Exploring Challenges and Strategies in Interpretation Tasks among Thai EFL University Students at an International University
Keywords:
Interpretation, interpreting challenges, interpreting strategies, Thai EFL studentsAbstract
Competent interpreters are essential for the rapid exchange of information across languages and cultures, facilitating effective communication among individuals from diverse linguistic backgrounds. This study investigates the challenges faced by Thai EFL university students during interpreting tasks and explores the strategies they employ to overcome these challenges. The study included 34 English majors enrolled in English to Thai and Thai to English interpretation courses at an international university in central Thailand. The students were requested to videotape their interpreting tasks, watch their interpretations to recall their experiences, and write a reflective journal. Qualitative data were collected through students’ reflections to address research questions regarding interpretation challenges and the strategies used to overcome them. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes emerging from the data. The findings revealed that Thai students encountered various challenges in interpreting tasks, including vocabulary deficiency, intricate sentence structures, specialized terminology, idiomatic expressions, real-time pressure, fast-paced speech, and multiple accents. Additionally, the research identified eight strategies to overcome these challenges: paraphrasing, active listening, guessing meaning, asking for clarification, omitting, seeking help, using context clues, and maintaining composure under pressure to deal with interpretation challenges. Some implications for interpretation courses in EFL contexts are discussed briefly.
References
Arumí Ribas, M. (2012). Problems and strategies in consecutive interpreting: A pilot study at two different stages of interpreter training. Meta, 57(3), 812-835.
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory: The interface between memory and cognition. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 4(3), 281-288.
Baranyai, T. (2011). The role of translation and interpretation in the diplomatic communication. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 5(2), 2-12.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Interpreters and Translators, Retrieved on March 13, 2023, from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/interpreters-and-translators.htm
Cowan, N. (2000). Processing limits of selective attention and working memory: Potential implications for interpreting. Interpreting, 5, 117–146.
Daneman, M. (1991). Working memory as a predictor of verbal fluency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 445-464.
Davelaar, E. J., Goshen-Gottstein, Y., Ashkenazi, A., Haarmann, H. J., & Usher, M. (2005). The demise of short-term memory revisited: Empirical and computational investigations of recency effects. Psychological Review, 112, 3–42.
Donato V. (2003) “Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: a comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian language-pairs”, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 12, 101-134.
Dong, Y., Li, Y., & Zhao, N. (2019). Acquisition of interpreting strategies by student interpreters. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13(4), 408-425.
Finardi, K. & Prebianca, G. V. V. (2006). Working memory capacity and speech production in L2: evidence from a picture description task. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 14 (1), 231- 260.
Fügen, C., Waibel, A., & Kolss, M. (2007). Simultaneous translation of lectures and speeches. Machine Translation, 21, 209-252.
Gumul, E., & ?yda, A. (2007). The time constraint in conference interpreting: Simultaneous vs. consecutive. Research in Language, 5, 165-183.
Hasanshahi, P., & Shahrokhi, M. (2016). The relationship between simultaneous interpreters’ speed of speaking in Persian and the quality of their interpreting: A gender perspective. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(3), 11-20.
Hinkel, E. (2001). Building awareness and practical skills to facilitate cross-cultural communication. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Khouni, O., & Boudjelal, A. (2019). Introducing the target language culture to EFL learners to enhance sociocultural competence. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) 10 (3), 438-447.
Lee S. (2007). The use of segmentation strategy in sight translation: a pilot study. Conference Interpretation and Translation 9/1, 153-172
Li, X. (2013). Are interpreting strategies teachable? Correlating trainees’ strategy use with trainers’ training in the consecutive interpreting classroom. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 18, 105–128.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Milton, J., Wade, J., & Hopkins, N. (2010). Aural word recognition and oral competence in a foreign language. In R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse & M. Torreblanca-López (Eds.), Further insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 83–98). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mokhtar, A. A., Rawian, R. M., Yahaya, M. F., Abdullah, A., & Mohamed, A. R. (2017). Vocabulary learning strategies of adult ESL learners. The English Teacher, 12 (38), 133-145.
Murtiningsih, S. R., & Ardlillah, Q. F. (2021, January). Investigating students’ challenges and strategies when interpreting. In 4th International Conference on Sustainable Innovation 2020–Social, Humanity, and Education (ICoSIHESS 2020) (pp. 224-232). Atlantis Press.
Nation, I. S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Nurfauziyah, A. (2017). Exploring problem experienced by students in interpreting practices. (Unpublished undergraduate’s thesis) Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Pratiwi, R. S. (2016). Common errors and problems encountered by students English to Indonesian consecutive interpreting. Journal of English and Education, 4(1), 127-146.
Pujiyanti, U. & Zuliani, R.F. (2014). Cross cultural understanding: a handbook to understand Others’ cultures. Yogyakarta: CV. Hidayah,
Rennert, S., 2010. The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15, 101–115.
Russell, D. (2005). Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. Topics in signed language Interpreting: theory and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences. Problems of language and communication. Washington: Library of Congress.
Signorelli, T. M., Haarmann, H. J., & Obler, L. K. (2012). Working memory in simultaneous interpreters: Effects of task and age. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(2), 198-212.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching (Vol. 111). London: Edward Arnold.
Yenkimaleki, M., 2017. Effect of prosody awareness training on the quality of consecutive interpreting between English and Farsi. LOT, Utrecht. Retrieved from https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/459_fulletext.pdf
Yenkimaleki, M., van Heuven, V. J., & Hosseini, M. (2023). The effect of fluency strategy training on interpreter trainees’ speech fluency: Does content familiarity matter? Speech Communication, 146, 1-10.
