Article Sidebar

PDF (English)
Date Published: 30/04/2023
Abstract Views: 253
Views PDF (English): 240
DOI: https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5069
Issue
Vol. 39 No. 2
Section
Research
How to Cite
Thao, N. T. M., & Huyen, N. T. (2023). FACTORS AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION AT MULTI-MEDIA ROOMS: FROM LECTURERS’ PERSPECTIVE. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 39(2), 149-163. https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5069

FACTORS AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETATION AT MULTI-MEDIA ROOMS: FROM LECTURERS’ PERSPECTIVE

Nguyen Thi Minh Thao1,, Nguyen Thi Huyen1
1 School of Languages and Tourism, Hanoi University of Industry

Main Article Content

Abstract


This study is to explore the main factors affecting the quality of consecutive interpretation of English majored students at School of Languages and Tourism (SLT), Hanoi University of Industry (HaUI). The data for this paper is mainly collected from a semi-structured interview which was adapted from the research by Chunli et al. (2021). The researchers interviewed 4 lecturers at SLT, then compared the answers with an in-depth analysis and review of common errors in students’ interpretation in the final test of the 7th semester which was assessed by the criteria for interpreting assessment proposed by Zwischenberger (2010). The research findings indicated that language competence, interpreting techniques, and psychological elements had great influence on the quality of students’ consecutive interpretation. Good preparation, avoiding perfectionism and practice are key points for students to improve the consecutive interpretation quality. The paper, hopefully, brings deeper understanding of consecutive interpretation as well as helpful information for lecturers and researchers in language study.


Article Details

Keywords

quality, consecutive interpretation, semi-structured interview, errors

References

Arumí Ribas, M. (2012). Problems and strategies in consecutive interpreting: A pilot study at two different stages of interpreter training. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 57(3), 812-835. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017092ar
Christoffels, I., & Groot, A. (2004). Components of simultaneous interpreting: Comparing interpreting with shadowing and paraphrasing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition Journal, 7(3), 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001609
Chunli, Y., Mansor, N. S., Ang, L. H., & Sharmini, S. (2021). Factors influencing the quality of consecutive interpretation from the perspective of interpreter. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(3), 1356-1369.
Garzone, G. (2002). Quality and norms in interpretation. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in 21st century: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 107-119). John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2001). Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate? Interpretation Studies, 1, 8-20.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). John Benjamins.
Gillies, A. (2019). Consecutive interpreting: A short course. Routledge.
Grbić, N. (2008). Constructing interpreting quality. Interpreting, 10(2), 232-257.
Harto, S. (2014). The practice of interpreting: Errors in note-taking activity. In H. Ahman, M. Kamil, I. Kuntadi, I. Hamidah, A. Widodo, Sardin, B. L. Nuryanti, S. Harto & E. Kurniawan (Eds.), Proceedings the 6th International Conference on Teacher Education: The Standardization of Teacher Education: Asian Qualification Framework (pp. 526-538). Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Press.
Hu, G. (2006). Adaptation in consecutive interpreting. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 14(1), 3-21.
Kurz, I. (2001). Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user. Meta, 46(2), 394-409.
Lu, L. & Chen, Y. (2013). A survey of short-term memory in consecutive interpreting course. In X. Shao (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2013 International Academic Workshop on Social Science (pp. 671-674). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/iaw-sc.2013.148
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 7, 43-55.
Taherian, B., & Janfeshan, K. (2021). The impact of memory on consecutive interpretation quality of Iranian EFL students. Journal of Narrative and Language Studies, 9(16), 135-148.
Weihe, Z. (2007). Principles and methodology for interpreting training. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, 3, 5-7.
Westover, J. H., Westover, A. R., & Westover, L. A. (2010). Enhancing long‐term worker productivity and performance: The connection of key work domains to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(4), 372-387. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401011038919
Youhua, T. (2009). Factors influencing the quality of the interpretation from Chinese to foreign languages. Journal of Mudanjiang Teachers College (Philosophy Social Sciences Edition), 3, 54-56.
Zwischenberger, C. (2010). Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: An international vs. a national view. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 15, 127-142.