The impact of sentence length and complexity on fluency in Turkish-English simultaneous interpreting

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
The impact of sentence length and complexity on fluency in Turkish-English simultaneous interpreting
This study was designed as an explorative, descriptive, and observational/ experimental study. With a fluency-oriented approach to quality, it aims at presenting and discussing the results of an experiment designed so as to explore the impact of sentence length and complexity on quality in Turkish-English SI. In addition, the self-perceptions of interpreting students regarding their own interpreting performance obtained through post-experiment interviews will be discussed. In accordance with the objectives of the study, performance-related quality criteria rather than content-related quality criteria will be observed and fluency will be explored in terms of pauses, false starts, repairs, and repetitions.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Eraslan, Şeyda
Affiliated institution (University)	Dokuz Eylul University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

• interpreting quality; fluency; simultaneous interpreting

Kaynakça

1. Alonso Bacigalupe, L. (2013). Interpretation quality: from cognitive constraints to market limitations. In R. Barranco-Droege, E. M. Pradas Macias, O. Garcia Becerra (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening The Scope Volume 2, Editorial Comares.
2. Collados Aís, A. (1998). La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: La importancia de la comunicación no verbal. Granada, Comares.
3. Collados Aís A., Pradas Macías M., Stévaux E. and García Becerra O. (Eds.). (2007). La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Granada, Comares.
4. Diriker, E. (2011). User expectation surveys: questioning findings and drawing lessons for interpreter training.http://www.iudergi.com/tr/index. php/ceviri/article/viewFile/11090/10348.
5. García Becerra, O. (2007). La incidencia de las primeras impresiones en la evaluación de la calidad de la interpretación. Estudio piloto. In M.M. Fernández Sánchez and R. Muñoz Martín (Eds.), Aproximaciones cognitivas al estudio de la traducción y la interpretación. Granada, Comares, 302-326.
6. Gile, D. (1994). Methodological Aspects of Interpretation and Translation Research. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 39-56.
7. Kopczynski, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker and K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation Studies – An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189-199.
8. Kurz, I. (1989). Conference Interpreting: User Expectations. In D. L. Hammond (Ed.), Coming of Age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 143-148.

9. Kurz, I. (1993). Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups. The
10. Interpreter’s Newsletter 5: 13-21.
11. Kurz, Ingrid, (2001), “Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User”, Meta 45 (2):
12. -409.
13. Kurz I. and Pöchhacker F. (1995). Quality in TV interpreting, Translatio – Nouvelles de la FIT – FIT Newsletter15 (3/4), 350-358.
14. Macdonald, P. (2013). It don’t mean a thing… Simultaneous Interpretation Quality and User Satisfaction, The Interpreter’s Newsletter 18: 35-59.
15. Marrone, S. (1993). Quality: A Shared Objective, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 5, 35-39.
16. Mead, P. (2005). Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 13, 39-63.
17. Morris, Ruth. (1995). The Moral Dilemma of Court Interpreting, The Translator 1 (1): 25-46.
18. Pignataro, C., Velardi S. (2013). In the Quest for Quality Assesment Criteria in Media Interpreting. In O. Garcia Becerra, E. M. Pradas Macias, R. Barranco-Droege (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope Volume 1, Editorial Comares.
19. Pöchhacker, F. (2000). The Community Interpreter’s Task: Self-Perception and provider News. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham, A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Selected Papers from 2nd International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49-65.
20. Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting, Meta 46 (2): 410-425.
21. Pöchhacker, F. (2013). Researching Quality: A Two-Pronged Approach. In O. Garcia Becerra, E. M. Pradas Macias, R. Barranco-Droege, (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope Volume 1, Editorial Comares.
22. Pradas Macías, E.M. (2003). Repercusión del intraparámetro pausas silenciosas en la fluidez: Influencia en las expectativas y en la evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea, Dissertation, Universidad de Granada.
23. Pradas Macías, E.M. (2007). “La incidencia del parámetro fluidez”, Collados Aís et al. (Eds.), op. cit,53-70.
24. Rennert, S. (2010). The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15, 101-115.
25. Rennert, S. (2013). The Production of Experimental Research Material for Fluency Research. In O. Garcia Becerra, E. M. Pradas Macias, R. Barranco-Droege (Eds.), Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope Volume 1, Editorial Comares.
26. Riccardi, A. (2002). Interpreting Research: Descriptive aspects and methodological proposals. In Garzone, G. and M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and opportunities, 15–27.
27. Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous inter pretation: a descriptive analysis, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 10, 103-127.
28. Vuorikoski, A., (1993). Simultaneous interpretation – user experience and expectations. In C. Picken (Ed.), Translation – The Vital Link. Proceedings, XIIIth World Congress of FIT volume 1. London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting, 317-327.