英语论文网

e difference of 18% is the sum of speaker pauses included within the interpreter's speaking portion of 58%. So, speaker pause at 18% out of total pause at 23% (100% - SSP 77%) seems to be clustered within the interpreter's speaking portion. This, in turn means that the listening only portion contains only 5% out of 23%. This uneven distribution of speaker pause can also be confirmed in another way. If speaker pauses are distributed proportionally, some 58% of them must be in the interpreter's speaking portion, while 42% must be in the listening portion, as ISP is 58%. So, according to a calculation of this type, the 23% speaker pause should be allocated so that 13.3% is in interpreter's speaking portion and 9.7% in the listening portion. A detailed calculation of speakers' pauses in 30 samples reveals that, again, about 18% of the pauses are in the interpreter's speaking portion, while some 5% are in the listening portion. These two verification methods show that more speaker pause time is located in the interpreter's speaking portion than listening portion. These results seem to support the finding that interpreters utilize the pause in the SL. But it would not be correct to say that interpreters hold their TL production until they meet the speaker's pauses in SL. If this were true, interpreters would have to keep the converted message in their memory while waiting for pauses established by the speaker. This kind of waiting and holding of memory would consume some processing capacity and the un-refreshed memory would not be able to accommodate further input. Rather, it would be more reasonable to describe the situation as the interpreters reducing their TL production under the overloaded processing of listening and speaking during a speech with little pause time, and paying more attention to SL comprehension. This is frequently witnessed in SI when interpreters stop delivering in the TL and pay all available attention to the listening task if the particular SL portion is exceptionally complicated. Let alone the question of whether the pause durations are long enough to be used by interpreters, this seems to suggest the existence of a tendency for interpreters to reduce the difficult processing of overlapping of SL comprehension and TL production in their interpretation. 4.7. SI and translation Among the 30 samples, published written translations in Korean for seven samples of the US presidential debate, were available to compare the number of words with SL. It was found that interpreters used 95% of SL syllables, while translations contained 155% of the SL syllables. This means that, for an omission-free SI, interpreters should utter at least 155% more syllables than the SL version.[ 2 ] As speakers in these seven samples spoke at a rate of 196wpm (294 syllable), interpreters should utter 456 syllable per minute to make their SI as accurate as the written translation. It is clear that this is impossible for interpreters to accomplish when we consider the speed of 330 syllable to 350 syllables per minute of Korean telecasters on TV who just read a written text (KBS 1991). Therefore, physically, a certain amount of omission in English into Korean SI in this situation seems inevitable regardless of the interpreter's capacity. Besides the speed of SL, expressions in SL were very formal and elegant in the case of the presidential debate. In interpreting these SL, interpreters could not use simple and easily retrieved expressions in th