Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 20:1 (2018) ► pp.33–62
Corpus-based terminological preparation for simultaneous interpreting
Published online: 26 April 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00002.xu
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00002.xu
Abstract
This experimental study examines whether use of a corpus-based terminological preparation procedure, managed by a term extraction
tool (Syllabs Tools) and a concordance tool (on the Sketch Engine platform), enables trainee interpreters (Chinese A, English B)
to achieve greater accuracy in a simultaneous interpreting (SI) task on a specialised topic. Twenty-two interpreting students on a
one-year MA course in the UK were divided into a test group (10 students) and a control group (12 students). Nine days before the
experiment, which involved SI from the A into the B language as well as vice versa, both groups were given preparatory
documentation in both languages. In addition, the test group received term lists automatically generated by the extraction tool
and used the Sketch Engine concordance tool. The control group extracted terms manually and did not have the concordance tool.
Terminological accuracy in SI was found to be significantly higher, with fewer omissions, even when terms occurred in rapid
succession, in the test group. All students afterwards participated in focus group discussions, providing feedback on the
effectiveness of their preparation and an estimate of the time they had dedicated to it. In addition, their recall of terms was
tested two months later by completion of a 15-item quiz and was found to be significantly better in the test group.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Terminology-driven preparation
- 1.2Models and procedures for the simultaneous interpreter’s terminological preparation
- 1.2.1Moser-Mercer’s terminology workflow
- 1.2.2Will’s knowledge management model
- 1.2.3Rütten’s information and knowledge management model
- 1.3The interpreter’s preparation with corpus tools
- 2.The study
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Study design
- 3.2Participants
- 3.3Experimental materials
- 3.3.1Preparation documents
- 3.3.2Experimental speeches
- 3.4Total preparation time allowed
- 3.5Procedure
- 3.6Dependent variables
- 3.6.1Judges
- 3.6.2Holistic assessment of SI
- 3.6.3Terminological accuracy
- 3.6.4Terminological quiz
- 3.6.5Focus groups
- 4.Results
- 4.1Terminological accuracy
- 4.2Holistic assessment of SI
- 4.3Significant error categories
- 4.4Terms prone to serious error
- 4.5Association between density of terms and number of serious errors
- 4.6Subsequent recall of terms
- 4.7Preparation time
- 4.8Students’ feedback on their preparation
- 4.8.1Traditional preparation
- 4.8.2Corpus-based preparation
- 5.Discussion
- 5.1Main effects of the two preparation procedures
- 5.2Challenges and coping strategies
- 5.2.1Coping with challenging terms
- Items not prepared beforehand, and therefore not activated
- Insufficient activation
- 5.2.2Coping with high information density
- 5.2.1Coping with challenging terms
- 6.Conclusion
- 6.1Contextualising the findings
- 6.2Limitations of the study
- 6.3Future work
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (34)
Altman, J. (1994). Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpretation: A pilot study. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–38.
Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech 181, 272–298.
(1994). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–138.
Blancafort, H., Bouvier, F., Daille, B., Heid, U. & Ramm, A. (2013). TTC web platform: From corpus compilation to bilingual terminologies for MT and CAT tools. In TRALOGY II: Futures in Technologies for Translation. Paris.
Botley, S., Glass, J., McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (Eds.) (1996). Proceedings of Teaching and Language Corpora 1996. Technical Paper 91. Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language.
Craik, F. & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 111, 671–684.
Díaz-Galaz, S. (2012). La influencia del conocimiento previo en la interpretación simultánea de discursos especializados: Un estudio empírico. PhD Dissertation, University of Granada.
Díaz-Galaz, S., Padilla, P. & Bajo, M. T. (2015). The role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 17 (1), 1–25.
Donovan, C. (2001). Interpretation of technical conferences. Conference Interpretation and Translation 31, 7–29.
Dunaevsky, C. (2015). Term extraction and tools. [URL] (accessed 7 July 2016).
Eckersley, H. (2002). Systems for evaluating translation quality. Multilingual Computing and Technology 3 (3), 39–42.
Fantinuoli, C. (2006). Specialized corpora from the web and term extraction for simultaneous interpreters. In M. Baroni & S. Bernardini (Eds.), WaCky! Working Papers on the Web as Corpus. Bologna: Gedit, 173–190.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gorjanc, V. (2009). Terminology resources and terminological data management for medical interpreters. In D. Andres & S. Pöllabauer (Eds.), Spürst Du, wie der Bauch rauf-runter? Fachdolmetschen im Gesundheitsbereich. München: Meidenbauer, 85–95.
ISO 1087-1:2000. Terminology work – Vocabulary – Part 1: Theory and application. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Jiang, H. (2013). The interpreter’s glossary in simultaneous interpreting: A survey. Interpreting 15 (1), 74–93.
Kalina, S. (2005). Zur Dokumentation von Maßnahmen der Qualitätssicherung beim Konferenzdolmetschen. In C. Heine, K. Schubert & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Translation theory and methodology. Tübingen: Narr, 253–268.
(2015). Preparation. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 318–320.
McEnery, A. & Xiao, Z. (2010). What corpora can offer in language teaching and learning? In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 21). London/New York: Routledge, 364–380.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1992). Banking on terminology: Conference interpreters in the electronic age. Meta 37 (3), 507–522.
Napier, J. (2002). Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies. Coleford: Douglas McLean.
(2004). Interpreting omissions: A new perspective. Interpreting 6 (2), 117–142.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Rütten, A. (2003). Computer-based information management for conference interpreters ‒ or how will I make my computer act like an infallible information butler? In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Translating and the Computer, 20–21 November 2003. London: Aslib. [URL] (accessed 7 July 2016).
(2015). Terminology. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 416–417.
SAE International (2001). SAE J2450: Translation quality metric. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Secară, A. (2005). Translation evaluation - a state of art survey. In Conference Proceedings of eCoLoRe/MeLLANGE Workshop, Leeds, UK, 39–44.
Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. E. Perren & J. L. M. Trimm (Eds.), Applications of linguistics: Selected papers of the 2nd International Congress of Applied Linguists. London: Cambridge University Press, 443–452.
Will, M. (2007). Terminology work for simultaneous interpreters in LSP Conferences: Model and method. MuTra 2007 – LSP translation scenarios. [URL] (accessed 7 July 2016).
Cited by (16)
Cited by 16 other publications
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine, Martin Schuler & Zaniyar Jahany
2024. The augmented interpreter. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 26:2 ► pp. 282 ff.
Gu, Chonglong & Binhua Wang
2024. From “Within” to “Beyond” in interpreting studies. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation / Revista Internacional de Traducción 70:6 ► pp. 783 ff.
Mengyao, Yang & Jin Bei
Tian, Sha & Wenjiao Yang
Balakhonov, Vladimir & Christopher D. Mellinger
Fantinuoli, Claudio
2023. Towards AI-enhanced computer-assisted interpreting. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 46 ff.
Gaber, Mahmoud
Goldsmith, Joshua
2023. Tablet interpreting. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 27 ff.
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with
technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff.
Liu, Jinping, Hong Liu & Sheng Bin
Zhao, Nan
Corpas Pastor, Gloria & Fernando Sánchez Rodas
2021.
Now what?. In Corpora in Translation and Contrastive Research in the Digital Age [Benjamins Translation Library, 158], ► pp. 23 ff.
Su, Wenchao
胡, 敏霞
胡, 敏霞
Sun, Sanjun & Kairong Xiao
2019. Chinese scholarship in Cognitive Translation Studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:1 ► pp. 125 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
