Article In:
Interpreting: Online-First Articles

Ear–voice span in simultaneous interpreting

Text-specific factors, interpreter-specific factors and individual variation

 | University of Silesia in Katowice
 | Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Ear–voice span (EVS) has been recognised as reflecting the cognitive processes involved in simultaneous interpreting. This article reports on a study examining the influence on fluctuations in EVS of text-specific factors, interpreter-specific factors and individual variation. We used naturalistic data from the Polish Interpreting Corpus (PINC), a 20,000-token bidirectional Polish–English corpus of interpretations from the European Parliament. We fitted two linear mixed-effects models and analysed the models’ random variance structure. Our findings show that EVS is modulated by interpreting direction, speech delivery type, source and target text speech rate, interpreter experience, selected word types, the position of a sentence in a text and the position of a word in a sentence. Contrary to expectations, we found no effect of interpreter working memory on EVS. Likewise, EVS was not found to be shortened for numbers and proper names and was inconsistently modulated by gender. Finally, we also saw that individual variation was a source of EVS modulation.
Keywords: simultaneous interpreting, ear–voice span, EVS, interpreting corpus, individual variation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.EVS as a phenomenon and in research
  • 3.Factors modulating EVS
    • 3.1Text-specific factors
    • 3.2Interpreter-specific factors
  • 4.The present study
    • 4.1The corpus
    • 4.2Data processing
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Text-specific factors (Analysis 1)
    • 5.2Interpreter-specific factors (Analysis 2)
    • 5.3Individual variation
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Effect of text-specific factors on EVS
    • 6.2Effect of interpreter-specific factors on EVS
    • 6.3Individual variation in EVS
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (61)
References
Adamowicz, A. (1989). The role of anticipation in discourse: Text processing in simultaneous interpreting. Polish Psychological Bulletin 20 1, 153–160.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. (1994). Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ardito, G. (1999). The systematic use of impromptu speech in training interpreting students. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 9 1, 177–189.Google Scholar
Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech 16 (3), 237–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, R. N. (2016). Exploring the possible effects of visual presentations on synchronicity and lag in simultaneous interpreting. Sendebar 27 1, 9–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1993). The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and Humanities 26 1, 331–345.Google Scholar
Chmiel, A. (2018). In search of the working memory advantage in conference interpreting — Training, experience and task effects. International Journal of Bilingualism 22 (3), 371–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, A., Janikowski, P. & Cieślewicz, A. (2020a). The eye or the ear? Source language interference in sight translation and simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 22 (2), 187–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, A., Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., Koržinek, D., Janikowski, P., Jakubowski, D. & Polakowska, D. (2022). Fluency parameters in the Polish Interpreting Corpus (PINC). In M. Kajzer-Wietrzny, A. Ferraresi, I. Ivaska & S. Bernardini (Eds.), Empirical investigations into the forms of mediated discourse at the European Parliament. Berlin: Language Science Press, 63–91.Google Scholar
Christoffels, I. K. & de Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 454–479.Google Scholar
Collard, C. (2019). A corpus-based study of simultaneous interpreting with special reference to sex. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
Collard, C. & Defrancq, B. (2016). Sex differences in ear-voice-span. Paper presented at the European Society for Translation Studies Congress, Aarhus.
(2019a). Predictors of ear-voice span, a corpus-based study with special reference to sex. Perspectives 27 (3), 431–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting, a corpus-based study with special reference to sex. In L. Vandevoorde, J. Daems & B. Defrancq (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting. New York: Routledge, 264–299.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist 12 (11), 671–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, B. (2015). Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS. Interpreting 17 (1), 26–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déjean le Féal, K. (1982). Why impromptu speech is easy to understand. In N. L. Enkvist (Ed.), Impromptu speech: A symposium. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 221–239.Google Scholar
Díaz Galaz, S. (2011). The effect of previous preparation in simultaneous interpreting: Preliminary results. Across Languages and Cultures 12 (2), 173–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doi, K., Sudoh, K. & Nakamura, S. (2021). Large-scale English–Japanese Simultaneous Interpretation Corpus: Construction and analyses with sentence-aligned data. In M. Federico, A. Waibel, M. R. Costa-jussà, J. Niehues, S. Stuker & E. Salesky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021). Bangkok: Association for Computational Linguistics, 226–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gerver, D. (1969). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In E. Foulke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency-Controlled Speech. Louisville: Center for Rate-Controlled Recordings, University of Louisville, 162–184.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. H. Danks, G. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 196–214.Google Scholar
(2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1 (2), 127–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Good, C. V. (1959). Dictionary of education. New York: MacGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (1997). The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 25–56.Google Scholar
Gumul, E. (2005). EVS: czynnik czasu w tłumaczeniu symultanicznym. In J. Arabski, E. Borkowska & A. Łyda (Eds.), Czas w języku i kulturze. Katowice: Para, 176–183.Google Scholar
Honnibal, M. & Johnson, M. (2015). An improved non-monotonic transition system for dependency parsing. In L. Màrquez, C. Callison-Burch & J. Su (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Lisbon: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1373–1378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jalili Sabet, M., Dufter, P., Yvon, F. & Schütze, H. (2020). SimAlign: High quality word alignments without parallel training data using static and contextualized embeddings. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1627–1643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janikowski, P. (2012). Evaluating difficulty of teaching materials for interpreting classes. In Ł. Bogucki & M. Deckert (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Advances and perspectives. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 119–136.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (1998). Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kade, O. & Cartellieri, C. (1971). Some methodological aspects of simultaneous interpreting. Babel 17 (2), 12–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, H.-R. (2005). Linguistic characteristics and interpretation strategy based on EVS analysis of Korean–Chinese, Korean–Japanese interpretation. Meta 50 (4), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klassen, K. (2022). Proper name theory and implications for second language reading. Language Teaching 55 (2), 149–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M. & Zhou, X. (2011). Experimental effects and individual differences in linear mixed models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. Frontiers in Psychology 1 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
Koržinek, D. & Chmiel, A. (2021). Interpreter identification in the Polish Interpreting Corpus. Tradumàtica 19 1, 276–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubiński, W. (1999). Word order in English and Polish: On the statement of linearization patterns in cognitive grammar. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar
Lamberger-Felber, H. (2001). Text-oriented research into interpreting: Examples from a case-study. Hermes 26 1, 39–64.Google Scholar
Lee, T. (2002). Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta 47 (4), 596–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macizio, P. & Bajo, M. T. (2007). Comprehension processes in translation. In D. Alamargot, P. Terrier & J. Cellier (Eds.), Written documents in the workplace. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 193–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H. & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 94 1, 305–315. 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
Oléron, P. & Nanpon, H. (1965). Research into simultaneous translation. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 69–76.Google Scholar
Ono, T., Tohyama, H. & Matsubara, S. (2008). Construction and analysis of word-level time-aligned simultaneous interpretation corpus. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Marrakech: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 3383–3387.Google Scholar
Podhajská, K. (2008). Time lag in simultaneous interpretation from English into Czech and its dependence on text type. In I. Čeňková (Ed.), Prague translation studies: The next generation. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze — Filozofická fakulta.Google Scholar
Rozkrut, P. & Chmiel, A. (under review). Number processing in simultaneous interpretation: A corpus-based study on factors affecting interpreters’ accuracy.
Seleskovitch, D. & Lederer, M. (1995). A systematic approach to teaching interpretation. Silver Spring, MD: RID Press.Google Scholar
Setton, R. & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting: A trainer’s guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stachowiak-Szymczak, K. (2019). Eye movements and gestures in simultaneous and consecutive interpreting. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timarová, Š., Čeňková, I., Meylaerts, R., Hertog, E., Szmalec, A. & Duyck, W. (2014). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting 16 (2), 139–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory capacity. In A. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timarová, Š., Dragsted, B. & Hansen, I. G. (2011). Time lag in translation and interpreting: A methodological exploration. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Besien, F. (2002). Anticipation in simultaneous interpretation. Meta 44 (2), 250–259. DOI logoGoogle 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
Witkoś, J. (1998). The syntax of clitics. Steps towards a minimalist account. Poznań: Motivex.Google Scholar