JAIS 1 2 1 2 In this paper, we focus on the pauses that partly characterize the utterances of simultaneous interpreters, and attempt to analyze the results of experiments conducted using human subjects on the relationship between listener impressions and the length of pause. In speech, a pause is an essential element for producing the rhythmic aspect of spoken language, and this rhythmic aspect is closely related to a person s listening skill and understanding of the semantic contents of speech. However, since simultaneous interpreters make pauses in order to wait for the speaker s next input before starting their interpretation, interpreters utterances give us a different impression from conventional utterances and those pauses ought to influence a listener s impressions. In this paper, we investigate the characteristics of listener-friendly simultaneous interpretation. We conducted experiments to clarify this influence by using 31 subjects and two different types of English-Japanese simultaneous interpretation data, these being free-utterance lectures without a prepared script (A-style lectures), and lectures based on prepared scripts (B-style lectures). We selected 12 A-style lectures and 9 B-style lectures from the CIAIR Simultaneous Interpretation Database. The results reveal that in A-style lectures where the speed of speeches was relatively low, it was ascertained that the lengths of pauses appearing in interpreters utterances were short in cases which the subjects evaluated as listener-friendly interpretation. In B-style lectures where the speed of speeches was high, it was ascertained that the length of interpreters pauses has little influence on the subjects listener impressions. Moreover, we found a common feature in both lecture styles: the listener impressions were based on the stability of the speech-pause period and the presence of rhythm. 1. 1 2005 2005 TOYAMA Hitomi and MATSUBARA Shigeki, Relationship between Listener Impressions and the Length of Pause in Simultaneous Interpreting: An Analysis of Experimental Data Using the CIAIR Simultaneous Interpretation Database. Interpretation Studies, No. 5, December 2005, Pages 137-155 (c) 2005 by the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 2002 2005 1 2002 1 1 1) 1997 Ahrens 2005 Lee 1999 1 CIAIR 2001 138
2 2 3 4 2. 2002 1 1 Mizuno 2005 2003 2002 2002 2003 1 139
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 200msec. 200msec. 1 2003 2000 2) 2 3. CIAIR 2004 3.1 A 12 B 9 21 2 (CSJ) 2003mora 3) 140
(s) 1 A 9.1mora/s B B 11.2mora/s A (Time Pressure) 1 10 15 21 5 6 60 1 4 1 50 60 1 2 No. 1No. 21 ID 1 60 2000 141
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 ID 0001-00:05:264-00:09:399 N: The theme for this speech is going to be the American 0002-00:09:840-00:11:032 N: Presidential debate 0003-00:11:424-00:13:391 N: and who would be the 0004-00:13:640-00:15:215 N: better president for America<SB> 0005-00:16:272-00:18:327 N: (F um) Let's see, today is 0006-00:18:640-00:20:400 N: December fifteenth 0007-00:20:696-00:24:407 N: and it's been about a month and a half since 0001-00:06:440-00:08:207 I: (F ) 0002-00:08:944-00:09:783 I: 0003-00:10:296-00:12:775 I: (F ) 0004-00:13:096-00:14:424 I: 0005-00:14:648-00:18:255 I: 0006-00:18:728-00:19:263 I: 0007-00:19:528-00:21:887 I: 0008-00:22:472-00:24:711 I: (F ) 2 2 B 142
3.2 31 24 7 24.4 21 5 10 A 12 B 9 1 90 3.3 5 5 1 AB 3-i, 3-ii 4. 4.1 AB 1 60 22 1 AB 4-i 4-ii 4.1.1 A 4-i No. 3, No. 6, No. 10 0.5 4) -0.65 4.1.2 B 4-ii A 1.0 No.14No. 18 143
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 3-i A 3-ii B -0.30 4.2 4.1 1 1 144
AB -0.65 4-i A -0.30 4-ii B 145
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 4.2.1 A 5-i No. 3No. 6No. 10-0.81 4.2.2 B No. 19, No. 16 1.35 1.39-0.46 A 4.3 4.1 4.2 A B AB AB 2 6 7 300 360 5 6 60 2 60 4.3.1 A 2 6-i 6-ii 146
No. 3 1.0 1 1.0 No. 6 1.0 1.3 1 1.0 2 6-iii 6-iv [ -0.81] 5-i A [ -0.46] 5-ii B 147
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 No. 11 1 2.4 1 No. 5 4.0 4.2 2 4.3.2 B A No. 21 7-i 3.1 No. 14 7-ii 3.4 1 2 No. 16 7-iii 7.4 4.2 No. 19 7-iv6.0 4.4 2 0.1 3.0 20024.3 3.4 B (1) (2) (1) (2) A B 148
No.3 4.6 1.0(s) 6-i ( No.3) No.6 4.4 No. 1.0(s) 1.3(s) 6-ii ( No.6) 149
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 No.11 2.6 No.11 2.4(s) No.5 2.8 6-iii No.11 4.0(s) 4.2(s) 6-iv No.5 150
No.21 4.1 3.1(s) 7-i No.21 No.14 4.0 3.4(s) 7-ii No.14 151
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 No.16 2.6 7.4(s) 4.2(s) 7- No.16 No.19 2.8 6.0(s) 7-iv No.19 152
5. 2 CIAIR a) A b) B c) a), b) 1 AB 3 d) a), b), c) 1 () 17652040 153
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 (Tohyama, Hitomi) 21 COE 464-8601 Email: hitomi@el.itc.nagoya-u.ac.jp (Matsubara, Shigeki) ATR 1) 0.1 3 1997 2) CIAIR 3) mora 2002 2 4 2 1 2 1 4) 0.2 0.20.4 0.40.7 0.7 Ahrens, B. (2005). Prosodic phenomena in simultaneous interpreting: A conceptual approach and its practical application. Interpreting, Vol. 7 (1): 51-76. Lee, T.-H. (1999). Speech proportion and accuracy in simultaneous interpretation from English into Korean. META, Vol.44, No.2: 260-267. 154
Mizuno, A. (2005). Process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory. META, Vol.50, No.2: 739-794. (2003) 74 (2002) 15 (2005) [online] http://www.kobe-c.ac.jp/master-l/seminar/seminar.html (1997) 2 99-139. (2000) ATR 4 : 16-23. (2002) 10-11 27-46. (2002) 2002 2 : 166-17. (2003) Vol. 103, No. 487: 13-18. (2004)CIAIR Vol. 103, No. 487: 7-12. (2005) [online] http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/kosenjin/ (2002) 12-13 3-24. (2003) 15 1-8. (2001) : 85-102. (2000) version 2.2.0 (2002) 12-13 25-44. (2002) (2005) [online] http://www.rikkyo.ne.jp/%7ez3000257/i-c/index.html 155
Interpreting Studies, No. 5: 2005 156