| Anticipation is one of the most common techniques used in simultaneous interpretation. According to Daniel Gile’s Effort Model, one effort allocation affects another. Since Chinese interpreters have different proficiencies of Chinese and English, the effort allocations in English-Chinese (E-C) and Chinese-English (C-E) simultaneous interpretation must also be different, and hence different anticipation frequencies and results. To find out what the differences are, why they are different and how they affect the overall interpreting quality, a comparative research was conducted.Van Besien Fred categorizes anticipation into linguistic anticipation and extra-linguistic anticipation, and hence this thesis tries to find out the differences of the two anticipations between E-C and C-E simultaneous interpretation. The aims of the research are:to compare the frequencies of both linguistic and extra-linguistic anticipation in C-E and E-C simultaneous interpretation; to find out the reasons why such differences exist; and to find out the impact of such differences on the overall interpreting quality.The results show that, in terms of linguistic anticipation, the subjects use linguistic anticipation less frequently than my initial hypothesis. Linguistic anticipation in E-C is rarely observed, while it is relatively more frequently used in C-E. As for extra-linguistic anticipation, generally the subjects utilize it more often than linguistic anticipation, and it is more observed in E-C than in C-E. This is because:the same subject’s proficiencies of Chinese and English are different, which results in different effort allocations in Effort Model; the language structures of Chinese and English are intrinsically different; and the subjects’training method results in different decoding processes between E-C and C-E.The frequency and success rate of linguistic anticipation have minor effects on overall interpreting quality, while those of extra-linguistic anticipation have a positive impact. |
PDF Full Text Request