记数字笔记是否能帮助提高同传中数字的准确率
|
摘要
同声传译过程中,口译员通常会发现数字的翻译有困难,传统的同传中处理数字的方法如依靠事前的文本材料,向一同在译员厢中工作的同事求助,缩短EVS等在现实操作中都有一定局限性。于是笔者对前人所做的关于同传中数字笔记的有效性的实验在实验对象、方法和数字分类等方面进行了改进和创新,展开了实验,观察了同传中数字笔记的效用以及何时记笔记可能最有效。
本文首先从吉尔的认知负荷理论框架下论证了同传中数字的特殊困难以及记数字笔记的可行性,之后以前人大量的理论和实验结果为基础,论证了检验同传中数字笔记是否有效的实验只有在有经验的同声传译员之间展开才比较科学。
笔者于是将12名有经验的同声传译员随机分成A、B两组,A组成员在同传过程中不记笔记,B组记笔记,用同一篇音频对其进行同传测试并录音,转录译文,分析比较两组成员在各项数字指标方面的准确率。
统计结果显示,同传过程中,数字的确对口译员造成了麻烦,无论记笔记与否都如此;10000以上的整数最容易对口译员造成麻烦;漏译是口译员最容易犯的数字错误;记数字笔记会分散口译员的注意力,但可以很大程度上帮助提高数字准确率;然而,综合考察数字和非数字部分,笔记对于提高全篇信息准确率有一定的作用,但效果不是十分显著;笔记对于提高10000以上的整数的准确率的效果最显著;对于减少模糊处理的错误的效果最显著;记笔记最有效的情形是,数字成串出现,列举式的时候,以及大的数字单独出现的时候;数字成串出现逻辑关系稍有复杂时笔记不是最有效的;而小的数字单独出现时,笔记不但不会帮助提高数字的准确率,反而会使数字的错误率稍有增加。
从而,笔者希望这些观察结果能对实战中的口译员有所启示,并为今后针对同传中数字的实验和培训提供思路,有所帮助。
Numbers usually cause interpreters difficulties in simultaneous interpretation. Traditional coping strategies such as referring to written materials, seeking help from boothmates and shortening EVS are not always reliable in real life. The author thus conducted an experiment on the effectiveness of note-taking in helping to improve number accuracy in simultaneous interpretation, based on innovation and improvements in terms of test subjects, classification of numbers and experiment method over previous experiments on the same subject.
The author first put the inherent difficulties of numbers in SI into the perspective of Daniel Gile’s Effort Model and analyzed the plausibility of note-taking for numbers in SI. Citing results of lots of previous experiments, the author managed to prove theoretically any experiment aimed at testing the effectiveness of note-taking for numbers in SI is valid and meaningful only when conducted among experienced interpreters.
The author thus randomly split 12 experienced simultaneous interpreters into Group A and B(note-taking is allowed only for Group B), tested them all on the same speech, transcribed their recordings and compared number performance of the two groups on all indicators used in this experiment.
Statistical results show that, numbers do pose problems to interpreters, which is true regardless of availability of note-taking; numbers above 10000 is the most difficult type; omission is the most frequent type of number mistakes; while distracting interpreters, note-taking does greatly help improve number accuracy rates in SI; but note-taking has limited effect in improving overall accuracy rates for both numbers and non-numbers put together; note-taking seems most effective for four-digit numbers and above and it works best for reducing omissions; situations when note-taking works best also include when numbers appear in clusters like in an example and when large numbers are spread sparsely among passages; note-taking is not as effective for numbers when they appear in a cluster and the logic is complex; instead of improving number accuracy rates, note-taking reduces accuracy rates for numbers when small numbers appear sparsely in paragraphs.
The author hopes these findings can provide input for future experiments on targeted number training for simultaneous interpretation and help simultaneous interpreters improve number accuracy rates in real life.
本文首先从吉尔的认知负荷理论框架下论证了同传中数字的特殊困难以及记数字笔记的可行性,之后以前人大量的理论和实验结果为基础,论证了检验同传中数字笔记是否有效的实验只有在有经验的同声传译员之间展开才比较科学。
笔者于是将12名有经验的同声传译员随机分成A、B两组,A组成员在同传过程中不记笔记,B组记笔记,用同一篇音频对其进行同传测试并录音,转录译文,分析比较两组成员在各项数字指标方面的准确率。
统计结果显示,同传过程中,数字的确对口译员造成了麻烦,无论记笔记与否都如此;10000以上的整数最容易对口译员造成麻烦;漏译是口译员最容易犯的数字错误;记数字笔记会分散口译员的注意力,但可以很大程度上帮助提高数字准确率;然而,综合考察数字和非数字部分,笔记对于提高全篇信息准确率有一定的作用,但效果不是十分显著;笔记对于提高10000以上的整数的准确率的效果最显著;对于减少模糊处理的错误的效果最显著;记笔记最有效的情形是,数字成串出现,列举式的时候,以及大的数字单独出现的时候;数字成串出现逻辑关系稍有复杂时笔记不是最有效的;而小的数字单独出现时,笔记不但不会帮助提高数字的准确率,反而会使数字的错误率稍有增加。
从而,笔者希望这些观察结果能对实战中的口译员有所启示,并为今后针对同传中数字的实验和培训提供思路,有所帮助。
Numbers usually cause interpreters difficulties in simultaneous interpretation. Traditional coping strategies such as referring to written materials, seeking help from boothmates and shortening EVS are not always reliable in real life. The author thus conducted an experiment on the effectiveness of note-taking in helping to improve number accuracy in simultaneous interpretation, based on innovation and improvements in terms of test subjects, classification of numbers and experiment method over previous experiments on the same subject.
The author first put the inherent difficulties of numbers in SI into the perspective of Daniel Gile’s Effort Model and analyzed the plausibility of note-taking for numbers in SI. Citing results of lots of previous experiments, the author managed to prove theoretically any experiment aimed at testing the effectiveness of note-taking for numbers in SI is valid and meaningful only when conducted among experienced interpreters.
The author thus randomly split 12 experienced simultaneous interpreters into Group A and B(note-taking is allowed only for Group B), tested them all on the same speech, transcribed their recordings and compared number performance of the two groups on all indicators used in this experiment.
Statistical results show that, numbers do pose problems to interpreters, which is true regardless of availability of note-taking; numbers above 10000 is the most difficult type; omission is the most frequent type of number mistakes; while distracting interpreters, note-taking does greatly help improve number accuracy rates in SI; but note-taking has limited effect in improving overall accuracy rates for both numbers and non-numbers put together; note-taking seems most effective for four-digit numbers and above and it works best for reducing omissions; situations when note-taking works best also include when numbers appear in clusters like in an example and when large numbers are spread sparsely among passages; note-taking is not as effective for numbers when they appear in a cluster and the logic is complex; instead of improving number accuracy rates, note-taking reduces accuracy rates for numbers when small numbers appear sparsely in paragraphs.
The author hopes these findings can provide input for future experiments on targeted number training for simultaneous interpretation and help simultaneous interpreters improve number accuracy rates in real life.
引文
Alessandrini, M.S. 1990. Translating Numbers in Consecutive Interpretation: An Experimental Study[J]. The Interpreters’Newsletter,(3): 77-80.
Baddeley,A. 2000. Working memory: The interface between memory and cognition. [J]. Cognitive Neuroscience: A Reader,292-304.
Baddeley,A. 1990. Human Memory: Theory and Practice[M]. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baddeley,A. 1987. Working Memory[M]. New York: University Press.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists[M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Braun,S. and Clarici,A. 1996. Inaccuracy in Numerals in Simultaneous Interpretation: Neurolinguistic and Neuropsychological Perspectives [J]. The Interpreters’Newsletter,(7): 85-102.
Cheung, Kay-fan. 2009. Numbers in Simultaneous Interpreting: An Experimental Study[J].Forum, (7): 61-88.
Cohen, L., Dehaene, S. and Verstichel, P. 1994. Number Words and Number Non-Words: A Case of Deep Dyslexia Extending to Arabic Numerals [J]. Brain, (117): 267-2769.
Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. 1972. Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, (11): 671-679.
Crevatin, A. 1991. La traduzione dei numeri in interpretazione simultanea: un contributo sperimentale, dissertation[D]. Trieste: SSLMIT.
Eysenek, Michael W. & Mark T. Keane. 1990. Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook[M]. UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Franz Poechhacker. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies[M]. New York: Routledge. 124.
Gerver, D. 1974a. Simultaneous Listening and Speaking and Retention of Rose[J]. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, (3): 337-41.
Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. 1999. Testing the Effort Models Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting:A Contribution[J]. Hermes, (23): 153-172.
Gile, D. 1984a. Des difficultes de la transmission informationnelle en interpretation simultanee [J]. Babel, (28): 18-25. Gile, D. 1984b. Les noms propres en interpretation simultanee[J]. Multilingua, (3/2): 79-85.
Harrington, M. 1992. Working Memory Capacity as a Constraint on L2 Development, in Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 123-135.
Kalina, S. 1992. Discourse Processing and Interpreting Strategies- An approach to the Teaching of Interpreting, in Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Traning, Talent and Experience[M]. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 251-257.
Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, M. 2001. Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Working Memory Analysis, PhD dissertation [D]. Austin : University of Texas.
Luria, A.R. 1976. The Neuropsychology of Memory[M]. Washington: Winston& Sons.
Mazza, Christina. 2001. Numbers in Simultaneous Interpretation[J]. The Interpreters Newsletter, (2): 87.
Miller, G. A. 1956. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits in Our Capacity for Processing Information[J]. The Psychological Review, (2): 81-97.
Padilla, P., Bajo, M.T., Canas, J.J. and Padilla, F. Cognitive Processes of Memory in Simultaneous Interpretation. In Tommola, J.(ed.) Topics in Interpreting Research. Turku: University of Turku Centre for Translation and Interpreting, 1995:61-71.
Reed, Stephen K. 1982, 1998. Cognition: Theory and Applications[M]. 2nd ed. California: Wadsworth, Inc.
Seleskovitch, D. 1975. Language and Memory: A study of Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting[A](Trans. J. Harmer). In Poechhacker and Shlesinger 2002. The Interpreting Studies Reader[C]. (2002): 121-129.
Setton, R. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis[M]. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Solso, Robert L. 1979. Cognitive Psychology [M]. 3rd ed. US: Allyn and Bacon.
鲍刚. 1998.口译理论概述[M].北京:旅游教育出版社.
仇吟秋. 2009.同传与交传的准确性比较[D].上海:上海外国语大学.
张维为. 1999.英汉同声传译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
Baddeley,A. 2000. Working memory: The interface between memory and cognition. [J]. Cognitive Neuroscience: A Reader,292-304.
Baddeley,A. 1990. Human Memory: Theory and Practice[M]. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baddeley,A. 1987. Working Memory[M]. New York: University Press.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists[M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Braun,S. and Clarici,A. 1996. Inaccuracy in Numerals in Simultaneous Interpretation: Neurolinguistic and Neuropsychological Perspectives [J]. The Interpreters’Newsletter,(7): 85-102.
Cheung, Kay-fan. 2009. Numbers in Simultaneous Interpreting: An Experimental Study[J].Forum, (7): 61-88.
Cohen, L., Dehaene, S. and Verstichel, P. 1994. Number Words and Number Non-Words: A Case of Deep Dyslexia Extending to Arabic Numerals [J]. Brain, (117): 267-2769.
Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. 1972. Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, (11): 671-679.
Crevatin, A. 1991. La traduzione dei numeri in interpretazione simultanea: un contributo sperimentale, dissertation[D]. Trieste: SSLMIT.
Eysenek, Michael W. & Mark T. Keane. 1990. Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook[M]. UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Franz Poechhacker. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies[M]. New York: Routledge. 124.
Gerver, D. 1974a. Simultaneous Listening and Speaking and Retention of Rose[J]. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, (3): 337-41.
Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. 1999. Testing the Effort Models Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting:A Contribution[J]. Hermes, (23): 153-172.
Gile, D. 1984a. Des difficultes de la transmission informationnelle en interpretation simultanee [J]. Babel, (28): 18-25. Gile, D. 1984b. Les noms propres en interpretation simultanee[J]. Multilingua, (3/2): 79-85.
Harrington, M. 1992. Working Memory Capacity as a Constraint on L2 Development, in Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 123-135.
Kalina, S. 1992. Discourse Processing and Interpreting Strategies- An approach to the Teaching of Interpreting, in Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Traning, Talent and Experience[M]. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 251-257.
Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, M. 2001. Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Working Memory Analysis, PhD dissertation [D]. Austin : University of Texas.
Luria, A.R. 1976. The Neuropsychology of Memory[M]. Washington: Winston& Sons.
Mazza, Christina. 2001. Numbers in Simultaneous Interpretation[J]. The Interpreters Newsletter, (2): 87.
Miller, G. A. 1956. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits in Our Capacity for Processing Information[J]. The Psychological Review, (2): 81-97.
Padilla, P., Bajo, M.T., Canas, J.J. and Padilla, F. Cognitive Processes of Memory in Simultaneous Interpretation. In Tommola, J.(ed.) Topics in Interpreting Research. Turku: University of Turku Centre for Translation and Interpreting, 1995:61-71.
Reed, Stephen K. 1982, 1998. Cognition: Theory and Applications[M]. 2nd ed. California: Wadsworth, Inc.
Seleskovitch, D. 1975. Language and Memory: A study of Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting[A](Trans. J. Harmer). In Poechhacker and Shlesinger 2002. The Interpreting Studies Reader[C]. (2002): 121-129.
Setton, R. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis[M]. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Solso, Robert L. 1979. Cognitive Psychology [M]. 3rd ed. US: Allyn and Bacon.
鲍刚. 1998.口译理论概述[M].北京:旅游教育出版社.
仇吟秋. 2009.同传与交传的准确性比较[D].上海:上海外国语大学.
张维为. 1999.英汉同声传译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |