交替传译中做笔记的过程

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Sijia Chen
{"title":"交替传译中做笔记的过程","authors":"Sijia Chen","doi":"10.1075/intp.00036.che","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article reports the findings of an empirical study on the process of note-taking in consecutive interpreting (CI). The focus is on the data collected via digital pen recording and voice recording while professional interpreters performed CI between Chinese (L1) and English (L2). In both directions of interpreting, the study found that the interpreters preferred language to symbol and English to Chinese. It was also found that the physical and temporal demands of symbol and abbreviation notes were lower than those of language and full word notes, respectively, whereas the ear-pen span (EPS) of symbol notes was longer than that of language notes. As to the relationship between note-taking and interpreting performance, the data showed that a higher percentage of English notes was correlated with a worse performance in both directions of interpreting. There were also some differences between the directions: in E-C interpreting, the performance was better when the EPS was shorter, when the participants used more symbol notes, and when they used fewer language notes, but in C-E interpreting, the quality of performance was positively correlated with the quantity of notes.","PeriodicalId":51746,"journal":{"name":"Interpreting","volume":"22 1","pages":"117-139"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The process of note-taking in consecutive interpreting\",\"authors\":\"Sijia Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/intp.00036.che\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article reports the findings of an empirical study on the process of note-taking in consecutive interpreting (CI). The focus is on the data collected via digital pen recording and voice recording while professional interpreters performed CI between Chinese (L1) and English (L2). In both directions of interpreting, the study found that the interpreters preferred language to symbol and English to Chinese. It was also found that the physical and temporal demands of symbol and abbreviation notes were lower than those of language and full word notes, respectively, whereas the ear-pen span (EPS) of symbol notes was longer than that of language notes. As to the relationship between note-taking and interpreting performance, the data showed that a higher percentage of English notes was correlated with a worse performance in both directions of interpreting. There were also some differences between the directions: in E-C interpreting, the performance was better when the EPS was shorter, when the participants used more symbol notes, and when they used fewer language notes, but in C-E interpreting, the quality of performance was positively correlated with the quantity of notes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interpreting\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"117-139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interpreting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00036.che\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interpreting","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00036.che","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

摘要本文报道了一项关于连续口译中记笔记过程的实证研究结果。重点是通过数字笔记录和语音记录收集的数据,而专业口译员则在汉语(L1)和英语(L2)之间进行CI。研究发现,在口译的两个方向上,口译员更喜欢语言而不是符号,更喜欢英语而不是汉语。研究还发现,符号音符和缩写音符的物理和时间需求分别低于语言音符和全词音符,而符号音符的耳笔跨度(EPS)长于语言音符。关于笔记和口译成绩之间的关系,数据显示,英语笔记的比例越高,口译两个方向的成绩越差。两个方向之间也存在一些差异:在E-C口译中,当EPS较短时,当参与者使用更多符号音符时,当他们使用更少语言音符时,表现更好,但在C-E口译中,表现质量与音符数量呈正相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The process of note-taking in consecutive interpreting
Abstract This article reports the findings of an empirical study on the process of note-taking in consecutive interpreting (CI). The focus is on the data collected via digital pen recording and voice recording while professional interpreters performed CI between Chinese (L1) and English (L2). In both directions of interpreting, the study found that the interpreters preferred language to symbol and English to Chinese. It was also found that the physical and temporal demands of symbol and abbreviation notes were lower than those of language and full word notes, respectively, whereas the ear-pen span (EPS) of symbol notes was longer than that of language notes. As to the relationship between note-taking and interpreting performance, the data showed that a higher percentage of English notes was correlated with a worse performance in both directions of interpreting. There were also some differences between the directions: in E-C interpreting, the performance was better when the EPS was shorter, when the participants used more symbol notes, and when they used fewer language notes, but in C-E interpreting, the quality of performance was positively correlated with the quantity of notes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interpreting
Interpreting Multiple-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.80%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Interpreting serves as a medium for research and debate on all aspects of interpreting, in its various modes, modalities (spoken and signed) and settings (conferences, media, courtroom, healthcare and others). Striving to promote our understanding of the socio-cultural, cognitive and linguistic dimensions of interpreting as an activity and process, the journal covers theoretical and methodological concerns, explores the history and professional ecology of interpreting and its role in society, and addresses current issues in professional practice and training.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信