Cover not available
Article published In:
Orality: Language and interpreting challenges
Edited by Estefanía Flores Acuña and Pilar Rodríguez Reina
[Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 5:3] 2019
► pp. 292–306

Consecutive interpreting performance. Women and men compared

An empirical analysis

| Freelance conference interpreter and translator
Why are there so few male students attending the SSLMIT (Advanced School of Modern Languages for Interpreters and Translators) in Forlì? Why are interpreters generally women? Is there a biological or social explanation linked to gender differences in speaking abilities? This study is intended to provide an experimental analysis of possible differences and similarities between male and female students of interpretation. On the basis of the theories put forward by Gender Studies and a series of neuro-linguistic investigations on simultaneous interpreters, it seems that women and men in fact differ in the way they speak, communicate and also in their practice of interpretation. For this study, the interpretation mode chosen is consecutive and the linguistic combination is from German into Italian; the sample is made up of 14 women and 14 men, whose first or second foreign language is German. The texts selected for the CI (Consecutive Interpreting) present different linguistic features, topic, reading pace and length. The first is a speech, which deals with economic-financial matters, shows a high density of numerical expressions and specific sectorial terms. The second text is an article about health, which presents a considerable number of idiomatic expressions and terms related to the medical field. The comparison between the deliveries made by the interpreters of both sexes and the analysis of the answers provided by the questionnaires handed out to the students show some remarkable gender differences. Overall, it seems that male interpreters perform better as far as numbers, dates, and economic vocabulary are concerned, while female interpreters are better at handling figurative language and words related to health. Consistent with this finding, women maintained a higher degree of fluency in the delivery of the second text, while men were more fluent in the first. Although these results do not claim to be of statistical significance, they show that differences related to sex may have an impact on the performance of interpreters.
Keywords: gender, consecutive intepreting, neurolinguistic, numbers, idiomatic expressions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical references
    • 2.1Gender studies
    • 2.2A woman and a man: Two different brains
    • 2.3The relationship between men, women and conference interpreting
    • 2.4Empathising versus systemising
  • 3.Study objectives and methodology
    • 3.1The experiment
    • 3.2The texts
    • 3.3The questionnaire
  • 4.Results analysis
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 1 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.00037.ver
References (47)
References
Albert, Martin, and Loraine Obler. 1978. The Bilingual Brain: Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Alessandrini, Maria. 1990. “Translating Numbers in Consecutive Interpretation, an Experimental Study.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 31: 77–80.Google Scholar
Allen, Laura, and Roger Gorsky. 1991. “Sexual Dimorphism of the Anterior Commissure and Massa Intermedia of the Human Brain.” Journal of Comparative Neurology 312 (1): 97–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aries, Elizabeth. 1996. Men and Women in Interaction. Reconsidering the Differences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon. 2003. The Essential Difference. England: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Bergvall, Victoria. 1999. “Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Language and Gender.” Language in Society 28 (2): 273–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bing, Janet, and Victoria Bergvall. 1996. “The Question of Questions: Beyond Binary Thinking.” In Rethinking Language and Gender Research. Theory and Practice, ed. by Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing, and Alice Freed, 1–30. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1986. Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Sex Differences in Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1996. Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer, and Deborah Cameron. 1989. Women in their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Coolican, Hugh. 2001. Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Cosenza, Giovanna. 2003. “Stili di comunicazione: aggressivi e collaborative, è questione di sesso?” Accessed September, 29, 2004. [URL]
Crevatin, Alessandra. 1991. La traduzione dei numeri in interpretazione simultanea: un contributo sperimentale. PhD diss. SSLMIT, Trieste University.Google Scholar
Deppe, Michael, Stefan Knecht, Karsten Papke, Hubertus Lohmann, Helge Fleischer, Walter Heindel, Bernd Ringelstein, and Henning Henningsen. 2000. “Assessment of Hemispheric Language Lateralization: A Comparison Between fMRI and fTCD.” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 201: 263–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimond, Stuart, and Beaumont Graham, eds. 1974. Hemisphere Function in the Human Brain. New York: Halstead.Google Scholar
Driesen, Naomi, and Naftali Raz. 1995. “The Influence of Sex, Age and Handedness on Corpus Callosum Morphology. A Meta-Analysis.” Psychobiology, 23 (3): 240–247.Google Scholar
Fabbro, Franco. 1995. Destra e sinistra nella Bibbia. Rimini: Guaraldi editore.Google Scholar
Fabbro, Franco, and Viola Nicolucci. 2004. “Le afasie bilingui.” Acta phoniatrica latina 261: 222–229.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1990. “Scientific Research vs. Personal Theories in the Investigation of Interpretation.” In Aspects of Applied and Experimental Research on Conference Interpretation, ed. by Laura Gran, and Christopher Taylor, 28–41. Udine: Campanotto Editore.Google Scholar
Gran, Laura, and Franco Fabbro. 1988. “The Role of Neuroscience in the Teaching of Interpretation.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 11: 23–41.Google Scholar
Gur, Ruben, David Alsop, David Glahn, Richard Petty, Charlie Swanson, Joseph Maldjian, and Raquel Gur. 2000. “An fMRI Study of Sex Differences in Regional Activation to a Verbal and a Spatial Task.” Brain and Language, 74 (2): 157–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Kira, and Mary Bucholtz. 1995. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Herron, James, ed. 1980. Neuropsychology of Left-Handedness. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: its Nature, Development and Origins. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jones, Roderick. 1998. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Cora. 1986. Sea Changes; Culture and Feminism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Kimura, Doreen. 1983. “Sex Differences in Cerebral Organization for Speech and Praxis Function.” Canadian Journal of Psychology 37 (1): 19–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Sex and Cognition. Cambridge: Mass, MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
Lutchmaya, Svetlana, Simon Baron-Cohen, and Peter Raggatt. 2002. “Foetal Testosterone and Vocabulary Size in 18– and 24– Month Old Infants.” Infant Behaviour and Development, 24 (4): 418–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maffei, Lamberto. 1998. Il mondo del cervello. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Maltz, Daniel, and Ruth Borker. 1982. “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication.” In Language and Social Identity, ed. by John J. Gumperz, 196–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marcheselli, Marzia. 2003. “Sensi e cervello.” Accessed September, 29, 2004. [URL]
McCroskey, James, and Virginia Richmond. 1996. Fundamentals of Human Communication. Illinois: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
McGlone, Jeannette. 1980. “Sex Differences in Human Brain Asymmetry: A Critical Survey.” Behavioural and Brain Science 3 (2): 215–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, Peter. 2002. Evolution des pauses en interprétation consécutive. PhD diss. University of Lyon.Google Scholar
Piazza, Daniele. 1980. “The Influence of Sex and Handedness in the Hemispheric Specialization of Verbal and Non-Verbal Tasks.” Neuropsychologia 18 (2): 163–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1999. Communicating Gender. London: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Seidler, Victor. 1989. Rediscovering Masculinity: Reason, Language and Sexuality. London: Virago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Springer, Sally, and George Deutsch. 1993. Left Brain, Right Brain. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1991. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Gender & Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trimarchi, Michele, and Luciana Papeschi. 1999. “Il cervello dell’uomo e della donna: differenze sessuali nell’organizzazione cerebrale.” Il cervello e l’integrazione delle scienze 33: 1.Google Scholar
Trömel-Plötz, Senta. 1997. Frauengespräche: Sprache der Verständigung. Frankfurt/Main: Fischer.Google Scholar
Violi, Patrizia. 1986. L’infinito singolare. Considerazioni sulla differenza sessuale nel linguaggio. Verona: Essedue Edizioni.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lu, Rong, Muhammad Alif Redzuan Abdullah & Lay Hoon Ang
2023. Into-A or Into-B, That is a Question: A Systematic Literature Review of Directionality and Performance in Consecutive Interpreting. SAGE Open 13:4 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.