Scapegoating the interpreter for listeners’ dissatisfaction with their level of understanding: An experimental study

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Interpreting Pub Date : 2015-01-01 DOI:10.1075/INTP.17.1.03CHE
A. Cheung
{"title":"Scapegoating the interpreter for listeners’ dissatisfaction with their level of understanding: An experimental study","authors":"A. Cheung","doi":"10.1075/INTP.17.1.03CHE","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anecdotes abound on interpreters being used as scapegoats, but without hard evidence. The purpose of this study was to observe whether Cantonese-speaking listeners blamed the interpreter for unsatisfactory scores awarded to them in a comprehension test, after listening to a simultaneous interpretation (SI) into Cantonese delivered with a non-native accent. After answering twenty comprehension questions, all 173 participants were shown their scores on a screen. In the neutral feedback group, participants viewed their real, unmanipulated scores. In the positive feedback group, two points had been added to the score; in the negative feedback group, two points had been deducted. Participants were unaware of this manipulation. After viewing their scores, they completed an electronic questionnaire on the quality of the SI. Between-groups comparisons showed that, in terms of SI quality perception, the neutral feedback group differed significantly from the negative feedback group but not from the positive feedback group. These findings suggest that participants in the negative feedback group attributed their unfavorable test results to the interpreter, who was treated as a scapegoat.","PeriodicalId":51746,"journal":{"name":"Interpreting","volume":"17 1","pages":"46-63"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/INTP.17.1.03CHE","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interpreting","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/INTP.17.1.03CHE","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Anecdotes abound on interpreters being used as scapegoats, but without hard evidence. The purpose of this study was to observe whether Cantonese-speaking listeners blamed the interpreter for unsatisfactory scores awarded to them in a comprehension test, after listening to a simultaneous interpretation (SI) into Cantonese delivered with a non-native accent. After answering twenty comprehension questions, all 173 participants were shown their scores on a screen. In the neutral feedback group, participants viewed their real, unmanipulated scores. In the positive feedback group, two points had been added to the score; in the negative feedback group, two points had been deducted. Participants were unaware of this manipulation. After viewing their scores, they completed an electronic questionnaire on the quality of the SI. Between-groups comparisons showed that, in terms of SI quality perception, the neutral feedback group differed significantly from the negative feedback group but not from the positive feedback group. These findings suggest that participants in the negative feedback group attributed their unfavorable test results to the interpreter, who was treated as a scapegoat.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为听者对其理解水平的不满找替罪羔羊:一项实验研究
关于翻译被当作替罪羊的轶事比比皆是,但没有确凿的证据。本研究的目的是观察说粤语的听众在听了以非母语口音发出的粤语同声传译(SI)后,是否会因为在理解测试中给他们不满意的分数而责怪口译员。在回答了20个理解题后,所有173名参与者的分数都会在屏幕上显示出来。在中立反馈组中,参与者看到的是他们真实的、未经操纵的分数。在积极反馈组中,得分增加了两分;在负面反馈组,被扣两分。参与者并不知道这种操纵。在看完他们的分数后,他们完成了一份关于科学探究质量的电子问卷。组间比较表明,在SI质量感知方面,中性反馈组与负反馈组差异显著,而与正反馈组差异不显著。这些发现表明,负面反馈组的参与者将他们不利的测试结果归因于口译员,口译员被视为替罪羊。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Interpreting
Interpreting Multiple-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.80%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Interpreting serves as a medium for research and debate on all aspects of interpreting, in its various modes, modalities (spoken and signed) and settings (conferences, media, courtroom, healthcare and others). Striving to promote our understanding of the socio-cultural, cognitive and linguistic dimensions of interpreting as an activity and process, the journal covers theoretical and methodological concerns, explores the history and professional ecology of interpreting and its role in society, and addresses current issues in professional practice and training.
期刊最新文献
Language and power Review of Gavioli & Wadensjö (2023): The Routledge handbook of public service interpreting Coordination in telephone-based remote interpreting Explicitation and cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting How much noise can you make through an interpreter?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1