Cover not available
Article published In:
Babel
Vol. 61:3 (2015) ► pp.305–334

The influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation

An experimental study

Simultaneous interpreting (SI) is a highly complex cognitive process which aims to deliver a complete and accurate rendition of the original message in real time. However, there is a myriad of factors that can influence the process, speed being one of the factors most frequently put forward by practising interpreters as a major challenge. Against this background, we, who are professional interpreters at the United Nations and in the private market, and have observed that speed has become an increasingly present challenge in our work, have carried out an experimental study with the aim of elucidating one of the strategies that expert interpreters resort to when confronted with different speed rates, namely the omission of redundant information. Ten professional interpreters from the United Nations were asked to simultaneously interpret three speeches, which were written to be read and were of similar lexical density, at different speeds. The findings indicate that at higher speeds interpreters omit more redundant information, and it would appear that omission is a strategy the interpreter resorts to for coping with speed.
Keywords: speed, simultaneous interpreting, omissions, redundancies
Published online: 15 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.61.3.01bar
References (52)
Altman, Janet. 1990. “What Helps Effective Communication? Some Interpreter’s Views.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter 31: 23–32.Google Scholar
Bakti, Maria. 2009. “Speech Disfluencies in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008, ed. by D. De Crom. Retrieved March, 2013 from: [ [URL]].Google Scholar
Balzani, Maurizio. 1990. “Le Contact Visuel en Interprétation Simultanée: Résultats d’une Expérience (Français-Italien).” In Aspects of Applied and Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation, ed. by Laura Gran and Christopher Taylor, 93–100. Udine: Campanotto Editore.Google Scholar
Barik, Henri C. 1971. “A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions, and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Meta 16 (4): 199–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1973. “Simultaneous Interpretation: Temporal and Quantitative Data.” Language and Speech 161: 237–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carey, Peter W. 1968. Delayed Auditory Feedback and the Shadowing Response. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University.
Changshuan, Li. 2010. “Coping Strategies for Fast Delivery in Simultaneous Interpretation.” JoSTrans 131: 19–25.Google Scholar
Chernov, Ghelly V. 1979. “Semantic Aspects of Psycholinguistic Research in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Language and Speech 22 (3): 277–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. “Message Redundancy and Message Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpretation.” In Bridging the Gap. Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 139–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déjean Le Féal, Karla. 1978. Lectures et Improvisations: Incidences de la Forme de l’Énonciation sur la Traduction Simultanée. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Galli, Cristina. 1989. “Simultaneous Interpretation in Medical Conferences: A Case-Study.” In Aspects of Applied Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation, ed. by Laura Gran and Christopher Taylor, 61–81. Udine: Campanotto Editore.Google Scholar
Garnham, Alan, Richard Shillock, Gordon Brown, Andrew Mill, and Anne Cutler. 1981. “Slips of the Tongue in the London-Lund Corpus of Spontaneous Conversation.” Linguistics 191: 805–817. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerver, David. 1976. “Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation: A Review and a Model.” In Translation: Applications and Research, ed. by Richard W. Brislin, 165–207. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
. 1969/2002. “The Effects of Source Language Presentation Rate on the Performance of Simultaneous Conference Interpreters.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 53–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1994. “Opening up in Interpretation Studies.” In Translation Studies – an Interdiscipline, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 149–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995a. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995b. Regards sur la Recherche en Interprétation Simultanée. Lille: Presses universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael McBeath, 196–214. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
. 1999a. “Testing the Efforts Models’ Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Contribution.” Hermes 231: 153–172.Google Scholar
. 1999b. “Variability in the Perception of Fidelity in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 221: 51–69.Google Scholar
Gran, Laura, and Christopher Taylor (eds). 1990. Aspects of Applied Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation. Udine: Campanotto Editore.Google Scholar
Guidelines for Speakers. 2009. Retrieved March, 2013, from: [[URL]].Google Scholar
Hellier, Elizabeth. 1998. “Within Subjects Design.” In Laboratory Psychology: A Beginners’ Guide, ed. by Julia Nunn, 39–58. United Kingdom: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, Victoria. 2008. “Lexical Diversity and Lexical Density in Speech and Writing: A Developmental Perspective.” Working Papers 531: 61–79.Google Scholar
Korpal, Pawel. 2012. “Omission in Simultaneous Interpreting as a Deliberate Act.” In Translation Research Projects 4, ed. by Anthony Pym and David Orrego-Carmona, 103–111. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.Google Scholar
Liu, Minhua. 2009. “How do Experts Interpret? Implications from Research in Interpreting Studies and Cognitive Science.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 159–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W. 1975a. Experimental Psychology and Information Processing. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
. 1975b. “Language and Information Processing.” In Understanding Language, ed. by Dominic W. Massaro, 5–28. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meak, Lidia. 1990. “Interprétation Simultanée et Congrès Médical: Attentes et Commentaires.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 31: 8–13.Google Scholar
Messina, Alessandro. 1998. “The Reading Aloud of English Language Texts in Simultaneously Interpreted Conferences.” Interpreting 3 (2): 147–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meuleman, Chris, and Fred Van Besien. 2009. “Coping with Extreme Speech Conditions in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Interpreting 11 (1): 20–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A. 1963. Language and Communication. New York, Toronto: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Moser, Barbara. 1978. “Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and its Practical Application”. In Language, Interpretation and Communication, ed. by David Gerver and H. Wallace Sinaiko, 353–368. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemima. 2004. “Interpreting Omissions. A New Perspective.” Interpreting 6 (2): 117–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neff, Jacquy. 2010. AIIC 2010 Statistical Report. Retrieved in March, 2013, from: [[URL]] (consulted on 10/03/2012).Google Scholar
Noteboom, Sibout G. 1973. “The Tongue Slips into Patterns.” In Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence, ed. by Victoria A. Fromkin, 144–156. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Nunn, Julia. (ed). 1998. Ethics in Laboratory Psychology: A Beginner’s Guide. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pio, Sonia. 2003. “The Relation between ST Delivery Rate and Quality in Simultaneous Interpretation.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 121: 69–100.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2002. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2009. “On Omission in Simultaneous Interpreting: Risk Analysis of a Hidden Effort.” In Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 83–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 2003. “Effects of Presentation Rate on Working Memory in Simultaneous Interpreting.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 121: 37–50.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica. 1978. Interpreting for International Conferences. Washington, D.C.: Pen&Booth.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica, and Marianne Lederer. 1984. Interpréter pour Traduire. Paris: Didier Érudition.Google Scholar
Setton, Robin. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sunnari, Marianna. 1995. “Processing Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting (SI): ‘Saying it All’ vs. ‘Synthesis’ ”. In Topics in Interpreting Research, ed. by Jorma Tommola, 109–121. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
United Nations Human Rights Council. n.d. [[URL]] (consulted on 06/04/2011).
United Nations Human Rights Council Live Webcast. n.d. [[URL]] (consulted on 06/04/2011).
Universal Periodic Review. n.d. [[URL]] (consulted on 12/03/2012).
Workload Study by the Research Committee of AIIC. 2000. Retrieved December, 2011, from: [[URL]] (consulted on 12/12/2011).
Ure, Jean. 1971. “Lexical Density and Register Differentiation.” In Applications of Linguistics: Selected Papers of the 2nd International Congress of Applied Linguistics, ed. by George E. Perren and John L.M. Trim, 443–452. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Viaggio, Sergio. 2002. “The Quest for Optimal Relevance: The Need to Equip Students with a Pragmatic Compass”. In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. by Giuliana Garzone and Maurizio Viezzi, 229–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Grieshofer, Tatiana
2023. Remote Interpreting in Immigration Tribunals. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 36:2 ► pp. 767 ff. DOI logo
Moratto, Riccardo & Zhimiao Yang
2023. Probing the cognitive load of consecutive interpreters. Translation and Interpreting Studies DOI logo
Ng, Eva
2023. The right to a fair trial and the right to interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela
2021. Acting upon background of understanding rather than role. Translation, Cognition & Behavior ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Baekelandt, Annelies & Bart Defrancq
2021. Elicitation of particular grammatical structures in speeches for interpreting research: enhancing ecological validity of experimental research in interpreting. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 643 ff. DOI logo
Han, Hyun-Hee & Han-Nae Yu
2020. An empirical study of temporal variables and their correlations in spoken and sign language relay interpreting. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 66:4-5 ► pp. 619 ff. DOI logo
Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller & Alexis Hervais-Adelman
2020. When the ear leads the eye – the use of text during simultaneous interpretation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35:10 ► pp. 1480 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Shanshan, Defeng Li & Victoria Lai Cheng Lei
2020. The impact of source text presence on simultaneous interpreting performance in fast speeches. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 66:4-5 ► pp. 588 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Jiayuan & Yuqi Sun
2020. Omissão na interpretação consecutiva de português para chinês por aprendentes chineses. Letras de Hoje 55:3 ► pp. e37614 ff. DOI logo
Ďoubalová, Jana
2020. Kvalita v simultánním tlumočení – otázka definice kvality tlumočení a kognitivní přístup ke kvalitě SI jako strategickému rozhodovacímu procesu. AUC PHILOLOGICA 2019:4 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Rosendo, Lucía Ruiz & María Cecilia Galván
2019. Coping with speed. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 65:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 ff. DOI logo
Russo, Mariachiara
2018. Speaking Patterns and Gender in the European Parliament Interpreting Corpus: A Quantitative Study as a Premise for Qualitative Investigations. In Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
DONOVAN, Clare
2017. El lugar del intérprete y de la interpretación en un entorno institucional. CLINA: Revista Interdisciplinaria de Traducción, Interpretación y Comunicación Intercultural 3:2 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
RUIZ ROSENDO, Lucia & Marie DIUR
2017. Los exámenes de admisión en las organizaciones internacionales: la oposición para intérpretes en plantilla de las Naciones Unidas. CLINA: Revista Interdisciplinaria de Traducción, Interpretación y Comunicación Intercultural 3:2 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz Rosendo, Lucía & Marie Diur
2017. Employability in the United Nations: an empirical analysis of interpreter training and the LCE. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11:2-3 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.