Patterns of Attention and Quality in English-Chinese Simultaneous Interpreting with Text

Long-jian Zou, M. Carl, Jia Feng
{"title":"Patterns of Attention and Quality in English-Chinese Simultaneous Interpreting with Text","authors":"Long-jian Zou, M. Carl, Jia Feng","doi":"10.56395/ijceti.v2i2.50","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Simultaneous interpreting with text (SIMTXT) is generally seen as being cognitively more demanding than either simultaneous interpreting (SI) or sight translation (STT). However, little research has been done on how interpreters allocate their attention proportionally during SIMTXT between their auditory and visual attention. This study examines attention patterns during SIMTXT and investigates the relationship between the interpreters’ attention patterns and the quality of the interpreting output. Nine professional interpreters were recruited for SIMTXT, interpreting six English STs into Chinese. The interpreters listened to the audio input while the transcribed text of the audio input was displayed on the screen by Translog-II. The eye movements were recorded by an eye-tracker (Tobii TX300) while their interpretations were recorded by Audacity. The gaze and the spoken data (source and target) were synchronized on a word-level and aligned with the final STs and TTs. We explored and categorized the visual and auditory attention patterns based on their ear-voice span (EVS), eye-voice span (IVS), and ear-eye span (EIS) and found three types of attention patterns in our data, namely, ear-dominant (ED), eye-dominant (ID), and ear-eye-balanced (EIB). In addition, the interpreting output was annotated by three professional interpreters based on an error taxonomy adapted from Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM). We found that the EIB interpreters produced the lowest translation quality in terms of total error numbers and accuracy, followed by ED, and then ID interpreters. ED interpreters produced the highest translation quality in terms of fluency, followed by EIB, and then ID interpreters.","PeriodicalId":314813,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chinese and English Translation & Interpreting","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chinese and English Translation & Interpreting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56395/ijceti.v2i2.50","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Simultaneous interpreting with text (SIMTXT) is generally seen as being cognitively more demanding than either simultaneous interpreting (SI) or sight translation (STT). However, little research has been done on how interpreters allocate their attention proportionally during SIMTXT between their auditory and visual attention. This study examines attention patterns during SIMTXT and investigates the relationship between the interpreters’ attention patterns and the quality of the interpreting output. Nine professional interpreters were recruited for SIMTXT, interpreting six English STs into Chinese. The interpreters listened to the audio input while the transcribed text of the audio input was displayed on the screen by Translog-II. The eye movements were recorded by an eye-tracker (Tobii TX300) while their interpretations were recorded by Audacity. The gaze and the spoken data (source and target) were synchronized on a word-level and aligned with the final STs and TTs. We explored and categorized the visual and auditory attention patterns based on their ear-voice span (EVS), eye-voice span (IVS), and ear-eye span (EIS) and found three types of attention patterns in our data, namely, ear-dominant (ED), eye-dominant (ID), and ear-eye-balanced (EIB). In addition, the interpreting output was annotated by three professional interpreters based on an error taxonomy adapted from Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM). We found that the EIB interpreters produced the lowest translation quality in terms of total error numbers and accuracy, followed by ED, and then ID interpreters. ED interpreters produced the highest translation quality in terms of fluency, followed by EIB, and then ID interpreters.
英汉语篇同声传译的注意与质量模式
文本同声传译(SIMTXT)通常被认为比同声传译(SI)或视译(STT)对认知的要求更高。然而,关于口译员在模拟文本翻译过程中如何将注意力在听觉和视觉注意力之间分配比例的研究却很少。本研究考察了口译过程中的注意模式,并探讨了译员注意模式与口译输出质量之间的关系。SIMTXT招募了9名专业译员,将6篇英文STs翻译成中文。口译员听音频输入,而音频输入的转录文本由Translog-II显示在屏幕上。眼球运动由眼动仪(Tobii TX300)记录,其解释由Audacity记录。注视和说话数据(源和目标)在单词水平上同步,并与最终的STs和tt保持一致。基于耳声跨度(EVS)、眼声跨度(IVS)和耳眼跨度(EIS)对视觉和听觉注意模式进行了探索和分类,发现了三种类型的注意模式,即耳主导型(ED)、眼主导型(ID)和耳眼平衡型(EIB)。此外,口译输出由三名专业口译员根据从多维质量度量(MQM)改编的错误分类法进行注释。我们发现EIB口译员在总错误数和准确性方面的翻译质量最低,其次是ED口译员,然后是ID口译员。ED口译员的翻译质量最高,其次是EIB口译员,然后是ID口译员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信