外国语

外国语 ›› 2022, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5): 100-109.

• 翻译研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

内隐社会认知路径的口译质量感知偏差研究

李天韵1,崔英2   

  1. 1. 山东大学 翻译学院, 山东 威海 264200
    2. 广东外语外贸大学 高级翻译学院, 广东 广州 510420
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-19 出版日期:2022-09-20 发布日期:2022-10-09
  • 作者简介:李天韵(1993-)，男，江苏泰州人，在读博士生。研究方向：心理学路径口译研究|崔英(1983-)，女，山东临沂人，教授，博士。研究方向：翻译与认知诗学
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金青年项目“译文接受效果的认知诗学研究”(17CYY002)

An Implicit-social-cognitive Perspective on Perceived Bias in Interpreting Quality

Tianyun LI1,Ying CUI2   

  1. 1. School of Translation Studies, Shandong University, Weihai 264200, China
    2. School of Interpreting and Translation Studies, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou 510420, China
  • Received:2021-11-19 Online:2022-09-20 Published:2022-10-09

RichHTML

6

PDF (PC)

138

摘要：

在口译评估体系中，对口译质量的评价不应受到除信息还原、表达措辞外的副语言或非语言因素干扰。基于拟真场景的口译实证研究则表明，译员的性别、外表、口音和种族均使用户对口译质量感知产生了偏差性影响。由于口译是译员-用户在社会情境下的交际活动，口译质量是涉及交际多方的动态概念，从社会心理视角切入的口译质量研究能够为评估体系与用户感知之间的偏差提供理论依据，同时完善现有的评估体系。本文以“内隐社会认知”为理论基础，针对译员的社会身份与用户感知的口译质量的关系设计了实证研究。实验组和对照组用户对同一份口译视频作质量评价，区别仅在于视频开始前译员社会身份简介的呈现与否。定量及质性分析结果表明：译员凸显的“医师、高学历”社会身份不仅使用户对口译质量感知产生积极偏差，同时显著提升了对译员胜任行业领域的认可程度、增强了用户对译员的信任感。本研究补充了口译质量感知偏差中的“身份”因素，为社会心理视角的口译研究构建了研究路径。

关键词: 口译质量, 社会身份, 内隐社会认知, 心理学路径口译研究

Abstract:

In the generaly-acknowledged system of interpreting quality assessment, quality of the rendition should not be affected by para-linguistic or non-linguistic factors.Experimental studies set in mock interpreting assignments, however, have demonstrated biased effect of the interpreter's gender, appearance, accent and ethnicity on the user's quality perception.Given that interpreting is a user-interpreter communicative activity based in social contexts, and interpreting quality is a dynamic concept involving multiple parties in communication, investigating interpreting quality from a social-psychological perspective helps to provide a theoretical basis for deviations between assessment systems and user perceptions and to enhance the comprehensive dimensions of existing assessment systems.Grounded in the social psychology theory "implicit social cognition", this paper designed an experimental study on the relationship between interpreters' perceived social identities and users' perceptions of interpreting quality.Users in the experimental and control groups rated the quality of the same interpretation video, differing only in the presentation of the interpreter's perceived social identity profile before the start of the video.Both quantitative and qualitative analyses indicated that the interpreter's social identity as "a highly educated physician" not only produced a positive bias in the users' quality perception, but also significantly increased their recognition of the interpreter's competence in specialised fields and their sense of trust towards him.This study complements the 'identity' factor in the perceived bias of interpreting quality, and constructs a research path for interpreting studies from a social-psychological perspective.

Key words: interpreting quality, social identity, implicit social cognition, social-psychological approaches to interpreting studies

中图分类号: 

  • H059

表1

整体实验组-对照组在四重维度的独立样本t检验分析"

实验组均值* 对照组均值* 均值差值 t值 显著性
信息还原 4.19 3.90 0.29 2.500 .014
表达措辞 3.60 3.21 0.39 2.213 .029
行业能力 4.16 3.34 0.82 5.219 .000
信任度 4.19 3.56 0.63 3.686 .000

表2

实验组-对照组中高外语水平用户的独立样本t检验分析"

实验组均值* 对照组均值* 均值差值 t值 显著性
信息还原 4.09 3.69 0.40 2.313 .025
表达措辞 3.27 2.85 0.42 1.830 .073
行业能力 3.93 3.04 0.89 3.790 .000
信任度 3.94 3.20 0.74 3.155 .003

表3

实验组、对照组均值与专家赋分差值比较"

专家赋分均值 与实验组差值 与对照组差值
信息还原 4.06 0.03 0.37
表达措辞 3.5 0.23 0.65
行业能力 4.06 0.13 1.02
信任度 3.68 0.26 0.48

图1

三组均值的K-W检验结果* *注：组1为专家赋分、组2为实验组、组3为对照组"

表4

质性数据呈现结果"

标签类别 实验组(n=55) 对照组(n=81)
称赞信息全面 18.2%(10) 12.3%(10)
质疑信息准确性 1.8%(1) 30.9%(25)
称赞表达流畅 7.3%(4) 19.8%(16)
认为表达有问题 21.8%(12) 22.2%(18)
肯定行业能力 43.6%(24) 4.9%(4)
质疑行业能力 0%(0) 2.5%(2)
表示信任 3.6%(2) 6.2%(5)
表示不信任 3.6%(2) 1.2%(1)
1 Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I , S Krauspenhaar , and M Schlesewsky . Yes, you can? A speaker's potency to act upon his words orchestrates early neural responses to message-level meaning[J]. PloS One, 2013, 8 (7): e69173.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069173
2 Cheung, A.K.F Interpreters' perceived characteristics and perception of quality in interpreting[J]. Interpreting, 2020, 22 (1): 35- 55.
doi: 10.1075/intp.00033.che
3 Cheung, A.K.F Non-native accents and simultaneous interpreting quality perceptions[J]. Interpreting, 2013, 15 (1): 25- 47.
doi: 10.1075/intp.15.1.02che
4 Chiaro, D. Linguistic Mediation on Italian Television: When the interpreter is not an interpreter: A case study[C]// Garzone, D. & M. Viezzi. Interpreting in the 21st Century. John Benjamins, 2002.215-225.
5 Crisp, R.J , and M Hewstone . Differential evaluation of crossed category groups: Patterns, processes, and reducing intergroup bias[J]. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1999, 2 (4): 307- 333.
6 Forgas, J.P. & S.M. Laham. Halo effects[C]// Rüdiger, P. Cognitive Illusions. Hove: Psychology Press, 2016.287-288.
7 Gentile, P The Status of conference interpreters: A global survey into the profession[J]. International Journal of Translation, 2013, 15, 63- 82.
8 Greenwald, A.G , and M.R Banaji . Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes[J]. Psychological Review, 1995, 102 (1): 4- 27.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4
9 Han, C Using rating scales to assess interpretation: Practices, problems and prospects[J]. Interpreting, 2018, 20 (1): 59- 95.
10 Hong, S , and E Choi . Struggling for professional identity: A narrative inquiry of Korean freelance male interpreters[J]. Babel, 2020, 66 (4-5): 674- 688.
doi: 10.1075/babel.00181.hon
11 Ji, W., Liu, R. & S.H. Lee. Do drivers prefer female voice for guidance? An interaction design about information type and speaker gender for autonomous driving car[C]//International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, Cham, 2019.208-224.
12 Kurz, I Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user[J]. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 2001, 46 (2): 394- 409.
13 Lee, J Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment[J]. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2008, 2 (2): 165- 184.
doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772
14 Moe, J.D Listener Judgments of Status Cues in Speech: A Replication and Extension[J]. Speech Monographs, 1972, 39 (2): 144- 7.
doi: 10.1080/03637757209375749
15 Obasi, C Race and ethnicity in sign language interpreter education, training and practice[J]. Race Ethnicity and Education, 2013, 16 (1): 103- 120.
doi: 10.1080/13613324.2012.733686
16 Park, K The interpreter's delivery: A spotlight on user perceptions[J]. Lebende Sprachen, 2014, 59 (2): 276- 330.
17 Rivers, D.J , and A.S Ross . Idealized English teachers: The implicit influence of race in Japan[J]. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2013, 12 (5): 321- 339.
18 Roccas, S , and M.B Brewer . Social identity complexity[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2002, 6 ((2): 88- 106.
19 Rudvin, M Professionalism and ethics in community interpreting: The impact of individualist versus collective group identity[J]. Interpreting, 2007, 9 (1): 47- 69.
doi: 10.1075/intp.9.1.04rud
20 Setton, R , and L.L Guo . Guo.Attitudes to role, status and professional identity in interpreters and translators with Chinese in Shanghai and Taipei[J]. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 2009, 4, 210- 238.
doi: 10.1075/tis.4.2.05set
21 Tajfel, H. Social Categorization, Social Identity, and Social Comparisons[M]// Tajfel, H. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press, 1978.61-72.
22 Thorndike, E.L A constant error in psychological ratings[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1920, 4 (1): 25- 29.
doi: 10.1037/h0071663
23 中国翻译研究院, 中国翻译协会. 2016中国语言服务行业发展报告[R]. 北京: 外文出版社, 2017.69.
24 宗刚, 李盼道, 孙晨晨. 改革开放以来我国职业声望排序及变迁研究[J]. 北京工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2016, 16 (2): 11- 17.
25 曾祥宏. 翻译与身份研究框架探赜[J]. 上海翻译, 2018, (1): 10- 16.
26 李敏. 论"学历社会"的不可逾越性[J]. 湖南师范大学教育科学学报, 2004, (1): 25- 29.
27 杨承淑, 笹冈敦子, 詹成. 逐步口译中的非语言讯息结构[J]. 编译论丛, 2011, 4 (2): 55- 78.
28 王巍巍. 口译教学体系中的质量评估——广外口译专业教学体系理论与实践(之五)[J]. 中国翻译, 2017, 38 (4): 45- 52.
29 王彦. 社会心理学: 基础与进展[M]. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2017.
30 王沛. 内隐刻板印象研究综述[J]. 心理科学进展, 2002, (1): 97- 101.
31 瞿晓萍, 叶旭春. 不同群体对医师、护士、患者角色认知的刻板印象[J]. 解放军护理杂志, 2012, 29 (13): 1- 4. 1-4+12
32 纪莉, 吴逸悠. 口音歧视与社会群体的文化规训——以30年春晚小品的口音研究为例[J]. 现代传播, 2015, 37 (7): 81- 85. 81-85+146
33 范志嘉. 用户教育: 口译质量评估的隐性参数[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2018, 41 (1): 150- 158.
34 辛素飞, 辛自强. 社会身份复杂性的研究: 理论、方法与进展[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20 (3): 433- 442.
35 辛自强, 辛素飞. 被信任者社会身份复杂性对其可信性的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46 (3): 415- 426.
[1] 张威. 中国口译学习者语料库的语言信息标注:策略及分析[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 83-93.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
[1] 张德禄. 评价理论介入系统中的语法模式研究[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 2 -10 .
[2] 蒋承勇. 走向融合与融通——跨文化比较与外国文学研究方法更新[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 103 -110 .
[3] 许钧. 翻译是先锋,语言是利器——五四运动前后的翻译与语言问题[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 2 -3,6 .
[4] 张懂, 许家金. 英汉与格交替现象的多因素研究[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 24 -33 .
[5] 李思旭. 处所转换构式的语言类型学研究[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 2 -24 .
[6] 叶婧婷. 反身领属与强化的类型学考察[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 25 -38 .
[7] 谢天振. 百年五四与今天的重写翻译史——对重写翻译史的几点思考[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 4 -6 .
[8] 张莹. 行动者网络理论与中国文化外译——以熊式一英译的Lady Precious Stream(《王宝川》)为例[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 25 -34 .
[9] 柳俊. 东南亚语言区域的双及物结构类型及其成因[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 35 -45 .
[10] 雍茜. 违实句中的时制、体貌和语气——兼论语言标记系统的形成、类推和强化[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 11 -23 .