Observations on Anomalous Stress in Interpreting

Williams, Sarah

doi:10.1080/13556509.1995.10798949

Cited by 44 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This means that: (1) the perception of SL suprasegmentals occurs at the same time as the production of TL suprasegmentals; (2) the interpreter's output as a whole is based on incomplete SL input, as opposed to the complete turns on which consecutive interpreting is based. These characteristics of the SI process can understandably have a distinctive effect on salient suprasegmental features of the interpreter's TL output such as pausing patterns, which might differ from those of spontaneous monolingual speech (Barik 1972(Barik , 1973Goldman-Eisler 1972;Lee 1999), intonation and stress (Ahrens 2005;Nafá Waasaf 2007;Shlesinger 1994;Williams 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Source language-related erroneous stress placement in the target language output of simultaneous interpreters

Bakti¹,

Bóna²

2014

INTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Erroneous stress placement (ESP) in the target language is one of the salient suprasegmental features of simultaneously interpreted texts. This paper investigates the phenomenon in simultaneous interpretation from English, a free stress language, into Hungarian, a fixed stress language, the aim being to ascertain whether ESPs are related to source language features. Analysis of an experimental corpus collected for an earlier study (Bóna & Bakti 2009) made it possible to identify 122 ESPs, divided into two categories: (a) related to source language features; (b) others. These categories were further divided into several subcategories. Thus, (a) included ESPs related to: (i) source language stress, with semantic correspondence between the source language and target language units concerned; (ii) source language stress, but with no semantic correspondence between the target language unit and the prosodically similar source language unit identified in relatively close proximity to it. For (b), the subcategories distinguished between ESPs related to: (iii) the phonetic target language context; (iv) translation problems; (v) individual speech characteristics. Our results provide support for the view that metrical planning and segmental planning are separate processes. Thus, successful inhibition of source language interference on the segmental level during simultaneous interpreting is not necessarily associated with suppression of suprasegmental level source language interference.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Source language-related erroneous stress placement in the target language output of simultaneous interpreters

Bakti¹,

Bóna²

2014

INTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another (at present tentative) example of how such a model of activation and suppression may be of help is the problem of anomalous prosody in simultaneous interpreting. It has been observed that anomalous stress in interpreters' output may mirror or be triggered by salient but semantically unrelated stress in the input (Williams, 1995a). If this is the case, then this may be a question of mixing incoming signals such that it is the speaker's input, and not the interpreter's own production, which is acting as audial control for the interpreter's following output.…”

Section: Cognitive Research In Bilingualismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research and bilingualism and its relevance for interpreting

Williams

2017

HJLCB

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Il s'en est suivi une série de travaux (voir notamment les synthèses dans Kurz 1996 et dans Collados 1998) visant à déterminer les différences interutilisateurs dans les pondérations, ainsi que d'autres visant à cerner de plus près des composantes particulières (voir par exemple Shlesinger 1994, Williams 1995 et Collados Ais 1998 pour la prosodie, Gile 1995c et 1999a pour la fidélité, Shlesinger 1989 pour la qualité linguistique). Ces investigations portent généralement sur le produit, c'est-à-dire sur le discours d'arrivée tel que le reçoivent les délégués.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation en cours de formation

Gile¹

2002

meta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Résumé L'évaluation de la qualité de l'interprétation en cours de formation diffère de l'évaluation professionnelle essentiellement en raison de sa fonction d'orientation et de la part importante qu'elle accorde au processus d'interprétation, par opposition au seul discours d'arrivée. Il est proposé de faire appel à une évaluation orientée processus en début de formation, en raison de ses avantages psychologiques aussi bien que pour son efficacité dans l'orientation des étudiants. Il faudra toutefois passer progressivement à une évaluation orientée produit afin de rendre plus puissante l'action de l'enseignant sur le parachèvement du produit et pour préparer les étudiants aux tests d'aptitude de fin de parcours. L'éventuelle différence entre les normes des enseignants et celles du marché ne pose pas de problème fondamental tant qu'elle porte sur le niveau requis, plus élevé en formation, et non pas sur les normes et stratégies de l'interprète.

show abstract

Observations on Anomalous Stress in Interpreting

Cited by 44 publications

References 4 publications

Source language-related erroneous stress placement in the target language output of simultaneous interpreters

Source language-related erroneous stress placement in the target language output of simultaneous interpreters

Research and bilingualism and its relevance for interpreting

L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation en cours de formation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About