g eneral results

Figure 1:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforSIandshadowingtogether

generallyspeaking,anomalieshavebeendetectedandcorrectedinalmosthalfofthecases

(47%)whiletheratioofrepeating/interpretingthemincorrectlyisonly13%.Thisresultis

similartothatofZanetti’s(55%-11%).

Inthetwootherprocessingoperations,theratiosarereversed:inthepresentresearch

paraphrasingisrepresentedmuchless(4%)thanomission(36%)unlikeinZanetti’sresearch

wheretheproportionsare20%and14%respectively.

TheoverallresultsthusconfirmedZanetti’sfindings,Hypothesis 1ofthisresearch,that

thereisalsoa reasonforanticipationbetweentwolanguageswithidenticalstructures(SVo),

evenifitisdifficulttomeasureorperceive.

Figures 2 and 3showthedistributionofr,nr,oandIPseparatelyforSIandshadowing.

Figure 2:distributionofr,nr,o,IPinSI Figure 3:distributionofr,nr,o,IPinshadowing

HenriettSzegh

Thedifferencebetweenthenumberofthecorrectionsisnegligiblebut,contrarytotheHypo-thesis 2,itisundoubtedlyhigherinshadowingthaninSI(50%vs45%).Therepetitionof

anomaliesalsooccurredmorefrequentlyinshadowing(27%vs11%).

However,Figures 2 and 3supportHypothesis 5accordingtowhichtheproportionofomis-sionsishigherinSI(42%)thaninshadowing(16%).

7.2 resultsfor rd, rv and n grouPs

TherelatedHypothesis 4,thatanticipationismorecommonincaseswhereanomaliesappear

lessthan3sentenceslaterthanthepreviouslypronouncedcorrectformoftheword(rV),

doesnotappeartobejustifiedonthebasisofthefollowingresultssincethehighestratiois

obtainedjustintheoppositecase(rd).atthesametime,therepetitionoftheanomalyis

higher(16%)whentheanomalyisclosertothecorrect,originalversion.

Figure 4alsoshowsthatinthecaseofnewanomalies,participantsintheresearchwere

morelikelytohavemissed(48%)thancorrected(32%)orrepeated(20%)them.

Figure 4:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforalltypesofanomaliesinSIandshadowing

Figure 5:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforalltypesofanomaliesinSI

Figure 6:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforalltypesofanomaliesinshadowing

Figures 5 and 6showtheresultforSIandforshadowingseparately.Basedonthesewecan

statethatshadowersaremorecharacterisedbyacousticalprocessing,thatis,theyrecognise

thatthegivenwordexists,butdonotperforma deeper,semanticanalysisduringwhichitalso

turnsoutwhetherthewordfitsthecontextornot.Theirtaskis‘just’repeatwhathasbeen

said.Thus,itisnotsurprisingthattheproportionofnrinshadowing(rd-10%,rV-30%,

n-40%)ismuchhigherthanininterpreting(rd-0%,rV-7%,n-27%).

7.3 rd ^anomalies

Table 1belowshowstherdanomaliesfoundinthetext.rdanomalieswerecontainedin

lexicalitemsthathadappearedmorethanthreesentencesbeforetheoneinquestion.

Table 1:rdanomalies

Code original anomaly

rd1 nationsunies nationsmunies

rd2 développementdurable développementrurable

rd3 gazàeffetdeserre gazàeffetdeterre

rd4 énergiesrenouvelables énergierenoulevable

rd5 avenirdelaplanète avenirdelamanette

Figure 7:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrdanomalyrdinSIandshadowing

HenriettSzegh

Figure 7showsthatinallcases,exceptforrd5,thereisa highproportionofcorrections

(60%,60%,80%,80%,20%).However,Figures 8 and 9alsoshowthatinterpreterstypically

usedtwosolutions:theycorrectedoromittedanomalieswhileshadowershada repetitionand

theproportionofcorrectionismuchsmaller.

Figure 8:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrdanomalyinSI

Figure 9:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrdanomalyinshadowing

7.4 rv anomalies

Table 2belowshowstherVanomaliesfoundinthetext.rVanomalieswerecontainedin

lexicalitemsthathadappearedlessthanthreesentencesbeforetheoneinquestion.

Table 2:rVanomalies

Code original anomaly

rV1 chefd’Étatetdegouvernement chefd’Éthiqueetdegouvernement

rV2 conférence confidence

rV3 justiceclimatique justicelimatique

rV4 accord àcorne

rV5 condition conviction

Mostofthecorrectionswereassumed(Hylothesis4)forrVanomalies,butthis,aspreviously

revealed,hasnotbeenverified.

Figure 10:Correctionsofrd,rV,nanomaliesinSIandshadowing

Figure 11showsthedataregardingrVanomaliesinSIandshadowingtogetherwhileFigures 12 and 13forSIandshadowingseparately.

Figure 11:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrVanomaliesinSIandshadowing

Figure 12:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrVanomaliesinSI

HenriettSzegh

Figure 13:distributionofr,nr,o,IPforrVanomaliesinshadowing

ThegraphsshowthatcorrectionsweremorerepresentedinSI(53%vs40%)andthenumber

ofrepetitionscomparedtoshadowingresults(7%vs30%)isminimal.

ForrV1andrV2,theresultiswellexplained:thewords‘éthique’and‘confidance’despite

beingclosetothecorrectversions‘état’and‘conférence’,disturbedtheshadowerswho“weresat- isfied”withthefactthatthewordismeaningful(50%,100%).Interpreterswereagainsupport-edbytheirsemanticexpectationsandasa consequencetheyhaveneverrepeatedtheanomaly.

regardingrV3andrV4,thedifferencebetweenthecorrectwordandtheanomalyis

barelyaudible,perhapsthisisthereasonforthehighnumberofcorrectsolutionsbothinSI

(33%,100%)andshadowing(100%,50%).

7.5 n anomalies

Table 3belowshowsthenanomaliesfoundinthetext.nanomalieswerenew,inthesense

thattheyhadnoantecedentinthetext.

Table 3:nanomalies

Code original anomaly

n1 concentrationdeCo2 concertationdeCo2

n2 différentiation différence

n3 recyclage restylage

n4 technologie technicologie

n5 mondialisation mondiatisation

Figure 14:distributionofr,nr,o,IPfornanomaliesinSIandshadowing

Figure 14mustbeexaminedindetail.Separately(Figures15and16)theresultsdemonstrate

againthatforshadowersomissionisnotanoption,asitmakesthetextcompletelymeaning-less.Conversely,interpreterswhosespeechproductionisnotinfluencedbytheomissionof

a wordarebolderinthissituation(53%vs100%).

Figure 15:distributionofr,nr,o,IPfornanomaliesinSI

Figure 16:distributionofr,nr,o,IPfornanomaliesinshadowing

8. distribution oF CorreCtions oF Meaningless anoMalies

In document HUNGARIAN TRANSLATION (Pldal 84-90)