Prosody training benefits in perception vs. production skills in simultaneous interpreting: an experimental study

Authors

  • Mahmood Yenkimaleki VU Amsterdam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal9888

Keywords:

Prosody, simultaneous interpretation, interpreter trainees, training program

Abstract

The present study investigates the prosody training benefits for interpreter trainees in perception vs. production skills in simultaneous interpreting. Two groups of student interpreters were formed. Participants were assigned to groups at random. The control group received routine instruction in interpreting skills. The experimental group spent 20 minutes less time per session on the routine curriculum and instead re­ceived awareness training on prosodic features of English. The total instruction time was the same for the students in two groups, i.e., 15 hours. Students then took a posttest in interpretation skills. The results showed that the experimental group performed better than the control group in simultaneous interpretation performance. Moreover, the study revealed that prosody training enhances the students’ perception skills more than that of the production skills. These results have pedagogical implications for curriculum designers, interpreter training programs, and all who are involved in language study and pedagogy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anderson‐Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42(4), 529–555.

Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28(1), 69–83.

Brewer, W. (1974). There is no convincing evidence for operant or classical conditioning in adult humans. In W. Weimer, & D. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes (pp. 1–42). Erlbaum.

Chen, Z. & Dong, X. (2010). Simultaneous interpreting: Principles and training. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(5), 714–716.

Cutler, A. (2012). Native listening: Language experience and the recognition of spoken words. MIT Press.

Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Donselaar, W. van (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40(2), 141–201.

Dawson, M., & Schell, A. (1987). Human autonomic and skeletal classical conditioning: The role of conscious cognitive factors. In G. Davey (Ed.), Cognitive processes and Pavlovian conditioning in humans (pp. 27–55). John Wiley & Sons.

Derwing, T. M., Diepenbroek, L. G., & Foote, J. A. (2012). How well do general-skills ESL textbooks address pronunciation? TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 22–44.

Detey, S., & Racine, I. (2015). Does perception precede production in the initial stage of French nasal vowel quality acquisition by Japanese learners? A corpus-based discrimination experiment. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ ICPHS0894.pdf

Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399–423.

Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. John Benjamins.

Gordon, J., Darcy, I., & Ewert, D. (2013). Pronunciation teaching and learning: Effects of explicit phonetic instruction in the L2 classroom. In J. Levis, & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference. Aug. 2012. (pp. 194–206). Iowa State University.

Golestani, N., & Pallier, C. (2007). Anatomical correlates of foreign speech sound production. Cerebral Cortex, 17(4), 929–934.

Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201–223.

Heuven, V. J. van (1994). Introducing prosodic phonetics. In C. Odé, & V. J. van Heuven (Eds.), Experimental studies of Indonesian prosody. Semaian 9. Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië, Leiden University (pp. 1-26). John Benjamins

Heuven, V. J. van (2008). Making sense of strange sounds: (Mutual) intelligibility of related language varieties. A review. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2(1-2), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1753854809000305

Heuven, V. J. van (2017). Prosody and sentence type in Dutch. Nederlands Taalkunde, 22(1), 3–46. https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2017.1.HEUV

Heuven, V. J. van, & Sluijter, A. M. C. (1996). Notes on the phonetics of word prosody. In R. Goedemans, H. van der Hulst, & E. Visch (Eds.), Stress pat¬terns of the world, Part 1: Background (pp. 233–269). HIL Publications 2. Holland Institute of Generative Lin¬guis¬tics, Lei¬den/Holland Academic Graphics.

Hu, M. (2010). On building expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Comparative Literature: East & West, 12(1), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/25723618.2010.12015378

Iverson, P., Hazan, V., & Bannister, K. (2005). Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: A comparison of methods for teaching English /r/–/l/ to Japanese adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(5), 3267–3278.

Jackson, C., & O’Brien, M. G. (2011). The interaction between prosody and meaning in second language speech production. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 44(1), 1–11.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(10), 434–442.

Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554–566.

Lewis, M., & Anderson, J. (1985). Discrimination of operator schemata in problem solving: Learning from examples. Cognitive Psychology, 17(1), 26–65.

Linebaugh, G., & Roche, T. B. (2013). Learning to hear by learning to speak: The effect of articulatory training on Arab learners’ English phonemic discrimination. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 146–159.

Linebaugh, G., & Roche, T. B. (2015). Evidence that L2 production training can enhance perception. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 9(1), 1–17.

Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M. (2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58(3), 479-502.

Nooteboom, S. G. (1997). The prosody of speech: Melody and rhythm. In W. J. Hardcastle, & J. Laver (Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 640–673). Basil Blackwell.

Okuno, T. & Hardison, D. M. (2016). Perception-production link in L2 Japanese vowel duration: Training with technology. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 61–80. https://doi.org/10125/44461

O’Neal, G. (2010). The effects of the presence and absence of suprasegmental on the intelligibility and assessment of an expanding-circle English according to other expanding-circle English listeners. JAIRO (Japanese Institutional Repositories Online).

Pennington, M. C., & Ellis, N. C. (2000). Cantonese speakers’ memory for English sentences with prosodic cues. Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 372–389.

Qian, M., Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., & Levis, J. (2018). A system for adaptive high-variability segmental perceptual training: Implementation, effectiveness, transfer. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 69–96.

Qianxi, L. & Liang, J. (2019). Is consecutive interpreting easier than simultaneous interpreting? – A corpus-based study of lexical simplification in interpretation. Perspectives, 27(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1498531

Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 274–282.

Saito, Y., & Saito, K. (2016). Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 1(5), 1–20.

Sawyer, B. (2004). Fundamental aspects of interpreter education. Curriculum and assessment. John Benjamins.

Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 2–4 (pp. 721–737). National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.

Walden, M., L. (2014). Native Mandarin speakers’ perception and production of English stop + liquid clusters in onset position [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Syracuse University.

Whalley, K., & Hansen, J. (2006). The role of prosodic sensitivity in children’s reading development. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(3), 288–303.

Yenkimaleki, M. (2016). Why prosody awareness training is necessary for training future interpreters. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(1), 256–261. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v5n1a26

Yenkimaleki, M. (2017). Effect of prosody awareness training on the quality of consecutive interpreting between English and Farsi. LOT.

Yenkimaleki, M. (2018). Implicit vs. explicit prosody teaching in developing listening comprehension skills by interpreter trainees: An experimental study. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 6(1), 11–21.

Yenkimaleki, M., Coene, M., & Jong, N. de (2017). Prosodic training benefit for Farsi-English interpreter trainees: Does gender matter? International Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(5), 14–23.

Yenkimaleki, M., & Heuven, V. J. van (2016a). Explicit teaching of segmentals versus suprasegmentals: Which would yield better listening comprehension skills for interpreter trainees? An experimental study. British Journal of English Linguistics, 4(6), 11–22.

Yenkimaleki, M., & Heuven, V. J. van (2016b). The effect of memory training on interpretation performance. International Journal of English Language, Literature and Translation Studies, 3(3), 79–86.

Yenkimaleki, M., & Heuven, V. J. van (2017). The effect of memory training on consecutive interpreting performance by interpreter trainees: An experimental study. FORUM: International Journal of Interpretation and Translation, 15(1), 157–172. DOI:10.1075/forum.15.1.09yen

Yenkimaleki, M., & Heuven, V. J. van (2019a). Effects of prosody awareness training on the intelligibility of Iranian interpreter trainees in English. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.17023.yen

Yenkimaleki, M., & Heuven, V. J. van (2019b). The relative contribution of computer assisted prosody training vs. instructor based prosody teaching in developing speaking skills by interpreter trainees: An experimental study. Speech Communication, 107, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2019.01.006

Yenkimaleki, M., & Heuven, V. J. van (2019c). Prosody instruction for interpreter trainees: Does methodology make a difference? An experimental study. Across languages and cultures: A Multidisciplinary Journal for Translation and Interpreting Studies, 20(2), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2019.20.1.6

Yenkimaleki, M., & Heuven, V. J. van (2020). Relative contribution of explicit teaching of segmentals vs. prosody to the quality of consecutive interpreting by Farsi-to-English interpreting trainees. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1789673

Downloads

Published

2021-10-06

How to Cite

Yenkimaleki, M. (2021). Prosody training benefits in perception vs. production skills in simultaneous interpreting: an experimental study. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10. https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal9888

Issue

Section

Articles