Discrepancies between the Speech of Male and Female in Lecturing: Language Management in Focus
الموضوعات : نشریه تخصصی زبان، فرهنگ، و ترجمه (دوفصلنامه)
زهره جراح زاده
1
(دانشجوی دکترای گروه مترجمی و آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج، کرج، ایران)
محمد حشمدار
2
(استادیار گروه مترجمی و آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه ازاد اسلامی واحد کرج، کرج، ایران)
الکلمات المفتاحية: speech, academic settings, Gender discrepancies, Language management, Presenting lecture,
ملخص المقالة :
The purpose of this case study is to shed light on differences between the speech of male and female students in presenting a lecture in academic settings. It also aimed to discover which gender more follow essential steps in line with language management. This qualitative study discussed the discrepancies from multiple perspectives containing standard form, using grammar, pronunciation and intonation, using synonyms, expanding the topics, and conversational style. In addition, to consider these components, this research attempts to discover which gender follows different phases to prepare a lecture before presenting it. This qualitative study was conducted throughout observation protocol, writing diary, and semi-structured interviews consisting of seven Iranian participants who have General English course with ages ranging from 19-25. To sum up, the researchers concluded that female students outperformed in the whole process of this inquiry. The study tries to provide insight to genders to understand each other's discrepancies which is a need and act as a key to better communication.
References
Al-Khanji, Raja, Said El-Shiyab, and Riyadh Hussein. 2000. On the Use
of Compensatory Strategies in Simultaneous Interpretation.
Meta,45 (3), 548-557.
Baddeley, A, D. (1997). Human Memory. Theory and Practice. Revised
Edition. Hove: Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A, D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of
working memory. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4, 417–423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is working memory still working? European
Psychologist, 7, 85–97.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower
(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). New
York: Academic Press.
Rahmanpanah, H. / Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 4(2) (2022), 46–65
63
Donato V. (2003). Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI. The
Interpreters’ Newsletter 12, 101-132.
Gile, D. (1991). The processing capacity issue in conference
interpretation. Babel, 37(1), 15-27.
Gile D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator
training. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Gile, D (1.99). Testing the Effort Models' tightrope hypothesis in
simultaneous interpreting-A contribution. Hermes, 23, 153-172.
Gile, D. (2001). Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate?
Interpretation Studies, 1(1), 8 – 20.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models in Interpreter and Translator
Training (Revised edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2015). Effort models. In , F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge
encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp.135-137). London, New
York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Kalina, S. (2000) Interpreting competences as a basis and a goal for
teaching. The Interpreters’ Newsletter,10, 3–32.
Kalina, S. (2005). Quality assurance for interpreting processes. Meta,
50(2), 769–784.
Kalina, S. (2015a). Preparation. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
interpreting studies (318-320). New York: Routledge Taylor and
Francis Group.
Kalina, S. (2015b) Compression. In F. Pöchhacker, (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Interpreting studies (73-75). London, New York: Routledge
Taylor and Francis Group.
Liontou, K. (2012). Anticipation in German to Greek simultaneous
interpreting: A corpus-based approach. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Vienna.
Herbert, J. (1952). The Interpreter’s handbook: How to become a
conference interpreter. Geneva: Librairie de l’Université Georg.
Mead, P. (2000). Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and
B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 10, 89-102.
Mikkelson, H. (1999). Interpreting is interpreting – or is it? Retrieved
from the AIIC website:http://aiic.net/page/3356/interpreting-isinterpreting-or-is-it/lang/1.
Moser-Mercer, B. (2000). The rocky road to expertise in interpreting:
Eliciting knowledge from learners. In M. Kadric., & K. Kaindl., &
F. Pöchhacker, (Eds.) Translation wissenschaft. Festschrift für Mary
Snell-Hornby zum (239-352). Geburtstag. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Rahmanpanah, H. / Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 4(2) (2022), 46–65
64
Moser-Mercer, B. (2008). Skill acquisition in interpreting: A human
performance perspective. The interpreter and translator trainer
2(1), 1–28.
Moser-Mercer, B. (2015). Venice Symposium. In F. Pöchhacker, (Ed.),
Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp.433-434).
London, New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Pöchhacker, F. (1994). Quality assurance in simultaneous interpreting.In
C.Dollerup., & A. Lindergaard (Ed.), Teaching Translation and
Interpreting (pp. 232-242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London:
Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. (2007). Coping with Culture in Media Interpreting.
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 15 (2), 123-142.
Pöchhacker, F. (2009). Issues in Interpreting Studies. In J. Munday (Ed.),
The Routledge companion to translation studies (pp. 128-140).
London: Routledge.
Riccardi, A. (2005). On the evolution of interpreting strategies in
simultaneous interpreting. Meta 50(2). 754-767.
Rozan, J. F. (2005). Seven principles of note-taking, interpreter training
resources. Retrieved May 2021 from http:// interpreters. free.
fr/consecnotes/rozen 7 principles.doc
Ribas, M. A. (2012). Problems and strategies in consecutive interpreting:
A pilot study at two different stages of interpreter training. Meta,
57, (3). 812-835.
Russell, D. (2002). Interpreting in legal contexts: Consecutive and
simultaneous interpreting. Burtonsville: Linstok Press.
Russell, D. (2005). Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. In T.
Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed Language Interpreting (135-164).
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Seeber, K. G. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting:
Existing theories–New Models. Interpreting, 13 (2), 176–204.
Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage, langues et mémoire: Étude de la prise
de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard Lettres
Modernes.
Seleskovitch, D. (1978): Interpreting for International Conferences.
Washington: Pen & Booth.
Walczyński, M. (2015). Students’ anxiety and stress during a consecutive
interpreting test and their influence on interpreting output quality:
A preliminary small-scale study discussion. In P, Paulina., & D,
Mikołaj (Eds.), Constructing translation competence (pp.177-192).
Rahmanpanah, H. / Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 4(2) (2022), 46–65
65
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Walczyński, M. (2017). The length of language exposure and its
influence on individual factors experienced by interpreting trainees
during an in-class consecutive interpreting test. In M.
Walczyński, (Ed.), Selected aspects of interpreting in the 21st Century
(pp. 91-105). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskieg.