Fluency Development In English Production Of Chinese Consecutive Interpreting Learners

This dissertation explores the phenomenon of fluency in interpreting, and how it may be facilitated through instruction. Fluency has traditionally been viewed as a superficial indicator of interpreting quality. It has therefore been sidelined in interpreting training and research. This dissertation argues that fluency is not merely a superficial criterion; it is a manifestation of interpreters’ cognitive systems at work and therefore should be better understood.An overview of research on fluency in second language speech and in interpreting studies is presented in order to help define the construct. Following Segalowitz (2010), this dissertation distinguishes between three senses of fluency, which correspond to three perspectives on the subject. They are:utterance fluency, cognitive fluency, and perceived fluency. It is utterance fluency, i.e., the features of interpreting output, that forms the focus of this dissertation. Interpreting fluency in this sense is defined as follows:Interpreting fluency refers to the rapid and smooth delivery of interpreting output in target language, which indicates the ease with which the interpreter produces the output.A conceptual framework for accounting for fluency development in interpreting is proposed, which is comprised of three key elements:speech production, attention and cognitive development. Specifically, it draws on Levelt’s (1989,1999) speech production model, Gile’s (1995,2011) effort models and theories of automaticity to account for how interpreting fluency develops. Levelt’s model comprises three processing components:the Conceptualizer works prelinguistically to generate the intended message, the Formulator encodes the preverbal message into grammatical and phonological forms, and the Articulator executes the internal speech plan. Levelt’s model is incremental in nature, meaning that all processing components work in parallel on different fragments of the message. Unlike first language production, interpreting largely involves controlled processing rather than automatic processing, and parallel processing of different components of the speech model is hardly possible. According to Gile’s Effort Model for consecutive interpreting, both the listening and note-taking phase and the speech production phase tap the interpreter’s limited processing capacity. The production stage involves such efforts as recalling the information, note-reading, production of speech, as well as coordination. The model postulates that each effort will have a different processing capacity requirement depending on the task to be tackled, and if interpreting is to proceed smoothly, the capacity available for each effort must be equal to or larger than the capacity required for the task at hand. Failures will occur if the processing capacity required for each effort is not appropriately allocated or if the total available processing capacity falls short of the total required amount. If cognitive processing is automatic, it reduces the need for attention and effort, and the speakers are able to pay attention to concurrent processes that previously would have caused an overload on the total mental resources. Therefore, the concept of automaticity holds key to not only why performance is fluent, but also how fluency develops. There are two approaches to automaticity. The rule-based approach to automaticity views the development of automaticity as the transformation of factual or declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge. The item-based approach, on the other hand, sees the development of automaticity as faster retrieval of items, or examplars, from memory. Both the accelerating models and the restructuring models make the assumption that language learning and use are rule-based. Accelerating models see automaticity gains as a result of speeding up of processes of using rules. Restructuring models, in contrast, regard improved performance as a result of better organization of the processes. In reality, automaticity as accelerating and automaticity as restructuring are almost impossible to distinguish. As both acceleration of rule application and improved organization of rules contribute to fluent performance, they should be taken into account in a theoretical framework. Skehan (1998) proposes that speakers of a language possess a dual-mode system, which includes both a lexicalized system consisting of exemplars in the form of words and formulaic sequences, and a rule-based system consisting of knowledge of underlying abstract patterns, and as such, language performance involves drawing variably on both systems. Therefore, this dissertation takes the "dual approach", giving equal prominence to roles played by the rule-based system and the item-based system in how automaticity develops.Two experiments constitute the main body of the dissertation. The first experiment explores the development of interpreting fluency of a group of English majors throughout a one-year-long consecutive interpreting course. The second experiment examines the fluency effects of three activities, namely, pre-task planning, task repetition and use of formulaic sequences. The following four main questions are addressed in this dissertation:(1) How does interpreting learners’fluency change over time when they interpret from their first language into a second language?(2) To what extent does language proficiency affect interpreting learners’ fluency performance?(3) What are the main triggers of disfluency in interpreting learners’ performance?(4) To what extent do fluency-enhancing activities facilitate interpreting learners’ fluency performance?A temporal approach is adopted to measure fluency. Following Tavakoli&Skehan (2005), fluency is subdivided into three dimensions:speed fluency, breakdown fluency and repair fluency. Nine temporal variables of fluency are used to measure fluency.In sum, the quantitative analyses of the first experiment reveal that overall the interpreting learners are making progress in some aspects of fluency, and learners of both low proficiency and high proficiency are following a similar path. As for the triggers of disfluency, the top two triggers of disfluency identified by the interpreting learners at all times are retrieving target expressions from memory and thinking how to formulate a syntactic structure, which are mainly associated with the formulating stage of Levelt’s speaking model. Conceptualizing the message is also problematic for the interpreting learners as they reported difficulty in recalling information from memory and reading notes. More learners started to monitor their output at later time points, which imposed more demand on the cognitive systems and could lead to disfluency. The findings may suggest a need to introduce fluency instruction into the interpreting course.The second experiment finds that task repetition has a significant effect on the fluency of interpreting learners’ output, but fluency effects of pre-task planning and formulaic sequences cannot be borne out.This is the first longitudinal study to track the development of interpreting fluency of English majors working consecutively in their foreign language. It is the first study to investigate the role of language proficiency in the development of interpreting fluency. It is also the first attempt to explore the possibility of developing fluency-enhancing activities as a component of interpreting pedagogy. Due to methodological limitations, the experimental findings are still in need of corroboration. Research into interpreting fluency is still in its infancy. It is hoped that the findings of this research are suggestive of the direction of future research of this type that will inform both researchers and trainers in the field of interpreting.