Oral Paraphrasing and Consecutive Interpreting: A Validation Study of Aptitude Test Components for Interpreter Training

Öz

This study addresses a critical gap in admission procedures for interpreter training programs, specifically examining the King Fahd School of Translation (KFST), which currently relies solely on written examinations. This research designed and validated a mock oral aptitude test combining consecutive interpreting (CI) and oral paraphrasing (OP) activities. The inclusion of OP aimed to assess cognitive flexibility and verbal fluency, which are often theorized as predictive capabilities for interpreting success. CI tasks, on the other hand, served as the direct outcome measure for interpreting competence. Eighteen newly admitted students with BA degrees in English Linguistics participated in the study and completed one Arabic-Arabic paraphrasing task and 3 CI tasks across different language pairs. Performance data were quantitatively analyzed using systematic coding of performance indicators. Results revealed significant variation in task difficulty (F = 17.508, p < 0.001), with Arabic-English CI proving the most challenging. However, contrary to established hypotheses, the correlation between OP and CI performance was non-significant (r = 0.227), and OP failed to differentiate between high and low CI performers. These null findings are significant as they challenge the universality of monolingual paraphrasing as a predicator for bilingual interpreting aptitude, particularly within the specific linguistic and cognitive constraints of Arabic, English, and French context at KFST. The study concludes that while oral screening is essential for differentiating candidate abilities, relying on singular predicators like paraphrasing is insufficient; instead, training programs should adopt comprehensive, locally validated multicomponent assessment batteries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• interpreter aptitude test
• interpreting studies
• oral paraphrasing
• consecutive interpreting
• predictive validity
• admission screening
• Arabic-English interpreting

Kaynakça

1. Bahraman, Mostafa, and Roya Movahed. 2018. “Effect of Core Working Memory Training on Consecutive Interpreting.” Revista EntreLinguas 7 (4): 1–19. doi:10.29051/el.v7iesp.4.15603.
2. Bernstein, Jared, and Isabella Barbier. 2000. “Design and Development Parameters for a Rapid Automatic Screening Test for Prospective Simultaneous Interpreters.” Interpreting 5 (2): 221–238. doi:10.1075/intp.5.2.09ber.
3. Chabasse, Catherine, and Stephanie Kader. 2014. “Putting Interpreting Admissions Exams to the Test: The MA KD Germersheim Project.” Interpreting 16 (1): 19–33. doi:10.1075/intp.16.1.02cha.
4. Chen, Sijia. 2020. “The Impact of Directionality on the Process and Product in Consecutive Interpreting between Chinese and English: Evidence from Pen Recording and Eye Tracking.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, no. 34, 100–117. https://jostrans.soap2.ch/issue34/art_chen.pdf.
5. Chmiel, Agnieszka, Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny, Danijel Koržinek, Dariusz Jakubowski, and Przemysław Janikowski. 2024. “Syntax, Stress and Cognitive Load, or on Syntactic Processing in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 7 (1): 22–47. doi:10.1075/tcb.00091.chm.
6. Chou, Isabelle, Kanglong Liu, and Nan Zhao. 2021. “Effects of Directionality on Interpreting Performance: Evidence from Interpreting between Chinese and English by Trainee Interpreters.” Frontiers in Psychology 12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781610.
7. Dawrant, Andrew C., and Chao Han. 2021. “Testing for Professional Qualification in Conference Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting, edited by Michaela Albl-Mikasa and Elisabet Tiselius, 258–260. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
8. Gambrell, Simoné, and Harold M. Lesch. 2021. “Interpreter Training: Devising a Model for Aptitude Testing for Simultaneous Interpreters.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 61:127–149. doi:10.5842/61-0-921.

9. Gerver, David, Patricia Longley, John Long, and Sylvie Lambert. 1984. “Selecting Trainee Conference Interpreters: A Preliminary Study.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 57 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1984.tb00144.x.
10. Ghiselli, Serena. 2022. “Working Memory Tasks in Interpreting Studies: A Meta-analysis.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5 (1): 50–83. doi:10.1075/tcb.00063.ghi.
11. Gile, Daniel. 2009. “The Effort Models of Interpreting.” Chap. 7 in Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Revised ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Han, Chao. 2023. “Interrogating the Predictive Validity of Aptitude Testing for Interpreting: A Systematic Methodological Review.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 17 (1): 7–28. doi:10.1080/1750399X.2023.2170049.
13. Lambert, Sylvie. 1991. “Aptitude Testing for Simultaneous Interpretation at the University of Ottawa.” Meta 36 (4): 586–594. doi:10.7202/003383ar.
14. Lederer, Marianne. 2003. Translation: The Interpretive Model. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
15. Ma, Xingcheng. 2019. “Effect of Word Order Asymmetry on Cognitive Process of English - Chinese Sight Translation by Interpreting Trainees—Evidence from Eye-tracking.” PhD diss., The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/10032.
16. Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1985. “Screening Potential Interpreters.” Meta 30 (1): 97–100. doi:10.7202/003631ar.
17. Russo, Mariachiara. 2011. “Aptitude Testing over the Years.” Interpreting 13 (1): 5–30. doi:10.1075/intp.13.1.02rus.
18. Russo, Mariachiara. 2014. “Testing Aptitude for Interpreting: The Predictive Value of Oral Paraphrasing, with Synonyms and Coherence as Assessment Parameters.” In Aptitude for Interpreting, edited by Franz Pöchhacker and Minhua Liu, 129–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19. Russo, Mariachiara, and Pippa Salvador. 2004. “Aptitude to Interpreting: Preliminary Results of a Testing Methodology Based on Paraphrase.” Meta 49 (2): 409–432. doi:10.7202/009367ar.
20. Shang, Xiaoqi, and Guixia Xie. 2020. “Aptitude for Interpreting Revisited: Predictive Validity of Recall across Languages.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14 (3): 344–361. doi:10.1080/1750399X.2020.1790970.
21. Shen, Lin. 2025. “Typological Differences and Cognitive Load in Manner Processing: A Corpus-based Study of Chinese–English and English–Chinese Consecutive Interpreting.” Language and Cognition 17. doi:10.1017/langcog.2024.72.
22. Timarová, Sárka, and Heidi Salaets. 2011. “Learning Styles, Motivation and Cognitive Flexibility in Interpreter Training: Self-selection and Aptitude.” Interpreting 13 (1): 31–52. doi:10.1075/intp.13.1.03tim.
23. Wang, Weiwei, Yi Xu, Binhua Wang, and Lei Mu. 2020. “Developing Interpreting Competence Scales in China.” Frontiers in Psychology 11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00481.
24. Wen, Hao, and Yanping Dong. 2019. “How Does Interpreting Experience Enhance Working Memory and Short-term Memory: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Cognitive Psychology 31 (8): 769–784. doi:10.1080/20445911.2019.1674857.