In:Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research
Edited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpferich and Sharon O'Brien
[Benjamins Current Topics 72] 2015
► pp. 141–155
Sound effects in translation
Published online: 11 June 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.72.11mee
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.72.11mee
On the basis of a pilot study using speech recognition (SR) software, this chapter attempts to illustrate the benefits of adopting an interdisciplinary approach in translator training. It shows how the collaboration between phoneticians, translators and interpreters can (1) advance research, (2) have implications for the curriculum, (3) be pedagogically motivating, and (4) prepare students for employing translation technology in their future practice as translators. In a two-phase study in which 14 MA students translated texts in three modalities (sight, written, and oral translation using an SR program), Translog was employed to measure task times. The quality of the products was assessed by three experienced translators, and the number and types of misrecognitions were identified by a phonetician. Results indicate that SR translation provides a potentially useful supplement to written translation, or indeed an alternative to it.
References (20)
Agrifoglio, Marjorie. 2004. “Sight Translation and Interpreting: A Comparative Analysis of Constraints and Failures.” Interpreting 6 (1): 43–67.
Chafe, Wallace, and Jane Danielewicz. 1987. “Properties of Spoken and Written Language.” In Comprehending Oral and Written Language, ed. by Rosalind Horowitz, and S. Jay Samuels, 83–113. San Diego: Academic Press.
Collins, Beverley, and Inger M. Mees. 2013. Practical Phonetics and Phonology, 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Derwing, Tracey M., Murray J. Munro, and Michael Carbonaro. 2000. “Does Popular Speech Recognition Software Work with ESL Speech?” TESOL Quarterly 34 (3): 592–603.
Dragsted, Barbara, Inge Gorm Hansen, and Henrik Selsøe Sørensen. 2009. “Experts Exposed.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 38], ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 293–317. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Dragsted, Barbara, Inger M. Mees, and Inge Gorm Hansen. 2011. “Speaking Your Translation: Students’ First Encounter with Speech Recognition Technology.” Translation & Interpreting 3 (1): 10–43.
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2004. “Translation Research Versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies, ed. by Christina Schäffner, 10–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Göpferich, Susanne. 2010. “The Translation of Instructive Texts from a Cognitive Perspective: Novices and Professionals Compared.” In New Approaches in Translation Process Research [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 39], ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Fabio Alves, and Inger M. Mees, 5–55. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Hansen, Inge Gorm, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2007. “The Silver Lining: Technology and Self-Study in the Interpreting Classroom.” Interpreting 9 (1): 95–118.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Lasse Schou. 1999. “Translog Documentation.” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 24], ed. by Gyde Hansen, 151–186. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Jurafsky, Daniel, and James H. Martin. 2000. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lambert, Sylvie. 2004. “Shared Attention during Sight Translation, Sight Interpretation and Simultaneous Interpretation.” Meta 49 (2): 294–306.
Leijten, Mariëlle, Daniel Janssen, and Luuk Van Waes. 2010. “Error Correction Strategies of Professional Speech Recognition Users: Three Profiles.” Computers in Human Behavior 26: 964–975.
Leijten, Mariëlle, and Luuk Van Waes. 2005. “Writing with Speech Recognition: The Adaptation Process of Professional Writers with and without Dictating Experience.” Interacting with Computers 17: 736–772.