| About omissions, one of the most common phenomena in interpreting practice,scholars always hold different opinions. In the meantime, interpreting directionality isalso one of the most heatedly debated issues within the academic circle. This paper,linking both issues, makes a detailed inquiry into the former and the relationshipbetween the two in consecutive interpreting.This study mainly aims at addressing the following three questions:1. How many omissions do Chinese-dominant interpreters make (within theomission categories defined as part of this study) during Chinese/English consecutiveinterpreting?2. To what extent does interpreting directionality influence the occurrence andtypes of omissions made by the interpreters?3. In the sight of the loss of key information caused by omissions, whichinterpreting direction is more viable to be applied to interpreting practice?This paper consists of five chapters. The first introduces the background andpurpose of the study; the second lays out the theoretical foundations; the thirdpresents research questions, and specific information concerning the experiments,including the participants, source texts and procedure. In chapter four, the researcher,by dint of charts and tables, makes detailed discussion on the results. The final chaptersums up the conclusions, points out the significance and limitations of the study andmakes suggestions for further research in related areas.The results suggest that in English-Chinese consecutive interpreting, omissionscaused by memory lapse and comprehension failure are the most prominent, while inthe opposite direction, those caused by memory lapse and production failure accountfor the largest proportion; erroneous omissions are overwhelmingly high in both directions and in Chinese-English interpreting, strategic omissions are morefrequently used than in the reverse direction; almost all the loss of key information arecaused by erroneous omissions, and it is more so in English-Chinese interpreting. |
PDF Full Text Request