stage one: the survey 3.1 P urPose of the survey

Theaimofthesurveyistobroadenourknowledgeofsimultaneous interpreting with text

(si+t)byexaminingattitudesandstrategiesofinterpreterswitha languagecombinationthat

includesHungarian.

Theresearchquestionandthecorrespondinghypothesisarethefollowing:doesthewrit-ten text help, rather than hinder interpreters’ performance in simultaneous interpreting?

Hypothesis:Whentheappropriatestrategiesareused,visualinformationcomplementsaudi-toryinformationandhelpsconferenceinterpreterstorenderthemessagemoreaccuratelyand

ina moresuitableform.

Borbálarohonyi

Thesurveyconductedinthefirststageoftheresearchreliedona studycarriedoutby

a groupoffourresearchers:Cammoun,davies,Ivanovandnaimushin(2009).Thepresent

projectadaptedtheirquestionnairebeingspeciallydesignedtorevealinterpreters’practices

andattitudestowardssi+t totheHungarianmarket.Fora detaileddescriptionofthemethod

andthequestionnaireusedinthesurvey,seeannexe1.

3.2 resultsofthesurvey – discussion

Surprisingly,almosthalfoftherespondents(15interpreters)tookpartinsomekindof si+ttrain-ing.13amongthemhadsi+texercisesduringtheirinterpretertraining.Thisresultconfirmsthe

earlierfindingsofCammounetal.(2009)andprovesthattraininginsi+t isnotmissingfrom

interpretertraining.Thequestionnairedidnotlookintothenatureandscopeofthetraining.In

termsofbasicstrategies,thequestionnaireinquiredfirstwhethertheinterpreterchoosestouse

thewrittencopyofthespeechornot.Thevastmajorityofrespondents(91%)alwaysusethewrit-tentextwhentheyreceiveitwellinadvance(scenario1);a majority(79%)alwaysuseitifthey

receivethewrittencopyatleast15minutesbeforethestartofinterpreting(scenario2).Inthecase

theyaregiventhewrittentextonly5minutesbeforethestart(scenario3),lessthanhalfalways

useit(42%),alsolessthanhalfsometimesuseit(45%).The‘never’optionforthesequestionsis

worthmentioning:nobodydiscardsthetextinscenario1,itcamesomewhatasa surprisethat

onerespondent(3%)discardsthewrittentextinscenario2,and3respondents(9%)prefernot

tousethetextwhentheyreceiveitlessthan5minutesinadvance(scenario3).

Inordertodeepentheanalysis,Pearsonchi²(4)correlationanalysiswascarriedoutto

showtherelationofsi+ttrainingandtheuseofthewrittentextforthethreescenarios.si+t

trainingdoesnotcorrelatesignificantlywiththedecisiontousethemanuscriptinthefirst

andsecondcase(Pr=0.927;Pr=0.130).However,Table 1showsthatsignificantcorrelationwas

foundinthethirdscenariobetweentraininganduseoftext(Pr=0.063).Thosewhoreceived

si+ttrainingwerelessinclinedtousethetextintheconstrainedsituationwheretheyhave

lessthanfiveminutestopreparethetext,comparedwiththosewhodidnothaveanysuch

training.a possibleexplanationforthisunexpectedresultcouldbethatinterpretersprefer

todiscardthetextincasetheycannotprepareit“properly”.However,thishypothesisneeds

furtherstudytobeconfirmed.

Table 1:relationofSI+Ttraininganduseofthewrittentextinscenario3

do you use the text if you receive it less than 5 minutes before the start of interpreting?

Training Yes,always Yes,sometimes never Total

no 10 7 0 17

Yes 4 8 3 15

Total 14 15 3 32

Pearson

chi2(4) 5.5347Pr=0.063

Insituationswheretheyhavetimetopreparethewrittentext(scenarios1and2combined),

respondentsfocusonnamesandtitlesinthefirstplace,followedbyterms,numbers,sentence

structureandlinks,and,finally,references.Theeffectofsi+ttrainingcanbeshown:those

whoreceivedtrainingconsiderthepreparationofnames,titles,numbers,referencesandterms

(fouroutoffivecategories)tobemoreimportantthanthosewhodidnothavetraining.

Figure 1showsthatwhenrespondentshavelessthanfiveminutes,mostprefertogetthe

generalideaofthetextbyskimmingthroughit,followedcloselyinimportancebycircling/

underlying/highlightinga fewimportantelements,includingnamesandnumbers,andfi-nally,readingthefirstandlastparagraph.Thisisnotanunexpectedresult,yettheorderof

preferenceofthetwofirstoptionsisreversedcomparedwiththefindingsofCammounetal.

(2009).

Figure 1:Scenario3–Lessthan5minutestopreparethewrittentext

The literature review elaborated the four benefits and five constraints conceptualised by

Cammounetal.(2009).eightofthesewereusedinthepresentsurvey,anda separateques-tionreferredtodualinput.

Interpretersrankedtheconceptsintermsoftheirimportanceinsi+t(theorderofprior-itywas1to8where1wasthemostimportantand8theleastimportant).Firstofall,they

considerthewrittentexttobehelpfulforanincreasedaccuracy ofdatain the output(2.73).

Secondly,inthecasewherethedeliveryspeedisaccelerated(3.16),thirdlyasithelpsthem

anticipate(3.85).Thesewerefollowedbythelackofredundancy(3.89),copingwitha heavy accent(4.03),tohavea broaderknowledgeofthetopicofthemeeting(4.43),interference

fromthesourcetext(5.81),andfinally,whenthedeliveryismonotonous(6.12).relativetothe

conceptofinterferencethesamedoubthasarisenasintheresearchperformedbyCammoun

etal.(2009).Interferencerefersto“thedirectimpactofthesourcetextonthetargettext”

(g. Láng2002:194);or“speakersapplyingknowledgefromthefirst/sourcelanguageto

a  second/target language” (Cammoun et al. 2009: 60), and the negative effect might be

strongerandmoreapparentwhenthevisualsignsarepresentinfrontofthem(gile2009).

respondentsmighthaveconfusedinterferencewiththedifficultyofdualinput.Therefore,

thisaspectwasnotfurtheranalysed.

Thecomparison,withthehelpofa meantest(Wald)oftheaveragerankingsoftheeight

constraintsandbenefitswithinthesi+ttrainingsubgroupandothersubgroupsperyears

ofprofessionalexperience,provedtobefruitful.amongtheeightaspectsonestoodout:

Borbálarohonyi

therewereonlysignificantdifferencesbetweenthesubgroupsintherankingof“havingthe

textwhenthespeakerhasa heavy accent”.Itsrankingwassignificantlyhigher(witha 95%

confidencelevel)amongthosewhohavenotreceivedtrainingandthosewhohavemorethan

tenyearsofprofessionalexperience.Inviewofthesesurprisingresults,accentseemedtobe

a conceptthatrequiresfurtherstudy.

Figure 2:relyingontheauditory/visualinputinSI+T

Figure 2showsparticipants’preferencesintermsofthesighttranslationcomponentofSI+T.

Theratioofthosewhomainly‘followtheirears’wasslightlyhigherthanthosewhofavour

thedominanceofsight translation(10versus8respondents,30%versus24%).Butbasedon

theresults,theoutstandingratiooftheoption“Itdepends”(17respondents,51%)isworth

mentioning.Itindicatesthatmanyinterpretersdonothavea one-and-onlystrategy,orgeneral

preferenceofa strategythatworksfortheminsi+tmode.Theirstrategychangesdepending

–presumably–onhowmuchtimetheyhavetopreparethetext,whattypeoftexttheyhave

todealwithandhoweasilytheycanunderstandthespeaker.Furtheranalysiswascarriedout

inthesecondstageoftheresearchtofindoutwhattheirstrategydependson.

Foranextendedanalysisoftheresultsofthequestionnaireandmoredetaileddescription

ofwhatdifferenceswerefoundfromfindingsofCammounetal.(2009),seerohonyi(2016).

In document HUNGARIAN TRANSLATION (Pldal 60-63)