Prosody Instruction for Interpreter Trainees: Does Methodology Make a Difference? An Experimental Study

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of explicit vs. implicit prosody teaching on the quality of consecutive interpretation by Farsi-English interpreter trainees. Three groups of student interpreters were formed. All were native speakers of Farsi who studied English translation and interpreting at the BA level at the University of Applied Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Participants were assigned to groups at random, but with equal division between genders (6 female and 6 male students in each group). No significant differences in English language skills (TOEFL scores) could be established between the groups. Participants took a pretest of consecutive interpreting before starting the program. The control group listened to authentic audio tracks and did exercises in consecutive interpreting. The fi rst experimental group received explicit instruction of English prosody and did exercises based on the theoretical explanation which was provided by their Iranian instructor. The second experimental group received implicit instruction of English prosody through the use of recasts. The total instruction time was the same for all the groups, i.e. 10 hours. Students then took a posttest in consecutive interpretation. The results showed that explicit teaching of prosody had a significantly positive effect on the overall quality of interpreting from Farsi into English compared with that of implicit prosody instruction. These results have pedagogical implications for curriculum designers, interpreter training programs, material producers and all who are involved in language study and pedagogy.

Prosody training benefits in perception vs. production skills in simultaneous interpreting: an experimental study

“…In the present study, the emphasis on comparing perception vs. production skills of interpreter trainees was addressed because of the contribution it could have on developing standard curriculum in training qualified future interpreters which has been pointed out in practitioners' beliefs (Yenkimaleki & Van Heuven, 2019b). The findings emphasized an increased importance of the role of prosody in the perception of the nonnative speech (Derwing et al, 2012), that prosodic features often producing promising results in speech recognition (Anderson-Hsieh et al, 1992;Yenkimaleki & Van Heuven, 2019c). It may be pointed out that increased conscious attention in pronunciation materials to training students to monitor their production through the teaching of formal rules, noticing the differences, providing constructive feedback, and reflective activities result in the enhancement of speaking skills (Yenkimaleki & Van Heuven, 2019c).…”

“…The findings emphasized an increased importance of the role of prosody in the perception of the nonnative speech (Derwing et al, 2012), that prosodic features often producing promising results in speech recognition (Anderson-Hsieh et al, 1992;Yenkimaleki & Van Heuven, 2019c). It may be pointed out that increased conscious attention in pronunciation materials to training students to monitor their production through the teaching of formal rules, noticing the differences, providing constructive feedback, and reflective activities result in the enhancement of speaking skills (Yenkimaleki & Van Heuven, 2019c).…”

“…Additionally, nonnative production of suprasegmentals appears to be more detrimental than segmental errors in L2 comprehensibility and intelligibility perception (Field, 2005;Kang et al, 2010;Yenkimaleki & Van Heuven, 2019a). To help L2 learners with these problems, training studies have proven to be beneficial in speech perception/production (Gordon et al, 2013;Yenkimaleki & Van Heuven, 2019a, 2019c.…”

Comparing the nativeness vs. intelligibility approach in prosody instruction for developing speaking skills by interpreter trainees: An experimental study

“…The appropriate use of prosodic features such as stress and intonation has been claimed to be more crucial for intelligibility than the accurate production of individual segments. Even though there is a need for the teaching and practicing of sounds (Yenkimaleki andVan Heuven, 2016c, 2019b), numerous studies suggest that more emphasis should be put on prosody (e.g., Derwing et al, 1998;Yenkimaleki and Van Heuven, 2016c, 2018, 2019b. Derwing et al (1998) investigated the relative effects of segmentals vs. suprasegmentals on speech comprehensibility of L2 speakers of English.…”

Effects of attention to segmental vs. suprasegmental features on the speech intelligibility and comprehensibility of the EFL learners targeting the perception or production-focused practice

“…Different approaches to pronunciation instruction were employed. For example, the purpose of Saito (2011) was to identify and prioritize problematic pronunciation areas for particular EFL learners, while Yenkimaleki and Van Heuven (2019a) investigated the relative benefits of the implicit vs. explicit approach to pronunciation teaching. Couper (2006) concluded that the effective pronunciation teaching involves: a. making learners aware that there is a difference between what they say and what native speakers say.…”