Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 26:1 (2024) ► pp.1–23

Fluency in rendering numbers in simultaneous interpreting

ORCID logo | Adam Mickiewicz University
ORCID logo | University of Turku
ORCID logo | University of Bologna
There is general consensus among interpreting practitioners and scholars that numbers pose particular problems in simultaneous interpreting. Adopting the view that fluency disruptions in interpreters’ renditions are signals of cognitive processing problems, the authors aim to isolate those contextual and textual factors which increase the likelihood of disfluencies when rendering numbers present in a source speech. In the reported study, we analyse data from the European Parliament Translation and Interpreting Corpus (EPTIC): we focus on target-text segments whose corresponding source segment contains a number and we find the best predictors of disfluencies by applying a generalized linear mixed model. Our approach is confirmatory and so the model accounts for factors that have been suggested in earlier studies as being associated with interpreting fluency. These factors include the nativeness of the original speaker, the type of number, the frequency of numbers in the same sentence, omission, language pair and whether the text was originally delivered impromptu or read out, and at what pace. The outcomes suggest that important predictors of disfluent renditions include omission, the frequency of numbers in a sentence and the type of number; these can be said to contribute to interpreters’ cognitive load when they process numbers.
Keywords: interpreting, fluency, cognitive effort, numbers, multilingual parallel corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Numbers as a problem trigger
  • 3.Disfluencies as an indicator of cognitive effort
  • 4.Research objectives
  • 5.Data and method
    • 5.1EPTIC and transcription guidelines
    • 5.2Annotation
    • 5.3Statistical model
  • 6.Results
    • Omission
    • Type of number
    • Frequency of numbers
    • Speaker
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00092.kaj
References (35)
References
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68 (3), 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, K. (2019). MuMIn: Multi-model Inference. [URL]
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, S. & Clarici, A. (1996). Inaccuracy for numerals in simultaneous interpretation: Neurolinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 7 1, 85–102.Google Scholar
Cecot, M. (2001). Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 11 1, 63–85.Google Scholar
Chmiel, A., Szarkowska, A., Koržinek, D., Lijewska, A., Dutka, Ł., Brocki, Ł. & Marasek, K. (2017). Ear–voice span and pauses in intra- and interlingual respeaking: An exploratory study into temporal aspects of the respeaking process. Applied Psycholinguistics 38 (5), 1201–1227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collard, C. & Defrancq, B. (2020). Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting, a corpus-based study with special reference to sex. In J. Daems, B. Defrancq & L. Vandevoorde, (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting. Abingdon: Routledge, 264–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, B. & Plevoets, K. (2018). Over-uh-load, filled pauses in compounds as a signal of cognitive load. In M. Russo, C. Bendazzoli & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making way in corpus-based interpreting studies. Singapore: Springer, 43–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desmet, B., Vandierendonck, M. & Defrancq, B. (2018). Simultaneous interpretation of numbers and the impact of technological support. In C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, 13–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fehringer, C. & Fry, C. (2007). Hesitation phenomena in the language production of bilingual speakers: The role of working memory. Folia Linguistica 41 (1–2), 37–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S., Milicevic Petrovic, M. & Lefer, M.-A. (2019). Simplified or not simplified? The different guises of mediated English at the European Parliament. Meta 63 (3), 717–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression. (Second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Frittella, F. M. (2019). “70.6 Billion World Citizens”: Investigating the difficulty of interpreting numbers. Translation and Interpreting 11 (1), 79–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). CAI tool-supported SI of numbers: A theoretical and methodological contribution. International Journal of Interpreter Education 14 (1), Article 5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gósy, M. (2007). Disfluencies and self-monitoring. Govor 24 (2), 91–110.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. & Deshors, S. C. (2014). Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora 9 (1), 109–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. (2014). Conference interpreting explained. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., Ivaska, I. & Ferraresi, A. (2021). ‘Lost’ in interpreting and ‘found’ in translation: Using an intermodal, multidirectional parallel corpus to investigate the rendition of numbers. Perspectives 29 (4), 469–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korpal, P. (2016). Linguistic and psychological indicators of stress in simultaneous interpreting. PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
Korpal, P. & Stachowiak-Szymczak, K. (2018). The whole picture: Processing of numbers and their context in simultaneous interpreting. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54 (3), 335–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maclay, H. & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word 15 (1), 19–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazza, C. (2001). Numbers in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 11 1, 87–104.Google Scholar
Pellatt, V. (2006). Thе trouble with numbers: How linguistic, arithmetical and contextual complexity affect the interpretation of numbers. In M. Chai & J. Zhang (Eds.), Professionalization in interpreting: International experience and development in China. Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press, 350–365.Google Scholar
Piccaluga, M., Nespoulous, J.-L. & Harmegnies, B. (2005). Disfluencies as a window on cognitive processing. An analysis of silent pauses in simultaneous interpreting. Paper presented at DiSS’05, Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Pinochi, D. (2010). Simultaneous interpretation of numbers: Comparing German and English to Italian. An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 14 1, 33–57.Google Scholar
Plevoets, K. & Defrancq, B. (2016). The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 11 (2), 202–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). The cognitive load of interpreters in the European Parliament. Interpreting 20 (1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (1995). Slips and shifts in simultaneous interpreting. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting, 73–90.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage, langues et mémoire: Étude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Lettres modernes.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1994). Intonation in the production of and perception of simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 225–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (2003). Reading concordances: An introduction. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 10 1, 103–127.Google Scholar
Whittingham, M. J., Stephens, P. A., Bradbury, R. B. & Freckleton, R. P. (2006). Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? Journal of Animal Ecology 75 (5), 1182–1189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2020). Statistics for linguists: An introduction using R. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Julaiti, Kaifusai, Nina Delia YY Cheung, Andrew KF Cheung & Jessy Yujie Huang
2024. Number training in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-assisted longitudinal study. Interpreting and Society DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 november 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.