Grammatical Performance in Simultaneous Interpretation: An Error ...

Grammatical Performance in Simultaneous Interpretation:
An Error Analysis
HUO Siliang
A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
in
Linguistics
©The Chinese University of Hong Kong
June, 2005
The Chinese University of Hong Kong holds the copyright of this research paper. Any
person(s) intending to use a part or whole of the materials in the research paper in a
proposed publication must seek copyright release from the Dean of the Graduate
School.

Table of Contents
Abstract 1
1. Introduction 2
2. Literature Review 4
2.1. Simultaneity 4
2.2. Modeling SI 5
2.2.1. Effort Model 5
2.2.2. Language Processing Model 7
2.3. SI Output 11
3. Purpose of the Present Research 12
3.1. Research Question 12
3.2. Choice of Parameter 13
3.2.1. Topic Chain 14
3.2.2. Coordination 16
4. Methodology 20
4.1. Subjects 20
4.2. Experiment Procedure 21
4.3. Materials 21
5. Results 23
5.1. Part One: Topic Chain 22
5.2. Part Two: Coordination 25
5.2.1. Some Clarifications 26
5.2.2. Findings from the Experiment 29
5.3. Analysis 30
6. Conclusion 35

7. Discussion 37
7.1. Attentional Resources 37
7.2. Studies of Different Language Background 37
7.3. SI Studies and Linguistic Research 38
References 39
Appendixes 44
Appendix A: Sample Transcript of Subject A (Consecutive Interpretation) 44
Appendix B: Sample Transcript of Subject A (Simultaneous Interpretation) 45
Appendix C: Sample Transcript of Subject A (Free Narrative) 48

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Abstract
In simultaneous interpretation (SI), over 85% percent of the time interpreters are
speaking and listening at the same time; interpreters need to split attention and the
available mental capacity is limited (Gerver 1971). SI involves continuous listening
and analyzing (L), memory (M), production (P) and the coordination (C) of these
three tasks. Therefore, Total Mental Capacity equals Listening plus Memorization
plus Production plus Coordination (T=L+M+P+C) (Gile 1985). When any of L, M or
P runs out of mental resource, problems occur in the interpretation. For example,
interpreters pause when there is no mental resource for P. This helps to explain the
frequent addition, omission and translation mistakes in SI (Gile 1995). However,
previous researches have not addressed the question whether grammatical
performance deteriorates in SI when mental capacity has to be shared by multiple
tasks.
This study uses an experiment to compare grammatical performance in SI,
consecutive interpretation (CI) and free narrative. Three interpreters (N=4) are given
three tasks: 1) five-minute Chinese to English CI; 2) five-minute Chinese to English
SI and 3) five-minute free narrative in English. The English coordinator and is used to
measure grammatical performance. The percentages of correct use of this coordinator
in the three tasks are compared and analyzed. The result shows that in SI, the
grammaticality of the output does deteriorate compared with CI and free narrative.
This study contributes to the establishment of a fuller model of SI and the possibility
of using SI as a tool for linguistic studies in other areas.
1

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
1. Introduction
Simultaneous Interpretation (SI) is a relatively new phenomenon. For hundreds of
years, when people speaking different languages rely on an interpreter to
communicate, they have to stop constantly for the interpreter to speak, which slows
down the communication process and distracts both sides. This method of
interpretation is consecutive interpretation (CI). After the Second World War, during
the judgement of war criminals in Hague Tribunal, simultaneous interpretation (SI)
was used for the first time. It greatly fastened the pace of the judgement and the
criminals were astonished: ‘These interpreters are shortening our lives!’
Conferences with SI service have a special seat for the interpreter in the corner –
the booth, a sound-proof cubicle with headphones, microphones and sometimes video
devices that allow the interpreter to see the platform. When a speaker starts talking,
the interpreter listens to the speech through the headphones, and interprets while the
speaker is talking. The interpretation goes through microphones to audience’s
earphones. Thus, the audience can understand the speaker instantaneously; there is no
need for the speaker to stop in the middle and the conference can proceed without any
interruption.
Development in sound and voice equipments provides the technological
prerequisite for SI, however, the communication cannot take place without well
trained interpreters who are proficient in both languages. The mental demand of this
job is so high that interpreters often work in teams of two or three so that they can
2

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
take turns to interpret and allow each other time to take a break.
Except for being an indispensable communication tool for international
organizations, SI is also a fascinating subject for researchers in many different areas,
e.g. psychology, translation studies and linguistics. Researchers are interested in
discovering what is actually happening in the interpreters’ mind when they work.
Taking on linguistic perspective, this research studies the interference of English
(source language) on SI production in Chinese (target language) by examining the
interpretation of Chinese topic chain sentences and the usage of English coordinator
and. Subjects in this study are all native speakers of Chinese and learners of English
as a second language. They are required to do a consecutive interpretation task, a
simultaneous interpretation task and a free narrative task. When they are doing SI,
they have to listen and speak at the same time, may increase the level of interference
of Chinese on English. The study aims to find out whether the multi-task nature of SI
leads to higher level of interference between the target language (TL) and the source
language (SL), compared with CI and free narrative.
3

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
2. Literature Review
2.1. Simultaneity
Simultaneous interpretation is one of the most complicated language communicative
modes. Its complexity attracts the attention of researchers from different backgrounds.
Many have attempted to analyze this phenomenon from cognitive and neurolinguistic
perspectives. Since the 1970s, several models of SI processing were built (e.g. Gerver
1971, Kirchhoff 1976, Cokely 1992, Gile 1997). Thanks to the joint efforts from
academic community and the SI profession, now we have achieved a better
understanding of this complex process.
At the dawn of interpretation research, there have been debates over the
simultaneity of SI. Some suggested that SI is not truly “simultaneous”. Such
arguments emphasized the fact that there were pauses in speaker’s speeches, and that
interpreters speak during these pauses. If interpreters try to put as much as possible
into these pauses, the nature of SI is not speaking and listening at the same time, but
speaking when there is no need to listen (Paneth 1957, Barik 1975).
These arguments were later refuted by Gerver (1971, 1975). Through
experiments, Gerver found that Through his experiments, Gerver found that
interpreters have to split their attention and that there is a limited total processing
capacity available (Gerver 1971). It is also proposed that the pauses in source
speeches are too short for interpreters to say very much. In fact, more than 75% of the
time interpreters are speaking and listening at the same time (Gerver 1975).
4

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
One of Gerver’s important findings is that interpreters can recall more of the
content of the speech after listening, than after simultaneous interpreting. In one
experiment, nine interpretation trainees were required to listen to, shadow (repeat it as
they heard it) or simultaneously interpret from French to English. After each task,
they were immediately given questions that test their comprehension and recall of the
original speech. The result showed that their score of the test after listening is
significantly higher than after simultaneous interpretation (Gerver, 1974).
2.2. Modeling SI
Researchers have made unrelenting efforts to build models for simultaneous
interpretation, including models about the social effect of SI and the communication
process of SI. Here we are considering SI language processing models.
2.2.1. Effort Model
One of the most widely accepted theories to explain this simultaneous nature of SI is
Daniel Gile’s Effort Model (1985). Gile is considered the most influential and prolific
researcher in the field of interpretation research (Pochhacker, 2004). Originally, Gile
built this model to help students understand the tasks involved in SI in a general way,
therefore, the model was designed to be very simple yet explanatory. Gile divides the
efforts involved in SI into three parts: listening and analyzing (L), production (P) and
memory (M). Listening refers to the process that the interpreter listens to the speakers’
speech and comprehends it. Production refers to the process that the interpreter speaks
5

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
in the target language to the microphone. Usually the interpreter starts speaking after
hearing a few words of the speech and lags behind the speaker for a few seconds.
Therefore, the interpreter needs to remember what is said in this period. This is the
process of Memory.
The model is based on the hypothesis that there is a limited amount of “mental
energy” that can be used for processing (L+P+M

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
speak and listen at the same time. They take notes while the speakers speak. Speakers
stop every 5 to 6 minutes and interpreters start speaking by referring to their notes. In
consecutive interpretation, the listening process consists of listening, memorizing,
note taking and coordination while the production process involves recalling from
memory (Rem), note reading (Read) and production (P). Therefore, CI (reformulation)
= Rem + Read + P.
2.2.2. Language Processing Model
Gile’s Effort Model briefly outlines the different processing components and the
allotment of attentional resources. However, it fails to explain how these processes
work and it is very difficult to measure the resources that each process takes. To
achieve a better understanding of the processing in SI, Kees de Bot borrows Levelt’s
model on language processing to explain the language process of bilingual speakers
and later the process of simultaneous interpretation (de Bot, 1995).
The Levelt model (Levelt 1989, 1993) divides human language production into
three basic levels: the conceptual level, the lemma level and the word form level. The
conceptual level refers to preverbal message that carries communicative intention.
The formulator processes the preverbal message by choosing the right words and
applying grammatical and phonological rules and finally comes up with a speech plan
(see Figure 1). For example, if we want to say the word a rose, the color, the shape,
the smell and the feelings associate with roses will first come into the conceptual level
and forms the preverbal message. The formulator accesses the word rose, puts it in the
7

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
singular form. Finally, the articulator realizes the speaking by encoding it
phonologically.
Figure 1. Language Processing Model (Levelt, 1993)
Simultaneous interpretation by nature involves two languages. Therefore, de
Bot’s bilingual speech model—a bilingual version of the above mentioned language
processing model of Levelt’s is worthy of introduction here (de Bot 1992). In this
bilingual model, de Bot made several assumptions.
8

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
First, the preverbal message of communicative intention contains information
about in which language the message is to be produced, although the message has not
yet gone through any linguistic encoding at this stage. For example, when a bilingual
speaker of English and Chinese wants to say the word rose, it is not only the color or
the smell of the flower that is included in the preverbal information, but also whether
it is to be said in English or Chinese. Second, formulators are language specific.
However, there is only one lexicon that stores the lexical information of all languages
that the speaker knows. Lastly, after the formulator activated comes up with a speech
plan, the plan is submitted to an articulator, which is not language specific and stores
all information about sounds and prosodic patterns.
De Bot argues that there is one single storage that contains elements of all the
language that a speaker knows. The links between elements are strengthened through
continued use. Therefore, in general, the elements of the same language usually have
stronger links among each other rather than with elements of a different language.
However, for bilingual speakers of communities where code-switching is a very
common language style, subsets that contain elements of different language may also
be formed.
For simultaneous interpreters, as argued by de Bot, it is more likely to form
subsets that contains elements of different languages, since these languages are often
used very closely. Therefore, it is more important for interpreters to intentionally
develop very clear distinction among different languages through training (de Bot
2000).
9

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
In an experiment by Bock (1986), subjects were required to describe a picture
after listening to a spoken sentence, either active or passive. It is found that when
describing the picture, subjects are more likely to use the voice of the preceding
sentence. If, for example, the sentence is passive, the description by the subject is also
more likely to be passive.
Drawing on this experiment, de Bot argues that for simultaneous interpreters, this
kind of strategy can be very common: “When the formulator, which always works
under time pressure, and even more so in simultaneous interpretation, is looking for a
[syntactic] procedure in the target language, recently activated procedures have a
better chance to be selected than other, less active procedures. In particular when
processing load is high and attentional resources are limited, the interpreter will go for
anything close enough to the target, without monitoring this internally too critically”
(de Bot 2000).
According to de Bot, when interpreters are working between cognate languages,
this strategy can be used more often than when they are working between
typologically different languages, because there are less shared syntactic procedures
in the later case. However, when under extreme time pressure and when the mental
resources for production are inadequate, it is also possible that the interpreter would
employ a syntactic procedure from the source language that is not accessible in the
target language. In this situation, the output will be grammatically flawed.
10

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
2.3. SI Output
The production part in simultaneous interpretation has received some attention from
researchers. It is found that interpreters rely heavily on contextual knowledge (e.g.
Lederer 2002); they tend to use ‘oralized’ language rather than ‘literary’ language (e.g.
Tannen 1982) and that they employ various strategies, e.g. omission, addition and
anticipation (e.g. Schjoldager 1995, Napier 2002). Attention has also been give to
pauses, hesitations and corrections in SI production (e.g. Mead 2000, Tissi 2000).
However, little has been discovered about grammatical errors that occur in SI output,
except Daniel Gile’s observation of the phonological, lexical and grammatical
mistakes of a group of five students learning SI (Gile 1987).
11

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
3. Purpose of the Present Research
3.1. Research Question
In China, most people presently in the SI profession are trained domestically in
interpretation programs. For these interpreters who have never been in a natural
English-speaking environment, there may be a considerable gap between their strong
language (Chinese) and weak language (English) proficiency. In normal situations
without ‘split of attention’, they are excellent speakers of English. However, when
these interpreters have to work simultaneously, with several tasks competing for
limited mental resources and two languages working at the same time, the quality of
the output in English may decrease.
This is a study that compares grammatical performance of native Chinese
speakers’ output in Chinese-to-English SI, CI and free narrative. In simultaneous
interpretation, the formulator and the parser are working at the same time, the former
formulating speech plans in the target language and the latter processing incoming
information in the source language. In CI, the interpreter has to recall information in
the source language and interpret it into the target language. Only the formulator is
working in the process, and information recalling is finished in the preverbal
conceptual stage. In free narrative, however, it is a normal speech production situation
as indicated by de Bot’s speech model. Only the formulator is working in the process.
The question that triggers this study is that in the different processing situations, as
explained above, there is a possibility that the output grammatical performance may
12

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
differ.
Then, how should the grammatical performance be measured? This is not an
easy question to answer. The scope of this study is not wide enough to cover every
possible interference between the two languages. Here only two representative
phenomena are chose to be examined in this study, as explained in the following
section.
3.2. Choice of Parameter
Chinese and English are typologically different languages. One of the distinctions is
that Chinese is a topic-prominent language while English is a subject-prominent
language (Li & Thompson 1974, 1976). A topic has a number of characteristics that
differ from a subject: 1) it must be definite (while a subject doesn’t); 2) it doesn’t have
to be the argument of a predicative constituent (while a subject does); 3)
topic-selection is independent of the verb; 4) a topic functions as the “center of
attention” of the discourse; 5) topic-predicate agreement is very rare; 6) a topic must
be in sentence-initial positions and 7) a topic is syntactically independent in the
sentence.
In general, topic serves to be the center of attention in a sentence or in a few
sentences. It must be the initial of a sentence and be syntactically independent.
Topic-prominent languages have certain features: there is always a formal coding for
the topic but not necessarily for the subject; passive construction is a marginal
structure or does not appear at all and there are rarely ‘dummy’ or ‘empty’ subjects in
13

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
topic-prominent languages. Li & Thompson argues that topic-comment structure is
not occasional in topic-prominent languages, rather, it is a basic sentence type.
Chinese qualifies as a topic-prominent language and has all the above mentioned
features. For example, the topic is always in the sentence-initial position in Chinese;
passive construction rarely appears in spoken language and in cases where the subject
is not clear the sentence can simply be formed without a subject. The notion of
topic-prominent or subject-prominent, however, is not definite features but a
continuum. Chinese is a language that is closer to the topic-prominent end of this
continuum while English the opposite.
3.2.1. Topic Chain
Chinese and English are typologically different languages. The former is
topic-prominent and the later is subject-prominent (Li & Thompson 1974, 1976).
One interesting feature of Chinese as a topic-comment language is the topic
chain structure. For example, as stated in Li, 2004 (p.27):
1 a. 我 打 开 冰 箱 ,
wo da kai bing xiang
I open refrigerator,
b. Ф 倒 了 一 杯 牛 奶 ,
dao e yi bei niu nai
pour PRT one-cup milk
c. Ф 做 了 一 个 三 明 治 。
zuo le yi ge san ming zhi
make PRT one sandwich
14

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
‘I opened the refrigerator, poured a glass of milk and made a sandwich.’
For sentence (1), the topic wo ‘I’ is mentioned once at the beginning of the
sentence. It is the overtly marked topic of the first link (a), and is omitted in the next
two parts (b) and (c). In this sentence, the topic is the agent for all the three links.
However, in Chinese topic chains, the topic is not necessarily always the agent.
Consider sentence (2b).
2 a. 那 棵 树 , 花 小 ,
nei ke shu hua xiao
that CL tree flower small
b. Ф 叶 子 大 ,
ye zi da
leaves big
c. Ф 很 难 看 ,
hen nan kan
very ugly
d. 我 没 买 。
wo mei mai
I didn’t buy
‘That tree has small flowers and big leaves. It’s very ugly. I didn’t buy it.’
In (2), the topic nei ke shu ‘that tree’ is the agent in the first three links (a), (b)
and (c). However, it is the patient in the last link (d) ‘I didn’t buy it’. Such structures
are allowed in Chinese.
It is generally understood that topic chain is a structure different from English
coordination. Some even claim that it should be considered a separate category in
Chinese grammar and should be treated as the largest unit in Chinese syntax (Shi,
15

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
1989).
This is, in fact, a very common structure in Chinese and appears very often in
public speeches, which unavoidably causes difficulty for interpreters. This study
intends to examine how interpreters handle the topic chain structure in Chinese to
English interpretation.
3.2.2. Coordination
According to Shi (1989), topic chain is ‘a sequence of topic comment constructions
juxtaposed together without coordination’. Each comment is an autonomous link in
the chain, and the links are connected by the topic, which functions as the topic of
each comment, and stays at the center of attention. In English, however, simple
juxtaposition is not enough to connect clauses and other syntactic properties.
Coordination is required in most cases.
Aside form examining the translation of Chinese topic chain sentences, this study
also intends to study the use of English coordination in simultaneous interpretation.
Quirk et al. (1985) proposes that certain criteria were proposed to distinguish
coordinators from conjuncts and subordinators: first, coordinated clauses are
sequentially fixed. For example, when we move the second part of sentence (3a) to
the beginning of the sentence, we have (3b), which is not an accessible sentence.
3 a. They are living in England, or they are spending a vacation there.
3 b. * Or they are spending a vacation there, they are living in England.
16

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Other criteria for coordinators are: clause coordinators are restricted to clause-initial
position; coordinators are not preceded by a conjunction coordinators can link clause
constituents; coordinators can link subordinate clauses; and coordinators can link
more than two clauses.
Based on such criteria, Quirk et al. believe that the three coordinators that
qualify all the criteria, and, or and but, are central coordinators. For example:
4 a. Please come in and have a seat.
b. I haven’t read this book but I heard that it’s quite interesting.
c. I’d like to have some tea or coffee.
In these three sentences, and, but and or serve the function of linking
syntactically similar items, each with its implied meaning. And indicates additional,
but indicates contrast while or indicates alternative.
However, in another study (Meyer, 1990), it is proposed that and is the most
central coordinator of all while but and or are peripheral in comparison. Two reasons
are given for this proposal. First, the frequency of and is much higher than other
coordinators in oral and written English. The second reason is that the variety of
syntactic constructions that can be coordinated by and is much large than that of but
and or. In the corpus that Meyer examined, three types of constructions were never
conjoined by but: verb phrases, adverb phrases and non-finite subordinate clauses. For
or, adverbial phrases were never conjoined, and over 60 percent of the coordination
17

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
with or are noun phrase and adjective phrase coordination (Meyer 1990).
Therefore, the present study focuses on the most central coordinator proposed
by Meyer—and, which is also the most frequently used one. Both clauses and phrases
can be coordinated by and. Sentence (4a) is an example of the coordination of VPs
and sentence (5a) below shows how and coordinates clauses. In addition, both heads
and modifiers can be coordinated. Sentence (5b) and (5c) respectively exemplifies the
coordination of heads and modifiers (Biber, 1999).
5 a. I went to that restaurant yesterday and I’ll never go again.
b. Those people next door are nice and funny.
c. Yesterday was a long and boring day.
Coordinators are not optional links that people use flexibly. In English, to link
two items that have the same syntactic function, one is obliged to use a coordinator.
For example:
6 a. Andrew will buy a dog and a cat.
b. * Andrew will buy a dog a cat.
In (6a), a dog and a cat have the same syntactic status. They are both DPs and
are coordinated by the word and, as shown by the following tree diagram.
18

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Figure 2.
‘Andrew will buy a dog and a cat.’
IP
DP I’
D I VP
V
DP
DP CONJ DP
D NP D NP
Andrew will buy a dog and a cat
Sentence (6b) is not correct, because the two DPs, a dog and a cat, are not
coordinated. Normally, simply putting two phrases that have the same syntactic
function together is not used in formal language. When it is used, however, it
indicates that the list is not completed and leaves an open end. In most cases, a
coordinator must be used so that the phrases coordinated can be treated as a whole.
19

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
4. Methodology
4.1. Subjects
Subjects of the experiment (N=4) are second year students of the MA program of
interpretation of School of Translation and Interpretation, Beijing Foreign Studies
University. A two-year post-graduate interpretation program in China, it provides CI
training in the first year and SI training in the second year. All the subjects’ mother
tongue is Chinese. They have received formal English education in high school, and
majored in English for their undergraduate study. None of them has been exposed to a
natural English-speaking environment before. To enter this training program, they
were selected among other applicants through a series of recruitment tests, including
English proficiency test, translation test and interpretation test. It is fair to say that
their English proficiency levels are similar.
This program provides rich opportunities for formal conference interpreting
working experience apart from in-class training. Once students enter the program,
they are assigned to work as interpreters for various conferences. This is to ensure that
by the time the graduate, they can function as well-qualified interpreters with rich
experience. The subjects chosen for this study are top students from this program and
have worked as simultaneous interpreters in formal conferences.
4.2. Experiment Procedure
Subjects are asked to sit in four soundproof interpretation booths. They are requested
20

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
to complete three tasks: 1) interpret a 5-minute speech consecutively (Chinese to
English), 2) interpret a 5-minute speech simultaneously (Chinese to English); and 3)
answer in English a question about the topic discussed in the previous two speeches
for five minutes (free narrative). Subjects are self-paced in the last task. Their
performance is recorded on audio tapes for transcription. After the subjects’ output is
transcribed, the study examines the output in two ways. First, the corresponding
interpretation for topic chain sentences in the original speech has been taken out and
comparison has been made between SI output and CI output. Second, all the sentences
that require coordinator and (obligatory context) are tallied, as well as the correctly
used coordinators (correct tokens), misuses and absences. The use of coordinators in
SI, CI and free narrative is compared.
4.3. Materials
As previous researches have shown, background knowledge is essential for
interpretation (Chernov 1979, Pochhacker 1993). Different levels of knowledge about
the content of the source text can lead to variation in the quality of output. Therefore,
this experiment uses an article about economical globalization as its source text.
Economical globalization is a topic that is covered in the training provided by the
program in the first year. All the subjects have some exposure to this issue. The article
chosen approaches this topic from a very general perspective that only requires basic
world knowledge for comprehension. The text is read at a speed of 100 to 120 words
per minute, which is suggested by the International Association of Conference
21

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Interpreters (AIIC) to be the ‘comfortable rate’ for interpreters (, which is also
confirmed by Gerver (1969)).
22

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
5. Results
5.1. Part One: Topic Chain
There are altogether nine topic chain sentences in the original speech in Chinese, five
in the SI part and four in the CI part. The corresponding sentences in the subjects’
output were taken for close study.
Long sentence in (7) is one of the topic chain sentences in the original speech.
7 a. 但 是 , 世 界 各 国 也 有 着 许 多 共 同 之 处 ,
dan shi, shi jie gei guo ye you zhe xu duo gong tong zhi chu
but, world countries also have many common places
‘But, countries of the world also have many things in common,’
b. 面 临 着 同 样 的 挑 战 ,
mian lin zhe tong yang de tiao zhan
face ASP same challenge
‘faced with same challenges,’
c. 不 同 程 度 地 有 着 各 自 的 优 势 和 特 长 ,
bu tong cheng du di you zhe ge zi de you shi he te chang
different extent have respective advantage and strength
‘and each has its own advantage and strength to different extent,’
d. 完 全 应 当 相 互 取 长 补 短 ,
wan quan ying dang xiang hu qu chang bu duan
completely should each other learn from each other’s strong points
‘They have every reason to learn from each other’s strong points,’
优 势 互 补
you shi hu bu
complement each other
‘complement each other,’
23

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
e. 充 分 利 用 国 际 教 育 资 源 来 发 展 本 国 的 教 育 。
hong fen li yong guo ji jiao yu zi yuan lai fa zhan ben guo de jiao yu
fully utilize international education resource to develop domestic education
‘and fully utilize international educational resource to develop domestic
education.’
For most of the subjects, this sentence is broken into several clauses. For
example, Subject A’s translation is as (8a).
8 a. Countries enjoy many common grounds and common challenges. Moreover,
different countries enjoy their unique strength. Therefore, all countries should
join each other’s advantages and complement each other. They should fully
use international educational resources to develop higher education in their
own country.
However, Subject C interpreted this topic chain sentence as (8b).
8 b. There are many common characteristics. The countries are facing same
challenges, moreover, to different extent they have their own advantages, must
learn from each other, must complement each other.
Here we can see Subject C didn’t break the sentence into clauses. In stead, the
interpretation in English is also in a kind of ‘topic chain’ structure, with the countries
at the beginning of the sentence as the ‘topic’. Links (c) and (d) are simply juxtaposed
together, leaving link (d) must learn from each other, must complement each other
24

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
without a subject. Such structure is not uncommon in the subjects’ output. The study
counted the case where links are juxtaposed ungrammatically in corresponding
interpretation. The result is as follows:
Table 1
Subject A Subject B Subject C Subject D
CI 0 0 0 0
SI 2 3 2 1
Surprisingly, such mistakes appear in all the subjects’ SI performance, but in none of
their CI performance. This shows that the ability of avoiding language transfer from
source langaage Chinese to target language English is weakened in SI compared with
CI.
5.2. Part Two: Coordination
With all the subjects’ output transcribed, this study counted the obligatory context,
correct use, misuse and absence of the coordinator and. Findings from the research
show that subjects performed the worst in the simultaneous interpretation task. Most
of the mistakes are due to absence of coordinator. For example, in Subject A’s SI
performance, there are many sentences that lack coordinators.
9 Despite the fact that all the countries have different political system,
cultural tradition, local characteristics, a lot of commonplace also exists.
25

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
In this sentence, political system, cultural tradition and local characteristics are
all complements of the verb have, and should have been combined with a coordinator
and. Mistakes of this kind are most common in the subjects’ SI performance. It is
probably due to the fact that the original speech in Chinese listed these noun phrases
without any coordinator in between, a structure that is grammatical in Chinese. If the
subject simply follows the exact structure in the original speech, a mistake arises.
Subjects have to pay special attention so as to avoid interference from their first
language, Chinese.
5.2.1. Some Clarifications
Different as the two language systems are, this problem of absence is not unavoidable.
Some subjects employed a make up technique. After listing all the items without any
coordinator in between, they use coordination tags so that the sentence becomes
grammatical and the meaning is not distorted too much from the original speech. For
example, in Subject C’s SI performance, there is a sentence that reflects such a
strategy:
10 a. It is also true in human resource training, teaching methods, etc.
Realizing that there should have been an and between the phrases human
resource training and teaching methods, the subject added a coordination
tag—etc.—at the end of the sentence, which renders the output grammatical. Such use
26

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
of coordination tags is tallied in this study as correct use.
Another mistake that appears in subject’s performance is misuse of and. In some
subjects’ output, and appears when a different coordinator is required. Such cases are
tallied as misuse in this study. An example can be found in Subject C’s SI output:
10 b. The college graduates should not only have a good mastery of English and
know the world.
In (10b), not only implies that a good mastery of English and know the world
has contrastive meaning. The contrastive coordinator but, therefore, is required here.
So the sentence should be: The college graduates should not only have a mastery of
English but also know the world or The college Graduates should not only have a
mastery of English but know the world as well. However, since the subject used and
instead of but, it constitutes a misuse.
Another misuse of and is when items of different grammatical status are
coordinated. Sentence (10c), which is taken from Subject A’s CI performance, is a
very good example. At the end of the sentence, the subject said very high level science
and technological. Science is an NP, while technological is an AP.
10 c. With the further development of economic globalization,more and more
people start to study abroad, especially in developed countries and only
27

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
a fraction of them come back to serve their own countries, especially in
those very high level science and technological.
In fact, as we can hear from the recording, the subject was running out of the
time and had to finish the sentence is a hasty way. This kind of mistakes is very rare in
the output. However, another structure appears very frequently in their output, which
uses the coordinator and more than once for a single coordination. Sentence (10d) is
taken from Subject C’s SI output.
10 d. It will help countries to exchange and communicate and cooperate so as
to form a global culture.
In this sentence, the subject uses and twice to link exchange, communicate and
cooperate. Normally, only one coordinator is required for this sentence. However, in
spontaneous speech, such structure is sometimes allowed. Therefore, in this study, we
do not consider these cases as misuse of and.
Another clarification about the tallying process is the phrase as well as, a
preposition that is often used by subjects when the coordinator and is required.
Sentence (10e) is taken from Subject A’s CI output:
10 e. Economic globalization will cast an impact on political, cultural,
scientific, technological as well as educational affairs in different
28

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
extents.
Here, political, cultural, scientific, technological and educational are all
modifiers of affairs. Ideally, the subject should use and to link them up, but she used
as well as instead. Since using as well as here does not constitute a grammatical
mistake, this study does not take it as an obligatory context for and.
5.2.2. Findings from the Experiment
Results of the tallying process are presented in the following tables. Table 2.1-2.4 are
results of each subject’s performance. For example, the first line in Table 2.1
represents Subject 1’s CI performance, in which there are 14 obligatory contexts, 14
correct tokens, 1 misuse and no absence.
Table 2.1
Subject A
Obligatory Correct Misuse Absence
CI 14 14 1 0
SI 25 20 1 5
Free Narrative 11 11 0 0
Table 2.2
Subject B
Obligatory Correct Misuse Absence
CI 20 19 0 1
SI 24 18 0 6
Free Narrative 14 13 0 1
29

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Table 2.3
Subject C
Obligatory Correct Misuse Absence
CI 16 16 0 0
SI 23 19 1 4
Free Narrative 8 8 0 0
Table 2.4
Subject D
Obligatory Correct Misuse Absence
CI 18 18 0 0
SI 36 32 3 4
Free Narrative 6 6 0 0
5.3. Analysis
The figures may become more reflective when turned into percentage tables. Table
3.1-3.4 shows the percentage of correct use, misuse and absence. The percentage of
correct use is correct tokens divided by correct tokens plus misuse and plus absence.
In Table 3.1, the second line is Subject A’s SI performance. It indicates that the
percentage of correct use is 20 / (20+1+5) = 76.92%.
Table 3.1
Subject A
Correct Misuse Absence
CI 93.3% 6.6% 0
SI 76.92% 3.85% 19.23%
Free Narrative 100% 0 0
30

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Table 3.2
Subject B
Correct Misuse Absence
CI 95% 0 5%
SI 75% 0 25%
Free Narrative 92.86% 0 7.14%
Table 3.3
Subject C
Correct Misuse Absence
CI 100% 0 0
SI 79.17% 4.17% 16.67%
Free Narrative 100% 0 0
Table 3.4
Subject D
Correct Misuse Absence
CI 100% 0 0
SI 82.05% 7.69% 10.26%
Free Narrative 100% 0 0
It is now more obvious that subjects tend to make more mistakes with
coordinators in SI. To have a better understanding of the overall situation of all the
subjects, we can look at Table 4, which shows the percentage of correct use, misuse
and absence on average. The first item on the first line is the average correctness of CI
of the four subjects. (93.3%+95%+100%+100%)/4=97.08%. Table 4 clearly reflects
that the subjects are less competent with coordinators in SI than in CI and free
narrative. In both CI and free narrative, subject’s percentage of correct use are over
97% while in SI it is only 78.41%. This contrast becomes clearer in Figure 3.1.
31

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Table 4
Average Correct Misuse Absence
CI 97.08% 1.65% 1.25%
SI 78.41% 3.93% 17.79%
Free Narrative 98.22% 0 1.79%
Figure 1.1
Average Percentage of Correct Use in the Three Tasks
Correct
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
CI SI FN
Correct
As Figure 3.2 suggests, absence is the most common problem in SI performance.
In fact, the percentage of absent coordinator is 17.79%, which means that one out of
five coordinators is missed in SI.
Misuse in SI is also more frequent than in the other two tasks, however, the
difference is not that pronounced. As indicated by Figure 3.3, the percentage of
misuse in SI is 3.93%, where as in CI it is 1.65%. There is no misuse of the
32

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
coordinator in any of the subjects’ free narrative performance.
Figure 3.2
Average Percentage of Absence in the Three Tasks
Absence
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
Absence
0.00%
CI SI FN
Figure 3.3
Average Percentage of Misuse in the Three Tasks
Misuse
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
Misuse
0.00%
CI SI FN
33

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Therefore, it may be concluded that absence is the most frequent mistake of
coordinator use in SI. As introduced before, coordinators are not obligatory in spoken
and written Chinese. When they are under great demand of mental resource, subjects
can no longer function properly in terms of using coordinators. In order to keep pace
with the speaker, it is very easy for subjects to forget the rules of coordination, and
simply put items of same grammatical function together without any coordination.
34

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
6. Conclusion
This study aims at finding out whether grammatical performance deteriorates in
simultaneous interpretation, compared with consecutive interpretation and free
narrative, and it is confirmed by the results to be the case. Simultaneous interpretation
is a multi-task linguistic experience, with listening, production and memorization
going on at the same time. Interpreters are under extremely high mental load. With
many different tasks competing for limited mental resource, it is possible that there is
less mental resource for production than in normal situations. The quality of
performance decreases in terms of information completeness as well as in
grammatical accuracy. For interpreters who work between English and Chinese,
which are two languages that are typologically different, it can be even more difficult.
When interpreters are translating into their second language, it becomes very difficult
to avoid grammatical mistakes because not only they are left with less than normal
mental resource for production, but also the first language is interfering with the
second language. In such cases, the grammatical performance of the interpreter may
deteriorate.
This study is an attempt to confirm this hypothesis with experimental methods.
The research finds that topic chains in Chinese sentences, when interpreted into
English, are more likely to be juxtaposed together in an ungrammatical way in SI than
in CI or free narrative. Another fact that is indicated by the finding is that interpreters’
use of coordinator is worse in SI than in the other two tasks: CI and free narrative.
35

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
This proves that linguistic performance does deteriorate in simultaneous interpretation.
Clear cases of language transfer are found in the data, which may be the result of time
pressure and limited atttentional resource. As explained by de Bot (2000), under such
pressure, the interpreter may choose the syntactic structure in the source text because
it is most recently activated. A strategy convenient when working between cognate
languages, it causes grammatical errors when the interpreter is working between
typologically different languages like English and Chinese. The result turns out to
indicate that subjects are more likely to transfer syntactic patterns directly from the
source text to the target text when they are doing simultaneous interpretation than
when they are doing CI or free narrative.
36

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
7. Discussion
7.1. Attentional Resources
The result of this study indicates that grammatical performance of Chinese to English
CI by Chinese L1 speakers deteriorates compared with CI and free narrative. The
reason for this phenomenon may have different explanations. First, since the subjects
are speaking English and listening to Chinese at the same time, the interference of L1
(Chinese) on L2 (English) may be more considerable than in CI or in free narrative
(de Bot, 1995).
Another explanation is that attentional resource for production in SI is less
adequate as is in CI and free narrative. As suggested in Daro and Fabbro (1994),
syntactic and phonological process also requires attention in SI. Therefore, when there
are more tasks competing for the limited attentional resource, grammatical
performance deteriorates.
7.2. Studies of Different Language Background
The subjects of this experiment all have similar backgrounds in terms of English
learning experience. They have never been immersed in a natural English-speaking
environment. However, simultaneous interpreters between other languages, especially
European languages, are often from bilingual or multilingual family backgrounds.
They have acquired second language in a much more natural way. Previous researches
show that whether the subjects learn English from formal class instruction or from
37

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
natural environment may play an important role in the order of morpheme acquisition
(Perkins & Freeman 1975). Therefore, the experiment of this study may yield
different results on subjects of other language backgrounds.
7.3. SI Studies and Linguistic Research
The comment of Brian MacWhinney in his article “Simultaneous Interpretation and
the Competition Model” (1997) reveals the close relationship between SI studies and
linguistic research: “[P]rocessing overload is the best window we have on the inner
workings of language and thought”. SI is one of such windows. In researches about
language production, using SI as the experiment procedure is relatively easy to
control the content of the output. More studies along this line can be conducted which
can eventually pave the way for more advanced research.
38

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
References
Barik, Henri C. 1975. Simultaneous interpretation: qualitative and linguistic data.
Language and speech 18: 272-297.
Bock, J. 1986. Meaning, sound and syntax: lexical priming in sentence production.
Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory and cognition 12:
575-586.
Biber, Douglas (ed). 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow,
Essex: Longman.
Cameron, Catherine and Kang Lee. 1999. Emergent use of English grammatical
morphemes by Chinese speaking children. IRAL 37: 43-58.
Chenoa, G.v. 1979. Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous
intepretation. In The interpreting studies reader, Franz Pochhacker and Miriam
Shlesinger (eds). London and New York: Routledge.
Cokely, D. 1992. Interpretation: a socialinguistic model. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok
Press.
Daro, Valeria and Franco, Fabbro. 1994. Verbal memory during simultaneous
interpretation: effects of phonological interference. Applied linguistics 15:
365-381.
De Bot, Kees. 1992. A bilingual speaking model: Levelt’s ‘speaking’ model adapted.
Applied linguistics 13: 1-24.
De Bot, Kees. 1995. The bilingual lexicon: modality effects in processing. Journal of
psycholinguistic research 24: 289-298.
39

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
De Bot, Kees. 2000. Simultaneous interpreting as language production. Language
processing and simultaneous interpreting: interdisciplinary perspectives.
Dimitrova, Birgitta Englund, & Hyltenstam, Kenneth (eds): 65-88. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Frauenfelder, Freeman, Diane. 1975. Acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult
ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 9: 409-419.
Gambier, Y and J. Tommola (eds). 1993. Translation and knowledge: SSOTT IV.
Turku: University of Turku, Center for Translation and Interpreting.
Garzone, Giuliana and Maurizio Viezzi (eds). Interpreting in the 21 st
century:
challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gerver, D. 1971. Aspects of simultaneous interpretation and human information
processing. Doctoral dissertation, Oxford University.
Gerver, D. 1974. Simultaneous speaking and listening and retention of prose. The
quarterly journal of experimental psychology 26: 337-341.
Gerver, D. 1975. A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation. Meta: 20:
119-128.
Gile, Daniel. 1985. Le modele d’efforts et l’equilibre en interpretation simultanee.
Meta 30: 44-8.
Gile, Daniel. 1987. Exercises in interpretation and breaking down texts in French: a
case study. Meta 31: 420-480.
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
40

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Gile, Daniel. 1997. Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In
The interpreting studies reader,Franz Pochhacker and Miriam Shlesinger (eds).
London and New York: Routledge.
Kirchhoff, H. 1976. Simultaneous interpreting: interdependence of variables in the
interpreting process, interpreting models and interpreting strategies. In The
interpreting studies reader,Franz Pochhacker and Miriam Shlesinger (eds).
London and New York: Routledge.
Lambert, Sylvie and Barbara Moser-Mercer (eds). 1994. Bridging the gap: empirical
research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Lederer, Marianne. 2002. Simultaneous interpretation – units of meaning and other
features. In The interpreting studies reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Levelt, W.J.M. 1993. Linguistic disorders and pathologies: an international handbook.
Blanken, Gerhard, Dittmann, Jurgen, Grimm, Hannelore, Marshall, John C., &
Wallesch, Claus-W. (eds). Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany: Walter de
Gruyter.
Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson. 1976. On the issue of word order in a synchronic
grammar: a case against ‘movement transformations’. Lingua 39: 19-181.
Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson. 1974. An explanation of word order change
SVO SOV. Foundations of language 12: 201-214.
41

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Li, Wenda. 2004. Topic chains in Chinese discourse. Discourse processes 37: 25-45.
Lonsdale, Deryle. 1996. Modeling SI: a cognitive approach. Interpreting 1:235-212.
MacWhinney, Brian. 1997. Simultaneous interpretation and the competition model. In
Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting, Joseph Danks, Geogory
Shreve, Stephen Fountain and Michael McBeath (eds). Thousand Oaks, London
and New Dheli: Sage Publications.
Mead, P. 2000. Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages.
The Interpreters’ newsletter: 10:89-102.
Meyer, Charles. 1996. Coordinate structures in English. World Englishes 15: 29-41.
Napier, Jemina. 2002. Sign language interpreting: linguistic coping strategies.
Coleford: Douglas Mc Lean.
Paneth, E. 1957. An investigation ino conference interpreting. In The interpreting
studies reader,Pochhacker, Franz and Miriam Shlesinger (eds). London and New
York: Routledge.
Perkins, Kyle and Diane Freeman. The effect of formal language instruction on the
order of morpheme acquisition. Language Learning 25: 237-243
Pochhacker, Franz. 1993. From knowledge to text: coherence in simultaneous
interpreting. In Translation and knowledge: SSOTT IV, Y. Gambier and J.
Tommola (eds). Turku: University of Turku, Center for Translation and
Interpreting.
Pochhacker, Franz and Miriam Shlesinger (eds). 2002. The interpreting studies reader.
London and New York: Routledge.
42

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Pochhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing interpreting studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
Quirk, Randolph et al. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language.
London: Longman.
Schjoldager, A. 2002. An exploratory study of translational norms in simultaneous
interpreting: methodological reflections. In The interpreting studies reader,
Pochhacker, Franz and Miriam Shlesinger (eds). London and New York:
Routledge.
Setton, Robin. 1999. Simultaneous interpretation: a cognitive-pragmatic analysis.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shi, Dingxu. 1989. Topic chain as a syntactic category in Chinese. Journal of Chinese
linguistics 17: 223-262.
Tannen, D. 1982. The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In Spoken and written
language: exploring quality and literacy, D. Tannen (ed). Norwood, New Jersey:
Ablex.
Tirkkonen-condit, Sonja and Riitta Jaaskelainen (eds). 2000. Tapping and mapping
the processes of translation and interpreting: outlooks on empirical research.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tissi, B. 2000. Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: a
descriptive analysis. The interpreters’ newsletter 10:102-27.
43

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
Appendixes
Appendix A: Sample Transcript of Subject A (Consecutive Interpretation)
The subjects of Chinese high school forum of the year 2001 is economic globalization
and Chinese higher education. Why these subjects become so important is because
during the last 30 years of the 20 th century, economic globalization has become the
fastest developing global trend.
Economic globalization will cast an impact on political, cultural, scientific,
technological as well as educational affairs in different extents. The economic
globalization will on one hand promote regional and state development. At the same
time it may also pose very acute conflict. How to face the economic globalization is a
very important issue as well as to the education of Chinese students of senior levels.
Certainly, the economical globalization will cause a deep impact on education,
first and foremost on the high level education. Because the high level education is the
start point of economy and has a direct impact on national economy.
Higher education provides human talents and human resources for economic
development and provide inexhaustive motivation for science and technological
development. The overall comprehensive strength of a state as well as its
competitiveness is closely linked with its performance, standard, scale and structure
of higher learning and they cannot be separated.
The demonstration of the impact of globalization on education of higher learning
is the structure of education of higher learning as well as the status in international
44

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
economy. This change of structure is not spontaneous. It is the impact of globalization.
This reform of economy is not separated or isolated but it must be understood in the
macro-system of global society.
One acute phenomena is that economic globalization leads to the competition of
human resources. It is not only reflected in the struggling of the performance of the
senior level of talents but is also reflected in the brain drain of senior talents to the
richer countries.
According to UNDP report, during the year 1960 to 1990, over one million
specialized personnel from developing countries migrated to the United States and
Canada. With the further development of economic globalization,more and more
people start to study abroad, especially in developed countries and only a fraction of
them come back to serve their own countries, especially in those very high level
science and technological. Therefore, for developing countries, the problem of brain
drain is even difficult, which cast a shadow on their economic development, making it
even harder to keep those high level specialists.
Appendix B: Sample Transcript of Subject A (Simultaneous Interpretation)
Influenced by economic globalization, and on the basis of the modern developing
website education, online education, distant education on the Internet technology
enabled all the countries and their education of higher learning to further their
exchanges and communication as well as cooperation. Despite the fact that all the
countries have different political system, cultural tradition, local characteristics, a lot
45

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
of commonplace also exists. They face the same challenges, and they have own
comparative advantages to certain extent, different extent. All countries should
certainly need to draw upon each other’s advantages and complement each other’s
disadvantages, fully utilize international education resources to develop their own
industry of higher learning. However, we should also know that a small number of
developed countries in terms of information technology and cultural resources, they
take up the dominant bite. The developing countries may always be left over to be
audience of the Internet and they are in a very passive status. A very small number of
poverty countries, they are even excluded from this trend. There are huge difference
against certain background of fast development of information industry is also
expanding. This conflict must be addressed by the developing countries and certainly
aroused great concern among the developing countries. Therefore, have to enable all
the countries and nationalities to enjoy the multi-cultural prosperity brought by
globalization at the same time protecting their excellent cultural tradition from being
extincted, this is a new subject faced by us. Cultural pluralism is conducive to
different countries to extensively draw upon these good international cultural fruits
achievements is beneficial to the exchange integration of different cultures also
beneficial to the development of the global culture for human development. However,
we should always understand this in a way that a certain culture shouldn’t been give
absolute power. If we cannot maintain the excellent tradition in different countries, the
international culture will suffer a great blow. The economic globalization causes
certainly a great impact on education of higher learning, also could be reflected upon
46

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
the human resources quality, their knowledge structure and their competence. The
human resources certainly needs international competition. This is certainly not
restricted to trade economic and foreign-related economies. This is a requirement to
the vast majority of human. Because for any enterprises in our country, they would
also realize that they have to face up to the big background of international
competition. They should pay closer attention to vast changing international market. It
is imperative for them not just to improve their foreign language, but also try to
acquire the common language of international economic practice. When talking about
globalization and international higher learning, people have different opinions. But at
least we should realize that to nurture the innovative human talents is the basic
requirement to meet the need of globalization. The education objects, contents,
methods certainly will face some reforms and they will be conducted against the
background of globalization at the same time being a long-term task. While we are
talking about globalization and international of higher learning, we found out that
education has increasingly become a central factor affecting the development of
economy. It may be easy for us to look at education from a purely economic and
technological perspective. However, if we have a broader view, in the new century,
people not just face with rapid economic development, and there are other positive
aspects. We will also find out that the new century is also featured by widening gap
between richer and poor countries. Even more pronounced religious and regional
conflicts even environmental degradation. The challenges and crisis put by them
cannot be solved just by economy or by our trade, our science and technology. So we
47

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
should not view education as a basic method to succeed but also understand that it has
a very important moral and historical responsibility to promote technological
development for the human being and for the future.
Appendix C: Sample Transcript of Subject A (Free Narrative)
Globalization certainly affects a great deal on Chinese education of higher learning
because Chinese education is more and more integrated with international education
industry. Certainly, those common factors on the international market will be
introduced into China. At the same time, the content of our education is also those
from foreign countries. Therefore, both from the content perspective and from the
market and economic perspective, our education of higher learning will be influenced
by the international market practice. I should say that globalization is a trend in
different aspects. Not just education industry, but almost all the business of the society
will be influenced by education and will try to adapt to it. For our country, our
economy has remained closed for a very long period of time. It is just high time for
every industry, except for those industries of sensitivity, to be opened to the outside
world and to introduce foreign challenges as well as international competition to our
own land so that these industries will be further nurtured and better human talents
could be produced by these schools of higher learning. And we could eventually
realize our ultimate goal, that is to revitalize the Chinese nation and build a well-off
society in an all round way. This is my opinion. It may not be very correct. However, I
still think that just to meet the need of globalization is not simply to raise the tuition
48

Helen Huo Siliang 04288470
fee in Chinese schools of higher learning. At the same time we could put our attention
to introducing foreign advanced materials. At the same time, we could also export
some of our understanding and our material to foreign countries so that, as you just
read, all different cultures could better facilitate each other and compliment each
other’s deficiencies.
49