obtained here, it might be interesting to e/tend thestdy to look more closely at other factors sch as mentioned in 9ection 2,inclding intercltral and lingistic factors# 7f the hypotheses are

7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

5/10

confirmed, this cold mean that in some langage combinations, consecti%emay tend to be more accrate than simltaneos, while in others, the relationwold be the other way arond#

7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

6/10

References

awrant, Andrew# '((># Word Order in Chinese-into-English SimultaneousInterpretation: An Initial Exploration# Cnpblished 3#A# thesis, &7T79, FDen Cni%ersity#

e Bot, *ees# 2000# $9imltaneos 7nterpreting as angage Prodction$# 7nEnglnd imitro%a, Birgitta *enneth yltenstam !eds"#LanguageProessing and Simultaneous Interpretation # Amsterdam and PhiladelphiaDohn Ben)amins# >566#e &root, Annette# 2000# $A +omple/skill Approach to Translation and7nterpreting$# 7n Tirkkonen+ondit, 9on)a Giita DHHskelHinen !eds"#!apping and "apping the Proesses o# !ranslation and Interpreting#Amsterdam and Philadelphia Dohn Ben)amins# 5=>6#&ile, aniel# '(65# $a sensibilitI a/ Icarts de lange et la sIlection

d$informaters dans l$analyse d$errers ne e/pIrience#$ !he InorporatedLinguist2.'# 2(=2#&ile, aniel# '((5a#$asi Conepts and "odels #or Interpreter and!ranslator !raining# Amsterdam and Philadelphia Dohn Ben)amins#&ile, aniel# '((5b# $Fidelity Assessment in +onsecti%e 7nterpretation AnE/periment$# !arget ?'# '5''>.#&ile, aniel# '(((a# $;ariability in the perception of fidelity in simltaneosinterpretation$#%ermes22# 5'?(#&ile, aniel# '(((b# $Testing the Effort 3odels$ tightrope hypothesis insimltaneos interpreting A contribtion$#%ermes2=# '5='?2#ambergerFelber, eike# '((6#&er Ein#luss ontextueller (atoren au# dasSimultandolmetshen) Eine (allstudie am $eispiel gelesener *eden#Cnpblished doctoral dissertation, *arl Fran1ens Cni%ersitHt &ra1ongley, Patricia# '(>6# Con#erene Interpreting# ondon Pitman#3a11a, +ristina# 2000# +um,ers in Simultaneous Interpretation #Cnpblished gradation thesis !tesi di larea", Cni%ersita degli 9tdi diBologna, 9937T, 9ede di Forli#3i1no, Akira# 2000# $Tsyakrironkenky no chihei#Dohoshoriaproochi to goyorontekikenky$# !suuauenuu9pecial7sse 2000# 52>?#9etton, Gobin# '(((# Simultaneous Interpretation: A ognitive-pragmatianalsis# Amsterdam and Philadelphia Dohn Ben)amins#9hlesinger, 3iriam# 2000# Strategi Alloation o# Woring "emor andOther Attentional *esoures in Simultaneous Interpreting# Cnpblisheddoctoral dissertation# Bar7lan Cni%ersity#

7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

7/10

;an oof, GenI# '(>2# !horie et prati.ue de l'interprtation /aveappliation prati.ue 0 l'anglais et au #ran1ais # 3nich 3a/ eber#@eber, @illiam# '(6(# $7mpro%ed @ays of Teaching +onsecti%e7nterpretation$# 7n &ran, ara Dohn oods !eds"# !he !heoretial and

Pratial Aspets o# !eahing Con#erene Interpretation# Cdine+ampanotto Editore# '>''>>#

7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

8/10

< 9egment in the sorce speech Type mber of e4o$sin sim#

mber of e4o$sin cons#

' 7$m sre my False start = '

2 7 don$t know thesepeople yet 7ncomplete '0 0

= @ell enough 3odifier 2 ?

. et$s concentrate on that igression 5 (5 (or the not, for the foreseeable ftre False start 0 0

> +osteffecti%e ifficlt totranslate

? ?

? ighest resoltion ifficlt totranslate

? 5

6 Perhapstotally different 3odifier 5 (

( *illers ifficlt totranslate

? 5

Table ' Problem triggers and their effects in simltaneos and in

consecti%e#

N Segment in the source speech Assessor A

Assessor B

AssessorC

1 I'm sure my C (+2) S (+1) C (+1)

2 I don't even kno these peop!e yet C (+") S (+#) C (+$)

$ But I kno scientists %nd engineers e!! enough to kno S (+&) S (+2) S (+2)

h%t they ou!dn't e h%ppy i* I pre%nnounced products S (+2) S (+,) S (+&)

& But since I don't kno %!! %out h%t the product %re S (+$) C (+2) C (+2)

, I c%n spe%k !oose!y- I guess S (+") S (+#) S (+$). I think hen you !ook %t the im%ging side o* /od%k C (+,) C (+2)

# 0et's concentr%te on th%t S (+,) S (+,) S (+,)

" And recognie th%t *or the not- the *oresee%!e *uture S (+11) S (+#) S (+1)

1 As *%r %s c%pture goes S (+2) S (+,)

11 h%t the si!ver h%!ide c%pture medi% is pro%!y3 th%t onecou!d %sk *or

S (+#) C (+) C (+2)

12 he most coste**ective C (+) C (+1)

1$ 4ighest reso!ution S (+&) C (+&) C (+&)

1 5e%ns o* c%pturing visu%! memories- or visu%! im%ges S (+&) S (+$)

1& So to me- you %nt to put th%t in the conte6t o* eing %very e**ective %y o* getting the in*orm%tion to egin ith

S (+,) S (+2) S (+1)

1, hen you've got to t%!k %out ho you get th%t in*orm%tioninto % digit%! *orm

S (+) S (+,)

1. o use over in*orm%tion netorks S (+) C (+1) S (+&)

1# I think you c%n think o* % ho!e %rr%y o* possii!ities S (+") S (+,) S (+,)

1" 7nce you st%rt thinking in % ro%der conte6t S (+1$) S (+.) S (+1&)

2 7* /od%k's im%ging usiness re%!!y eing C (+2) S (+1)

21 o preserve visu%! memories C (+1) C (+2) S (+,)

22 And to communic%te them- to distriute them S (+#) C (+1) S (+")

7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

9/10

2$ In perh%ps %ys th%t %re tot%!!y di**erent th%n h%t peop!eenvis%ge tod%y

S (+,) S (+.) S (+1)

2 hen I'!! !et your im%gin%tion run o** ith you S (+.) S (+,) S (+")

2& C%use mine sure does ith me8 I !%id %%ke the !%st tonights thinking %out those possii!ities

S (+") C (+)

2, And they're re%!!y e6citing S (+") S (+2) S (+,)

2. But ninety percent o* my ide%s m%y never ork S (+1) C (+,) S (+)2# But there's ten percent th%t i!! e ki!!ers C (+,) S (+) C (+$)

ot%!9 over%!! S921 :C9,

S91. :C9"

S91. :C9#

ot%!9 di**erence ; S91 :C9$

S912 :C92

S911 :C91

Table 2 %erall fidelity assessments for each segment#

In the !e*tmost co!umns- S (+n) me%ns th%t simu!t%neous %s *ound to e more*%ith*u! th%n consecutive y n points- %nd C (+m) th%t consecutive %s *ound to e

more *%ith*u! th%n simu!t%neous y m points %s reg%rds the re!ev%nt segment8 Ace!! ith % hyphen indic%tes there %s no di**erence in points eteensimu!t%neous %nd consecutive8he penu!tim%te !ine indic%tes the numer o* segments *or hich simu!t%neous%s *ound superior to consecutive- vs8 the numer o* segments *or hichconsecutive %s *ound superior to simu!t%neous8 he u!tim%te !ine indic%tes thes%me- hen on!y di**erences o* & points %nd %ove ere considered8

ppendix: !ource speech

"uestion:Jo sggested that throgh *odak yo can maniplate technology and fit inwith this information re%oltion# +an yo be more specific abot the kind of

prodcts that *odak will e%entally be able to prodce K

ns#er:

7$m sre my### 7 don$t e%en know these people yet bt 7 know scientists andengineers well enogh to know that they wold not be %ery happy if 7 preannonced prodcts, bt since 7 don$t know all abot what the prodcts are, 7

can speak loosely 7 gess# 7 think when yo look at the imaging side of*odak, let$s concentrate on that, and recogni1e that for the not, for theforeseeable ftre, as far as captre goes, that the sil%er halide captre mediais probably the most costeffecti%e, highest resoltion means of captring%isal memories, or %isal images, that one cold ask for# 9o to me, yo wantto pt that in the conte/t of being a %ery effecti%e way of getting theinformation to begin with, then yo$%e got to talk abot how yo get that

7/23/2019 2001 Consec Sim Ul

10/10

information into a digital form to se o%er information networks, 7 think yocan begin to think of a whole array of possibilities# nce yo start thinkingin a broader conte/t of *odak$s imaging bsiness really being to preser%e%isal memories, and to commnicate them, and to distribte them, in

perhaps ways that are totally different than people en%ision today, than 7$ll letyor imagination rn off with yo, case mine sre does with me# 7 laidawake the last two nights thinking abot those possibilities, and they$re reallye/citing bt ninety percent of my ideas may ne%er work, bt there$s ten

percent that will be killers#