Cover not available
Article published In:
Developments in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies
Edited by Kairong Xiao and Sandra L. Halverson
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2] 2021
► pp. 328–355
Dialogue interpreting, self-revision in translation and post-editing

Turn-taking in dialogue interpreting

Coping with cognitive constraints

ORCID logo | Stockholm University
ORCID logo | Stockholm University

This study addresses cognitive aspects of turn-taking and the role of experience in dialogue interpreting, by investigating the temporal and textual properties of the coupled turn (i.e. the original utterance and its interpretation). A comparison was made using a video-recorded scripted role-play between eight interpreters, with Swedish-French or Swedish-Spanish as working languages and with different levels of experience. Cognitively challenging long stretches of talk were introduced in both directions of the working languages and analyzed with a multi-modal approach. We identified a number of quantitative measures, such as the number of coupled turns and the time used. Furthermore, we qualitatively analyzed the types of renditions. The findings suggest that the mean length of time of the coupled turn, which we label processing span, is a measure that is not primarily related to interpreting experience but rather reflects the constraints of the interpreter’s working memory. A further finding is that the inexperienced interpreters have a higher percentage of reduced renditions than the experienced interpreters, and this difference is statistically significant.

Keywords: dialogue interpreting, experience, processing span, turn-taking, quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, working memory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Aim
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Cognition in interpreting
    • 2.2Turn-taking in monolingual dialogues
    • 2.3Turn-taking in dialogue interpreting
    • 2.4Hypotheses of the study
  • 3.Data and method
    • 3.1Material
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Transcription and parameters for analysis
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 22 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00081.tis
References
Arumí Ribas, M., & Vargas-Urpi, M.
(2017) Strategies in public service interpreting. Interpreting, 19(1), 118–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Babcock, L.
(2015) The neurocognitive fingerprint of simultaneous interpretation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzanti, Trieste, Italy.
Barik, H.
(1973) Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech, 16(3), 237–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cokely, D.
(1986) The effects of lag time on interpreter errors. Sign Language Studies, 531, 341–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corps, R. E., Gambi, C., & Pickering, M. J.
(2018) Coordinating utterances during turn-taking: The role of prediction, response preparation, and articulation. Discourse Processes, 55(2), 230–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dal Fovo, E., & Falbo, C
(2020) Non-close renditions: Ways and consequences of saying something different in interpreter-mediated healthcare interactions. Health Communication. Advanced online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davitti, E.
(2018) Methodological explorations of interpreter-mediated interaction: Novel insights from multimodal analysis. Qualitative Research, 19(1), 7–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B.
(1997) The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches. In A. De Groot, J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpretation (pp. 25–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B.
(1991) När två samtalar genom en tredje: Interaktion och icke-verbal kommunikation i medicinska möten med tolk [When two people converse through a third person: Interaction and non-verbal communication in interpreted medical encounters]. Stockholm, Sweden: Centrum för tvåspråkighetsforskning vid Stockholms universitet.Google Scholar
(1997) Degree of interpreter responsibility in the interaction process in community interpreting. In S. E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour, & D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link: Interpreters in the community (pp. 147–164). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B., & Tiselius, E.
(2016) Cognitive aspects of community interpreting: Toward a process model. In R. Muñoz Martín (Ed.), Reembedding translation process research (pp. 195–214). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gavioli, L., & Wadensjö, C.
(2020) Reflections on doctor question – patient answer sequences and on lay perceptions of close translation. Health Communication. Advanced online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geiger Poignant, E.
(2020) Tolkade publika författarsamtal: Berättande och triadisk interaktion över språkgränser [Interpreted public literary conversations. Storytelling and triadic interaction across language boundaries] (Doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from [URL]
Goldman-Eisler, F.
(1972) Segmentation of input in simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1(2), 127–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heldner, M., & Edlund, J.
(2010) Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics, 381, 555–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, R. E.
(2018) “I could only think about what I was doing, and that was a lot to think about”: Online self-regulation in dialogue interpreting (Doctoral dissertation). University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from [URL]
Holler, J., Kobin, H., Kendrick, M. C., & Levinson, S. C.
(2016) Editorial: Turn-taking in human communicative interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1919), 6–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamberger-Felber, H.
(2001) Text-oriented research into interpreting: Examples from a case-study. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 261, 39–63.Google Scholar
Lee, T.-H.
(2002) Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 47(4), 596–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., and Torreira, F.
(2015) Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, M.
(2008) How do experts interpret? Implications from research in interpreting studies and cognitive science. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman, & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research (pp. 159–178). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, C. D., & Hanson, T. A.
(2019) Meta-analyses of simultaneous interpreting and working memory. Interpreting, 21(2), 165–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE
(2005) Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Meta, 50(2), 609–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Translation project and dynamic translation index. In S. O’Brien (Ed.), Cognitive explorations of translation (pp. 30–53). London, England: Continuum.Google Scholar
Roy, C. B.
(1993) A sociolinguistic analysis of the interpreter’s role in simultaneous talk in interpreted interaction. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 12(4), 341–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. E., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 5(4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, M.
(1998) Interpreting as a cognitive process: What do we know about how it is done? In L. Félix Fernandez & E. Ortega Arjonilla (Eds.), II estudios sobre traducción e interpretación (pp. 749–767). Málaga: University of Málaga.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., & Levinson, S. C.
(2009) Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. PNAS, 106(26), 10587–10592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, T.
(2018) Tolkningsstrategier i ljuset av språkkompetens, tolkningsriktning och tolkerfarenhet [Interpreting strategies in light of language competence, interpreting direction, and interpreting experience] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. [URL]
Timarová, S., Dragsted, B., & Hansen, I. G.
(2011) Time lag in translation and interpretation: A methodological exploration. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 121–146). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, E., & Albl-Mikasa, M.
(2019) Cognitive processes in dialogue interpreting: Introduction. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(2), 233–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, E., & Englund Dimitrova, B.
(2019) Asymmetrical language proficiency in dialogue interpreters: Methodological issues. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(2), 305–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, E., & Sneed, K.
(2020) Gaze and eye movement in dialogue interpreting: An eye-tracking study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(2), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vranjes, J.
(2018) On the role of eye gaze in the coordination of interpreter-mediated interactions: an eye-tracking study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). KU Leuven, Leuven/Antwerp. Belgium.
Wadensjö, C.
(1992) Interpreting as interaction: On dialogue interpreting in immigration hearings and medical encounters (doctoral dissertation). University of Linköping, Linköping, Sweden.
(1998) Interpreting as interaction. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wen, H., & Dong, Y.
(2019) How does interpreting experience enhance working memory and short-term memory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 31(8), 769–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar