英语论文网

(1997) points out, the time simultaneity portion seems to constitute "an intrinsic difficulty in interpreting that cannot be explained by interpreter's weakness." The reasons for the poor quality of the time simultaneity portion might include the following: The first may be, as repeatedly mentioned, excessive multi-processing during the time simultaneity portion. Although no one can describe the process in the interpreter's cognitive system exactly, it is clear that uttering TL is added to the ongoing process when interpreters speak and listen simultaneously. This added "novel stimuli" clearly needs "conscious processing", as Velmans (1991) states. This additional processing clearly overloads the cognitive processing of the interpreter. According to Gile (1995: 161), Interpretation requires some sort of mental "energy" that is only available in limited supply. Interpretation takes up almost all of this mental energy, and sometimes requires more than is available, at which times performance deteriorates. This is also why the quality of the time simultaneity portion is more easily influenced by SL factors than the listening portion. The second reason may be the involvement of the interpreter's own voice with SL input. Two audio signals are being input to the interpreter's ear and interfere with the listening process of the interpreter. According to Isham (1994: 208), In sum, recall in spoken language interpreters is poorer in the final clause, which may be an effect caused by the interference with a phonological memory of receiving two streams of speech simultaneously. Therefore, the situation becomes more difficult for interpreters than just listening without speaking. Gerver's study (1976) on the adverse effect of noise on the quality in SI is relevant in this context. Darò (1994) adds that "this phonological interference disrupts working memory." In addition to all this acoustic interference, interpreters must also allocate a certain amount of attention to monitoring their own utterances: maintaining their voice at an optimal level and correcting any error in TL. Interpreters, as a way of mitigating this problem, turn up the volume of SL or lower the volume of their own voice. The third reason is the conversion from the SL to the TL, as explained by Frauenfelder (1997): "conversion from listening to speaking also involves translation from one language to another." Conveying the meaning of SL into TL at a deep structure level is not an easy job and surely expends some capacity. This does not exhaust the list of multi-processing possibilities in the time simultaneity portion since other processing such as reading a pre-prepared terminology list and looking at the speaker may be involved. Furthermore, anticipation will not function as well as it does in the listening only condition. For these reasons, many studies report the high processing load of SI and inherent limitations of the interpreter (Massaro 1997). Lambert (1988) reports significantly higher recall after listening alone than simultaneous interpretation or shadowing. Darò (1994) and Isham (1994) also reported poorer recall after SI. Hyona (1995) reports that, in a pupil dilation experimental study, processing load in SI is greater than in listening. 4.6. Pauses in SI A comparison of TSR at 40% and ISP at 58% reveals some important facts. Considering the formula for TSR, the speaker pauses within ISP are responsible for the decrease from 58% to 40%. In other words, th