Typology of mistakes in consecutive interpretations and the way to overcome and eliminating them
Karimova Dilyora 02.05.2023 (2)
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Omissions additions distortions
- Comprehensi on errors Grammati errors
| Comprehension errors
|
Grammatical errors | |||||||
|
Disfluencies | ||||||||
|
|
Omissions |
additions |
distortions |
|
fillers |
repetitions |
pauses |
stuttering |
|
S1 |
19 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
18 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
|
S2 |
8 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
13 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
|
S3 |
12 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
11 |
1 |
2 |
|
S4 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
As can be seen from the table, the most frequently made errors in Uzbek-English CI for three quarters of the participants are omissions. However, S2’s most frequently made errors are not omissions, but fillers. S1 made the most omission errors, followed by S3 and S2, S4 in this type of errors. The second top errors for S1 and S4 are both fillers, with 18 and 3 times respectively. The second top errors are repetitions for S3 and omissions for S2. Grammatical errors ranked number 3 in the list of S1’s error types. For S2, number 3 errors are distortions. However, S3 made many mistakes with filler. As for S4, the frequencies of error types are very similar, she had two addition errors, distortions and grammatical errors. It is apparent that S4 made the least errors among the four of them.
-
Comprehensi
on errors
Grammati errors
cal
Disfluencies
Omissions
additions
distortions
fillers
repetitions
pauses
stuttering
S1
17
4
3
1
2
3
0
0
S2
9
2
5
1
7
9
1
0
S3
14
3
3
0
3
6
1
3
S4
9
2
2
1
2
2
0
1
In English-Uzbek CI product by student interpreters, the most frequently made errors by S1, S3, S4 are also omissions. S2 is different from the other three participants in that there are two most frequent errors made by her: omission errors (9) and repetition errors (9). Repetition errors ranked second for S3, and addition errors ranked number two for S1. S4’s errors in English-Uzbek CI are similar to the case in Uzbek-English CI: except for the top one errors, the other frequencies of errors are equal in number and most of error frequencies are two.
The results of the present study show that student interpreters generally make three types of errors in CI: comprehension errors, grammatical errors, and disfluencies. The most frequently made type of errors are comprehension errors, with more comprehension errors in English-Uzbek CI outputs in general. This may due to the student interpreters’ insufficient ability in understanding the English source text. The loss of input in listening and comprehension stage results in the loss of information of output in producing the interpreting text.
As for the grammatical errors, it is clear that student interpreters made very few grammatical errors in English-Uzbek interpreted text. The reason for this is also salient: Uzbek language is their mother tongue, and it is easier to produce grammatical error-free sentences in Uzbek. Although they may produce inaccurate information in English-Uzbek CI output, the Uzbek sentences they produce do seem to have fewer grammatical errors compared with Uzbek-English direction. Among the few grammatical errors they have made, the most typical grammatical error is the inverted or illogical order of adverbial, which is caused by negative transfer of L2.
Disfluencies occur more frequently in Uzbek-English direction than in English-Uzbek direction. That is to say, student interpreters made less disfluency errors in English-Uzbek errors despite the fact that they made more comprehension errors in the same direction. On the one hand, they spoke in Uzbek more fluently than in English because of their familiarity with their mother tongue. On the other hand, owing to their low ability in English listening and comprehension, they could not produce the target speech in Uzbek with accurate information.
In a nutshell, student interpreters made more comprehension errors in English-Uzbek direction than in Uzbek-English direction, and more grammatical and disfluency errors in Uzbek-English direction than in English-Uzbek direction.
This study investigated the types of errors in the output of student interpreters’ interpreted speech texts of CI. Results show that there are three types of errors in CI by student interpreters: comprehension errors, grammatical errors and disfluency errors. Among these three types of errors, the most frequently made errors are comprehension errors, with more comprehension errors in English-Uzbek direction than in Uzbek-English direction. Grammatical errors appear more frequently in the outputs of student interpreters’ Uzbek- English speech texts than in English-Uzbek speech texts. When it comes to the disfluency errors, half of the student interpreters made more disfluency errors in Uzbek-English direction and half of them made exactly the same amount of disfluency errors in both directions. In other words, student interpreters seemed to interpret more fluently in English- Uzbek CI. In spite of this, they made more comprehension errors in English-Uzbek CI outputs.
It is hoped that this study may provide insights into the understanding of the process and outputs of CI by student interpreters. Investigation into the interpreting capacities and the coordinating efforts required in the process of CI in different directions can help researchers and teachers “develop appropriate training strategies to remedy weakness that may occur when working from B and into B languages” (Gile, 2005).
This study is only a pilot study with limited data from four student interpreters only. To have a deeper insight into the relationship between error types and language proficiency level or between error types and directionality, further investigation into more student interpreters’ CI outputs in two directions is required.
Outcomes of Chapter III
We defined consecutive interpreting as the rendering of interpretation after the participant has produced a complete response, question, or idea(s). Using this frame of reference, we want students to:
• consider the mode to be used, the rationale, and how to incorporate consecutive and/or simultaneous modes throughout an assignment according to a meaning-based model (Russell, 2005; Shaw, 2007)4
• assess the requirements of an assignment prior to accepting it (this requires obtaining sufficient information)
• analyze the impact of their decisions and actions before, during, and after assignments
• provide effective consecutive interpretation
To learn consecutive interpretation, students must first acquire the theory and experience of using CI. Students gain fundamental skills by studying and applying discourse and text analyses. With this foundation, students are ready to acquire additional interpreting skills. Our first step is to help students understand the evidence from spoken/signed language research that supports the use of CI for accuracy, precision, and effectiveness. Next, we link research with practice, through educators modeling CI, students practicing CI, and educators and practitioners sharing their CI experiences.
Finally, based on this progression, students are ready to practice blending consecutive and simultaneous interpreting within a given interaction. This requires (a) application of discourse/text analysis skills, (b) consecutive and simultaneous interpreting abilities, and (c) decision-making schemas. Beginning in the foundational courses, students are guided through analysis of their work. Self-analysis is an essential learning component.
Download 275.5 Kb.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
