英语论文网

e English text with SI on the computer playing it. The TSR was calculated using the following formula: TSR = TST - LTI - SPIST / TST (TST = total speaking time, LTI = listening time by interpreter, SPIST = speakers' pause within interpreter's speaking time, TST = total speaking time). Two different evaluation methods were used for quality assessment. For the quality of a sample as a whole, the number of meaning units in the original English speech was calculated and then it was matched against the Korean interpretation version. For example, when there were 10 meaning units in the SL sample and 5 were interpreted into the TL, the sample was judged as 50 % accurate. For the quality of time simultaneity portion and listening portion, an evaluation based on the number of words, not on the meaning unit, was employed. When all the original English words in the listening portion of an English speech were interpreted into the Korean version, the portion was judged as 100% accurate, whereas 50% accuracy was assigned when half of the words in the SL appeared in the TL. This method of evaluation for the simultaneity portion and the listening portion was necessary since the boundary between these portion was not located between sentences all of the time; rather, it was in the middle of sentences most of the time. Some articles or possessive adjectives that are not necessarily interpreted in Korean were not considered in the evaluation. During the quality assessment, importance was given to maintaining consistency of the criteria so as to compare the quality of each sample and portion. 3. RESULTS Speakers exhibited 77% of speech proportion (SP) while interpreters showed 58% and the SP of interpreter to speaker (I/S) was 0.76. A negative correlation was found between the speaker's SP (SSP) and accuracy as a whole (r = - 0.47 p < 0.01). Interpreter's SP (ISP) demonstrated no change with an increase of the SSP and speaker's syllable per minute (SSPM). Speech rate, or syllables per minute, of a speaker was 231 spm, while that of interpreter was 243 spm, and the I/S ratio was 1.08. The articulation rate of the speaker was 302 spm while that of interpreter was 400 spm, and the I/S was 1.36. Regarding the number of syllables uttered by speakers and interpreters, the I/S ratio was 1.09, which means that interpreters uttered 109% more syllables than speakers. Interpreters both listened and spoke concurrently for 61% of total syllables uttered by the speaker. The syllable simultaneity ratio (SSR) was not influenced by increasing SSP and SSPM. The SSR, however, showed positive correlations with ISP (r = 0.85 p < 0.001), interpreter syllables per minute (ISPM) (r = 0.52 p < 0.01), SPM I/S ratio (r = 0.33, p < 0.05), SP I/S ( r= 0.56, p < 0.001), and time simultaneity ratio (TSR) (r = 0.73, p < 0.001). Interpreters listened and spoke concurrently for 40% of the total utterance time. This 40% of the TSR remained unchanged with the increase of speakers' speech rate and articulation rate. The TSR, however, showed a positive correlation with SSP (r = 0.53, p < 0.01), ISP (r = 0.79, p < 0.001), interpreter's speech rate (r = 0.58, p < 0.001), SPM I/S ratio (r = 0.41, p < 0.05) and SSR (r = 0.73, p < 0.001). A negative correlation was obtained between the TSR and accuracy as a whole (r = - 0.32, p < 0.05). A t-test showed that the accuracy of the time simultaneity portion was lower than the accuracy of the listening portion (df = 29, t = 8.81, p < 0.001). The