Cover not available
Part of
Research Methods in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies
Edited by Ana María Rojo López and Ricardo Muñoz Martín
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 10] 2025
► pp. 184–213

Chapter 8
Speech recording

 | TH Köln, University of Applied Sciences in Cologne
 | University of Silesia in Katowice
Speech recording has always been the main method in working with spoken language, since it is an easy way to transfer data from volatile to non-volatile memory for the purpose of linguistic analyses. In translation and interpreting research, recordings of interpreters’ performances have been used ever since the beginning of empirical research into interpreting This chapter offers an overview on speech recording as a method used in T&I research by introducing key concepts and software solutions for research into spoken language. Not only are common variables, paradigms and processing steps outlined, but also an overview is provided of some noteworthy programs for speech recording, audio editing, speech analysis, automatic speech recognition and others.
Article outline
  • 1.The method and key questions
    • 1.1The state of the art in speech recording
    • 1.2Ethical issues in speech recording
  • 2.Conceptual aspects
    • 2.1Variables in speech recording
    • 2.2Data measurement in speech recording
    • 2.3Pre-processing steps enabling analysis
      • 2.3.1Speech recognition
      • 2.3.2Alignment
  • 3.Implementation
    • 3.1Speech recording applications
      • 3.1.1Open source audio editors
      • 3.1.2Speech analysis software
      • 3.1.3Suites of programs
      • 3.1.4Automatic speech recognition tools
      • 3.1.5Other tools
    • 3.2Data collection and reporting
      • 3.2.1Data collection sources
      • 3.2.2Data triangulation
      • 3.2.3Data reporting
  • 4.Closing remarks
    • 4.1Advantages and disadvantages of speech recording
    • 4.2Emerging challenges in speech recording
  • Further readings on speech recording
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (88)
Further readings on speech recording
Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., Russo, M., Collard, C., & Defrancq, B. (2018). Building interpreting and intermodal corpora: A how-to for a formidable task. In M. Russo, C. Bendazzoli, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making way in corpus-based interpreting studies (pp. 21–42). Springer Singapore. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Binnenpoorte, D. M. (2006). Phonetic transcriptions of large speech corpora (Doctoral dissertation). Radboud University Nijmegen. [URL]Google Scholar
Decker, P. D., & Nycz, J. (2011). For the record: Which digital media can be used for sociophonetic analysis? University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 17(2), 51–59.Google Scholar
Harrington, J. (2010). The phonetic analysis of speech corpora. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Howard, D. M., & Murphy, D. T. (2008). Voice science, acoustics and recording. Plural Publishing.Google Scholar
Margetts, A., & Margetts, A. (2014). Audio and video recording techniques for linguistic research. In N. Thieberger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork (pp. 13–53). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winkelmann, R., Harrington, J., & Jänsch, K. (2017). EMU-SDMS: Advanced apeech database management and analysis in R. Computer speech & language, 45, 392–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
References
Ahrens, B. (2004). Prosodie bei Simultandolmetschen. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Alessandrini, M. S. (1990). Translating numbers in consecutive interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 3, 77–80.Google Scholar
Audacity Team. (2022). Audacity(R): Free audio editor and recorder (3.1.3) [Computer software]. [URL]
Barghout, A., Rosendo, L. R., & García, M. V. (2015). The influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. Babel, 61(3), 305–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barranco-Droege, R. (2015). Too fast to be true? Exploring time compression in simultaneous interpreting. Speech Communication, 75, 84–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2024). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (6.4.12) [Computer software]. [URL]Google Scholar
Cecot, M. (2001). Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performance. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 63–85.Google Scholar
Chen, S. (2017). The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement. Perspectives, 25(4), 640–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, A., Koržinek, D., Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., 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.), Mediated discourse at the European Parliament: Empirical investigations (pp. 63–91). Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collados Aís, A. (1998). La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: La importancia de la comunicación no verbal. Comares.Google Scholar
Collados Aís, Á., Iglesias Fernández, E., Pradas Macías, E. M., & Stévaux, E. (Eds.). (2011). Qualitätsparameter beim Simultandolmetschen: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Collard, C., & Defrancq, B. (2020). 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 (pp. 264–299). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, B. (2015). Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS. Interpreting, 17(1), 26–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, N. (2004). Transkription. Ein Leitfaden mit Aufgaben für Studenten, Forscher und Laien. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Albl-Mikasa, M., Andermatt, K., Hunziker Heeb, A., & Lehr, C. (2020). Cognitive load in processing ELF: Translators, interpreters, and other multilinguals. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 9(2), 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EXMARaLDA. (2023). [URL]
Gerver, D. (1969). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In Proceedings of the Second Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency-controlled Speech (pp. 162–184). Center for Rate-Controlled Recordings, University of Louisville.Google Scholar
(1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 165–207). Gardner.Google Scholar
Gieshoff, A. C. (2018). The impact of audio-visual speech input on work-load in simultaneous interpreting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1995). Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conference. Presses Universitaires de Lilles.Google Scholar
(2008). Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research. FORUM. Revue Internationale d’Interprétation et de Traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation, 6(2), 59–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (rev. ed). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958). Speech analysis and mental processes. Language and Speech, 1(1), 59–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1961). The significance of changes in the rate of articulation. Language and Speech, 4(3), 171–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1967). Sequential temporal patterns and cognitive processes in speech. Language and Speech, 10(2), 122–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1968). Psycholinguistics. Experiments in spontaneous speech. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grbić, N. (2015). Quality. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp. 333–336). Routledge.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Deschamps, A. (1975). Analyse contrastive des variables temporelles de l’anglais et du français: Vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phénomènes d’hésitation. Phonetica, 31, 144–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haberl, A., Fleiß, J., Kowald, D., & Thalmann, S. (2024). Take the aTrain. Introducing an interface for the accessible transcription of interviews. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 41, 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, C., & Riazi, M. (2017). Investigating the effects of speech rate and accent on simultaneous interpretation: A mixed-methods approach. Across Languages and Cultures, 18(2), 237–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hervais-Adelman, A., & Babcock, L. (2019). The neurobiology of simultaneous interpreting: Where extreme language control and cognitive control intersect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(4), 740–751. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heuft, B. (1999). Eine prominenzbasierte Methode zur Prosodieanalyse und -synthese. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Holub, E. (2010). Does intonation matter? The impact of monotony on listener comprehension. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 15, 117–126.Google Scholar
Horváth, I. (2022). AI in interpreting: Ethical considerations. Across languages and cultures, 23(1), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hönig, H. G. (2003). Piece of cake — Or hard to take? In B. Nord & P. A. Schmitt (Eds.), Traducta Navis. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Christiane Nord (pp. 69–82). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Injoque-Ricle, I., Barreyro, J. P., Formoso, J., & Jaichenco, V. I. (2015). Expertise, working memory and articulatory suppression effect: Their relation with simultaneous interpreting performance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 11(2), 56–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Institut für Phonetik und Sprachverarbeitung, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. (2022). BAS | web service interface. [URL]
Kalina, S. (1998). Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen: Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Untersuchungen, didaktische Konsequenzen. Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Koržinek, D. (2020). Corrector [HTML]. [URL] (Original work published 2017).Google Scholar
Kowal, S., & O’Connell, D. C. (2003). Datenerhebung und Transkription. In G. Rickheit, T. Herrmann, & W. Deutsch (Eds.), Psycholinguistik/Psycholinguistics: Ein Internationales Handbuch / An international handbook (pp. 92–106). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Zur Transkription von Gesprächen. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch (5th ed., pp. 437–447). Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Lal Srivastava, B. M., Vauquier, N., Sahidullah, M., Bellet, A., Tommasi, M., & Vincent, E. (2020). Evaluating voice conversion-based privacy protection against informed attackers. ICASSP 2020–2020 IEEE International conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), 2802–2806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, S. (2004). Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation. Meta. Journal des Traducteurs / Translators’ Journal, 49(2), 294–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehtonen, M. H., Laine, M., Niemi, J., Thomsen, T., Vorobyev, V. A., & Hugdahl, K. (2005). Brain correlates of sentence translation in Finnish-Norwegian bilinguals. NeuroReport, 16(6), 607–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, X. (2013). Are interpreting strategies teachable? Correlating trainees’ strategy use with trainers’ training in the consecutive interpreting classroom. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 18, 105–128.Google Scholar
Liang, J., Fang, Y., Lv, Q., & Liu, H. (2017). Dependency distance differences across interpreting types: Implications for cognitive demand. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y., Lv, Q., & Liang, J. (2018). Predicting fluency with language proficiency, working memory, and directionality in simultaneous interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, F., & Yuan, Z. (2019). Explore the brain activity during translation and interpreting using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. In D. Li, V. L. C. Lei, & Y. He (Eds.), Researching cognitive processes of translation (pp. 109–120). Springer Singapore. 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
Moser-Mercer, B. (2015). Expert-novice paradigm. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (p. 155). Routledge.Google Scholar
(2022). Conference interpreting and expertise. In M. Albl-Mikasa & E. Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of conference interpreting (pp. 386–400). Routledge.Google Scholar
Nautsch, A., Jasserand, C., Kindt, E., Todisco, M., Trancoso, I., & Evans, N. (2019). The GDPR & speech data: Reflections of legal and technology communities, first steps towards a common understanding. Proceedings Interspeech 2019, 3695–3699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, N. B. (2016). Piloting an assessment model of interpreting quality. VNU journal of science: Foreign Studies, 32(4), 12–20. [URL]Google Scholar
O’Shaughnessy, D. (1993). Analysis and automatic recognition of false starts in spontaneous speech. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing, 724–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polzehl, T., Schmitt, A., Metze, F., & Wagner, M. (2011). Anger recognition in speech using acoustic and linguistic cues. Speech Communication, 53(9), 1198–1209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pucher, M., & Woltron, T. (2021). Conversion of airborne to bone-conducted speech with deep neural networks. Proceedings Interspeech 2021, 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rennert, S. (2010). The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 15, 101–115.Google Scholar
Schönherr, B. (1997). Syntax — Prosodie — nonverbale Kommunikation: Empirische Untersuchungen zur Interaktion sprachlicher und parasprachlicher Ausdrucksmittel im Gespräch. Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, K. G. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories — New models. Interpreting, 13(2), 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cognitive load. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp. 60–61). Routledge.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. (1968). L’interprète dans les conférences internationales: Problèmes de langage et de communication. Minard Lettres Modernes.Google Scholar
Shao, Z., & Chai, M. (2020). The effect of cognitive load on simultaneous interpreting performance: An empirical study at the local level. Perspectives, 29(5), 778–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, M., & Malkiel, B. (2005). Comparing modalities: Cognates as a case in point. Across Languages and Cultures, 6(2), 173–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegmann, A. W. (1982). Vokale Signale der Angst. In K. R. Scherer (Ed.), Vokale Kommunikation. Nonverbale Aspekte des Sprachverhaltens (pp. 343–363). Beltz.Google Scholar
Stachowiak-Szymczak, K., & Korpal, P. (2019). Interpreting accuracy and visual processing of numbers in professional and student interpreters: An eye-tracking study. Across Languages and Cultures, 20(2), 235–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, C., Vogler, N., Hu, J., Boyd-Graber, J., & Neubig, G. (2018). Automatic estimation of simultaneous interpreter performance. In I. Gurevych & Y. Miyao (Eds.), Proceedings of the 56th annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Volume 2: Short papers (pp. 662–666). Association for Computational Linguistics. 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
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 (pp. 121–146). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, E. (2013). Experience and expertise in conference interpreting: An investigation of Swedish conference interpreters (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 103–127.Google Scholar
Viezzi, M. (1989). Information retention as a parameter for the comparison of sight translation and simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ ewsletter, 2, 65–69.Google Scholar
Vondřička, P. (2014). Aligning parallel texts with InterText. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14) (pp. 1875–1879). European Language Resources Association. Retrieved on 6 November 2024 from [URL]Google Scholar
Williams, J., Pizzi, K., Das, S., & Noe, P.-G. (2022). New challenges for content privacy in speech and audio. In Proceedings of 2nd Symposium on Security and Privacy in Speech Communication (pp. 1–6). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zellner, B. (1994). Pauses and the temporal structure of speech. In E. Keller (Ed.), Fundamentals of speech synthesis and speech recognition (pp. 41–62). Wiley.Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, C. (2013). Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen. Frank & Timme.Google Scholar