Recurrent grammatical errors in student Russian-to-English consecutive interpreting

Abstract

Interpreting student errors have little been accorded full-scale treatment. The objective of the article is, then, to provide a classification of and explain some of the most recurrent grammatical errors made by students in Russian-to-English consecutive interpreting. Our findings suggest that all grammatical errors in student consecutive interpreting fall into four groups: errors in the use of articles; errors in the use of tenses; errors in the use of voice; and errors in the use of number. Among the key sources of grammatical errors in consecutive interpreting are inadequate linguistic competence and performance, i.e. tendency to transfer grammatical patterns specific to a native language into a foreign language, unpredictable syntax, quick speech motor actions; and psychological and cognitive factors, i.e. principles of analogy, severe time constraints. Error analysis in student consecutive interpreting can make a positive contribution into the practice of training interpreters as it reveals the problem triggers. Additionally, inquiries in error analysis can make valuable contributions in a linguistic typology of interpreting errors in typologically and structurally different languages, i.e. language-specific and language-pair specific errors.

References

  1. Badea M., Presada D. The effectiveness of error analysis in translation classes. A pilot study // Porta Linguarum. 22. 2014. Pp. 49-59.
  2. Baker M. In other words: a coursebook on tanslation. London: Routledge. 2018.
  3. Bell R. Translation and translating: theory and practice (applied linguistics and language study). London: Routledge. 1992.
  4. Brenda N., Laurie S. Advances in interpreting research: inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing House. 2011.
  5. Chang C. English language needs of Chinese/English interpreting students: an error analysis of the Chinese-to-English short consecutive interpreting test // English teaching & learning. 42. 2018. Pp. 207-225.
  6. Corder, S. P. The significance of learners’ errors // International review of applied linguistics. 5 (1–4). 1967. Pp. 160-170.
  7. Corder, S. P. Error and an interlanguage. London: Oxford University Press. 1981.
  8. Eva N.S. Ng, Ineke H.M. Crezee. Interpreting in legal and healthcare settings. Perspectives on research and training. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. 2020.
  9. Gile D. Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting // Methods and strategies in process research integrative approaches in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing House. 2011. Pp. 201-218.
  10. Gile D. The contributions of cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics to conference interpreting // A critical analysis. Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing House. 2015. Pp. 41-64.
  11. House J. Translation quality assessment: past and present. London: Routledge. 2014.
  12. Kalina, S. Quality in interpreting // Handbook of translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Vol. 3. 2012. Pp. 134-140.
  13. Leech G., Jan S. A communicative grammar of English. London: Routledge. 2002.
  14. Prativi R. S. Common errors and problems encountered by students English to Indonesian consecutive interpreting // Journal of English and education. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education. 2016. 4(1). Pp. 127-146.
  15. Pym A. Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching // The teaching of translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishin Company. 1992. Pp. 279-288.
  16. Rong L. Che A. A. G., Lay H. A., Muhammad A. R. A. Error types in consecutive interpreting among student interpreters between Chinese and English: a pilot study // Proceeding of the 7th Malaysia International Conference on Foreign Languages (MICFL2021). IR 4.0 in Foreign Language Studies. 4-5 October 2021, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, compiled by Hazlina Abdul Halim, Lay Hoon Ang, Serdang, Selangor: Universiti Putra Malaysia 2021. Pp. 267-275.
  17. Sasaki A. Identifying the language skill of consecutive interpreters. Towards the development of recommendations on language choices in interpreters’ notes // International journal of language, translation and intercultural communication, 2018. 7. Pp. 33-44.
  18. Selinker, L. Interlanguage. Product information // International review of applied linguistics in language teaching, 1972. 10. Pp. 209-241.
  19. Залевская А.А. Психолингвистические исследования. Слово. Текст. Избранные труды. М.: Гнозис. 2005.
  20. Федоров А.В. Основы общей теории перевода. Лингвистические проблемы. Санкт-Петербург: Издательство Санкт-Петербургского университета. 2002.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).