INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
In the early 21st century, globalization has led to a surge in international trade and cultural exchanges, creating a high demand for translators and interpreters who facilitate communication and cultural understanding To address this need, Vietnamese academic institutions have developed various translation and interpreting curricula, making these subjects a core or elective part of applied linguistics programs With English being the predominant foreign language in Vietnam, most universities focus on training interpreters to work between Vietnamese (L1) and English (L2).
However, one difficulty has arisen and badly influenced on the interpreter training in many Vietnamese academic institutions Kim Van Tat (2006) points out
Insufficient facilities and equipment are significant barriers to English teaching and learning at subsidiary units of Hanoi National University, as highlighted in the Vietnam Vocational Training Report 2011 by the National Institute for Vocational Training Additionally, a 2014 survey by the Japan International Cooperation Center points to a lack of laboratory facilities and funding for supplies, which hampers the practicality of training curricula and results in overly theoretical teaching The Ministry of Education's "Scheme on Foreign Language Teaching and Learning in the National Education System 2008-2020" further notes the limited teaching and learning facilities at universities in Vietnam, revealing that, on average, one lab room serves 2,000 students This situation starkly contrasts with the training practices for interpreting in many other countries, where both simultaneous and consecutive interpreting are effectively taught.
Consecutive interpreting has become the primary focus in the curriculum of Vietnamese universities, overshadowing simultaneous interpreting, which necessitates advanced facilities like language labs and specialized equipment, along with highly qualified instructors These instructors must possess not only strong language skills and teaching methodologies but also significant experience in professional translation and interpreting Unfortunately, many academic institutions lack the necessary resources and qualified personnel for effective interpreting instruction, as most teachers originate from the TESOL field.
In 2017, it was noted that translation and interpreting instructors face significant challenges due to their heavy workloads, which include teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities As a result, many instructors have limited opportunities to engage in practical interpreting experiences, particularly in consecutive and simultaneous interpreting that require extensive real-life exposure and professional skills A survey conducted by Le Thi Thanh Thu et al (2012) on English-majored students in eight universities in Ho Chi Minh City revealed that there is a scarcity of specialized teaching staff in interpreting, hindering students' professional practice Pham Vu Phi Ho (2015) echoed this concern, emphasizing the need for improved support in interpreting education.
“a challenge” for teachers to instruct students to do interpreting
At the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature (EF) at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities (USSH), students begin learning written translation in their second year, while interpreting is introduced later, in their final year This disparity in training time results in students perceiving interpreting as a challenging subject, often leading to discomfort and difficulty in mastering it Despite its practical applications, few graduates choose interpreting as a career path due to the limited focus and preparation during their studies.
3 acquisition of translation and interpreting competence from these training courses is limited and insufficient
Interpreting, as a relatively new field compared to written translation, poses significant challenges for both students and teachers It involves real-time spoken translation across various contexts, including conversations, meetings, presentations, seminars, and conferences In contrast, written translation primarily deals with static documents such as business letters, newspaper articles, and books.
Simultaneous interpreting presents unique challenges due to the "real-time combination" of tasks such as language comprehension and production, making it more demanding than other forms of translation (Seeber, 2015) Additionally, university curricula typically allocate more training time to written translation compared to interpreting, further complicating the learning process for aspiring interpreters.
Despite numerous studies exploring interpreting within Translation Studies, there remains a lack of research from a pedagogical perspective Interpreting is widely regarded as one of the most challenging aspects of translation.
Interpreting is recognized as a challenging skill that demands a blend of advanced listening abilities, short-term memory, rapid information processing, strong linguistic competence, and cultural awareness (2016, p 47) Tran Thi Huyen (2017) emphasizes that interpreting poses significant difficulties for English majors, a sentiment echoed by researchers like Gile (1995) and Moser-Mercer (1997) Recent studies have focused on pedagogical strategies in interpreting, including curriculum design and teaching methods Currently, there is a growing interest in integrating linguistic and cognitive approaches within interpreting pedagogy, which this research paper will explore to identify the challenges and issues faced in the field.
English majored students have been coping with during their attendance in classes of consecutive interpreting.
Statement of the problem
Since its introduction in 2009, interpreting has been a relatively new addition to the training programs at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature (EF) at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Ho Chi Minh City (USSH-HCM) Unlike established subjects like written translation and semantics, interpreting has received limited research attention, particularly in terms of interpreter training While numerous studies have focused on students' challenges in language skills and written translation, there is a noticeable gap in research dedicated to interpreting This study aims to investigate students' perceptions of the difficulties they face in interpreting practice and to identify common challenges, ultimately providing insights to help them overcome these obstacles.
Aims and objectives of the study
The study investigates the challenges faced by English majors in a consecutive interpreting course at the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Ho Chi Minh City The objectives of the research are clearly defined to address these issues.
(1) To survey what English majors of EF-USSH think about problems they encounter during their practice of consecutive interpreting in class;
This article aims to investigate the common challenges faced by students in consecutive interpreting between English and Vietnamese, while also identifying the errors they frequently make during their practice.
Research questions
The purpose of the study is to focus on answering the following research questions:
(1) How do the English majors at the EF, USSH-HCM perceive problems they encounter in interpreting practice?
(2) What are the common problems that English majors at EF, USSH-HCM encounter when practicing consecutive interpreting in class?
Scope of the study
This study examines the challenges faced by fourth-year English majors in the consecutive interpreting course at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University HCMC It specifically focuses on identifying the problems encountered by these students, while excluding other translation courses like Translation Theory and Basic Translation The research does not address additional factors such as teaching methods, material suitability, or student attitudes towards the course.
Significance of the study
This research employs a multidisciplinary approach, integrating linguistic, psycho-linguistic, cognitive, and cultural perspectives to examine the interpreting challenges faced by undergraduate students Through empirical analysis, the study provides deeper insights into student perceptions, addressing a notable gap in the fields of translation studies and interpreting pedagogy By advocating for the flexible application of diverse methodologies beyond traditional linguistic tools, this research aims to enhance the training of translators and interpreters, contributing valuable knowledge to the discipline.
In translation and interpreting classes, students play a crucial role alongside instructors, making it essential to explore their perspectives and beliefs Understanding their challenges and obstacles during interpreting practice can yield valuable insights for educators and researchers, enabling them to make informed adjustments to the curriculum and teaching methods This study not only enhances the teaching and learning of interpreting but also serves as a valuable resource for those interested in the field.
Definitions of key terms
This research paper aims to clarify and define several key terms to ensure an accurate and consistent understanding of the issues presented The terminology utilized throughout the study is based on these essential definitions.
Problems: difficulties or trouble encountered by students
Perceptions: thinking or insights of students about problems they confront
In this study, the term "Interpreting" is preferred over "Interpretation" as it is the officially adopted terminology by the administrators at the research site, despite some scholars and translators using "Interpretation" to refer to the same concept with less frequency.
Consecutive interpreting (CI) is a method where the interpreter provides a spoken translation after the speaker finishes a few sentences During the presentation of the source text, the interpreter listens attentively and may take notes Once the speaker pauses, the interpreter translates the message into the target language.
An error in this study is considered as a fault or mistake in interpreting performance in linguistic, cultural, content-based and interpreting-skilled aspects
English majors: in the current study, it refers to fourth-year or senior students specializing in English study, translation and interpreting branch at EF, USSH
Organization of the study
The study is composed of five chapters
Chapter 1 offers a comprehensive introduction to the research, encompassing eight key sections: the study's background, a statement of the problem, the aims and objectives, research questions, the scope and significance, definitions of key terms, and the organization of the study.
Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive theoretical background for the study, covering essential topics such as Translation Theory and Pedagogical Translation Theory, as well as distinguishing between translation and interpreting It explores various forms of interpreting, with a focus on consecutive interpreting, including its definitions, Gile’s Effort Model, and the stages involved The chapter also addresses directionality in consecutive interpreting and discusses the teaching and learning of translation and interpreting in universities Additionally, it highlights the challenges faced by students in interpreting, such as issues with interpreting skills, linguistic and cultural barriers, and other difficulties specific to consecutive interpreting, while referencing previous studies and establishing a conceptual framework.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology focusing on research design, research site, sample and sampling procedures, research instruments, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures, validity and reliability of the study
Chapter 4 presents data analysis and discussion of the findings from the study This chapter consists of the main parts as follows: Introduction, Research Results and Discussion
Chapter 5 finalizes the research with a summary of the main points and gives some recommendations for further study
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter outlines the theoretical foundations and literary studies that underpin this research paper, beginning with an overview of translation theory and pedagogical translation theory, highlighting their development and interconnections It then distinguishes between translation and interpreting, offering essential definitions and emphasizing the fundamental differences between the two, while classifying types of interpreting and focusing on key literary aspects of consecutive interpreting, including its definitions, models, stages, and directionality Additionally, the chapter addresses the current state of teaching and learning translation and interpreting at universities.
This chapter explores various scholarly perspectives on students' challenges in interpreting, highlighting Gile’s Effort Model and the associated skills issues It also examines Falbo’s model (2002) alongside research by Bartlomiejczyk (2004) and Yang et al (2018), which address linguistic and content-related difficulties Additionally, it discusses cultural challenges identified by Šimunić (2013) and Staes (2016), as well as psychological issues, such as anxiety and self-confidence, as suggested by Ivars and Calatayud.
Chapter 2 also reviews some fundamental literature of error analysis, which covers definition of error, errors of translation and interpreting, error analysis in translation and interpreting, Falbo’s model of error analysis to identify and classify errors of interpreting together with error categories in linguistic and content-related aspect and the error types such as lexical errors, grammatical errors, pronunciation errors, addition, omission, distortion in these two categories In addition, some theory- based explanations and justifications are presented for some adaptations given to Falbo’s model by the researcher to serve for the aims of research in this thesis paper
Last but not least, the chapter reviews some previous studies in relation to problems and difficulties encountered by students in translation and interpreting It also
9 mentions the conceptual framework to provide an overall picture of the theoretical approaches and methods used in this study.
The translation theory and pedagogical translation theory
2.2.1 The development of translation theory and pedagogical translation theory
Translation, while a longstanding practice in human history, is regarded as a relatively young discipline compared to other sciences The systematic development of translation studies began in the 1950s in Europe, primarily influenced by traditional linguistic approaches Pioneers such as Vinay and Darbelnet, through their seminal work "Comparative Stylistics of French and English," laid the groundwork for translation theory by employing contrastive linguistic methods to describe and propose various translation strategies.
One significant approach in translation studies is Nida's communicative translation theory, introduced in 1964, which views translation as a form of communication that considers pragmatic factors such as context, discourse, intended audience, and language functions In his work "Toward a Science of Translating," Nida outlines the translation process in three stages: analysis, transfer, and restructuring His most recognized concepts, "Formal and Dynamic Equivalence," have profoundly influenced many translation theorists focusing on functional equivalence Nida's theory is considered revolutionary as it incorporates non-linguistic elements into the translation process (Vehmas-Lehto, 2008).
In the 1960s, Catford (1965) published "A Linguistic Theory of Translation," a seminal work that laid the foundational theoretical framework for translation studies Influenced by linguistic approaches, the first chapter of this book provides a comprehensive overview of key concepts in translation research.
“General Linguistic Theory” His remarkable suggestions in this research are
“translation shifts” which are a variety of lexical and grammatical replacements of source text means in translations (Catford, 1965, p.73–82) Some translation scholars in
The trend of "adequate replacements," as introduced by Švejcer (1973) and echoed by various Russian theorists, highlights the significance of lexical and syntactic changes in translation, which can enhance translation teaching However, a linguistic-based theory of translation often overlooks crucial elements such as the translator's and writer's intentions, the target audience, and the nature of the translation material, particularly the implications of discourse that extend beyond individual sentences.
Before the term “Translation Studies” was firstly used by Holmes J S in his article The Name and Nature of Translation Studies at the Third International
In 1972, during the Congress of Applied Linguistics, translation theorists commonly referred to the field as the "theory of translation" (Catford, 1965) or the "Science of Translation" (Nida, 1969) A significant advancement in translation studies was made by Holmes, whose Map of Translation Studies has become a foundational framework for various aspects within the discipline.
Figure 2.1: Holmes' Map of Translation Studies (Source: Toury, 1995, p.10)
Holmes provides an overall classification of translation studies whereupon the theories of translation are positioned in “pure” discipline whereas the translation
11 pedagogy (translator training or teaching of translation) is categorized as in the
There exists a significant disconnect between translation pedagogy and professional practice, highlighting a gap between translation theorists and practitioners Despite the advancements in translation studies during the 1980s and 1990s, which produced numerous research publications, few addressed the teaching of translation This has resulted in a disparity between the needs of translation education and the theoretical frameworks available, which have yet to fully acknowledge the specific demands of applied translation Kiraly (1995) emphasized the absence of clear principles in translation pedagogy necessary for cultivating translator competence.
Courses focused on translation skills often lack a cohesive set of pedagogical principles that align with the goals of translation instruction, the essence of translation competence, and the impact of classroom teaching on students' translating abilities While the pedagogy of translation is recognized as a subset of translation studies, it remains an underexplored area among scholars.
Translation theories in translation studies heavily rely on a linguistic approach, which has significantly influenced translation teaching frameworks As a result, many academic translation training programs, particularly until the late 1990s, focused on enhancing L2 language competence The Grammar-Translation Method, commonly used in English Language Teaching (ELT), exemplifies this trend, despite being considered outdated and criticized for its limitations Scholars like González (2004) argue that the "read and translate" method is as ineffective for teaching translation as the Grammar-Translation Method is for foreign language instruction Additionally, Klein-Braley (1996) notes that most language teaching faculties utilize translation primarily as a language exercise.
Many translation courses in British universities primarily focus on enhancing linguistic proficiency rather than adequately preparing students for real-life vocational translation contexts According to Sewell (1996), a survey revealed that 19 out of 21 institutions employed translation as a means to improve students' language skills.
Since the early 21st century, translation teaching has shifted from a linguistic to a functional approach, emphasizing practical translation skills Nord (2007) advocates for "functionalist didactics," focusing on selecting appropriate texts, evaluating translations, and addressing translation challenges while monitoring student progress Gile (2009) highlights the importance of understanding the translation process over merely analyzing errors, promoting feedback, class discussions, and essential translation concepts such as quality and fidelity In contrast, Kiraly (2000) argues that translation involves constructing meaning and knowledge, advocating for a pedagogy rooted in collaborative learning and social constructivism This approach fosters an environment where students can develop cognitive flexibility and problem-solving skills in translation through interaction with peers and instructors.
Delisle (1980) emphasizes that while linguistic competence is essential for translation, it alone is insufficient for professional practice To address this limitation, contemporary translation and interpreting education has shifted its focus to not only improving language skills through a linguistic approach but also to fostering the necessary competencies for effective translation.
Understanding both linguistic and cognitive challenges, as well as cultural issues faced by students, is essential for developing a comprehensive framework for translation education This approach effectively combines translatological and pedagogical elements, ultimately enhancing the competence of future translators.
Translation versus Interpreting
2.3.1 Definition of Translation and Interpreting
According to Munday (2008, p.4), the English term translation, derived from either the old French in around the 14 th century or earlier from the Latin translatio
Translation has been defined in various ways, with Catford (1965) describing it as an "operation performed on languages," focusing on the substitution of texts between languages This linguistic emphasis aligns with the prevailing translation theories of that era However, Snell-Hornby (1995) criticized Catford's definition for its limited perspective Scholars in interpreting studies, like Seleskovitch (1978), argue that a linguistic focus is overly centered on words and expressions, neglecting the text's overall sense, which is crucial for interpreters Seleskovitch advocates for prioritizing the interpreter's comprehension and expression based on "sense" rather than mere linguistic conversion.
Nida and Taber (1974) define translation as the process of reproducing the closest equivalent of a message from the source language into the target language, prioritizing semantic accuracy followed by stylistic fidelity.
Translation is defined similarly by theorists such as Bell (1993, p 5), who aligns with the concept yet overlooks Newmark's emphasis on the priority in translation Munday (2008, p 4) further investigates the term, providing various interpretations that enrich the understanding of translation in a linguistic context.
(1) the general subject field or phenomenon
(2) the product – that is, the text that has been translated
(3) the process of producing the translation, otherwise known as translating
In this research paper, the term "translating," as defined by Jeremy Munday's third meaning of translation, will be utilized for comparison with interpreting Generally, translating encompasses both written and spoken forms of translation.
Pửchhacker (2009) defines interpreting as a unique form of translation, emphasizing its nature as a "translational activity" influenced by the social context in which it occurs He categorizes interpreting based on various factors, including modality (such as consecutive or simultaneous), directionality (unilateral or bilateral), and technology use (remote or face-to-face) Additionally, Pửchhacker (2004) presents a comprehensive theoretical framework for interpreting, consisting of eight dimensions: medium, setting, mode, languages (cultures), discourse, participants, interpreter, and problem This framework provides a structured approach to understanding the complexities of interpreting in diverse contexts.
“Interpretation” is also used by some scholars and translators to refer to as
The term "interpreting," although less frequently used, is defined by Nolan (2005, p 2) as a process of understanding where a speaker's meaning is most accurately conveyed in their native language but is best comprehended in the listeners' languages In this research, "interpreting" is consistently utilized and can be considered interchangeable with the less commonly used term "interpretation."
2.3.2 The difference between Translating and Interpreting
Translation and interpreting are interconnected fields within translation studies, highlighting both their similarities and differences As noted by Benmaman and Framer (2015), translation encompasses the overall process of conveying meaning between languages, with "translation" specifically referring to written forms and "interpretation" to oral forms The primary distinction lies in the medium: translators work with written texts, converting them from the source language to the target language, while interpreters focus on spoken messages, providing oral translations An exception exists in sight interpreting, where interpreters translate written texts orally.
15 it into a spoken message in another language Seleskovitch (1978, p.2) suggests a traditional distinction between interpreting (interpretation) and translation as follows:
“Translation converts a written text into another written text, while interpretation converts an oral message into another oral message.”
As-Safi (2013) states the clearer distinction between translating and interpreting:
Translators work with written texts, allowing them to reference sources and revise their translations in a less stressful environment In contrast, interpreters face high-pressure situations, dealing with oral messages that are transient and often irreversible Unlike translation, interpreting happens in real-time, requiring immediate comprehension and response without the opportunity for repetition This immediacy is a key distinguishing feature of interpreting compared to other translational activities (Pürchhacker, 2004).
Translators have more time to think and access resources like dictionaries and reference books, allowing for a more precise translation, while interpreters must respond quickly in real-time situations, such as face-to-face conversations or phone calls This demanding task requires interpreters to focus on listening, memorizing, and reformulating spoken messages Asgari (2015) highlights that interpreting occurs instantly, whereas translation involves transferring meaning from one written text to another, benefiting from the available resources for accuracy The key differences between interpreting and translation can be summarized in the table below.
Table 2.1 Differences between Interpreting and Translation
Semantic Direction Both direction on the spot One direction
Accuracy Relatively precise, non- correctable high accuracy, revision, evaluation,
Setting Conference, meeting, on the phone, face to face (dialogue interpreting) workplace (office) or private premise
Psychology Much stress and pressure, extrovert
Less pressure, introvert cognitive Short term and long term memory, full attention
Long term memory aides Notes, gestures and situation Dictionaries, reference books, etc.; context Professional skills Listening skills
Note-taking translation/interpreting skills public speaking
Sources: American Translator Association; Harris B., 1995; Nolan J,, 2005; Li X F., 2015
Interpreting can be classified into two main constructs: mode and type, as outlined by Cezero (2015) The mode includes consecutive interpreting and simultaneous interpreting, while the type encompasses conference interpreting, community interpreting, and media interpreting This research focuses solely on specific aspects of these classifications.
17 consecutive interpreting is researched because of its being common in the training programs of universities and colleges
According to the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC),
In simultaneous interpretation, the interpreter operates from a booth that provides a clear view of both the meeting room and the speaker, allowing them to listen and interpret the speech into the target language in real time.
Simultaneous interpreting with text, also called sight interpretation (Lambert,
2004), refers to a scenario in which interpreters receive a manuscript of an address to be delivered, allowing them to read along (or ahead) in the text while listening to the speech
Remote interpreting allows conference participants to engage from different locations while interpreters receive audio-visual signals via videoconferencing systems, utilizing earphones and multiple screens for effective communication.
Consecutive Interpreting
Consecutive interpreting (CI) involves the interpreter conveying information after the speaker or signer has finished expressing one or more ideas in the source language, allowing for a pause before the interpretation occurs (Russell, 2005).
Consecutive interpreting is defined as a process where the interpreter listens to a message, reorganizes the information using a personalized note-taking system, and then conveys the essence of the message in a different language for the audience (Patrie, 2004) This type of interpreting occurs after the speaker has finished their speech, with durations ranging from a few seconds to several minutes (Seleskovitch, 1978; González et al., 1991 [2012]).
“long consec” is a phrase to indicate consecutive interpreting for a lengthy spoken text
Consecutive interpreting can be categorized into two types: long consecutive interpreting, which involves delivering speeches lasting several minutes with the assistance of note-taking, and short consecutive interpreting, which focuses on brief utterances ranging from a single word to a few sentences, often conducted with or without notes.
Several scholars have developed theoretical models to describe the process of consecutive interpreting Colonomos (1987) identifies three stages of cognitive processing, each with specific tasks involving short-term and long-term memory, language switching, and cultural knowledge Cokely (1992) introduces a model that breaks down mental processes into seven stages, including message reception and production, highlighting top-down processing Gile's Effort Models (1995, 2009) offer a cognitive approach to analyzing the challenges faced by interpreters in both simultaneous and consecutive interpreting, making them highly regarded in interpreting practice and training (Russell and Takeda, 2015) This research paper will utilize these models as a theoretical framework to investigate the difficulties encountered by students in consecutive interpreting.
2.4.2.2 Daniel Gile’s Effort Models on Interpreting and Interpreter training
Gile's Effort Models utilize a cognitive approach to assist students and teachers in interpreting by clarifying the challenges faced in the field These models are valuable both theoretically and practically, as they address issues that extend beyond linguistic factors and focus on the implications of limited processing capacity, or attentional resources, during the interpreting process.
Gile's models identify the primary challenge faced by students and practitioners in interpreting as the limited availability of 'mental energy' necessary for cognitive operations (Pochhecker, 2015, p.135) He highlights two key principles: first, that mental energy is a finite resource, and second, that interpreting can deplete this energy, potentially leading to a decline in performance (p.161) Additionally, some mental operations in interpreting require focused attention, consuming cognitive capacity, while others are automatic Gile's framework outlines three critical efforts involved in interpreting: Comprehension, which involves understanding the source speech; Memory, which pertains to the short-term retrieval of essential information; and Production, which focuses on effectively translating into the target language Initially developed for simultaneous interpreting, Gile later adapted his model to include a two-phase approach for consecutive interpretation, consisting of a listening phase and a reformulation phase.
Effective listening and analysis are crucial in comprehension-oriented operations, involving the interpretation of speech sounds and the identification of linguistic elements These processes enable interpreters to make informed decisions about the meaning of utterances.
Comprehension in interpreting is a non-automatic process that relies on the limitations of attention capacity (Wilcox & Shaffer, 2005) To aid memory retention, interpreters utilize note-taking techniques, which help mitigate memory load constraints Both short-term and long-term memory play crucial roles in this process, as highlighted by Gile, who asserts that cognitive operations involving these memory types occur continuously and are non-automatic during interpreting In consecutive interpreting, the memory effort is particularly significant, as it pertains to the interval between listening to information and recording it (Gile, 2009).
When a speaker delivers a message, an interpreter may choose to take notes to accurately capture the content, or they might rely on short-term memory if the message is brief.
In the reformulation phase of interpreting, interpreters engage in three key efforts First, they must effectively read and process their notes, highlighting the importance of proficient note-taking to support accurate interpretation This involves utilizing long-term memory to recall information related to the original utterance, as noted by Patrie (2004), who emphasizes that interpreters visually reconstruct the speech's sequence through their notes The second effort involves the production of the message in the target language, marking the second "production" phase in the consecutive interpreting model During this stage, interpreters apply translation skills and strategies, such as selecting the most appropriate lexical choices and determining effective syntactic structures, to ensure the accuracy and clarity of their output.
Patrie (2004, p.98-99) highlights the significance of Gile’s effort models in interpreter training, as they identify essential sub-skills required for effective performance As interpreters become more proficient in the routine aspects of consecutive interpreting, they can focus on crucial elements that require deeper cognitive engagement, such as identifying contextual clues and delivering precise and impactful interpretations.
Based on the definition by Patrie (2004, p.11) and Gile’s Efforts Models, consecutive interpreting consists of two main phases:
Listening phase: listening, comprehending, storing in short memory and note- taking
Preproduction phase: note-reading, information retrieving from both short and long memories and reproducing the message
In the initial phase of interpretation, the interpreter listens attentively to the speaker, striving to understand and retain the information conveyed For longer speeches, the interpreter takes notes to ensure accurate translation Once the speaker pauses after a few sentences, the interpreter reviews any notes and draws on their memory to convey the message effectively in the target language.
2.4.4 The directionality in consecutive interpreting
The International Association of Conference Interpreters (2014) defines the A language as the interpreter's native tongue, while the B language refers to any language other than the native language In a consecutive interpreting course, students are trained to interpret in both directions, converting English (L2) to Vietnamese (L1) and vice versa This dual-language skill is essential for effective communication in interpreting practices (Baxter, 2012).
36) says that interpreting students should know their own capabilities and their own restrictions to know how far they can go in expressing themselves, especially in case of interpreting into B-language (L2) because students often have more problems expressing themselves in their B-language (L2) By means of simplification, students can avoid the risk of being stuck in over formulations in the target language that they are not familiar with In reality, students of interpreting often feel uncertain about the output of their target text when they do interpreting from L1 to L2 Baxter (2012, p 36) emphasizes, "interpreters can reinforce the perception of themselves as trustworthy figures rather than a potential source of annoyance by reducing their margin of error, whilst at the same time providing a smoother production on the whole" So, in B- language (L2) interpreting, interpreters should keep it simple to produce a smooth target text instead of stumbling over difficult grammatical constructions and unfamiliar terminology resulting in a target text filled with hesitation Baxter's principle of simplicity (Baxter, 2012, p 36) notes that students should plan in mind ahead of what and how they are going to say If an interpreter fails to plan beforehand what he/she intends to say, this might result in incorrect grammatical structures or incomplete sentences
Consecutive interpreting involves two key phases: the listening phase, where the interpreter listens and takes notes, and the reproduction phase, where the interpreter conveys the message using those notes Unlike simultaneous interpreting, where the interpreter delivers the target speech while continuously listening to the source language, consecutive interpreting requires the interpreter to first note down information before producing the target speech According to Gile (2005), the cognitive load is lower during the reproduction phase compared to the listening phase, suggesting that interpreters may prefer to work from their native language to ease processing demands This indicates that interpreters may feel more comfortable interpreting into their second language (B-language) during consecutive interpreting, as they can reduce cognitive strain in the comprehension phase.
2.5 The teaching and learning of Translation and Interpreting in universities in Vietnam
The problems encountered by students in interpreting
Research by Yang, Pan, and Wang (2018) highlights that understanding learner perceptions of challenges is crucial for enhancing the educational experience Consequently, numerous scholars and researchers have focused their investigations on identifying students' issues to improve both student learning outcomes and instructional effectiveness.
The term "problem," as defined by both the Macmillan and Longman dictionaries, refers to something that creates difficulty or trouble In the realm of translation and interpreting studies, numerous scholars, including Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), Mounin (1963), Nida (1964), Nord (1991), Gile (1995), Moser-Mercer (1996), and Vargas (2006), have extensively examined translation and interpreting challenges.
Translation is viewed as an objective challenge that every translator must address, encompassing various issues categorized as linguistic, pragmatic, textual, and cultural (1991, p 158-160) Gile's Effort Model, introduced in 1995, further elaborates on these challenges by identifying "problem triggers" in interpreting that lead to errors This model highlights the difficulties faced by trainees in developing interpreting skills, making it a significant framework in understanding the complexities of interpretation.
Research in interpreting studies has identified various challenges faced by students, categorizing them into linguistic, content, and presentation problems, as outlined by Yang, Pan, and Wang (2018) based on Chiaro and Nocella (2004) and Bartlomiejczyk (2004) Staes (2016) further refines this classification by introducing cultural problems, drawing inspiration from earlier models by Moser-Mercer (1996) and Pučhacker (2001) Additionally, other researchers have explored psychological factors, such as anxiety and lack of self-confidence, that impact students' interpreting performance This thesis investigates students' perceptions of their challenges in consecutive interpreting, utilizing Gile’s Effort Model and adapting concepts from Falbo’s model and previous studies to address interpreting skills, including listening comprehension, note-taking, and re-expressing, alongside cultural and psychological issues.
Moser-Mercer (2014) highlights the necessity for interpreting instructors to grasp their students' challenges in acquiring interpreting skills during classroom activities Beyond merely teaching these skills, educators must understand their students' learning experiences, recognizing difficulties that may arise This awareness enables teachers to identify the underlying causes of students' issues and to propose effective solutions or adaptations, ultimately facilitating the successful acquisition of interpreting skills.
Gile, a prominent theorist in translation and interpreting studies, presents his Effort Models to aid educators and learners in grasping the challenges encountered during the interpreting process His framework builds on the Sequential Model of Translation, highlighting the complexities involved in effective interpretation.
Gile's Effort Model of Consecutive Interpreting outlines a two-phase process: listening comprehension and reformulation In the first phase, interpreting students focus on understanding the source language speech, often choosing to memorize or take notes on key ideas The second phase involves recalling and reconstructing the speech using these notes or memories To achieve effective interpretation, students must balance their attention across listening, comprehension, memorization, and reformulation Failure to do so can lead to various challenges, which typically fall into categories such as listening comprehension, memory, note-taking, and re-expression.
According to Gile’s model, Ma (2013) categorizes interpreting skills into four key areas: listening skills, decoding skills, recording skills, and re-expression skills In her analysis, she distinguishes comprehension from Gile’s model as "decoding," which she further divides into linguistic elements such as pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar, as well as extra-linguistic factors Additionally, she merges note-taking and memory skills into the "recording skills" category, where memorization is viewed as essential.
Mental recording and note-taking, often termed "written recording," are critical components in interpreting studies Researcher Ribas (2012) conducted a study within the framework of Gile's Model to analyze the interpreting skills and strategies of her students.
Gile (2018) highlights that challenges in listening can lead to "incorrect and incomplete comprehension," while difficulties in short-term memory may result in "incorrect and/or incomplete retrieval of information."
Errors in interpretation, including incorrect or clumsy speech, can manifest as addition, omission, and distortion in the target text These issues highlight the significant connection between interpreting skills and the quality of re-expression.
27 problem of ensuring content accuracy and completeness in the interpreting performance
Inspired by Gile’s Effort Model and recent updated explanations of the author
(2009), this study will investigate the problems of students in relation to four interpreting skills namely listening comprehension, note-taking, memorizing and re- expressing in their practice of consecutive interpreting
Numerous scholars have examined linguistic challenges in translation and interpreting, with Nida (1964) identifying that these issues arise from the inherent differences between languages, manifesting as pronunciation, lexical, and grammatical errors Research by Barik (1971), Falbo (2002), Chiaro and Nocella (2004), Bartlomiejczyk (2004), Staes (2016), and Yang et al (2018) has focused on the linguistic problems faced by students and interpreters Despite variations in how these problems are identified and classified, a consensus exists on categorizing them into lexical, grammatical, syntactic, and phonological issues, which will be utilized in this research paper.
Barik (1971) and Atman (1994) were early contributors to the understanding of content-related errors in interpretation, highlighting issues such as omissions and additions Building on this foundation, Chiaro and Nocella (2004) and Bartlomiejczyk (2004) introduced the concepts of faithfulness and correctness as key criteria for evaluating interpreting performance In 2018, researchers Yang, Pan, and Wang expanded on these ideas, focusing on the challenges faced by students in interpreting studies, which include linguistic, content, and presentation problems This thesis will utilize the content-related issues identified by these Chinese researchers, alongside Bartlomiejczyk's foundational concepts, to guide its research.
28 to explore students’ perception of content problems and linguistic problems in their practice of consecutive interpreting
According to Nida (1945), language is intrinsically linked to culture, and the process of translation often presents cultural challenges He further explores these issues in 1964, identifying that cultural problems arise from varying environmental conditions, such as religious, social, and ecological factors Newmark (2000) defines culture as a comprehensive system encompassing habits, beliefs, morals, laws, religion, customs, and behaviors, highlighting that translation difficulties emerge when there are cultural gaps between the source and target texts.
Interpreting is not merely the translation of messages from the source language (SL) to the target language (TL); it also involves the transfer of cultural elements inherent in the SL (Tran Thi Le Dung, 2016) Zhang (2011) emphasizes the importance of intercultural communication in interpreting, urging interpreters to enhance their cultural awareness to navigate challenges effectively Staes (2016) identifies culture-related issues faced by interpreting students, stemming from inadequate historical and political knowledge, as well as unfamiliarity with significant cultural events and figures Harvey (2000) and Šimunić (2013) describe culture-bound terms as concepts unique to the source culture that lack equivalents in the target culture, complicating translation efforts Pedersen (2005) categorizes these culture-related terms into intra-linguistic references, such as idioms and slang, and extra-linguistic references, which include cultural items like food names and political titles This study incorporates the theoretical frameworks suggested by Šimunić.
(2013) and Pedersen (2005) would be used in the questionnaire to obtain the feedback of students on their cultural problems when doing consecutive interpreting
Error analysis
Errors in language learning and translation often stem from students' lack of competence or knowledge, serving as crucial evidence for scholars studying learners' challenges Corder (1967), inspired by Chomsky's cognitive approach, emphasized the significance of errors in language acquisition, a view supported by various researchers who recognize the "valuable information" errors provide regarding language performance and competence (Richards, 1974; Taylor, 1975; Pham, 2005) In interpreting studies, Kopczynski (1983) and Esmail (2017) agree that error analysis offers translation teachers clear insights into students' difficulties, helping to identify issues with interpreting strategies and practices.
English major students often face significant challenges in interpretation, leading to frequent errors in their practice Understanding the nature of these errors is crucial, prompting extensive research into the concept Since the 1950s, numerous scholars and linguists, including the notable Corder (1967, 1981), have explored error analysis from both linguistic and cognitive perspectives Corder categorizes errors into two distinct types, with the first type being classified as mistakes.
Errors of performance, as defined by Corder, stem from factors such as slips of the tongue, memory lapses, lack of attention, fatigue, and other adverse mental states In contrast, Corder identifies a second category known as errors of competence.
“real” errors whose nature is described as “systematic” or permanent essence defect in knowledge versus the temporary and emotional nature of the first type However, some
Scholars such as Falbo (1998), Dulay, Burt, Krashen (1982), and Lennon (1991) approach errors in language learning from a broader perspective, differing from Corder's specific classifications Lennon (1991) defines an error as a linguistic form unlikely to be produced by native speakers in similar contexts Meanwhile, Dulay et al (1982) describe errors as any deviations from established norms of language performance, regardless of their causes or characteristics.
In this study, the researcher integrates the definitions of errors proposed by Corder (1981) and Falbo (1982) to provide a comprehensive understanding of student errors in interpreting practice Corder's definition is deemed suitable as it acknowledges that errors may stem from psychological factors such as anxiety and lack of confidence, as well as from deficiencies in linguistic and cultural knowledge, skills, and memory capabilities Additionally, Falbo’s approach to error identification is favored, as it avoids rigid distinctions between errors and mistakes, aligning with the study's objectives Consequently, the term "error" will be used broadly to encompass faults in both the performance and competence of interpreting students.
2.7.3 Error Analysis in translation and interpreting
Error Analysis, a key area of applied linguistics established in the 1960s, highlights the challenges in categorizing translation errors due to the absence of universal classifications This difficulty arises from the existence of various translation theories and differing definitions of translation errors Additionally, the nature of translation errors can vary significantly between different language pairs, such as Vietnamese and English or French and English, as noted by Dewi (2015).
Pym (1992) distinguishes between binary errors and non-binary errors “A binary error opposes a wrong answer to the right answer”, so the question of “right” or
“wrong” is the main focus for this type of errors (1992, p.282) By binary errors, Pym means language errors “Non-binary errors” means the translation errors, which
Translation errors can be categorized into various types, reflecting different aspects of the translation process Newmark (1995) identifies two main categories: referential mistakes, which pertain to factual inaccuracies related to real-world information, and linguistic mistakes, stemming from the translator's lack of proficiency in the target language Nord (1997) expands this classification into four categories: pragmatic errors arising from ambiguities in the source text, cultural errors due to inadequate cultural adaptation, linguistic errors related to language use, and text-specific errors tied to the unique characteristics of the text Waddington (2001) further elaborates on the potential errors that translators and interpreters may encounter, highlighting the complexity of achieving accurate translations.
(1) Inappropriate renderings, which affect the understanding of the source text
(2) Inappropriate renderings, which affect expression in the target language
(3) Inadequate renderings, which affect the transmission of either the main function or secondary function of the source text
The National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) in Australia identifies eight error categories in English-Vietnamese translation, including distortion, unjustified omission, unjustified insertion, inappropriate register, unidiomatic expression, grammatical and syntactical errors, spelling mistakes, and punctuation errors Similarly, in Vietnam, Pham Phu Quynh Na (2005) explores error analysis in Vietnamese-English translation during her Ph.D research, categorizing errors into linguistic, comprehension, and translation errors, each with various subcategories.
In the field of interpreting studies, Barik (1971) is famous for his taxonomy of errors in which he describes “five categories of addition and omission” Afterwards
Altman (1994) identifies four types of interpretation errors: omission, addition, inaccurate rendition of individual lexical items, and inaccurate rendition of longer phrases, emphasizing the importance of context in error analysis Additionally, Benmaman and Framer (2015) propose nine indicators of interpretation errors, including omission, silence, literal interpretation, and distortion Other studies, such as those by Falbo, further contribute to the understanding of error analysis in interpretation.
In 2002, researchers highlighted the need to improve the validity of error analysis, which often appears inconsistent This inconsistency arises from the unclear distinctions among the three key phases of error analysis: error detection, classification, and evaluation.
Falbo introduces a two-level analysis model grounded in functionalist translation theory, focusing on interpretation as communicative tasks The first level assesses coherence and cohesion through specific linguistic criteria, while the second level compares the original and interpreted texts based on information content, highlighting aspects of "addition" and "loss of information."
“omission” offered by Atman This method helps focus on the content analysis besides the linguistic-related assessment criteria of the first level
2.7.4 The model of Error Analysis used in the research
Error analysis is a valuable method for evaluating students' interpreting performance, as highlighted by Brown's (1980) model, which consists of error identification, classification, description, and explanation Falbo (2002) initially proposed a three-phase approach involving error detection, classification, and evaluation However, she later simplified her model to focus on just two levels: error identification and classification, arguing that a more complex process can lead to confusion and an overwhelming number of error categories (Püchhacker, p 144).
Lazaraton (1991) and Staes (2016) present a technique for error analysis that focuses on the frequency of error types expressed as percentages This research will utilize Falbo’s model for error identification and classification, combined with Hatch and Lazaraton’s method, to analyze the errors made by students during their consecutive interpreting practice as observed in recordings.
Table 2.2: Criteria used by Falbo (2002, p.119-123) in the Error Analysis
(error identification and error classification)
By utilizing error analysis, students' interpreting errors can be identified by comparing the source text with the target text This study primarily employs an adapted version of Falbo's (2002) error analysis model, emphasizing both linguistic and content-related aspects The analysis focuses on the errors made by students during consecutive interpreting, applying Falbo's linguistic categories and content criteria to effectively assess their performance.
In this research, 35 items were utilized, with certain unnecessary elements like anaphora, cataphora, connectors, and reintegration being excluded to streamline the study's focus Concepts within the linguistic category were simplified, using terms like "wrong vocabulary" for "non-existent words" and "inappropriate collocation" instead of "violation of fixed collocation." Additionally, the classification of errors was expanded to include pronunciation errors in V-E consecutive interpreting and content distortion for both E-V and V-E interpreting cases.
Previous studies
Research indicates that students' perceptions significantly influence the development of effective translation pedagogical approaches, ultimately enhancing learning outcomes Scholars emphasize that understanding students' views is crucial not only for language instruction but also for the teaching of translation and interpreting According to Flórez et al (2012), students express varied opinions regarding the course content, difficulty level, time commitment, and the instructor's role.
Up to now, a lot of studies have been concentrated on interpreter training, and some of them are devoted to the research on interpreting learners such as Gile (1995),
Ficchi (1999), Pửchhacker (2003), Lindquist (2004), Shaw et al (2004) and Nolan
Chicaro and Nocella (2004) identified linguistic and non-linguistic challenges faced by students, a framework that Bartlomiejczyk (2007) built upon by examining the interpreting quality perceived by interpreting students Staes (2016) further analyzed students' difficulties in interpreting into English, while researchers in China, including Wang, Yan, and Pan (2018), explored students' perceptions of interpreting challenges Their findings categorized these challenges into three main areas: linguistic problems, content problems, and presentation problems, highlighting the multifaceted nature of interpreting education.
In Vietnam, research has focused on the challenges faced by learners in interpretation, with Dang Huu Chinh (2010) identifying significant errors such as grammatical, lexical, and pronunciation mistakes in consecutive interpretation from Vietnamese to English He also examined the underlying factors contributing to these errors Similarly, Nguyen Thi Mai Anh (2012) explored the difficulties experienced by third-year English majors at Hai Phong University, specifically in listening, note-taking, and memory during English-Vietnamese consecutive interpreting Tran Thi Huyen (2017) investigated the impact of cultural differences on students' interpreting challenges Despite these studies, there remains a lack of comprehensive research detailing the specific difficulties encountered by English majors in Vietnamese academic institutions.
Conceptual framework
This study investigated learners' perceptions of the challenges they face in interpreting, focusing on interpreting skills, content-related and linguistic domains, as well as cultural and psycho-linguistic aspects and directionality.
The problems of students in doing interpreting practice would be identified based on employing the theories by Gile’s Effort Model, i.e difficulties in listening, memory,
The current study identifies various challenges in note-taking and re-expression, including linguistic issues related to pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary (Nida, 1964; Yang, Pan, and Wan, 2018), as well as content-related problems (Falbo, 2002; Staes, 2016; Yang, Pan, and Wan, 2018) Additionally, psychological factors such as anxiety and self-confidence (Ivars and Calatayud, 2001) contribute to these challenges Observations revealed subcategories of these issues linked to performance criteria, as detailed in tables 2.3 and 2.4 The study's conceptual framework is visually represented in figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 Conceptual framework of the study
Summary
This chapter explores the theoretical foundations of interpreting, including its definition and the distinctions between translation and interpreting It delves into consecutive interpreting, outlining its stages and models, while also addressing the challenges faced by students during their practice Additionally, the chapter covers error analysis in interpreting, with the research methodology for this study to be detailed in Chapter 3.